# CSB translation-Gender accurate or gender "inclusive"?



## Silas22 (Jun 13, 2017)

I admit that I really do not like the change from "man" to "people" in Psalm 1. Although I'm no scholar, it seems to me that when a translation seeks to "update" the language of the Bible from its ancient cultural context, they seem to show a profound mistrust in the authorship and infallibility of scripture. The argument that the biblical writers and Jesus himself would speak differently today is a gigantic argument from silence, one in which I am not comfortable with at all. 

What say you? 
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...-bible-translation-csb-southern-baptists.html


----------



## Josh Williamson (Jun 13, 2017)

This article from Dr. Schreiner and Dr. Allen is also worth reading:

https://cbmw.org/public-square/is-the-csb-really-gender-neutral/


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2017)

One can bend and stretch a wax nose any way he pleases.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 13, 2017)

Doctrinal Downgrade by any other name still smells the same...


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 14, 2017)

YRRSBCGuy said:


> I admit that I really do not like the change from "man" to "people" in Psalm 1.



While it replaces "man", for clarity's sake, the CSB does not use "people" in Psalm 1. 

1 How happy is the one who does not 
walk in the advice of the wicked 
or stand in the pathway with sinners 
or sit in the company of mockers! 
2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction, 
and he meditates on it day and night. 
3 He is like a tree planted beside flowing streams 
that bears its fruit in its season 
and whose leaf does not wither. 
Whatever he does prospers. 
4 The wicked are not like this; 
instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away. 
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand up in the judgment, 
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 
6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, 
but the way of the wicked leads to ruin. 

I don't personally have an issue with it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Doctrinal Downgrade by any other name still smells the same...



That's a remarkably strong charge based on a single article which doesn't give specific examples and clearly has an axe to grind. As one of the original translators of the HCSB and a member of the revision committee that produced the CSB, I can reliably state that there was absolutely NO gender neutral agenda. There was certainly a concern for gender accuracy, which in some cases led away from a "literalistic" translation. For example, in Proverbs where the original Hebrew had _'ish_ we generally retained "man" while where there was a substantive participle we opted for a less gender specific term. In reality, all translations do that. The KJV does that every time it translates _bne yisrael _(literally, "the sons of Israel") as "the children of Israel", recognizing (rightly) that this is what it means. The ESV does this in Leviticus 19:3 when it translates _'ish_ as "Every one of you". The KJV does this in Leviticus 19:11 when it translates the gendered idiom "each to his companion" with the gender neutral idiom "one to another".

You may not agree with all of our translational choices. That is your prerogative, though I hope it is based on a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and translational practices and not just a knee jerk reaction in favor of a familiar translation. But the CSB is certainly not a gender neutral translation, nor were there any reservations about the authorship, inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical text.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 14, 2017)

I agree with Iain. I've been reading through the CSB for daily devotions, and I have had (so far) no places where I cringe. It is actually a stellar translation, one of the very best.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 14, 2017)

https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/the-english-standard-version-and-gender-inclusive-language/

The Colorado Springs Guidelines are rubbish. They paved the way for a flood of Bibles with Egalitarian English. Masculine inclusives (male oriented words that refer to both men and women) are predominate throughout Scripture but you wouldn't know it from almost every translation after the turn of the century. If male oriented, gender inclusive language didn't mean something, then why have the feminists sought to eradicate it?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/the-english-standard-version-and-gender-inclusive-language/
> 
> The Colorado Springs Guidelines are rubbish. They paved the way for a flood of Bibles with Egalitarian English. Masculine inclusives (male oriented words that refer to both men and women) are predominate throughout Scripture but you wouldn't know it from almost every translation after the turn of the century. If male oriented, gender inclusive language didn't mean something, then why have the feminists sought to eradicate it?


