1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Must A Modern Bible Go the Inclusive renderings Approach?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by JesusFan, Dec 30, 2011.

Top Posters
  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    As inclusive seems to be the "flavor of the Month"...

    IF a Bible commitee refuses to buy into that, does that make it "behind the times, inferior?"
     
    #1 JesusFan, Dec 30, 2011
  2. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I sincerely hope not.
    That would be about the only thing that could drive me back to the KJV.

    Steve
     
    #2 Martin Marprelate, Dec 30, 2011
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Using the word must is a bit too strong. But asking if modern Bible versions should use more inclusive language than the KJV -- of course. The 84 NIV,current ESV,HCSB all use more inclusive language than the KJV.

    It's like asking: Should modern Bible translations use natural English? Certainly so.
     
    #3 Rippon, Dec 30, 2011
  4. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    When the text means "male persons," "men" should be used. When the text means "male and female persons," "men and women" or something similar should be used.
     
    #4 jaigner, Dec 30, 2011
  5. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    The NASB is widely regarded as being the best modern version to study from, IF accurancy to the greek/hebrew is required...

    believes that the NASB has the least amount of inclusive in it, does that make it an inferior/bad translation?
     
    #5 JesusFan, Dec 31, 2011
  6. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The English word 'man' has for hundreds of years been understood to encompass both male and female persons unless the context demands otherwise. It is only in the last 25 or so years that people have suddenly become so difficult about it.

    Take John 3:3.

    KJV. 'Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'

    The Greek word translated 'a man' is tis, which means 'someone' or 'anyone.' It is in the masculine Gender but obviously refers to both men and women. The KJV is really just as obvious, but the NKJV tries to improve.

    NKJV.'Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'

    This is not really any more politically correct since it still has 'he' in it.

    NIV, 1984. 'No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'

    This inverts the order of the sentence for no good reason and still has the dreaded 'he' in it.

    NIV, 2011. 'No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.'

    Political correctness is now achieved, but at the expense of good grammar. Also, singular is now changed to plural. Do we have the right to do that? The Lord Jesus used the singular: 'Unless an individual is born again.' Our Lord's words are being mucked about with in order to satisfy a bunch of feminists who probably hate God and hate the Bible. Why are we bothering?

    Actually, I don't know why the NIV feministas didn't try, 'No one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.' It's not great, but it avoids the frontal assualt on English grammar and avoids the plural.

    A few random houghts.

    Steve
     
    #6 Martin Marprelate, Dec 31, 2011
  7. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    Could this either be dueo the "dumbing down" of the current generation of Bible readers, as we went through poor education regarding proper English and/or Christian Feminism getting traction in the church, as we have bough the ole "Bible wriiten from male perspective toomuch, due to its cultural background?"
     
    #7 JesusFan, Dec 31, 2011
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...