"her," "his," or "its" branch?

Both the word for fig-tree (sukhs) and the pronoun (auths) are neuter.

It was common in Middle English to refer to neuter objects using feminine pronouns (we still sometimes do this today saying "she" to refer to boats, ships, etc.). So, the Geneva followed the forms of its day.

As Early Modern English began to supplant Late Middle English the common pronouns used to refer to neuter object gradually changed to masculine. So the KJV followed the forms of its day.

The NKJV translators chose to bring the gender of the pronoun directly into English so they chose the neuter.

I don't see a problem with any of them. However, I do see a problem with honesty on the part of KJV bashers. They soundly condemn the KJV for changing the gender of the pronoun here then equally soundly condemn the KJV for not changing the gender of the pronoun in Romans 8:16. I really wish they would make up their alleged minds! Can we all say "Double standard?"

 

I can. Double Standard.

(In this case, I agree with TCassidy that it is not an issue, just the evolution of language)

 

No. The TNIV abandons any pretense of trying to accurately translate the underlying text into English and, instead, engages in some sort of misplaced political correctness by its gender neutral language. The TNIV goes beyond acceptable translation standards in several important areas.

It changes the number and gender of many pronouns. It changes "Father" to "parents." (The underlying Greek word is pater in the singular, which means "father," not "parent," and certainly not "parents.")

Vern Poythress, professor of New Testament interpretation at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) and author of "God-Centered Biblical Interpretation" says he does not believe the TNIV is faithful in its treatment of gender.

He says, in part, "The TNIV policy also includes eliminating generic masculine pronouns, that is, generic he. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:28 in the NIV says, 'If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.' The TNIV changes it to say 'and speak to God when alone.' Now the Greek original unambiguously indicates the addressees: 'to himself and to God.' The TNIV switches this to an indication of the circumstances ('when alone'). But now the TNIV excludes even the possibility that the speaker can speak in tongues quietly to himself while in church (while not addressing the church and not disturbing the meeting), or the possibility that in a small, private group each person might speak to himself out loud.'"

Dr. Poythress gives dozens of such examples.

 

You're right on about the "politically correct" agenda of some modern translations. For those of us who hold tenaciously to verbal plenary inspiration, every WORD is a battlefield.

To drop whole nouns and pronouns and subjectively "translate" otherwise is duplicitous even for dynamic translations and outrageous for formal equivalence.