tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post356485405598900314..comments2024-03-29T00:30:10.138-07:00Comments on BikeBubba's Boulangerie: Credit reports and Bible translationsBike Bubbahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-7154123668729244792007-02-04T05:23:00.000-08:002007-02-04T05:23:00.000-08:00Sorry, Bike Bubba, but I've been distracted all we...Sorry, Bike Bubba, but I've been distracted all week. I'm only just now able to get back to your posts, and I see you have some new ones as well.<br /><br />As for the above comments, there's a difference between "they" and "it." "It" would imply no gender, thus meeting your criteria. But "they" implies both genders; that is, it is inclusive of genders, but NOT neutral. This is elementary school level English.<br /><br />As for what most translations do, you are right in regard to the TNIV being the only major translation to use the singular they since the KJV (see for instance, Matt 18:35 in the KJV). But there's a long history behind the singular they going back to even Shakespeare who used it regularly.<br /><br />But on another level of simple inclusive language most recent translations do include inclusive language including the NLT, REB, TNIV, NCV, NJB, NET, GWT, GNB and others. And even the more conservative translations such as the ESV, NASB95, and HCSB use more inclusive language than translations of a generation ago.R. Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333586197235312918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-53429849777066476692007-01-30T08:26:00.000-08:002007-01-30T08:26:00.000-08:00Um, by your own admission, "he" is often changed t...Um, by your own admission, "he" is often changed to "they" or "them", which is not specific in terms of gender. My point stands.<br /><br />Moreover, you're really missing the point, IMO; the very fact that the NGV does this, while most translations do not, is evidence enough. I'll go into that in a post today.Bike Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-42167469609882546182007-01-29T14:23:00.000-08:002007-01-29T14:23:00.000-08:00One more thing. In your last comment, you ended wi...One more thing. In your last comment, you ended with <i>"In many places [in the TNIV], clearly masculine language is changed to be, ahem, neuter."</i><br /><br />This is a patently untrue statement. The word <i>neuter</i> as it pertains to humans can be defined as "apparently having no sexual characteristics; asexual" (Oxford American Dictionary) Thus, a neuter pronoun would be <i>it</i> as opposed to <i>he</i> (masculine) or <i>she</i> (feminine) or <i>they</i> (inclusive of both male and female). <br /><br />I challenge you to find one instance in the TNIV Bible where <i>he</i> has been changed to <i>it</i>.<br /><br />If you cannot demonstrate a masculine having been changed to a neuter, then you must withdraw your claim.R. Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333586197235312918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-43200392148787535892007-01-29T14:22:00.000-08:002007-01-29T14:22:00.000-08:00One more thing. In your last comment, you ended wi...One more thing. In your last comment, you ended with <i>"In many places [in the TNIV], clearly masculine language is changed to be, ahem, neuter."</i><br /><br />This is a patently untrue statement. The word <i>neuter</i> as it pertains to humans can be defined as "apparently having no sexual characteristics; asexual" (Oxford American Dictionary) Thus, a neuter pronoun would be <i>it</i> as opposed to <i>he</i> (masculine) or <i>she</i> (feminine) or <i>they</i> (inclusive of both male and female). <br /><br />I challenge you to find one instance in the TNIV Bible where <i>he</i> has been changed to <i>it</i>.<br /><br />If you cannot demonstrate a masculine having been changed to a neuter, then you must withdraw your claim.R. Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333586197235312918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-77908049000403685382007-01-29T12:35:00.000-08:002007-01-29T12:35:00.000-08:00I have the utmost respect for Dr. Grudem, but fran...I have the utmost respect for Dr. Grudem, but frankly I disagree with him on this issue and it's been repeatedly demonstrated that his claims against the TNIV are grossly exaggerated.<br /><br />Rather than run to a website or another personality, I would propose putting forth a particular verse or passage (and one at a time is easier to address than multiple ones) that you have a problem with. Then we could look at them together and see whether or not the TNIV is as bad as its detractors claim or as accurate as its supporters claim. <br /><br />What do you think, brother?R. Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333586197235312918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-2748297017073582562007-01-29T10:37:00.000-08:002007-01-29T10:37:00.000-08:00First of all, I'll say that I don't allow anonymou...First of all, I'll say that I don't allow anonymous comments. If you are man enough to post, you should be man enough (or woman enough, if that be the case) to use your real name or identifying nickname.<br /><br />Regarding Mansfield's comments, Wayne Grudem and others have come up with a significant number of places where editions of the TNIV actually do clearly remove something that is clearly masculine.<br /><br />http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/<br /><br />Gender correct? Um, no. In many places, clearly masculine language is changed to be, ahem, neuter. NGV it is, IMO.Bike Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-78601153089152266842007-01-29T09:25:00.000-08:002007-01-29T09:25:00.000-08:00I'm also curious what you will say.I'm also curious what you will say.MainiacJoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868324288910818693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-37752746752059344432007-01-29T06:28:00.000-08:002007-01-29T06:28:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-43105833894243968502007-01-28T12:05:00.000-08:002007-01-28T12:05:00.000-08:00Technical correction: the TNIV never uses the awkw...Technical correction: the TNIV <i>never</i> uses the awkward sounding "he or she," but does sometimes uses the inclusive they.<br /><br />I don't think that makes for a gelding because if the translation were emasculated that would result in "it."<br /><br />The TNIV rather tries to be <i>gender accurate</i> meaning that when a context in the original languages suggests a male and female audience, the rendering in English communicates it correctly. Communicating the original message of the biblical writer is what actually makes for an accurate translation, wouldn't you agree.<br /><br />But if you were to really be literal and follow what you're suggesting in this blog entry, you would have to refer to the Holy Spirit as a "she" in the OT and an "it" in the NT, and I personally don't believe that's warranted.R. Mansfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333586197235312918noreply@blogger.com