A Brief Case

Rippon, I enjoyed your story. Your topic title is clever, too. Thanks

Now, the verse being referred to by the two of you is probably Romans 14:13 (KJV) --

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. ​

The offending word is actually "man" which NOT present in the Greek even though it not indicated as an inserted word (the way "[his]" is formatted). However, the word "brother's" is very literally in Greek a related male human.

I think its the formal equivalent translation's duty to indicate the literal gender, but ONLY if one is present; "no man" could be "no one" or similar inclusive rendering. I think the individual reader should make their own decision as to whether a specific gendered word (like "brother's" here) is also applicable to the other gender. Figueratively in this context, I personally think that "brother's" refers to either gender of believer, but I would not want the translator's making that decision for me.

While many versions fall short, the KJVO crowd are especially concerned about the gender-inclusive issue since it does reveal non-literal translator subjectivity and a legitimate area for revision (which really has nothing to do with modern political correctness).

 

Somehow I missed this Rippon!

I'm glad your sister had a good sense of humor!

 

Amen! Brother Rippon -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Ed notes that Islamic Fundamentalist of
exclude women to their own destruction

 

Don't forget those of us who are not KJVO but who still prefer a more literal translation. If it was written in the masculiune then it should be ranslated in the masculine. If it was not written in the masculine then it should not be translated in the masculine. Pretty simple, really...

 

Masculine plural can include females, as well.

BTW, I thought Rippon was talking about his bag he carries his underwear in, so I did not read this thread until today.

 

I agree with you here, but I might be telling my age. When talking about a country I was taught it is always her.

Male and female folks who are saved are the bride of Christ.

 

And ships, and cars...

I guess we're both showing our ages, huh?

You're absolutely right, Bob. I hadn't even thought of that when I sommented earlier.

 

Clever, Rippon. You bring up an important point. English does not give all words gender as many languages do. Gender in this discussion is a grammatical category, not a physiological one. Thus, gender does not necessarily correspond to a word’s natural sex.

To avoid confusion, it is important to notice that most Greek words referring to persons have the grammatical gender that corresponds to their sex. However, this is not to say the three Greek genders, (masculine, feminine and neuter) are synonymous with the terms male sex, female sex, and sexless.

 

Nothing legitimate about femininization of any language to support political correctness.

It has been understood for centuries that when the whole of man is referenced to include both genders.

 

Therein lies the problem. Referencing sex as the subjectivity of any word when sex has never been othewrwise suggested.

Gender is NOT sex.

Of course not.

 

Hope he washes it before it can stand all alone by itsself.:laugh:

 

Salamander, you're not going to hear this from me very often, so you better write it down. For once I have to agree with you.

:thumbs:

 

I also agree with the above statement (of course, I never said it was). I have NOT supported the "feminization" of any words, nor the exclusion of masculine forms. As we all seem to agree, the words I am discussing already include the feminine aspect (because these words themselves are not stricly masculine). Therefore, they are not being feminized but merely being rendered in a contemporary manner consistant with their meaning. In fact, I wrote that rendering in inclusive terms should have "nothing to do with modern political correctness"; for me, its a literal translation accuracy issue.

I do NOT agree with this statement, because it is NOT simply "understood", it must be taught. Many of us whom have been 'churched' from youth take this for granted. What appears to many contemporary English readers in some Bible texts as masculine terms were primarily inclusive terms hundreds (or even just dozens) of years ago, and requires training (different from ordinary literacy) to prevent them from possibly misunderstanding the scope of a passage.

 

The definition from The American Heritage Dictionary for "grammatical gender" (the specified subject of post#11) --

A grammatical category in inflected languages governing the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives; in some languages it is quite arbitrary but in Indo-European languages it is usually based on sex or animateness.​

BTW, the Greek language carries many more inflected word forms than does English. And just for good measure, here is the definition from The American Heritage Dictionary for "sex" (notice in particular definitions #1a and 1b, 2, and 3) --

sex (seks)
n.
1a. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
1b. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.

2. Females or males considered as a group.
3. The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences
that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.
4. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
5. Sexual intercourse.
6. The genitals.

tr.v., sexed, sex·ing, sex·es.
1. To determine the sex of (an organism).
2. Slang.
a. To arouse sexually. Often used with up.
b. To increase the appeal or attractiveness of. Often used with up.
[Middle English, from Latin sexus.]​

Sorry folks, I realize that this is a lot of s-e-x for the Baptist Board! :laugh:

 

Oh, I'm sure we agree a whole lot more than you would admit to.:thumbs:

 

Amazing how much akin we are, amazing.

You have ultimately, but unwillingly exposed the dilemma of the error by the attempts to bring English into a modern contemporary understanding. That is the root of political correctness.

"Man" indicates both men and woman in the race of men when used objectively. Only is "man" gender exclusive when used subjectively.

 

Yep, gender does refer to sex in the 3rd defintion, but gender only identifies the properties associable to sex, but more accurately gender associates the attributes of that female or male without necessarilly including sex as the subject.

Again, it is political correctness demanding something contemporary of the English language.

"Indo-European"? Try Anglo-European.