Maybe there has been an evangelical feminism within the church that wants to eliminate ropes based upon sex, as the Lord did have male leadership/headship as seen as the set up within the Bible for both church and family...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> That's a remarkably strong charge based on a single article which doesn't give specific examples and clearly has an axe to grind. As one of the original translators of the HCSB and a member of the revision committee that produced the CSB, I can reliably state that there was absolutely NO gender neutral agenda. There was certainly a concern for gender accuracy, which in some cases led away from a "literalistic" translation. For example, in Proverbs where the original Hebrew had _'ish_ we generally retained "man" while where there was a substantive participle we opted for a less gender specific term. In reality, all translations do that. The KJV does that every time it translates _bne yisrael _(literally, "the sons of Israel") as "the children of Israel", recognizing (rightly) that this is what it means. The ESV does this in Leviticus 19:3 when it translates _'ish_ as "Every one of you". The KJV does this in Leviticus 19:11 when it translates the gendered idiom "each to his companion" with the gender neutral idiom "one to another".
> 
> You may not agree with all of our translational choices. That is your prerogative, though I hope it is based on a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and translational practices and not just a knee jerk reaction in favor of a familiar translation. But the CSB is certainly not a gender neutral translation, nor were there any reservations about the authorship, inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical text.


You did not go overboard into Inclusive language renderings as the Nov 2011 has, did you?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2017)

YRRSBCGuy said:


> I admit that I really do not like the change from "man" to "people" in Psalm 1. Although I'm no scholar, it seems to me that when a translation seeks to "update" the language of the Bible from its ancient cultural context, they seem to show a profound mistrust in the authorship and infallibility of scripture. The argument that the biblical writers and Jesus himself would speak differently today is a gigantic argument from silence, one in which I am not comfortable with at all.
> 
> What say you?
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...-bible-translation-csb-southern-baptists.html


The Csb does not seem to be as much into Inclusive language as the Niv 2011 did in their revision, do did not appear to violate the scriptures intended meaning...


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 14, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/the-english-standard-version-and-gender-inclusive-language/
> 
> The Colorado Springs Guidelines are rubbish. They paved the way for a flood of Bibles with Egalitarian English. Masculine inclusives (male oriented words that refer to both men and women) are predominate throughout Scripture but you wouldn't know it from almost every translation after the turn of the century. If male oriented, gender inclusive language didn't mean something, then why have the feminists sought to eradicate it?


As I pointed out above, the KJV does exactly the same thing that you decry in modern versions. So it is not a principial issue but rather a pragmatic issue of communication. Every translator agrees that sometimes "gender inclusive" language communicates better. If I am translating a book, am I a feminist if I choose to translate "fireman" with "firefighter", when I know that the original referent included both male and females?

For the record, the CSB translated _bne adam _as "children of Adam" in a number of places, bringing out a nuance that is lost in most other translations.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 14, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> You did not go overboard into Inclusive language renderings as the Nov 2011 has, did you?


Can you give overboard examples?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## bookslover (Jun 14, 2017)

The ESV uses "man" in Psalm 1, and has this footnote regarding the word "man" - "The singular Hebrew word for _man_ (_ish_) is used here to protray a representative example of a godly person. . .".


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2017)

> walk in the advice of the wicked
> or stand in the pathway with sinners
> or sit in the company of mockers!



The alternating preposition sacrifices the symmetry of the original in order to convey a specific meaning to the English reader which is not necessarily specific in the original.



> Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction,



Innovative in replacing the traditionally recognised word, "law," for a more generic word which may or may not intend the idea of regulation.



> Therefore the wicked will not stand up in the judgment,



"Stand up" is overly semantic and might fit another context but it does not fit the picture of being driven away.



> For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
> but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.



The first line is overly restrictive of the word "to know," in which there is a broad range of meaning connected to the idea of "acknowledging" a person, including acknowledging as one's own. The Psalmist is often challenged as one who has been disowned.

The addition of "leads to" introduces a non determinative meaning which is the invention of the translator.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 15, 2017)

We should not expect our bible translations to shift as the winds of culture shift.

This is all part of dismantling a patriarchal society and erasing patriarchal literature. Society at large rejects that man is used or brothers used for all parties because it hates male-dominated culture.

Either the older translations are sufficient or they were insufficient. If they are sufficient, then why change them except to pander to feminists. If they are insufficient, then do we admit that feminists helped us to see the Scripture in a clearer light?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Von (Jun 15, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Either the older translations are sufficient or they were insufficient.


1) Do you believe they are sufficient or insufficient?
2) Where do you draw the "older" line?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 15, 2017)

I think ideas like "pandering to feminists" need to be substantiated. As I look at who the translators are of various modern translations, I don't think that charge is obviously true.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 15, 2017)

Up until the last decade or two, we didn't have masses of unsaved women because of the lack of translating anthropos as person instead of man, or the failure to translate adelphoi as brothers and sisters....but somehow this became a pressing need exactly at the same time as the rise of feminism happened within the evangelical church...

