Featured How Many here Like Gender inclusive translations?

Childish

 

I bet you haven't read it.

 

The main problem with gender neutral translations is that they are anachronistic.

 

The gender neutral custom is recent in history and common to our society. They did not have it in the 1st century Roman Empire or Israel. Therefore, to insert gender neutral language into a Bible translation is to force a modern cultural convention on an ancient document, the Word of God no less. That is anachronistic.

 

The NET Bible Preface contains a large section devoted to the subject of inclusive language. I'll quote just one paragraph.

"With the NET Bible our concern was to be gender-accurate rather than gender-inclusive, striving for faithfulness to the original biblical texts while at the same time seeking to attain accuracy in terms of current English style. The English language constantly undergoes change. Acceptable conventions for dealing with gender-related language have undergone a great deal of change in the last few decades, and more change in this area will certainly will certainly come in the future. As the conventions of the English language change, new translations and revisions of existing translations will have to take this into account. This is especially important when the goal of the translation (like that of the NET Bible) is faithfulness to the original." (p.xiv)

 

"To argue...that 'he' is the correct' translation while other renderings (such as plurals for singulars, second person for third, singular 'they' for singular 'he,' or passive constructions) are distortions of the text is simplistic and naive." (p. 130 of the Challenge Of Bible Translation. Mark Strauss wrote this chapter called Current Issues in the Gender-Language Debate)

 

So has the NASB, ESV and CSB ever done that?

 

So it's a matter of degree; not an entirely different kind of thing.

 

It's It's, not Its. It's chose, not choose. It's than, not then.

In your feeble estimation (that changes with the direction of the wind), you can make your decisions whether the CSB and NLT have used inclusive language correctly or not.

 

Okay, cite the passages within the CSB and NLT where you think they went too far.

 

That should never be your answer when you charge a translation of going to far with gender. Your answer is basically, "I don't know".

Let me help you out with the CSB

he apostles and the elders gathered to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them: “Brothers and sisters, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe.

While ἀδελφοί/adelphoi is used, context does not warrant this reading of "brothers and sisters". Unless you want to say that the elders and apostles were made up of both men and women. I expect this verse to change in the upcoming CSB update.

It should be noted that the NLT(2007) and NIV do not make this mistake.

By the standard I judge the NIV. This one mistake [and there are 2 or 3 others] does not make the CSB a "bad" translation. Overall the CSB is well done.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk