A Brief Case

Isn't "man" the subject of the this clause in Romans 14:13 (KJV)? --

... that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.​

 

"Man" in Romans 14:13 is gender inclusive.

Ladies who name the Name of Christ have caused many others to stumble as well as many men have done the same.

 

Salamander, you did NOT answer the question posed. Allow me to assist you. The word "man" is the subject of this clause --

... that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.​

Therefore, you seem to have contradicted yourself. First, you wrote --

then you wrote --

Please clarify. Thanks

 

"Man" is the object of the sentence, "stumblingblock" and "occasion to fall" are the subject of the sentence.

"Man" would be the person placing the objects in another brother's way, but the subject is not about man, but about stumblingblocks.

"Man " is objective and gender inclusive unless of course you want to throw logical reasoning out the window.

 

"With all due respect, you are incorrect as to the grammatical construction of this clause in the English language, here."

Signed, Language Cop,

Alter-ego of

Ed

 

There is no Greek for "man" in the original. It is supplied by the translators. Therefore, a discussion of gender-inclusive is baseless, if the original has anything to say about the matter.

A better rendition would be: "Therefore, let us no longer judge one another. But rather you judge this: not to put a stumbling block or a hindrance in a brother's way."

 

You gotta be kidding! "Man" is obviously the subject; let's all look again (Romans 14:13, KJV) --

...that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. ​

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the grammatic meaning of object as --

A noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that receives or is affected by the action of a verb within a sentence.​

The word "man" is not the recipient of the action of the verb "put". "Stumblingblock" and "occasion to fall" are "put" and therefore they are both objects (receiving the action of the verb).

So, you have made contradictory statements --

The second statement is now exposed as a false one; and IF your first statement is true (and I'm NOT saying it is), then by your own evidence the KJV revisors did use language that is unnecessarily exclusive.

Your 'false dilemma' fallacies are becoming tiresome. Wouldn't your life be wonderful if everything was always either: 1) you are right, or 2) every one else is illogical. Well, there is at least one more alternative: Salamander may be wrong.

 

So you would have us to understand that "you" could include animals and inanimate objects as well?

 

Whoops, you're right, I did have it backwards. But I did mean that "man" is not subjective to the exclusion in gender to not also mean females and that "man" is objective and NOT gender exclusive.

I don't have a problem with being corrected as you have done, but I do have a problem with people who demand that "you" is not subjective in its being rendered as "man" as if the Bible is written to anything other than man.