...but it's in no way related to the shifting tide of Western culture.....right!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 15, 2017)

Taking that approach and flipping it over from the other side....

How many with a feminist agenda are looking for Bibles to quote from? Are the feminists quoting the NLT, TNIV, NIV2011, NRSV or CSB (and in all honesty the many places the ESV and KJV do the same) to forward their agenda? 

Probably not because a feminist agenda isn't interested in what the Bible has to say at all no matter what the translation or gender rendering is in any translation, are they?

Taking Psalm 1:1....

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; (ESV)

How happy is the one who does not 
walk in the advice of the wicked 
or stand in the pathway with sinners 
or sit in the company of mockers! (CSB)

How is the feminist agenda moved forward by the CSB rendering of this verse?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> Can you give overboard examples?


The Niv 2011 seemed. at least to me, to be adopting the principle that women could have been leaders within local assemblies, able to teach, and that they at times seemed to not want to have Jesus in Psalms as Son of man, nor in Hebrews, but almost like a generic term used for Mankind itself....


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> Taking that approach and flipping it over from the other side....
> 
> How many with a feminist agenda are looking for Bibles to quote from? Are the feminists quoting the NLT, TNIV, NIV2011, NRSV or CSB (and in all honesty the many places the ESV and KJV do the same) to forward their agenda?
> 
> ...


The assumption had always been though that when the older versions would say Blessed is the man, or that God gave them the right to be called the sons of God, was implying that women were also included in there...


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 15, 2017)

There are many feminists within the church. Just ask your normal evangelical woman about gender roles within marriage and work. Somehow Proverbs 31 suddenly became all about working women balancing it all. 

They haven't rejected the bible...they just want a bible more to their liking.

In fact, I think there is a synod going on right now where Christian women preaching and becoming deacons is being considered. These haven't rejected the bible...they just don't want some old-fashioned bible with a patriarchal worldview and may even wince a bit at the dated expression "mankind."


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> There are many feminists within the church. Just ask your normal evangelical woman about gender roles within marriage and work. Somehow Proverbs 31 suddenly became all about working women balancing it all.
> 
> They haven't rejected the bible...they just want a bible more to their liking.
> 
> In fact, I think there is a synod going on right now where Christian women preaching and becoming deacons is being considered. These haven't rejected the bible...they just don't want some old-fashioned bible with a patriarchal worldview and may even wince a bit at the dated expression "mankind."


The team that did the 2011 Niv seemed to be addressing that "problem" of some seeing the Bible as being too much from the perspective of men, as the current culture does not agree with the position of God having male leadership in the home and church...


----------



## Von (Jun 15, 2017)

Is there an emoticon for obtuse?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 15, 2017)

Taking a look at popular 'culture' the past 20 years or so, we see films, and probably television shows, (I don't watch either) that depict women beating men in fistfights, decimating the bad guys as the gals fire a pistol, one in each hand. 
Speaking of Spiritual perception, if anyone doubts that the whole world lieth in the wicked one they are obviously a natural man ..... or should I say person ?


----------



## Von (Jun 15, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> women beating men in fistfights, decimating the bad guys as the gals fire a pistol, one in each hand.


For someone not watching, you seem to know quite a lot of detail...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 15, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The assumption had always been though that when the older versions would say Blessed is the man, or that God gave them the right to be called the sons of God, was implying that women were also included in there...



I agree with you completely. I've never struggled with being able to tell when "man" means more than "males".

So when something like an ESV or NASB use "man", I know it means what the ESV footnote says.

At the same time, when the CSB uses "the one", I'm not bothered by that either. The Psalmist isn't limiting the context to males only.

I don't see "the one" assisting a feminist agenda. I don't see "man" helping preserve a patriarchal complementarian society.

People unnecessarily get worked up more than needed on this issue, in my opinion. Tying this back around to my first paragraph above, I think some make too big of a deal about "man". They need to read more literature and learn to tell when "man" means "male" and when it means "human". I think others make too big a deal about rendering something more neutral when that's what is meant by "man" anyway. Psalm 1 isn't for only the males in the congregation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 15, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> Taking a look at popular 'culture' the past 20 years or so, we see films, and probably television shows, (I don't watch either) that depict women beating men in fistfights, decimating the bad guys as the gals fire a pistol, one in each hand.
> Speaking of Spiritual perception, if anyone doubts that the whole world lieth in the wicked one they are obviously a natural man ..... or should I say person ?





