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

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, Apr 6, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Which is the better rendering at Matthew 24:32:
    "her," "his," or "its"?

    when her bough is yet tender (Geneva Bible)
    when his branch is yet tender (KJV)
    when its branch has already become tender (NKJV)
     
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously Logos, it would depend on many things and information which you did not provide.

    What is the point?

    Yet ANOTHER thread about the "weakness" of the KJV?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do you mean that you do not assume that the KJV's rendering is best regardless of all other
    information and evidence?
     
  4. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. That is not what I assume.
    What I "assume" is that you provided no evidence other than a snippet of a phrase. I NEVER base my understanding of Scripture on snippets.

    So...answer the question. Is this yet ANOTHER thread to point out the alledged "weaknesses" of the KJV?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,158
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    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?"
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you unable to look up the entire verse or even the whole chapter in the KJV if you need to?

    Matt. 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. (KJV)

    You could also check the parallel passage in Mark 13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near. (KJV)

    While the Greek text has the same pronoun in both passages, why does the KJV have "his" at Matt. 24:32 but "her" at Mark 13:28?
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently it is alright to call all the "modern versions" inferior, but when someone points out that there are discrepancies in the KJV they become "KJV bashers." I have yet to see anyone on the BB forums condemn the KJV, although problems and faults may be pointed out. On the other hand, those from the KJVO camp constantly condemn the "modern versions." Can we all say "double standard?"
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I can. Double Standard. [​IMG]

    (In this case, I agree with TCassidy that it is not an issue, just the evolution of language)
     
  9. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    He, she, it.

    Straining at a gnat.

    :rolleyes:

    Don'cha'll have bigger fish to fry?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  10. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    But the NIV -> TNIV isn't the evolution of language?
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,158
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    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.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Most of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles were consistent in their possessive pronoun at the parallel verses (Matthew 24:32 and Mark 13:28).

    Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles used "his" at both verses.

    Whittingham's and Geneva Bible used "her" at both verses.

    The inconsistency came from the Bishops' Bible with individual bishops translating different books. One bishop likely kept "his" from the Great Bible at Matthew 24:32 while another bishop evidently followed the Geneva Bible's rendering "her" at Mark 13:28.

    One point of this example was to show again how some renderings are found in the KJV just because they were left there from the Bishops' Bible.

    It is interesting that the KJV translators did not correct this inconsistency from the Bishops' Bible.
     
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    And political correctness is not the evolution of language?

    I'm not saying it is an evolution that everyone must agree with as being "right".
     
  15. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    Fig tree is feminine in Greek and the feminine pronoun was used only due to technicality of the Greek language and making pronouns, for the most part, agree with their antecedents in gender and number. In modern English, though, anything non-personal is usually referred to impersonally as "it", although the feminine pronoun is obviously used for endearment on occasion.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    My post that asked a question about which rendering was better clearly did not "condemn the KJV." Perhaps my aim was to see whether or not KJV-only advocates would apply the same standards to the KJV that they apply to other translations. Why did the KJV translators use one gender of the pronoun at one verse (Matt. 24:32) and a different gender for the same pronoun at a parallel verse (Mark 13:28)?

    In effect, you are pointing out the double standard on the part of the KJV-only view. They should know that the KJV changes the gender of the pronoun at other verses so they have no valid basis for claiming that the KJV translators had no choice but to use "itself" at Romans 8:16.
     

Share This Page

Loading...