Gender Neutral Bible Translations: Good, Bad or Ugly?

Summary

This video explores the debate surrounding gender-neutral translations of the Bible, focusing on the New Revised Standard Version's (NRSV) efforts to replace masculine pronouns with more inclusive terms. It examines examples like John 12:32 and Romans 5:18, comparing translations and their impact on interpretation. The speaker discusses the challenges of adapting ancient texts to modern language and thinking, emphasizing the difference between precise English usage and the broader categories of the Greco-Roman world. Ultimately, the speaker shares a preference for translations that retain the original language's nuances while acknowledging the complexities of gender-neutral choices.

Takeaways

• 😀 The gender-neutral Bible translation debate began in 1989 with the release of the New Revised Standard Version, which aimed to eliminate masculine pronouns in the English translation of the Bible.
• 😀 One example is the difference between 'all men' in the New American Standard Bible and 'all people' in the New Revised Standard Version in John 12:32, which changes the gender-specific language to more inclusive terms.
• 😀 The Greek word for 'all' in some passages (like John 12:32) is masculine plural, but the context often refers to everyone, regardless of gender, making it a less significant change to translate it as 'all people'.
• 😀 In Romans 5:18, the phrase 'all men' was translated into 'all people' in some versions, though the term 'all' in the Greek refers to everyone, regardless of gender, and may not require a significant change.
• 😀 The main issue arises from differences between modern English, which tends to be precise, and the broader, more generalized way of thinking in ancient Greco-Roman culture, where generic masculine terms referred to both genders.
• 😀 The word 'cosmos' in 1 John 2:2 does not mean every individual but refers to the world order, highlighting the distinction in how language conveys meaning between English and ancient Greek.
• 😀 Jesus' use of masculine pronouns in passages like John 4 is not meant to exclude women but reflects the usage of gender-neutral masculine terms in the context of the time.
• 😀 In translations like John 14:23, gender-neutral translations sometimes change the singular 'he' or 'him' to plural 'they', altering the meaning and context of the passage.
• 😀 In Revelation 3:20, the shift from singular to plural 'you' in gender-neutral translations could lead to confusion, as the Greek originally refers to an individual hearing the call, not a group.
• 😀 Some translations, like the New Revised Standard Version, change 'my son' in Proverbs 5 to 'my child', which can obscure the original intent of addressing a male audience specifically, thus altering the passage's meaning.

Q & A

What is the main topic discussed in the video?

The video discusses the debate surrounding gender-neutral Bible translations, focusing on the implications of replacing masculine pronouns with gender-neutral alternatives in translations like the NRSV and TNIV.

How did the gender-neutral translation debate start?

The debate started in 1989 with the release of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which was the first English Bible translation to attempt eliminating masculine pronouns and other gender-specific terms.

What is the significance of changing 'all men' to 'all people' in translations?

The change from 'all men' to 'all people' in translations like the NRSV and TNIV aims to eliminate gender bias and reflect a more inclusive interpretation. However, the original Greek term 'hantas' refers to everyone, regardless of gender, so this change does not significantly alter the meaning.

How does modern English language differ from the Greco-Roman worldview in terms of gendered language?

Modern English tends to be more precise, often using terms like 'all men' to refer specifically to males. In contrast, the Greco-Roman worldview used terms like 'men' generically to refer to all people, regardless of gender.

What is the impact of translating 'the whole world' in 1 John 2:2?

In English, 'the whole world' suggests every human being, but in Greek, the term refers to every people group or nation. This distinction is crucial for understanding the verse correctly and avoiding interpretations like Universalism.

Why does the speaker prefer the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

The speaker prefers the NASB because it closely adheres to the original Greek and Hebrew texts, maintaining more precise language. Although they recognize the value of gender-neutral translations, they argue that such translations sometimes obscure the original intent.

What issues arise when masculine pronouns are used for both males and females in the Bible?

Using masculine pronouns for both males and females was grammatically acceptable in ancient Greek, but modern English readers may find it confusing or exclusionary. The speaker argues that this can lead to misunderstandings about the original intent of the texts.

What is the problem with changing 'my son' to 'my child' in Proverbs 5?

Changing 'my son' to 'my child' in Proverbs 5 removes the continuity and clarity intended in the original text, which specifically addresses the male reader. It also introduces unintended implications, such as the inclusion of daughters in contexts that were not originally intended.

How does the translation of Psalm 34:20 affect the Messianic reference?

In Psalm 34:20, changing 'his bones' to 'their bones' in gender-neutral translations removes the clear connection to the Messianic prophecy about Jesus. This shift obscures the original meaning and diminishes the prophetic significance.

What is the main takeaway from the speaker's perspective on gender-neutral translations?

The speaker believes that while some gender-neutral changes, like substituting 'all people' for 'all men', are not overly problematic, others can significantly alter the original meaning or obscure important theological and cultural nuances. They advocate for a more traditional translation approach that preserves these distinctions.