Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
I don't have a dog in this fight, but perhaps your friend could come out of the shadows and engage in a more proper way than doing so through an intermediary.
CSB verses HCSB
- Thread starter Stephen L Smith
- Start date
- Status
I don't have a dog in this fight, but perhaps your friend could come out of the shadows and engage in a more proper way than doing so through an intermediary.
I think that it is becoming pretty clear that the Csb translators appeared to be more cautious and conservation in regards to what they changed in order to be more inclusive, as the Niv translators did seem to be advocating more radical an agenda in regards to how the roles of men and women are now under the New Covenant.
They should have kept the term as languages , and not changed, as that would indeed be catering to those who view the tongues as an angelic one.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
I don't want to spin this out, but a couple of comments are in order.
On Acts 17:34: "which easily can be understood as "But some men (ANDRES)...believed, among who also [was] Dionysius the Areopagite; also [i.e. in addition, as a *separate* category] a woman named Damaris" etc." This seems to me to neglect the last part of the verse. If there are a group of MEN, who believed (including Dionysius), and, a separate category, a WOMAN named Damaris, to what category do the "and others with them" belong? "With them" links these others in a single group: those who believed.
That's certainly the most straightforward understanding of the KJV translation here: "Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them". The "which" in "Among the which" is the "men" who clave to Paul and believed. In other words, the KJV is using "men" here in its generic sense, which potentially includes women.
On apposition, I think you have misunderstood my point. The second term more narrowly defines the first and so becomes unnecessary (and incorrect English style) to translate when the second term contains that information. So an isha almanah is not "a woman, a widow" but (in contemporary English) simply a widow. So even on your view, the proper translation of andres adelphoi is not "Men, brothers" (and still less the KJV's "Men and brothers", which erroneously suggests that two distinct groups are in view) but simply "Brothers", since brothers are by definition men. If however as I have sought to demonstrate above, andres can refer inclusively to both genders and (as all the reference grammars agree) adelphoi can (in some cases) be used inclusively of men and women, then the translator needs to seek to determine whether in this case the terms are being used inclusively in context. If not, he should translate "Brothers." If so, "Brothers and sisters" is probably better English style, since we do not use "Brothers" inclusively.
I am not saying that aner, andres and adelphoi are always inclusive. That would be ridiculous. However, in at least one other place aner is used by Paul inclusively: Romans 4:8, quoting Psalm 32:2 "How joyful is the person that the Lord does not charge with iniquity" (CSB). Clearly Paul here is not intending to say something about men in distinction from women. Indeed, the Hebrew has 'adam, not 'ish. But even 'ish can be used in a gender-inclusive way, as the KJV recognizes when it translates 'ish as "Whosoever" in (Lev. 22:21, among other places).
Gender language is tricky to translate. This is not an easy topic where there is an obvious "right" answer. Some will prefer to retain the traditional language and explain, where appropriate, that "brothers" actually means "brothers and sisters" here. That is a defensible position, but it isn't the only responsible position that people who are wholeheartedly committed to complementarianism can take.
On Acts 17:34: "which easily can be understood as "But some men (ANDRES)...believed, among who also [was] Dionysius the Areopagite; also [i.e. in addition, as a *separate* category] a woman named Damaris" etc." This seems to me to neglect the last part of the verse. If there are a group of MEN, who believed (including Dionysius), and, a separate category, a WOMAN named Damaris, to what category do the "and others with them" belong? "With them" links these others in a single group: those who believed.
That's certainly the most straightforward understanding of the KJV translation here: "Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them". The "which" in "Among the which" is the "men" who clave to Paul and believed. In other words, the KJV is using "men" here in its generic sense, which potentially includes women.
On apposition, I think you have misunderstood my point. The second term more narrowly defines the first and so becomes unnecessary (and incorrect English style) to translate when the second term contains that information. So an isha almanah is not "a woman, a widow" but (in contemporary English) simply a widow. So even on your view, the proper translation of andres adelphoi is not "Men, brothers" (and still less the KJV's "Men and brothers", which erroneously suggests that two distinct groups are in view) but simply "Brothers", since brothers are by definition men. If however as I have sought to demonstrate above, andres can refer inclusively to both genders and (as all the reference grammars agree) adelphoi can (in some cases) be used inclusively of men and women, then the translator needs to seek to determine whether in this case the terms are being used inclusively in context. If not, he should translate "Brothers." If so, "Brothers and sisters" is probably better English style, since we do not use "Brothers" inclusively.
I am not saying that aner, andres and adelphoi are always inclusive. That would be ridiculous. However, in at least one other place aner is used by Paul inclusively: Romans 4:8, quoting Psalm 32:2 "How joyful is the person that the Lord does not charge with iniquity" (CSB). Clearly Paul here is not intending to say something about men in distinction from women. Indeed, the Hebrew has 'adam, not 'ish. But even 'ish can be used in a gender-inclusive way, as the KJV recognizes when it translates 'ish as "Whosoever" in (Lev. 22:21, among other places).
Gender language is tricky to translate. This is not an easy topic where there is an obvious "right" answer. Some will prefer to retain the traditional language and explain, where appropriate, that "brothers" actually means "brothers and sisters" here. That is a defensible position, but it isn't the only responsible position that people who are wholeheartedly committed to complementarianism can take.
