From: Tony Calman (tcalman@nvision.net.au)
Date: Tue Nov 24 1998 - 19:36:58 EST
>
> Vern Poythress in a review of two books by D.A. Carson and Mark Strauss
shows
> how these two men have caved in to political pressure on the issue of
bible
> translation. His article can be read at:
>
I embrace genda inclusive language when I understand it to be truely
inclusive from the original manuscripts because I believe language is a
dynamic thing. It changes and evolves. It is important in communicating
with people to take on the changes in the way our society expresses itself.
Therefore, the language may change but the message will not. Why would we
want to add to the offence of the gospel message by using words that offend
people? Does it matter if "humankind" is used rather than "mankind"? If
someone is offended by the phrase "he who ...." but is not offended by the
term "the one who....", I know which term I will want to employ. But the
problem is we do not know who will be offendered or not. Therefore, I try
to use genda inclusive language all the time.
Vern Poythress says that the use of the plural "they" is unacceptable
because the nuance changes. Yet the use of the plural in "genda inclusive
language" includes that which would have been understood as "he"
previously. This, like many other translation problems, may have to be
understood by the reader of the Scriptures.
My understanding of Scriptures is a bit like "MY" (I know it will not be
everyone's) understanding of the Incarnation of Christ: a book that is
fully human yet fully divine.
Tony Calman
Westview Baptist Church
"people learning to live Jesus' way"
tcalman@nvision.net.au
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:08 EDT