Are gender inclusive translations actually needed for today?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
Gender exclusive translations Gender-inclusive translation is the practice of using gender-neutral language to ensure that communication is not exclusive or discriminatory towards any gender identity. This approach involves strategies like using gender-neutral terms ("everyone" instead of "man"), avoiding grammatical gender in languages where it exists, and adapting sentence structures to be more inclusive. The goal is to reflect modern linguistic shifts and make content accessible and respectful to a wider audience, such as in Bible translations that change masculine generic terms to gender-neutral ones where appropriate.
Examples would be when 1984 Niv stated blessed is the mna, while 2011 would state blessed are they , or blesed is the person.
Some issues
Problems with gender-inclusive Bibles often center on theological objections, such as the potential loss of emphasis on the individual and gendered relationships, particularly concerning God's relationship with humanity. Critics argue that inclusive language can change the intended meaning and tone of the text, sometimes obscuring patriarchal elements present in the original context or even altering foundational concepts like God the Father. There are also concerns that translations might be influenced by contemporary cultural pressures rather than solely reflecting the original languages and texts.
Hello YeshuaFan;
The 1984 NIV has been long accepted by theologians, Pastors, etc...in the teaching of God's Word. The 1984 NIV has also been long criticized being categorized as the Functional Equivalent (keeping the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek but putting the words into the normal way of saying the same thing in English,) but also compounds another problem I personally have with the theory of translation.
The scholars, theologians and publishers were aware of the critique of the 1984 NIV wording, though being more gender men and he.
The original Hebrew and Greek text of men and he was actually meant for both men and women. Their efforts of the 2011 revision is commended, however,
It brought about as you suggest, a worse revision. Still, the opposite support still remains for the theologians, scholars and Pastors of the Bible who teach from this translation.
Are we allowing our culture to trump over the accuracy of the original Biblical language?
God bless you, YeshuaFan.
Bob
Which translation do you prefer?
The translators seem to be wanting to get rid of what they perceived as Male leadership bias, and to try to supprt men and women now can have full equal and same roles and position in churches
Nas 1977/2005, Nkjv, Esv
Is it your view that those translations never used Gender-inclusive language?
Last edited:
No, but that they used much less then ones such as 2011 Niv now
So let me see if I understand you. You have no issue with using gender inclusive language. It has to do with the amount of gender inclusive language that is used?
Correct, its ok to use it when the Greek text is very explicit regarding who is being referred to, but much of the current vogue seems to be going over board
Let’s use your above example of Psalm 1:1.
“Blessing is the man…”
Does the blessing in that Psalm extend only to men?
No, but when one reads a passage like that, we know refers to male and female, same way when we read are called children of God, both males and females
Up until the last few decades, the masculine words were understood to apply to all people regardless of sex unless specifically called out by context. "Man" meant all people, etc.
I suppose this is changing though. People see "Man" and think "only males" and this is a source of confusion. I guess the translators should strive for clarity of meaning.
I suppose this is changing though. People see "Man" and think "only males" and this is a source of confusion. I guess the translators should strive for clarity of meaning.
Last edited:
We know, but what about people who may not?
I fail to see the harm in using a more inclusive term such as “person.”