tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115751813959782695..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Who's afraid of TNIV?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3526133235341046802007-04-21T12:19:00.000-07:002007-04-21T12:19:00.000-07:00I have followed the comments here about the TNIV w...I have followed the comments here about the TNIV with interest, as I always do. I especially appreciate the comments that come from people who can actually read the Bible in its original languages. Some of us have recently started a blog which is entirely devoted to trying to tell <A HREF="http://tnivtruth.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">the truth about the TNIV</A>. You all are invited to visit and comment there.<BR/><BR/>Let's make sure that our claims either for or against the TNIV are based on facts, not speculation or second-hand information which we may not had adequately researched to see if it is true or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1158074983700835912006-09-12T08:29:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:29:00.000-07:00The Never Inspired VersionThe Never Inspired VersionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157858057615203532006-09-09T20:14:00.000-07:002006-09-09T20:14:00.000-07:00I responded on your blog.I responded on your blog.Chris Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09202204854205966592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157843213704324942006-09-09T16:06:00.000-07:002006-09-09T16:06:00.000-07:00Chris, I found your comment:I don't think we could...Chris, I found your comment:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think we could ever come to any mutual agreement on the TNIV with such different understandings of language. That is the crux, here.</I><BR/><BR/>so profound and revealing that I wrote <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/tniv-controversy-matter-of-theology-of.html" REL="nofollow">a whole long post</A> about it on the Better Bibles Blog.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157814987638221632006-09-09T08:16:00.000-07:002006-09-09T08:16:00.000-07:00Chris:I think you have characterized my position r...Chris:<BR/><BR/>I think you have characterized my position rightly. Langauge is dynamic and constantly in flux. The translators of the King James Bible knew this as any good translator should in that they sought to make the Greek and Hebrew texts understandable to "vulgar tongue."Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157790135883305192006-09-09T01:22:00.000-07:002006-09-09T01:22:00.000-07:00Words like sin etc., will soon be so politically i...Words like sin etc., will soon be so politically incorrect and will begin to drop out of the langauge. What will happen then? Do we replace them with the world's equivalent, like "messed up" or "wee misunderstanding" etc., if there is one? Or do we stick to our guns and use God's own strict erminology? <BR/><BR/>If these words are being dropped in our sinful English speaking world, then surely the battle is on either to maintain them or even to reintroduce them. It may *gunk* a student in the University to be told that his generation are dumbing down the langauge, but just view it as the opening shot in the battle for his soul. If he wilts under the first mild criticism, wait until you get the big guns of the law of God pointing in his direction.<BR/><BR/>While some of our modern translators are busy scratching their heads, the rest of us are just letting God take care of His own work, pleading Isaiah 55:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:58 in prayer.Colin Maxwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02632698769785766168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157776320889204032006-09-08T21:32:00.000-07:002006-09-08T21:32:00.000-07:00Peter,Then that is where you and I, at least, disa...Peter,<BR/><BR/>Then that is where you and I, at least, disagree. I don't think we could ever come to any mutual agreement on the TNIV with such different understandings of language. That is the crux, here.Chris Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09202204854205966592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157758382727096042006-09-08T16:33:00.000-07:002006-09-08T16:33:00.000-07:00I can't speak for Adam, but I certainly "believe t...I can't speak for Adam, but I certainly "<I>believe there are no "right" or "wrong" changes to a language - that it is constantly dynamic and there is nothing wrong with this</I>". See my post about what is acceptable English at the <A HREF="http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2006/09/acceptable-english-is-what-people.html" REL="nofollow">Better Bibles Blog</A>.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157748050237556752006-09-08T13:40:00.000-07:002006-09-08T13:40:00.000-07:00Adam: "Their isn't a language that is more worthy ...Adam: <I>"Their isn't a language that is more worthy of translation than another. All that I'm hearing is that English of 40 years ago is better than today's; God likes it better, so change is bad."