In its context it seemed to me a way of saying you can't tell whether or not he is quoting the Bible, and his explanation supports that being what he meant. I'll take that unless he says otherwise.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will you Supprt Inclusive Language 2020 Nasb?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Ahem...
Yes, and it should be noted that MM provided no link to the speech.
"It is not good that the man should be alone" - Genesis 2:18 (ASV, KJV)
"It is not good for human beings to be alone" - Stephen Cottrell
Pretty clear he is pretending to quote or allude to Genesis 2:18. Regardless of whether any Bible has that exact translation, people refer to that way (as what the Bible says) for various reasons. Among other things, one is to support homosexual marriage.
It is used against solitary confinement here.
And so on.
Do you have a link that shows otherwise?
Just to clarify what M.M. said:
It doesn't matter whether the Archbishop was quoting from a version of the Bible or not. There are plenty of Bible versions using 'human beings' where God Himself has written 'man' and using plurals where God has written singulars. Who is going to pull this Archbishop up on this? Not Don Carson; he and his ilk have opened the Pandora's Box of gender-neutral Bible versions and the Right Reverend Cottrell has taken advantage.Martin Marprelate said:
I understand what he is saying (insofar as someone with no Hebrew can) and it makes no difference.. He misses the point. He has no right to change singulars into plurals -- end of story. Why not leave the Biblical text the way the Holy Spirit wrote it? Then there won't be any problem. Whether Don Carson and a thousand other scholars think Psalm 8 is a reference to Christ or not is beside the point (though John 5:39 might give him a hint). The point is that 'Son of Man' is singular, both in Psalm 8 and in Hebrews 2. So leave it that way!
Carson may think that 'Son of Man' is a 'gentilic' and someone else may not. But what Carson cannot deny is that the Bible tells us that Christ is in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27; John 5:39). Therefore he has no right to take a possible allusion to Christ out of the Scriptures. When he is writing a commentary, he can say whatever he likes about gentilics or anything else that takes his fancy, but he has no right to muck about with the Scriptures.
I read the account in the latest issue of Evangelicals Now, which is one of the leading conservative Christian magazines in Britain www.e-n.org.uk
On further inspection, the quote seems to come from a Q & A session which Cottrell gave on his appointment as Archbishop. You may find it here: Archbishop of York designate Stephen Cottrell: press conference and Q&A
Boy, you have gone off the deep end. D. A. Carson has been a respected evangelical leader for decades. He is a world class biblical scholar who also happens to be Reformed and Baptist. If anything you show your ignorance of the man, even if you had met him. I have met him as well decades ago at 10th Presbyterian Church when James Boice was pastor.
Next, there is no such thing as gender-neutral Bibles, despite Grudem using that term for one of his books.
You have no right to blame any translation of the Bible on Cottrel's unique and wacky interpretation. He alone is at fault for his positions.
You and Y-1 are co-muckers when it comes to understanding the Scripture, especially translations you dislike. Your ignorance is clouding your field of vision. Your bias is noted, but unwarranted. You need take a humble place under excellent Bible expositors such as Don Carson.
I have heard Don Carson speak at least half a dozen times, more than any other American conference speaker. He seems to be ubiquitous in the UK. I have also read several of his books; some I agree with and some I don't. Hero worship is unbecoming in a Protestant Christian. On the matter of gender-neutral Bible translations he is wrong and has done a deep disservice to the evangelical Christian cause.
There is no such thing as 'gender neutral Bible translations. Translations with inclusive language? Yes.
You have gone off the deep end and are drowning when you say absurd things about doing "deep disservice to the evangelical Christian cause." The very reverse is true. Since you claim to have heard him speak six times at conferences was he speaking in a non-evangelical way? If so, why did you make it a point to hear him repeatedly? If you agreed with him then he certainly wasn't doing such disservice to the evangelical Christian cause. If you regard him so negatively I can say with assurance that you carry no weight on the matter. More Christians should cause such 'disservice' to the Kingdom of God.
I can tell that though you may have read, or skimmed some of his books, you did not turn a page of "The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea For Realism. And you never picked up Mark Strauss's book Distorting Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy. You need to be grounded on basic logic when it comes to this matter. Don't try to tell me that you are grounded in the Word when you have boasted that you would love to toss the NLT and CSB in the trash. That kind of 'respect' for the Word is not in evidence.
What is "gender-neutral"?
CAMBRIDGE
adjective
relating to people and not especially to men or to women:
gender-neutral words such as "person"
DICTIONARY.COM
adjective
1. noting or relating to a word or phrase that does not refer to one gender only:
Firefighter and flight attendant are gender-neutral terms.
2. using words wherever appropriate that are free of reference to gender:
gender-neutral language.
3. relating to, intended for, or common to any gender:
a nursery decorated with gender-neutral colors.
4. noting or relating to a person of neutral gender, neither male nor female:
raising a gender-neutral child to avoid gender stereotypes.
LEXICO
1. Suitable for, applicable to, or common to both male and female genders.
‘gender-neutral games and toys’ ‘the assessment criteria are gender-neutral’
1.1 Denoting a word or expression that cannot be taken to refer to one gender only.
‘gender-neutral terms like flight attendant, firefighter, and police officer’
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
adjective
: not referring to either sex but only to people in general
gender-neutral language
A few comments on this. It seems to me that NIV translators and promotional materials try to carefully avoid the terminology "gender-neutral" to describe their work In fact, HERE Bill Mounce also avoids the terminology "gender inclusive" (which Rippon2 okays above), with preference to "gender-accurate." It strikes me, though, that in the main ways that the above dictionaries define "gender-neutral" -- that is, by using words that can describe either gender (e.g. human beings for mankind, brothers & sisters for brothers, etc.) -- that the NIV is making an attempt to be gender-neutral, regardless of their motive for doing so.
Changing "All men are created equal" is the U.S. Declaration of Independence to read "All people are created equal" would be gender-neutral, would it not, regardless of one's reasons for doing so?
The Holy Spirit and Jjesus tied Jesus as being the Son of Man, as in Psalms 8, why shouldn't the Niv?
This proves my point that changes for the worse are now creeping into some modern versions.
They have an agenda to try to get rid of perceived "masculine bias" in the scriptures, as in lets make men and women equivalent and equals for all roles and position regardless of Gender,
He is now allowed to get away way it due to some translations giving weight toi what he states!
Do you respect the JW bible as scripture, or the Book of Mormon, or how about Ellen Whites version? Just because it claims to be a Bible does not make it always legit!
What would be the main purpose/reason to be doing such?
This is the big danger when one uses a functional over a formal translation!
Despite the fact that you can't quote any passage from any translation that does what you charge, especially regarding sexual deviance.
Again, accusations are not proof. Your continual accusations regarding the NIV have added up to a big pile of nothing. Now you are trying to spread your wings to attack other translations of the same. It all boils down to showing the texts. If it's not in the text then you are blowing hot air. You have no substance in other words.