Featured Inclusive Language

I had to translate and correct your sloppy post in order to understand what in the world you are saying. Please, you have to take the time to edit your posts. It shows disrespect when you post with all your errors.

But my main beef with you is that you still do not address the questions I pose head on. R-E-A-D post #54 and respond to it D-I-R-E-C-T-L-Y.

 

Address the second statement of mine in post #54. It takes so long, if at all, for you to answer simple questions. Why is it so hard to answer easy questions?

 

You are so stubborn, semi-literate, foggy-minded or whatever the case may be. Read post number 54, and address my second sentence. If you refuse to answer after my repeated plea I will refuse to waste any more time on your foolishness. This bad habit of yours is absurd. And I am not the only one who has noticed on all the forums you are involved with.

 

There are four primary Bible versions being discussed in this thread :the 1984 NIV, the ESV, the HCSB and the NET Bible.

Honor the OP and don't go on side-trails.

 

The above is what this thread is about. Addressing the questions would be helpful.

 

"They decided..." "They" being the translators of the1984 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET? Remember, the focus of this thread is to discuss the inclusive language issue with respect to the 84 NIV, ESV, HCSB and NET Bible.

Way back on August 8th --post # 17 of yours, you stated that you were going to start doing comparisons with your 1977 NASB. Have you started? Or were you just spouting off because it's easier to merely assert things without actually doing any homework to support your position?

And why is the 1977 NASB your gold standard? Does it ever err? If say --the 84 NIV has some readings that are more inclusive than the 77 NASB, would you automatically conclude that the 84 NIV was wrong?

What do you mean by saying that they made too many decisions to go all inclusive? In a number of my 100 examples some of the four translations did not use inclusive language.

Instead of concluding that a greater usage of inclusive language is wrong --don't you think that a determination should be made on a case-by-case basis with the contex(t) being taken into consideration?

Now Y1, this post of mine has six paragraphs. Don't just glibly dash off a two liner in need of a lot of editing that doesn't even begin to address what I have been saying here. Take your time and deal line-by-line with what I am saying --even if it takes you six separate posts to do so.

 

Okay.

Did I mention the NKJV in this thread? I don't recall doing so.

Remember to honor the OP. Focus. You are to deal with the four that I mentioned throughout this thread. And I will allow you to discuss the 1977 NASB.

Now why have't you done any comparisons that you promised way back in your post #17? Perhaps you post too much and you don't take the time to do any homework.

Why haven't you answered my questions from my previous post? Was I just wasting my time? Address a paragraph of it per post of yours. Get organized!

 

I'm bumping this. There have been no responses for almost one week.

 

It has been five months and Y1 has still not answered my questions though he had promised to do so.

 

Why do you bother to even quote me when you completely ignore what I have said? You never learn. Address what I asked you otherwise what is the point of dialog?

 

The above contains eight questions. Answer them individually. Do not take side trails. Do not post irrelevancies. Stay on-point. You have never been able to do what I have asked. Others have asked you to comply with a common sense reply. You have never managed to do so regardless of the topic on this board or any other.

Please make unprecedented history. Honor my requests.

The last paragraph was written for clarification. Pay attention. Focus, concentrate, ponder, organize and then post.