</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I was unclear. My point was that there have been <I>cultural</I> (read: political, agenda driven, etc.) changes to the English language in recent years. To alter a translation to fit these cultural changes in language (I distinguish this from a technical change, which would be a change in language that betters communication and meaning, rather than one that serves political means) is wrong.<BR/><BR/>The primary difference you and I have, Adam, is that you believe there are no "right" or "wrong" changes to a language - that it is constantly dynamic and there is nothing wrong with this, where I believe some changes in language are good and some are bad - that a language can be dynamic, but it is bad if it becomes too much so, and some of those changes are bad (please forgive me if I've mischaracterized your beliefs - I'm only going from what I've read).<BR/><BR/>The changes which the TNIV seeks to entertain I believe to be <I>bad</I> changes in language - changes that come as a result of political agendas and the dumbing down of the English language itself.<BR/><BR/>Thus, to change Scriptural texts to fit purely culturally influenced linguistic changes <I>does</I> say that cultural has more power than the words of God, since the words of God are not being translated into the <I>language</I>, but are rather being translated to try to fit the <I>culture</I>, regardless if aspects of that culture are good or bad.Chris Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09202204854205966592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157747787115690992006-09-08T13:36:00.000-07:002006-09-08T13:36:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Chris Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09202204854205966592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157746605049277332006-09-08T13:16:00.000-07:002006-09-08T13:16:00.000-07:00Chris Hill: "culture has more power than the mouth...Chris Hill: "culture has more power than the mouth of God" <BR/><BR/>No. That doesn't make any sense. Their isn't a language that is more worthy of translation than another. All that I'm hearing is that English of 40 years ago is better than today's; God likes it better, so change is bad. How it follows that "culture has more power than the mouth of God" from attempting to render words from the source (Greek and Hebrew) to the target (Today's English) remains to be seen.Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157744767748168492006-09-08T12:46:00.000-07:002006-09-08T12:46:00.000-07:00After reading some of the other posts here, I real...After reading some of the other posts here, I realized that I pretty much restated what others have said. Thus I have added no new insights, just as I originally thought. Regardless, to use cultural (not technical) linguistic changes of the last 30 years to re-translate the bible shows disregard for the power of God's Scripture, and says that culture has more power than the mouth of God.Chris Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09202204854205966592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157743304850103372006-09-08T12:21:00.000-07:002006-09-08T12:21:00.000-07:00Wonderful and insightful comments on the TNIV. I ...Wonderful and insightful comments on the TNIV. I have nothing to add to the discussion at this time, except that I fully agree.<BR/><BR/>Well... I actually do have one thought, that being in regards to language. For centuries, the bible itself was seen as the foundation for language. Even words we use today (one example: "talents") come from the bible itself. The problem with "translations" such as the TNIV is that instead of using the words of God to help shape our language, we are trying to use our language to shape the words of God. This is a fatal error, in my mind, and will have long term negative effects if it lasts.Chris Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09202204854205966592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157722010717334652006-09-08T06:26:00.000-07:002006-09-08T06:26:00.000-07:00Steve said: "At heart, you are making the argument...Steve said: "At heart, you are making the argument that cultural usage should dictate how the Bible is translated." <BR/>Steve, I hope you realize that I am not committing any crime here. EVERY translation takes into account cultural usage in its rendering of the original languages into receptor languages. Why? Because language is a cultural phenomenon and it is always in flux. That's what I was trying to illustrate with the Strauss quote with the word "gay." That's why people would rather read the NIV than the KJV. The so-called "vulgar tongue" (Wycliffe's description) changes from culture to culture from time to time. Now I want to say something here that could be read as GBA, so let me be clear: charging me with "making the argument that cultural usage should dictate how the Bible is translated" is the same charge that KJV-Only advocates make against their detractors. I'm not saying that you are a KJV-Only advocate or support their arguments, but I am saying that your approach to this issue is similar. It's illogical for them as it is for you. