Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 32762 | ||
Greetings Kalos! It is interesting to "contrast" the way that the translators of the ESV 'handled' the usage of gender inclusive language and the way that the same language was handled by the TNIV translators.. The following in an excerpt from Good News Publishers, Crossway Books and Bibles: Translation Philosophy of the ESV (http://goodnews.gospelcom.net/page/esv_philosophy/) "In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, "anyone" replaces "any man" where there is no word corresponding to "man" in the original languages, and "people" rather than "men" is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words "man" and "men" are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Similarly, the English word "brothers" (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century. A recurring note is included to indicate that the term "brothers" (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case. In addition, the English word "sons" (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God's family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God's children. The inclusive use of the generic "he" has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it. Similarly, where God and man are compared or contrasted in the original, the ESV retains the generic use of "man" as the clearest way to express the contrast within the framework of essentially literal translation. In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture." I believe that the last quoted paragraph speaks volumes! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
2 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 32768 | ||
At least what the ESV people say of their Bible in regard to the gender issue makes a good deal of sense! I read an article yesterday that said that the "gender-inclusive" NRSV would have gone a considerable distance farther in its gender language had it not been for the sobering influence of conservative Bruce Metzger who chaired the translation committee. The article pointed out that there were some mutton heads on the committee who wanted to call God the Parent (instead of Father) and Christ the Child (instead of Son). When these not-too-smart eggheads show the slightest inclination to monkey around with God's word, to coddle to the whelms of the wild-eyed liberal lobbyists, it is high time to issue them their pink slips and show them the door. God's word is too important, too sacred, too pure, too precious to be handled by namby-pamby people whose primary concern is apparently political correctness in order to escape the wrath of their profit-driven bosses. They should be more concerned about the wrath of God, it seems to me. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 32791 | ||
Greetings Hank! I agree, the ESV does make a whole lot of sense! I really enjoy the ESV and it has successfully stood up to the taxing and exceptional amount of scrutiny that I use in my judgment of a particular translation. When I first received the NRSV, it fell considerably short, even at first glance! The NRSV takes great liberty with inclusive language in many places where the Greek form clearly shows the masculine form. In each and every translation of the Bible into English, we are, in effect, putting our trust in the translators of that version to give us the best, most accurate rendering of the Bible into English, and making it understandable to the point of comprehension in our parent language. However, this doesn't mean that we should "water down" the text by over simplifying it. Also, when the methodology of 'dynamic equivalency' is used, then there is a much greater degree of adding a particular committee's own theology and interpretations into the text. Therefore, if you have a group that believes that God the Father should be called "Creator", God the Son "Child" or "Redeemer" and the Holy Spirit as "Sustainer", then you see just how far away that theology will take you (and the reader who is trusting you) away from the original intended meaning of the text. Therefore, I have chosen the most literal translation that I can find, so that I can trust it to render as closely as possible (or more closely to the original text) what the original author was trying to say. And when a Bible translation committee, who is trying to translate the original languages into English, does not believe in God to begin with, then the translation will reflect that! I agree, I believe that the words of Revelation 22:18-19 would directly be applicable here! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||