Subject: Why no gender-neutral language in NASB? |
Bible Note: The inclusive language debate concerns issues such as translation philosophy, linguistics and Bible interpretation (hermeneutics). My perspective of this issue is not based upon any social agenda or initiative, and I simply seek to see the English language demonstrably representing the biblical author's intended meaning in words that are as descriptive as possible. Many see the validity in the introduction of inclusive language, as you have pointed out, in the CEV, TEV, NLT, NRSV, and I could add a few others such as: NIVI, NCV, GW, GNB, NJB, REB, and NAB. However, the NASB, NKJV, KJV, RSV, and NIV do not subscribe to the validity of gender inclusive language, and I do not either. I believe that not only does this add obscurity and present challenges to Biblical translation that should not be there during translation, but this opens up an entirely new front to the method of translation that threatens the future of our English Bible. I will not exclusively use or choose a Bible with gender inclusive language as my 'predominant' translation, being the one that I go to to read, study, and memorize 90 percent of the time. |