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why you say I haven't addressed the masculine singular issue in Psalm 34:20. I have. You say that from a masculine singular it follows that it should be translated to refer to capture biological maleness. I say it does not. The TNIV translators recognize the universal fact that "The Hebrew of the OT has GRAMMATICAL gender whereas English has only NATURAL gender." Grammatical gender is like the kind I pointed out with the Strauss quote (La Mesa, El Cajon)—it is irrelevant to the "maleness" of "femaleness" of the word. The masculine singular is used as a generic to include men and women, so it is not inaccurate to use the generic plural "they" to capture the intended meaning of both sexes being protected by God. <BR/><BR/>I realize you think it is bunk that masculine language is not seen as generic anymore, and to an extent I can agree with you. But in some places it is, and as a person that fits into the 18-35 demographic it makes perfect sense to speak in terms of singular generic plurals. Again, I can see how people who have stuck with the NAS or RSV styles object to this and I think you could make the argument that it doesn't take much brain power to figure out that a generic masculine (he) is referring to, but I don't think that from that you can libel the translation team of the TNIV as capitulating to the spirit of times and producing a translation that is harmful to the Word or the church.Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157721031697152032006-09-08T06:10:00.000-07:002006-09-08T06:10:00.000-07:00If you were sitting on a college campus, you would...<I>If you were sitting on a college campus, you would recognise that these words are <B>unacceptable</B> and <B>misunderstood</B>, and you would view the alternative view as an attempt to change the language back to something obsolete.</I><BR/><BR/>I said <I>out of fashion</I> which is unacceptable, but not misunderstood. At colleges across the US (and, I assume, Europe) they are using language as the engine of social change. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/0140094385/sr=8-1/qid=1157720458/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3332610-2775253?ie=UTF8&s=books" REL="nofollow">Postman</A> was right that much of modern society more closely resembles Huxley's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-World-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060929871/sr=1-1/qid=1157720513/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3332610-2775253?ie=UTF8&s=books" REL="nofollow">Brave New World</A> than Orwell's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-3332610-2775253?ie=UTF8" REL="nofollow">1984</A>, but Orwell was right about the control of language to control thought.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157714674908837572006-09-08T04:24:00.000-07:002006-09-08T04:24:00.000-07:00Peter: You are, again, ignoring the rest of that ...Peter: You are, again, ignoring the rest of that passage. The issue of "Father" is the metaphor the writer used all the way through the Greek in this pssage, yet only Heb 12:7 has been corrected to reflect this matter.<BR/><BR/>Why was Heb 12:7 correted but the balance of the metaphor left uncorrected? It's odd, don't you think, that the only verse from the original TNIV NT in this passage which was specifically cited was "unupdated" but the rest was left as-is?<BR/><BR/>If, in fact, Heb 12:7 is <I>rightly</I> translated as "father", and the singular in 12:9 is rightly translated "father" (because it refers to God the Father), to then try to liberate the plural "pateras" from the grip of sexism is demonstrating the utter lack of understanding of the metaphor itself in the context of biblical models of household and authority.<BR/><BR/>That's what you have to get past. There's no question that you can translate "pateras" as either "parents" (meaning: parents generically) or "fathers" (meaning: a group in which each one is a father) -- but here the metaphor is plainly about <I>fatherhood</I> and <I>fathership</I>.<BR/><BR/>The last nail in the coffin here is the use of "nothos" in 12:8. In this case, one must appreciate the forthright translation in the KJV as "bastards" -- because, again, what is being discussed here is not generic parenthood but specifically legitimacy as belonging to a father <I>who owns up to you and your mother.</I><BR/><BR/>The metaphor in its complete form is about the way a father validates the family membership of a son (if you want to say "child", I also have a beef there, but let's finish this part firt). It is not about generic parenting but about how a legitimate family works -- we are either inside God's legitimate family, or we are "nothos".