Some Inclusive Language In The ESV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Dec 16, 2011.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Acts 5:21
    ESV : all the senate of the people of Israel
    NIV 2011 :the full assembly of the elders of Israel

    Numbers 19:18
    ESV : Then a clean person...
    NIV 2011 : Then a man who is ceremonially clean

    1 Samuel 22:18
    ESV : eighty-five persons
    NIV 2011 : eighty-five men

    1 Corinthians 7:26
    ESV : a person
    NIV 2011 : a man

    Phil. 2:8
    ESV : in human form
    NIV 2011 in appearance as a man
     
  2. milby

    milby
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darn it! ESV is the translation I use the most. Will someone please tell me a translation that I can use that people have not messed with? Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.
     
  3. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    The important thing is surely in each case, does the word in the original language mean "man" as in "male human being", or "man" in the sense of "human being"? If the latter, then it seems the original language was inclusive too.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yes,but in the case of 1 Samuel 22:18 I think the translators got it wrong.

    "...and he killed on that day eighty-five persons who wore the linen ephod."

    Only men,specifically priests or high priests wore lined ephods.The word persons doesn't cut it in this case. It's rather inexplicable why they went this route.
     
  5. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,190
    Likes Received:
    373
    Well, the KJV translators went the same route.
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You're right. The KJV went the inclusive route. That's surprising. I wonder why they just didn't say men? Women didn't wear ephods.
     
  7. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,190
    Likes Received:
    373
    Maybe because there is a grammatical issue there? I don't know but I doubt that it was an "inclusive" issue with the KJV translators.
     
  8. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    45
    Geneva Bible too.:laugh:

    Why oh why would they so such a thing??!!
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Beats me. No women could be priests. Women did not wear ephods. The Geneva and possibly a lot of other translations got it wrong. But it certainly wasn't a feminist issue.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Don't worry. Here are some salvation verses in the ESV using male language (which is totally unnecessary)

    John 1:4 : In him was life,and the life was the life of men.

    Acts 4:12 : And there is salvation in no one else,for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

    Romans 5:18 : Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, "only men, specifically priests or high priests wore linen ephods," and the verse itself tells us that the "persons" concerned were indeed priests:

    And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.

    Whether the translators of the AV/KJV got it wrong, I am not qualified to say, but I cannot see how anyone with just a slight knowledge of the OT priesthood could read that verse and take it to mean that both men and women were meant, even though the next verse, 1 Samuel 22.19, does indeed say that both men and women were killed, children too:

    And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword.
    I should add that although I use the NKJV, I do like the KJV, but I don't claim that either is a perfect translation.
     
  12. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    There's a good JETS article along these same lines from about seven or eight years ago. This is a good point, the ESV does what the other major translations do...though they are all, generally, inconsistent.

    This is why I don't engage in the "gender neutral" conversation too much.
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    But the subject won't go away,what with organizations like CBMW making absurd claims about the 2011 NIV mixed in with legitimate questions.

    Darrell Bock has said:"...overreaction or acting as if this translation is seriously flawed is a response that teaches the church far less than a healthy engagement with its well rendered text."

    Barry Applewhite,senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church of Dallas,Texas and grad of D.T.S Th.M said:"So far I find the gender decisions in NIV 2011 to be quite reasonable with no evidence of 'gender neutering.' "
     
  14. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get an NASB? ESV and NIV both seem to make some changes, ESV rather early after an 07 revision, and again this year another. The NIV has had several changes, and I never have liked its read, nor "its" obsession with gender issues.

    Some others like the HCSB. I've read some of it, yet I didn't like the read of it either.
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Some organizations and individuals who don't like the NIV seem to have gender obsession issues.
     
  16. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm certain you do, you are correct. And then some who don't see others flying the flagship for their version favorite make posts such as yours which exposes their inner character even further.

    Nothing I said in my post was untrue. But I see it stung a little, thus there must be a sore spot somewhere with you about gender.

    Are you becoming NIVO? Look, KJVO is enough to deal with, so relax, OK?
     
    #16 preacher4truth, Dec 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2011
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You need to work on your English.

    Well that statement is untrue right there. The NIV doesn't have an obsession with gender issues.

    Others lying about gender problems in the NIV usually gets my righteous anger going.

    Silly boy. Every so often even older posters like mexdeaf make lame jokes to the same effect. You really need to review a lot of old threads of mine wherein I speak highly of other versions suchh as the Norlie,REB,MLB etc.
     
  18. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I assumed when I stated I don't care for the NIV that I'd receive a snide response back from you.

    There is nothing incorrect with my sentence you've taken issue with, other than some personal inner turmoil and disdain for another surfacing. But hey we've seen this oft enough from your "person."

    The NIV, contrary to your absurd defense of this rather nominal version, is obsessed with gender. You show an obsession with this issue as well.

    Your "righteous" anger gets going a lot on here, doesn't it? Just throw an adjective in front of your vice and now it's OK, correct?

    Anyhow, you exercise this anger towards those who disagree with your choice of a version, and in so doing you show your anger is akin to a that of a KJVO type. Same derisive attitude, different version defended. By the way, they also consider their anger "righteous" anger. Perhaps you're just plain angry?

    Yes, mexdeaf has nailed you a few times I'm certain, along with others. By the way, I've read your other threads and witnessed your pugnacious behavior in them as well. Why would I want to go read that again?
     
    #18 preacher4truth, Dec 27, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2011
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The sentence with poor grammar,or your false sentence?

    It is absurd that you would say my defense was absurd.

    It is a well-respected translation with a fine pedigree. It has been the # 1 selling English translation for more than 30 years. The translators are top-notch. Nothing nominal about it.

    Yes,you certainly are.


    Your comprehension skills need improvement. I object to lies about the 2011 NIV. I fully expect others to have their favorite versions. That's silly for you to say. And you knew it when you hit the keystrokes.


    "Nailed' me by jokingly saying that I am NIVO? That doesn't exactly add up to a hill of beans.

    You either have read my threads comparing versions,or you have not. If you have you would know the truth.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In the ESV for Acts 14:2

    'But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers*."

    * Footnote says:Or,brothers and sisters.

    No such note in the 2011 NIV --the text just says "brothers",there is no mention of "and sisters."
     

Share This Page

Loading...