CSB translation-Gender accurate or gender "inclusive"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Beezer

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.

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.
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top