<BR/><BR/>That sense is completely lost in TNIV. If you want to fall back on Mark Strauss' "something is always lost in translation", it's interesting that almost no other translation in English loses the force of this metaphor. What TNIV loses here is substantial.<BR/><BR/>I'm going on vacation now, so if you want to do this, think about it for a week and then come back, and the DebateBlog offer stands.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157705853887543412006-09-08T01:57:00.000-07:002006-09-08T01:57:00.000-07:00Centuri0n, you claim that the concept of the fathe...Centuri0n, you claim that the concept of the father as the one with responsibility for discipline in the family is "<I>entirely lost in the TNIV version of Heb 12</I>". But has you actually read this text? Let me remind you of verse 7 in TNIV:<BR/><BR/><I>Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?</I><BR/><BR/>This is a clear statement of the responsibility of fathers to discipline their children. Whether this responsibility is held jointly with mothers is another matter which I won't go into here.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 11:23 shows us that the Greek <I>pateres</I>, the plural of <I>pater</I> "father", can mean "parents", for Moses of course had only one father, plus one mother. Similarly in 12:9, the same word can reasonably be translated "parents", especially as if the meaning was strictly "father" one would expect a singular noun here: each of us had a father. The TNIV translation here is certainly exegetically defensible.<BR/><BR/>Taliesin, you make a good point with:<BR/><BR/><I>I recognize on college campus' he, his, she, hers, mankind, etc. may be out of fashion, but out here in the corn fields, they are still perfectly acceptable and well understood terms. From where I sit this does not look like making the language more understandable; it looks like an attempt to change the language.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed, it all depends on your point of view. If you were sitting on a college campus, you would recognise that these words are unacceptable and misunderstood, and you would view the alternative view as an attempt to change the language back to something obsolete. But we should try to get beyond such local viewpoints.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157705420125016722006-09-08T01:50:00.000-07:002006-09-08T01:50:00.000-07:00What I read here are a lot of needlessly reactiona...What I read here are a lot of needlessly reactionary complaints about the new-fangled directions English is going, and a wistful longing for the 'good ol' days' when 'he' could mean a he or she, etc. etc. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, but the use of 'they' is not a satanic ploy to bring us all into submission to Gaia worship. Language evolves. If it didn't, we'd all be able to pick up the Canterbury Tales or the original script of Macbeth and not need the Cliff's Notes to know what's going on in them. Is there really a pagan private interest agenda behind every cultural change that takes place? <BR/><BR/>As long as people have aged, people have complained about the contemporary scene and longed for the good old days. The TNIV leaves its readers in no confusion, AT ALL about the fact that God is a 'He', whatever that means (only he knows). Here's the TNIV of John 3:16:<BR/><BR/>"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." <BR/><BR/>To cast doubt on the integrity and motives of the TNIV translators, and deny that they want to make the Word of God clear to people today, strikes me as unduly factious and high-minded.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure there are well over a million issues like this that we could bring up and begin arguing over, all day long, but to what end? <BR/><BR/>Sure, the enemy is out to deceive millions, but I highly, highly doubt he's going to use the TNIV as one of his big guns to do it. C'mon.Chris Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08832290458905110111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157681956452337212006-09-07T19:19:00.000-07:002006-09-07T19:19:00.000-07:00One more point on the debate, specifically around ...One more point on the debate, specifically around the singular "they". Has anyone else ever wished that Englished had retained a distinction between the singular and plural second person personal pronoun. Admittedly, around here we have partially solved the problem, though y'all look down your (singular or plural?) collective (must be plural in this case) noses at us. Why would we embrace a change that does the same to the third person personal pronoun?<BR/><BR/>This struck me looking at <A HREF="http://www.tniv.info/bible/sample_resultsingle.php?rowid=54&category_select=MOST&order_by=biblicalorder&up_down=ASC" REL="nofollow">this link</A>. Having a plural versus a singular pronoun in this verse, which downplays the personal decision aspect, is far more confusing than have a masculine versus a feminine pronoun. If you must play these kinds of games, at least use the "s/he" and leave the plurals out of this.