Von said:


> For someone not watching, you seem to know quite a lot of detail...


The last time I paid to darken the door of a movie theater was 1985. Took a gal out who wanted to see 'The Women In Red.' I haven't willingly watched television in more than 5 years, though I was a captive audience at times when the place where I worked, before I retired 3 years ago, had a wide screen TV that was on more often than not. You ?


----------



## Von (Jun 16, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> You ?


I have small kids so I know a LOT of animation.
Other than animation, I do enjoy movies, and yes, I do agree with you about the shift in popular culture. Even the children's movies are following this trend with the defiant female hero (Pocahontas, Mulan, Little Mermaid, Tangled, etc). But at the same time I do not believe this is necessarily a new trend in sins of the heart - just new manifestations of the same depravity. It has always been there - these stories are old fables. Sin came into the world fully grown. Humanity just shifts from hypocrisy to open sins and back again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 16, 2017)

Von said:


> I have small kids so I know a LOT of animation.
> Other than animation, I do enjoy movies, and yes, I do agree with you about the shift in popular culture. Even the children's movies are following this trend with the defiant female hero (Pocahontas, Mulan, Little Mermaid, Tangled, etc). But at the same time I do not believe this is necessarily a new trend in sins of the heart - just new manifestations of the same depravity. It has always been there - these stories are old fables. Sin came into the world fully grown. Humanity just shifts from hypocrisy to open sins and back again.


At the risk of going off topic, I see things from the perspective of being 68 years old. Growing up in the USA of the 1950s/'60s it was a different culture. A nation on basically on the same page with Judeo-Christian values. Of course since the fall sin has always been with us, and much of this now 'in your face' behavior was always there, but behind closed doors. This is a different culture than that which I grew up in and that is evident for those old enough to remember those days.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Jun 16, 2017)

I hear you.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 16, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I agree with you completely. I've never struggled with being able to tell when "man" means more than "males".
> 
> So when something like an ESV or NASB use "man", I know it means what the ESV footnote says.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, its just that when translations seem to want to break down any gender differences, such as males leading house/church, get concerned...Or when they seem to not see Jesus as THE Son of man in the OT/NT....


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 16, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with you, its just that when translations seem to want to break down any gender differences, such as males leading house/church, get concerned...Or when they seem to not see Jesus as THE Son of man in the OT/NT....



Do you have examples in regard to leadership or the Son of Man?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 16, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> Do you have examples in regard to leadership or the Son of Man?


The one where Paul stated that a woman not permitted to teach?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 16, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The one where Paul stated that a woman not permitted to teach?



NIV 2011 says...

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 

So what are your thoughts?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> NIV 2011 says...
> 
> 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
> 
> So what are your thoughts?


Most would use exercise instead of assuming, as their use seems to imply that a woman can teach in a pastoral function in some ways...


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Most would use exercise instead of assuming, as their use seems to imply that a woman can teach in a pastoral function in some ways...



I've heard that some object to "assume". I honestly don't get it. I'm curious what egalitarian works there are that have seized this and found some sort of opening that "assumed" supposedly gives that "exercise" does not. I just don't see it. Seems to me if they want women pastoring, they'll do it regardless of translation. It seems to me that people that already didn't like the NIV don't like changes like this in the TNIV or 2011.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Beezer (Jun 17, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I've heard that some object to "assume". I honestly don't get it. I'm curious what egalitarian works there are that have seized this and found some sort of opening that "assumed" supposedly gives that "exercise" does not. I just don't see it. .



I'm in the same boat as you here. When I read the words "assume authority over a man" I immediately think back to my days in the military where an officer would "assume command" of a unit. As a complementarian I have no issue with the way the NIV 2011 chose to translate this verse.

I don't have any working knowledge of the original languages, so like most people I have to rely more on scholarly critiques of translations than I would prefer. I was initially turned off badly to the NIV 2011 based on the bad press it received in some pockets of the evangelical world. It wasn't until I heard a pastor publicly chastise a man last year for bringing the NIV to a midweek Bible study that I began to look at the criticism of the NIV more closely. I never would have thought it would happen, but I've actually shifted away from the KJV and ESV to the NIV 2011 in most of my reading now. When I dive a little deeper I bring out the KJV, ESV, and NASB, but I've found the NIV 2011 to be quite acceptable as a translation.

