Featured How Many here Like Gender inclusive translations?

I have no problem with the NLT saying "brothers and sisters" in its translation. Clearly Paul addressed and preached to both genders in his ministry. The translation does no damage to the content of God's word.

 

Based on your extensive research I suppose? No, you never do that. It's much easier to throw rocks at something you are ignorant of. Do you even have a copy of the TNIV? Are you going to say you used to, but gave it away?

 

What a surprise. Ignorance must be bliss. So Mr. Double-minded, why is the NLT better than the current NIV and TNIV, even though it has more inclusive language than the latter two?

 

Thank you!

Just look this passage where the KJB, NLT, NIV agree against the ESV, NAS, NKJ:

Galatians 3:26ff

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (KJB)

Some later versions agree:

NLT "you are all children of God through faith....There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

NIV2011 "you are all children of God through faith....There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

in contrast, look what these versions all did to it:

ESV "you are all sons of God, through faith....There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

NASB1995 "you are all sons of God through faith....There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

NKJV "you are all sons of God through faith....There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."



[KJB, NLT, NIV: "are all children of God"]
[ESV, NAS, NKJ: "are all sons of God"]

Comments? LOL

 

This was addressed to Mr. Y. He just can't seem to answer direct questions.

 

Perhaps because of the higher degrees of turning singular people in to plurals? Instead of him/her = they?

 

You yourself do not use NASB1995's "sons" when expressing this concept.
You've followed NIV2011 in using "children", and even go so far as embracing the most gender inclusive phrasing ("sons/daughters") for the concept:

[NKJV, NASB1995, ESV: "sons of God"]
[KJB, NLT, NIV2011, Yeshua1: "children of God"]
[Yeshua1: or "sons/daughters of God"]

 

Your post makes no sense without providing a context.

 

And the verdict is in : most of us who have posted on this thread favor gender-accurate translations. These translations do no neutering. No man is turned into a woman or vice-versa. No men are turned into women or vice-versa.

Even Fundamentalist churches embrace gender-accuracy when the pastor preaches. When the preacher is addressing his congregation he normally says brothers and sisters. Or he makes a joke of the word brethren by saying :"And you sistern too."

 

Give examples. You never do. Don't depend on links as your crutch. Do your own legwork. If you can't cite passages, what's the expression? Oh yeah, put up or shut up.

 

Y-1, you have not answered my post #89. It's an easy to understand query.

 

"Evidence that pluralizing does not necessarily distort the meaning of the text comes from the Bible itself, since biblical writers sometimes translate masculine singular generics with plural constructions. Consider these examples, where the apostle Paul quotes from the Old Testament:

Old Testament Text---------------------------------------------------New Testament Text


Isa. 52:7 :How lovely on the mountains are Rom. 10:15b:...As it is written,'How beautiful

the feet of him who brings good news.-----------------------------are the feet of those who bring good news!'
Ps. 36:1b : There is no fear of God before his eyes. Rom. 3:10, 18 : As it is written... 'There is no fear ___________________________________-----------------------before their eyes.'
Ps. 32:1 : Blessed is he whose transgressions are_______Rom. 4:6-7 : David says the same thing....'Blessed are
forgiven, whose sins are covered. they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.'
_____________________________________________________________________________________________-
In all three cases Paul translated Hebrew singulars with Greek plurals. He clearly recognized that generic plurals in Greek accurately represent the meaning of generic singulars in Hebrew. He changed the form but retained the meaning."

(Taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss page 105.)

 

"...generics are notionally plural, meaning they refer to people in general. 'Those who work hard will succeed' means the same as 'A person who works hard will succeed.' Only a wooden literalist would claim that the first sentence means 'groups' who work hard will succeed. Any ordinary English reader immediately recognizes that 'those' means 'those individuals' in generic contexts like this." (pages 104,105 in the Fee and Strauss book mentioned in the last post.)