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157681199646035782006-09-07T19:06:00.000-07:002006-09-07T19:06:00.000-07:00Adam,Your link to the adam/human being controversy...Adam,<BR/><BR/>Your link to the adam/human being controversy only serves to underscore my point.Adam (the man) was the representative for the entire species. We might argue about why God did it that way, but it is the way it was done. Jesus is not the second Adam and Eve, He is the second Adam; the new representative.<BR/><BR/>Using "man" or "mankind" to refer to the race is a reflection of the Biblical order. That point gets muddied when we choose to use other terminology.<BR/><BR/>I recognize on college campus' he, his, she, hers, mankind, etc. may be out of fashion, but out here in the corn fields, they are still perfectly acceptable and well understood terms. From where I sit this does not look like making the language more understandable; it looks like an attempt to change the language.Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157675546748531372006-09-07T17:32:00.000-07:002006-09-07T17:32:00.000-07:00Peter Kirk:I have just read your justification of ...Peter Kirk:<BR/><BR/>I have just read your justification of the translation of the male term "father" into the genderless word "parent", and I think you are kidding.<BR/><BR/>Let's face it: your argument is, "because God the Father does not have physical, sexual gender, when the Bible uses 'maleness' to describe him it is excessively anthropomorphic and we should not be so narrow-minded." I assume, because you are a really bright guy, that you would apply this to all (and your quick pass on this is even funnier than your assessment of the 'maleness' of the term 'father') the references to God as female -- like God is a mother eagle, and God is a ... um ... let's see: God is never called a "queen", and God is never called a "sister", and God is never called a "maid", and God is never called a "woman". Well, it's your point: you should substantiate it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, to get back on-point, let's assume that God is only speaking metaphorocally when He calls Himself "father" and not "parent" (because, of course, the Greeks didn't have a word for "parents" like "goneus" or something). isn;t it part of the the translation paradigm to covey <I>the full force of the metaphor</I>?<BR/><BR/>What's being communicated here is not explicitly gender-related but <I>related to the order of thing God has ordained.</I> That is: the highest authority in the house <I>belongs to the father.</I> In the same way a <I>father</I> disciplines his son, thus <I>God disciplines us.</I><BR/><BR/>That's entirely lost in the TNIV version of Heb 12 -- in spite of God not having any reproductive organs.<BR/><BR/>Your view here is provisional at best -- that is, it'll do until you find another argument which seems better. The problem is that is pretty studiously <I>avoids the point</I>.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157673810829113892006-09-07T17:03:00.000-07:002006-09-07T17:03:00.000-07:00Daniel, if you seriously believe that maleness is ...Daniel, if you seriously believe that maleness is an attribute of God, this is a clear example of what you say, "<I>I see my own opionions resting on personal bias rather than a sound principle</I>". At least you realised this and backed down in your addendum.<BR/><BR/>"<I>God gave authority to the one gender over the other</I>". Where and when?<BR/><BR/>"<I>God describes himself in male terms</I>", and also in female terms.<BR/><BR/>Steve wrote, "<I>God inspired Psalm 34:20 to be written with the masculine singular “his,” and an honest Bible translator will preserve that fact.</I>" No, he inspired it with a masculine singular word in Hebrew, along with all kinds of other formal features of the Hebrew language. An honest Bible translator will recognise and as far as possible separate what is part of the Hebrew language from what is part of the Bible message, and preserve the latter while replacing the former with appropriate features of the target language. The masculine singular in Hebrew can be used with gender generic meaning. But in English, at least for many speakers, "he" is not understood as gender generic, and it is a translation inaccuracy to use it in a place like this. Thus "they" was chosen entirely for accuracy, for accurate understanding by the target audience of TNIV, 18-35-year-olds.<BR/><BR/>Even if certain forms are used to avoid offending people, does that make it wrong? Surely it is wrong to be needlessly offensive. Somehow you have turned this upside down to make it wrong to avoid giving offence!