On Thu, 04 Nov 2021 20:57:51 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/11/2021 17:55, Jason wrote:
>
>> Also, I wouldn't say that the NIV is a 'woke' translation. There was a
>> version "inclusive language version" (or similar) which was poorly
>> received and is now out of print. While (I believe, I could be wrong)
>> the latest version has some inclusive language, it is largely the same
>> as it always was.
>
> I am delighted to hear that the "inclusive" version is out of print -
> but are you sure your information is correct?
I confess I can't remember where I heard (or mis-heard) this. The
Wikipedia article suggests it was discontinued:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
New_International_Version_Inclusive_Language_Edition
> Many years ago I somehow (I have honestly forgotten how) got hold of a
> compressed NIV file for Windows. This is when I was using a RiscOS
> machine and Windows was 3.1. Anyway, I decoded the compression and now
> use it on my computer. I have noticed repeatedly that when others who
> use the NIV in church read "brothers and sisters" or similar, my old
> computer version has "brothers".
I use an older NIV too, as are our church bibles, so I haven't noticed
the "brothers and sisters" thing. There are various on-line versions so
it would be interesting to compare a particular verse to see how it is
rendered.
>> On the topic of inclusive language, I remember a female friend telling
>> me how forcefully it struck her the first time a preacher said
>> something like "brothers and sisters" where the text traditionally has
>> 'brothers'. She said such a simple thing had a profound impact on her
>> faith, as the word was brought fully alive for her, and she felt fully
>> a 'child of God'
>> for the first time.
>
> I have to take her word for it, but it does seem strange to me. I have
> no difficulty understanding that "people of God" includes me, even
> though I am a gentile and the words were addressed to Jews, and if
> someone were to insert "and gentiles" it really would not make a jot of
> difference to how I feel.
Perhaps so. As a man, I can't really comment, but I guess if I'd heard
all my life of the majority of Bible passages using 'male' language, I
can imagine it would strike home to some people if they felt they were
being addressed directly. Many people say in general that sometimes when
reading the Bible something strikes them in such a way it is speaking
directly to them, and perhaps this would help with that.
>> Some simple adjustments to language can have a much bigger impact that
>> simply prefixing your talk with "well of course it says 'son' in the
>> text, but it applies equally to men and women'.
>
> I have no objection to a preacher stating that or even inserting it into
> his reading (assuming the congregation are following him in their own
> Bibles), but I reject it being included in a translation.
I guess this depends on how far along the spectrum you like your
translation to be between a literal translation of the words and a
translation of the meaning.
> I am always suspicious when being translated if I say a short sentence
> and the translator takes a whole paragraph to "translate" what I have
> said.
I guess that depends how easy it is to translate the concept being
expressed. Likewise, a scientific paper may express something exactly in
a very short equation, but to make it understandable to a wide audience,
it may take quite some time to state.