Josh Williamson
Puritan Board Freshman
This podcast deals with some of my dislike of the HCSB, and the improvement of the CSB - http://thomrainer.com/2017/03/691790/
Thanks Josh. In the main it was helpful. A pity it did not address the Gender issue; that said I acknowledge the helpful discussion of earlier posts.
"Man" is generic in the sense that it can refer to a male or a female or both, but it is not merely generic. The inclusion of women under the designation of "man" indicates that "by God’s design the woman’s identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the prior identity of the male." (Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, p. 84.) To alter this word as if it merely intended a generic referent is to lose the full import and impact of the word.
Last edited:
God had some legitimate reasons to have masculine terminology placed in the scriptures,for while male can and does refer also to females, there are still some times God meant men/man/males, such as when He laid out male headship/leadership within the scriptures. many in modern culture though think that is old fashioned and now obsolete.
Yes, that is touching on the representative principle. The generics are masculine because it is fitting for men to represent mankind in general. The progress of biblical revelation manifests this principle and upholds it from beginning to end. The two Adams are literally two men.
Another reason for retaining "man" over "one" is the fact that biblical revelation is intrinsically concerned with the nature and destiny of man who has been made in the image of God. Replacing "man" with "one" weakens the continuity of thought and the moral implications which resonate with the word "man."
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
You're talking motive. Do you have quotes from translators that substantiate that?
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
I skimmed it and I still agree with Joe. Can this be substantiated?
He quoted the preface and basically called it hogwash and proceeded to try and find motives not asking those who actually worked on it. Rather he went to those with an axe to grind (i.e. CBMW).
I do not think the Niv team was evil, but do see them as being to PC in how much of the inclusive renderings they decided to go with, as to me, it was and still pretty much the 2005 TNIV, that many rejected.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Again substantiate your claims. They all specifically say their concerns are the growing illiteracy of the average person (not us confessional folk on the PB) and the evolution of English language usage. They have a number of complementarians on the CBT and reading the major texts that support complementarian positions, nothing has changed to support the tortured egalitarian renderings.
It is weird textual arguments like this in the thread and elsewhere from CBMW or the Baylys (granted I am no linguist) that make me distance myself from complementarianism any more (while agreeing that yes wives submit to your husbands and don't be church officers) . I agree more and more with Trueman and his defenses from all the flack he got a few years ago. Its just silly.
Just my two cents.
I am just saying that there are places where we can use terms such as brothers/sisters, mankind in general, but that when we are speaking about specific areas such as Jesus, or leadership in the church and home, need to stay masculine terminology.
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
I still find this lacking evidence. I've read the TNIV multiple times. I don't get answers. Point out the egalitarian commentaries that are capitalizing on so-called compromises on this in the newest revisions of the NIV.
What I see, in my opinion, was an overreaction on Jim Dobson's and others' parts that World magazine jumped on and Evangelicals read World and their heros instead of the TNIV. Lots of my "heros" were anti-TNIV. Many were pro-TNIV. So I read it several times.
Hebrews 2 is often pointed to as compromising on Jesus by changing "son of man" to "human beings". That translation is less literal. But even conservative complementarian point out that "son of man" isn't being used Christologically there.
In MacArthur's Study Bible he writes...
man … son of man. Both refer to mankind, not to Christ. The passage asks why God would ever bother with man. As the following verses demonstrate (vv. 9, 10), the incarnation of Christ is the greatest proof of God’s love and regard for mankind. Christ was not sent in the form of an angel. He was sent in the form of a man.
It's obvious looking at Psalm 8 in context in any formal translation that it's referring to humanity.
So while it's less literal, it is accurate in meaning. And it prevents the Christian from jumping to a false conclusion when they see "son of man" of automatically making it Messianic in reference.
Is that the best solution? Probably not. The best solution is Christians reading context correctly. Reading context can make it clear "son of man" is a reference to human beings and not Jesus. However, many aren't careful.
As for the authority of the husband.....Ephesians 5 still seems pretty clear to me in the TNIV and 2011. Here's the TNIV...
22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Wives still are to submit to husbands. So I'd like to see proof of the charge.
This is a well written critique from a respected reformed author
https://frame-poythress.org/tnivs-altered-meanings-an-evaluation-of-the-tniv/
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Blomberg, one of the translators and a complementarian took him to task on a review in a book Poythress authored.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/the-gender-neutral-bible-controversy/
We just need to be sure we are not impugning people's motives and retreating into bizarre Catholic-esque traditionalism with regard to translations. I am not sure what you are arguing for any more...
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Carson has a free book titled The Genderl Inclusive Language Debate a plea for realism in pdf form. I encourage you to read it.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
While the TNIV was an egregious example of PC influence the 2011 NIV corrected that verse, Proverbs 13:1, to read the same as the 1984 NIV.
I've read a lot of this and it is extremely informative. Chapter 3, Translation And Treason : An Inevitable and Impossible Task is a must read for understanding the complexities involved.
In the preface D.A. Carson writes,
Thanks, I will read that, but do you think that all of those inclusive renderings such as in the Tniv were all valid and good?
I have no problem when using examples such as brother and sisters, or when being called sons of God also would have females in mind, but do think that at times the Niv went over into trying to force an agenda.
Good discussion on this issue found here:
http://www.equip.org/article/the-inclusive-language-debate/
I think that the Csb and Niv are alike in how they handle this issue in part, but also think the niv kept too much of the Tniv 2005 renderings.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
Its like arguing a circle here...
We need a Tardis.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
