I've reversed my position on this topic recently, in the past six months or so. But let me define the term at the get-go so no more people than necessary misconstrue what I'm about to say. By gender-neutral I don't mean a Bible that talks about God as our Parent. I also do not mean a Bible that removes all references to gender. I simply mean a Bible, as the TNIV or the NLT, that instead of saying God created Man, says God created human beings/people. In other words, anytime the scriptures are addressing both men and women, the translators try to make that clear.
We must realize by now that all translations are interpretations. Even wooden translations take words and add them to the scriptures so that the scriptures will make sense in modern English. Sometimes, in difficult passages, the translators will take a little more liberty in their translations (yes, even the wooden/literal translations do this).
So why do we balk at a few translators making the Bible more gender-inclusive? Isn't that the intention of the author as he (or possibly, she) writes? Isn't that the sense that you take from the text when you read it? If it is how you understand the text as you read it, why is it wrong to translate it as such?
At its core, I believe the discussion is about intentions. Trying to make a text that is more accurate and, simultaneously, less offensive is what I believe to be the goal and intention of these translators. (It is, by the way, more textually/scripturally accurate in today's English to say "God created people" than it is to say "God created man.") Some people believe the intentions of the translators are to water down the scriptures. Contrariwise, I believe that hanging on to an Anglian word that has clearly run its course, is creating another Authorized Version of the scriptures.
The fear is, of course, that in ten years the same companies will be producing Bibles that say, "Our Parent, who is in heaven." Much of the discussion arises out of that fear. So if that is your beef, let it be your beef. And remember, that is not what these translators have done.
(As a footnote, I think it's necessary to inform the reader that I have been doing some devotional writing for the NLT's not-yet-published Web site. I took the job before I realized that the NLT was a gender-neutral Bible. And when I discovered that it was, I also discovered that it was not an issue for me.)
P.S.: Currently, my favorite translations are the ESV and the NASB.
4 comments:
If this is what they refer to as gender-neutrality, then I am all in favor of it. I totally agree with the points you've made here.
Ok, I can't resist...
The word verification is Oogle Me (ooglme). That's hilarious.
this was interesting. in college, i wrote a research paper on the TNIV when they first started advertising it... probably in 2001 or 2002. i came to a lot of the same conclusions you did. i appreciated your insight
Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to articulate that.
I think so many explosions within the church come out of fear, which is really sad. In the last year I have really come to terms with how my entire world was framed by fear. So I am breaking some habits.
But back on the topic at hand, my pastor once said after referring to all of us as the Bride of Christ, "If women can handle being the sons of God, then men can deal with being the Bride of Christ." There was much laughter and agreement.
What would the Body be if we invited perfect love to cast out ALL our fear.
Yee Hah!
good stuff also the comments :)
Post a Comment