Are gender inclusive translations actually needed for today?

Dave F. said:
I have heard some people refer to the Holy Spirit as "It", I quickly correct them saying "HE" the bible clearly states the Holy Spirit is "HE".
Click to expand...
Yes, I am sure the Greek language had such words as He, it, she, they, and people at the time of writing of the New Testament. You'd think the Holy Spirit would have moved on the original writers to pick one of those. There's really no excuse for translators to slip in personal biases.
 
crossnote said:
What if a translation came up rendering God as a 'she'?
Click to expand...
That would be a problem. However that example is not really Gender-inclusive language. That is a change in the meaning of the text.

The above example of Psalm 1:1 is not restricted to only men.

"Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;"

The same could be said of any woman, women are included. A change from "man" to "person" does not change the meaning nor is not an injustice to the text. In this case the meaning of the text is intact.
 
Last edited:
Dave F. said:
I have heard some people refer to the Holy Spirit as "It", I quickly correct them saying "HE" the bible clearly states the Holy Spirit is "HE".
Click to expand...
That is true but the word "Spirit" (pneuma) in the New Testament is grammatically neuter, not masculine nor feminine. In Hebrew it is feminine.
 
Last edited:
Dave F. said:
I have heard some people refer to the Holy Spirit as "It", I quickly correct them saying "HE" the bible clearly states the Holy Spirit is "HE".
Click to expand...
they might havegotten that from the Kjv, as think 4 times in the NT refers to the Holy Spirit as It, based upon how the English was at the time of translation in 1611
 
Major said:
What would you say to a translation that rendered God as...."IT". "IT" is just one breath away from "person".

You see my friend, when the door is cracked open, the river always floods in. That is the modus-operando of liberalism.
Click to expand...
Just seems to be an agenda under guise of "evangelical feminism" to have the bible get rid of those "bothersome" things such as perceived male bias and failure to have the church accept same roles and positions now for both males and females in Christ
 
Origen said:
That would be a problem. However that example is not really Gender-inclusive language. That is a change in the meaning of the text. The above example of Psalm 1:1 is not restricted to only men. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;" The same could be said of any woman, women are included. A change from "man" to "person" does not change the meaning nor is not an injustice to the text. In this case the meaning of the text is intact.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Origin;

Your post caught my attention. It presents "reason" and here is my response. Keep in mind I don't have the answer, I'm just responding with my thought.

Origen, gender inclusive language did not just happen yesterday and was initiated by man. But God's Word Remains. Would you agree our personal study and teaching has helped us develop a discipline to know the difference and not resign to the Gospel with equity between the genders?

God's roles for men and women throughout the Old and New Testaments are set in place. The theory of translation does not change that.

If God's Churches have failed in this area, and there are many, so, who should we be addressing, the teaching leaders, the scholars, theologians? This can easily get convoluted and out of whack.

Personally, I have seen the lackadaisical and bleak attitude of disciples in their weekly Bible studies and Sunday schools. God help them. To them it's just going through the motions of a Church. Fortunately, many Bible students come to their senses beyond reading the Scripture of the week and recognize gender inclusive language and it's meaning in the text.

Question is, does it get in the way of sharing the Gospel?

God bless you, Origen.

Bob
 
YeshuaFan said:
There were translations such as the Queen james bible that retranslated the passges that had made homosexuality as an abomination, and also ones that called God the He She
Click to expand...
This is where it goes wrong... retranslating the Bible to into a different book. Its no longer a Christian Bible. Essentially, its a book for gnostics.

let's be real... the need to be "included" or "seen" comes from a particular group in society that often operate under a false sense of self. Theyre insecure in their identity, which is why they constantly need to see themselves in everything.
 
Origen said:
That is true but the word "Spirit" (pneuma) in the New Testament is grammatically neuter, not masculine nor feminine. In Hebrew it is feminine.
Click to expand...
It is true that In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine. But the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity.

Linguistically, it is clear that masculine theistic terminology dominates the Scriptures. Throughout both testaments, references to God use masculine pronouns. Specific names for God just to name a few were, Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, Kurios, Theos, and are all in the masculine gender. God is never given a feminine name or referred to using feminine pronouns.

So, while the Holy Spirit is neither male nor female in His essence, He is properly referred to in the masculine by virtue of His relation to creation and biblical revelation. There is absolutely no biblical basis for viewing the Holy Spirit as the “female” member of the Trinity.
 
cocoa said:
This is where it goes wrong... retranslating the Bible to into a different book. Its no longer a Christian Bible. Essentially, its a book for gnostics.

let's be real... the need to be "included" or "seen" comes from a particular group in society that often operate under a false sense of self. Theyre insecure in their identity, which is why they constantly need to see themselves in everything.
Click to expand...
basically, this stuff tends to happen when one no longer accepts that the word of God is objective truth for all time, as we must "balance" its teachings with current cultural views, current understandings of genders and roles etc
 
Major said:
It is true that In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine. But the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity.

Linguistically, it is clear that masculine theistic terminology dominates the Scriptures. Throughout both testaments, references to God use masculine pronouns. Specific names for God just to name a few were, Yahweh, Elohim, Adonai, Kurios, Theos, and are all in the masculine gender. God is never given a feminine name or referred to using feminine pronouns.

So, while the Holy Spirit is neither male nor female in His essence, He is properly referred to in the masculine by virtue of His relation to creation and biblical revelation. There is absolutely no biblical basis for viewing the Holy Spirit as the “female” member of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
Rome has done that , but they substituted Mary as the "female" member of their trinity
 
Origen said:
That would be a problem. However that example is not really Gender-inclusive language. That is a change in the meaning of the text.

The above example of Psalm 1:1 is not restricted to only men.

"Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;"

The same could be said of any woman, women are included. A change from "man" to "person" does not change the meaning nor is not an injustice to the text. In this case the meaning of the text is intact.
Click to expand...
Then are we not playing judges of the text? Where would it end? Personally, I don't believe these gender neutral Bibles are being honest with the text...
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

To be consistent, in the above verse, why isn't man (in the gender neutral Bibles) in this passage translated 'them'?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top