Sorry...I know this thread is about the CSB.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I've heard that some object to "assume". I honestly don't get it. I'm curious what egalitarian works there are that have seized this and found some sort of opening that "assumed" supposedly gives that "exercise" does not. I just don't see it. Seems to me if they want women pastoring, they'll do it regardless of translation. It seems to me that people that already didn't like the NIV don't like changes like this in the TNIV or 2011.


The SBC and the Lutherans both decided to not use or recommend the Niv 2011 version, due to them both seeing the revision went way too far into inclusive renderings...
They were very content with the 1984 version, so it was not due to them not liking the Niv at all...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

Beezer said:


> I'm in the same boat as you here. When I read the words "assume authority over a man" I immediately think back to my days in the military where an officer would "assume command" of a unit. As a complementarian I have no issue with the way the NIV 2011 chose to translate this verse.
> 
> I don't have any working knowledge of the original languages, so like most people I have to rely more on scholarly critiques of translations than I would prefer. I was initially turned off badly to the NIV 2011 based on the bad press it received in some pockets of the evangelical world. It wasn't until I heard a pastor publicly chastise a man last year for bringing the NIV to a midweek Bible study that I began to look at the criticism of the NIV more closely. I never would have thought it would happen, but I've actually shifted away from the KJV and ESV to the NIV 2011 in most of my reading now. When I dive a little deeper I bring out the KJV, ESV, and NASB, but I've found the NIV 2011 to be quite acceptable as a translation.
> 
> Sorry...I know this thread is about the CSB.


The main difference between the Csb and the Niv 2011 appears to be that while the Csb translated all of the time gender neutral when possible way, the Niv team seemed to also go into translating where men still should have been retained at times.... Such as Jesus as Son of man in Hebrews and psalms....


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The main difference between the Csb and the Niv 2011 appears to be that while the Csb translated all of the time gender neutral when possible way, the Niv team seemed to also go into translating where men still should have been retained at times.... Such as Jesus as Son of man in Hebrews and psalms....


What in Hebrews are you referring to?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> What in Hebrews are you referring to?


He was a little lower than the Angels passage...


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 20, 2017)

The KJV nor any other conservative modern English version did this SYSTEMATICALLY before the 1990s. It's one thing to use a non-masculine inclusive in places, it is quite another to translate these systematically with gender neutral words. 



iainduguid said:


> As I pointed out above, the KJV does exactly the same thing that you decry in modern versions. So it is not a principial issue but rather a pragmatic issue of communication. Every translator agrees that sometimes "gender inclusive" language communicates better. If I am translating a book, am I a feminist if I choose to translate "fireman" with "firefighter", when I know that the original referent included both male and females?
> 
> For the record, the CSB translated _bne adam _as "children of Adam" in a number of places, bringing out a nuance that is lost in most other translations.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 20, 2017)

It just kills me to hear modern conservatives refer to gender "neutral language" as "gender accurate". If you look back at the terms feminists in the 1980s were using, you'll readily discover that they were the ones who were also using the term, "gender accurate" and it was a synonym for "gender neutral".

So here we are trying to defend capitulating to Egalitarian English in Bible translations and basically saying the same thing about it the feminists were in the 1980s.

It has never been about the lack of clarity. It's all about the direction of the culture and marketability.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> It just kills me to hear modern conservatives refer to gender "neutral language" as "gender accurate". If you look back at the terms feminists in the 1980s were using, you'll readily discover that they were the ones who were also using the term, "gender accurate" and it was a synonym for "gender neutral".
> 
> So here we are trying to defend capitulating to Egalitarian English in Bible translations and basically saying the same thing about it the feminists were in the 1980s.
> 
> It has never been about the lack of clarity. It's all about the direction of the culture and marketability.


There does seem to be , at least in part, some part of "evangelical feminism" at play in some of the revisions, as they are trying to have the masculine aspect of leadership toned down to reflect modern thinking. Indirectly, saying that the Bible was wrong in how it see differences/roles between men and women.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> The KJV nor any other conservative modern English version did this SYSTEMATICALLY before the 1990s. It's one thing to use a non-masculine inclusive in places, it is quite another to translate these systematically with gender neutral words.


The key is that versions such as the Niv 2011 went way overboard in "correcting" the gender renderings in some areas.


----------

