The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum View on the Inclusive language Bible debate?

Should we be allowing for the mor einclusive lannguage such as in Niv 2011, or stay with traditional, such as in Kjv/Nasb?

Are you really asking that question.

yes, as I have been trying to see if there was a general consensus on the board regarding this issue?

I personally have no use for the NIV or any other translation that uses the Dynamic Equivalence method. But I'm not sure what you are referring to by "inclusive language"?

There is no issue. Inclusive language (i.e. politically correct language), where it departs from the actual Biblical text, is nothing other than pure, unadulterated feminism. Feminism is nothing other than pure, unadulterated satanism.

Thanks, Meta4 for the clarification about "inclusive language". And I am certainly in agreement with your rejection of it.

Try talking to otherwise solid Christians who use Bible's such as the NLT (New Living Translation), who say people do not talk the way more literal translations talk. Sigh, when I try to reason with them, it is a closed subject; as though what they said to me should be obvious. Then when I talk with others who understand my position a little better, they say just be thankful that they are Christian and don't worry about that.

Tom

Luke 9:62 (ASV) "But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
Luke 9:62 (KJV) "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
Luke 9:62 (DBY) "But Jesus said to him, No one having laid his hand on [the] plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Luke 9:62 (WEB) "But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God."
Luke 9:62 (YLT) "and Jesus said unto him, `No one having put his hand on a plough, and looking back, is fit for the reign of God."
Luke 9:62 (NIV) Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 9:62 (NLT) But Jesus told him, “Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”
Luke 9:62 (NLV) Jesus said to him, “Anyone who puts his hand on a plow and looks back at the things behind is of no use in the holy nation of God.”

Here's a prime example of the difference between versions that use the Formal Equivalence method of translation and those who don't and those that use 'modern/contemporary' language (English). In this particular passage; Luke 9:62 there is a radically fundamental difference between the two groups. What is it?

Inclusibe would be like the translation saying instead of the work men/man, would use people...

Blessed are the people, the ones...

Agreeed, as the most populat version, Niv, uses DE and also leads in that inclusive language also!

Is there any doubt that those who do this have little to no understanding and/or respect for divine inspiration? Another problem with this type of humanistic approach is that there is little to no understanding and/or respect for the Church. Each jot and tittle in the Bible was specifically chosen by God the Spirit to perfectly reveal God and truth to mankind, but especially to and for those who have been given eyes to see, ears to hear and a mind to comprehend the magnificent glory and mystery of God. Translation is admittedly a difficult task. But when there is a word in the original language for "people", the translator has no warrant to translate "man/men" as people. The CONTEXT determines the meaning of individual words/phrases which the reader is responsible to understand AND it is the responsibility of the Church to teach and preach the Scriptures and apply it truthfully and faithfully to those who are under its care. Another example of this principle is a translator who comes to John 10. There, the word "sheep" (Grk: probaton) appears many times. The translator is bound to translate probaton into the target language word for that animal. IF there is no word for probaton, then the word in a similar language or even the English word "sheep" should be used. There is no warrant to substitute another animal for sheep. Here there is a good example where the Church has the responsibility to teach those in that society what a sheep is and how it is used literally and figuratively in the Bible.

God is a HE... not a she, it, transgender, nor anything else. Elders and Deacons are to be MEN, not women or children. Egalitarianism is not taught in Scripture.

FYI, if you haven't noticed, IF you have Firefox, when you type a post/reply misspelled words are underlined. If you right-click on the word, suggested words are displayed in the context menu for you to choose from to replace the misspelled word(s). This new feature isn't perfect, of course. But it certainly is a feature that works quite well in the majority of cases. You might want to give it a try.

Thanks for the tip! Would say that some versions, especially the 2011 Niv, have state that one of their goals was to have the over masculine aspects of the Bible corrected, as it was too much male dominated language when originally penned down?