<BR/><BR/>Steve, as for your comments to Adam about "<I>But the words he and his are, in no way whatsoever, analogous in terms of potential for misinterpretation</I>", I can only wonder what planet you live on. Generic "he" and "his" have been regularly misunderstood (and sometimes taken as offensive) for decades in many parts of the English speaking world. There have even been entire heretical doctrines built on this misunderstanding.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157662849841789032006-09-07T14:00:00.000-07:002006-09-07T14:00:00.000-07:00H.C.I understand what you are saying here, but are...H.C.<BR/><BR/>I understand what you are saying here, but are we sure that what you describe is actually what is happening with some of these translations? I note you say the NIV translates with what the author meant. Words mean things and ideas have consequences. The original Greek words were used for a reason to convey certain thoughts and ideas. <BR/><BR/>I realize that Greek has colors to it in some cases i.e. the four words for love..phileo, agapao, storge and eros. Each one means a different aspect of love. In English, it is necessary to explain at times what kind of love is being referenced. <BR/><BR/>That is not what I mean here. We need to be sure that "thoughts" being conveyed in translation are actually the meanings intended by the biblical authors. I think you are on much firmer ground with precise, accurate translation. I don't mind a liner note with alternate renderings or even a brief comment about disputed meanings, however translate the TEXT as it is. <BR/><BR/>Oddly enough and in keeping with what Frank was writing, I passed over the Apostle Paul's remark about peddling the word of God not too long ago. Gave me goose bumps.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157660089794295572006-09-07T13:14:00.000-07:002006-09-07T13:14:00.000-07:00I consider it a part of routine doctrinal groundi...I consider it a part of routine doctrinal grounding to instruct new believers on the various translations and their underlying philosophical assumptions. TNIV is less than NIV for sure. But dynamic equivalence has its place. Still... what really bugs me is the overt way NavPress made The Message out to be a translation when it is really a wild (and IMHO) unreliable paraphrase! There's your marketing conspiracy!Martin Burchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08684427122133553420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1157658421530043162006-09-07T12:47:00.000-07:002006-09-07T12:47:00.000-07:00Steve,Gramatical gender does not imply biological ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Gramatical gender does not imply biological gender. Mark Strauss illustrates this perfectly when he says, "I live in the town of El Cajon . El cajon is Spanish; it means 'the box. 'That is a masculine term. That's because boxes are inherently male, right? Obviously not. I live right next to the town of La Mesa . La mesa is a Spanish word that means 'the table. 'It's feminine in gender. That's because tables are inherently feminine, right? Of course not. This is purely grammatical gender. It has nothing to do with sexual distinction. In Spanish the word for 'person' is la persona. That is a feminine word. Does that mean that persons are inherently female or feminine? Of course not."<BR/><BR/>And don't forget that the Bock article you mention says after the sentence you cite, "But the other rendering is not as wrong as some suggest. The plural opts to make explicit the connection to the group of righteous. The ultimate allusion to Christ, though less obvious, also fits this “broader” rendering properly understood."<BR/><BR/>Again I don't know why it is so troubling to recognize that the culture is increasingly using singular plurals and to make the proper adjustments for the sake of accuracy. The reason, it seems, people are scared is because the world is somehow setting the agenda. But this isn't worrisome. Strauss makes a pertinent illustration as to how irrational this fear is:<BR/><BR/>"What if I came into this room and I said, "Hi, I want to tell you, I'm gay"? If I said, "I'm gay," you might wonder how my wife could be "with child" if I'm gay. But when a ripple went through the audience, I would say, "Oh, wait a minute, let me clarify, what I mean is I'm happy, I'm carefree, I'm easy-going." You would probably come up to me later and say, "You should not say that. That's not contemporary English." And I might respond, "I'm not going to let the homosexual agenda change the way I speak. So, I'm going to use the word gay if I want to use the word gay. If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, if it was good enough for the King James Version, which uses the word gay in James, it's <BR/>good enough for me." As you well know, that is a terrible argument. The goal of Bible translation is to reproduce the meaning of the text in accurate, clear, and contemporary English." (from <A HREF="http://www.salemthesoldier.us/TNIV_concordia_debate.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>)Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.com