Friday, January 26, 2007

Credit reports and Bible translations

First of all, a bit of public service; your credit reports can be obtained for free from www.annualcreditreport.com. Even if your debt is all paid off and you're in your dream job, you might do well to take a look and make sure that nobody's piggybacking on your good credit. Like, say, a criminal or illegal immigrant. Again, if you're tired of paying for welfare (half a trillion dollars annually) and such, charity starts at home.

I was also thinking about the actual implications of the "New Gelded Version" translation/paraphrase of the Bible. Never heard of it? Well, Zondervan calls it the "TNIV," but I think "NGV" is a better description, as what is masculine in the NIV is often removed in the "NGV."

And the significance? Well, the argument for why the "NGV" is needed is that people today don't understand "grammatical gender," specifically the common use of masculine pronouns to refer to both sexes. Hence, when it's "he" in the Greek or Hebrew, sometimes the NGV will use "he or she" or "they."

The theological problems with this approach are legion, starting with the fact that (e.g. Hebrews 12:7) that human, familiar relationships model God the Father's relationship with us. But sadly, it goes further.

To wit, it is not only Scripture that uses grammatical gender, but also literature, poetry, journalism, law, and more. So to argue that Scripture cannot be understood in its historic form by many is simultaneously to argue that these people are not capable of understanding any document not written by gender feminists.

In other words, it is to argue that our educators, especially gender feminists, are guilty of stunning educational malpractice. By arguing that historic authors--including the Author of Scripture, ahem--are guilty of gross misogyny by using grammatical gender, they've rendered their more gullible students unable to understand great works of literature, law, history, and the Scriptures.

Justice would be to close all "women's studies" (oops, "womyn's studies") departments and send their professors to productive work, optimally being a waitress at a southern cafe where they still call the customers "hon." Failing that, we might do well to avoid buying books from the publisher of the "NGV," Zondervan.

10 comments:

R. Mansfield said...

Technical correction: the TNIV never uses the awkward sounding "he or she," but does sometimes uses the inclusive they.

I don't think that makes for a gelding because if the translation were emasculated that would result in "it."

The TNIV rather tries to be gender accurate 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.

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.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MainiacJoe said...

I'm also curious what you will say.

Bike Bubba said...

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.

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.

http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/

Gender correct? Um, no. In many places, clearly masculine language is changed to be, ahem, neuter. NGV it is, IMO.

R. Mansfield said...

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.

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.

What do you think, brother?

R. Mansfield said...

One more thing. In your last comment, you ended with "In many places [in the TNIV], clearly masculine language is changed to be, ahem, neuter."

This is a patently untrue statement. The word neuter as it pertains to humans can be defined as "apparently having no sexual characteristics; asexual" (Oxford American Dictionary) Thus, a neuter pronoun would be it as opposed to he (masculine) or she (feminine) or they (inclusive of both male and female).

I challenge you to find one instance in the TNIV Bible where he has been changed to it.

If you cannot demonstrate a masculine having been changed to a neuter, then you must withdraw your claim.

R. Mansfield said...

One more thing. In your last comment, you ended with "In many places [in the TNIV], clearly masculine language is changed to be, ahem, neuter."

This is a patently untrue statement. The word neuter as it pertains to humans can be defined as "apparently having no sexual characteristics; asexual" (Oxford American Dictionary) Thus, a neuter pronoun would be it as opposed to he (masculine) or she (feminine) or they (inclusive of both male and female).

I challenge you to find one instance in the TNIV Bible where he has been changed to it.

If you cannot demonstrate a masculine having been changed to a neuter, then you must withdraw your claim.

Bike Bubba said...

Um, by your own admission, "he" is often changed to "they" or "them", which is not specific in terms of gender. My point stands.

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.

R. Mansfield said...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Qing Cai said...

michael kors handbags
thomas sabo uk
beats by dr dre
prada shoes
barbour coats
michael kors outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors handbags clearance
coach outlet store
lebron james shoes
moncler outlet
hermes bags
uggs outlet
the north face uk
oakley sunglasses
chanel handbags
roshe run
michael kors factory outlet
juicy couture outlet
michael kors outlet
canada goose outlet
canada goose jackets
designer handbags
jordan shoes
cheap nfl jerseys
louis vuitton outlet
tiffany and co jewelry
chanel outlet
ray ban sunglasses
ugg boots
lululemon outlet
wedding dresses
the north face jackets
herve leger outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap jordans
canada goose outlet
ugg boots
ugg australia
nike air max shoes
cai20151031