Gender Neutral Bible Translations: Good, Bad or Ugly?

[@StanCase]

It seems to me that we want to avoid gender neutral changes when inserting it is to conform to a modern "world view" that changes the original meaning. To me, referring to all men has always been the same referring to mankind. Changing to gender neutral language should never happen when God's word is about male and female relationships.

[@AtrusGambit]

The problem is the very recent modern conceit that "he" ALWAYS refers to masculine. There was literally no issue with this among any normal English speakers up until about the 2010's. Academics like to pretend that this has always been problematic, but it hasn't. They manufactured a problem that muddies meaning. Thank you postmodernism.

[@eslinc]

My preferred translations are the NASB and the LSB.

[@lauriespringer1]

Excellent video on a current hot topic. Your logical and lucid explanation accompanied with great visual side by side reading, including the Greek, make a strong argument for avoiding the gender neutral translations. Thank you very much!

[@dianacleveland2154]

Thanks for this video Dr. Burling. I appreciate you speaking on this because honestly I feel often feel very suspicious of translations/translators and wonder if they are translating things a particular way because of their worldview or because it is what the text is actually saying. It was really helpful to see you break things down. I feel conflicted. As a woman, gender neutral translations have helped me feel like I have value within the kingdom of God, but I also recognize there is a lot of distance between our modern world and the ancient texts.

[@bma]

Thanks Diana! I appreciate the goal that the editors of these translations have, and it is always a challenge to balance the cultural circumstances of one culture against another in translation. I’m glad these translations have been a blessing to you, and for that I give thanks! I’m not really saying that gender-neutral translations have absolutely no place in our society, but like you I feel they make translation decisions that compromise faithfulness to the original text.

[@Scobyland]

Thank you for your review. I agree with your assessments. Thank you for the cited text examples. I’m re-learning Greek, following your suggestions (map). By the way, I have switched to the LSB.

[@darrenjobe9781]

Great sober analysis of the impact (both minor and major) of “adapting” the Word to meet modern preferences. I think we should try to remain as close to the original text as possible. We can use footnotes to clarify context when it isn’t apparent or to help clarify how the intent relates to our modern language.

[@ComputingTheSoul]

6:00 This sounds remarkably similar to the discussion of 1 Timothy 2:4. The view you state on this passage seems remarkably similar to the view of St Augustine on that verse, which is taken up in the reformed tradition. However, St John of Damascus, who is considered a Greek Father, and even if Greek wasn't his first language was extremely familiar with greek thought, treats this case as God willing the salvation of all men antecedently.

[@dougmartin8664]

Thank you for this. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I do work in the NT Greek. I have been sort of vaguely aware that NT Greek is often less precise than English, but I have found myself sometimes trying to make the Greek more precise, which is frustrating. So thanks for the clarification. Also, I have avoided the gender neutral “translations” and now I know why.

[@RevanJJ]

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Revelation 22::18 “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.” I think God covered Himself in His Word with scriptures like these.

[@nathanielotto258]

I use the ESV most often. I've never thought that "man" was referring to only men. I asked my wife what she thought of some passages that use "brothers" or "men". She always intuitively knew they didn't only refer to males. Common sense goes a long way.

[@starliteinn5397]

How does your wife know which words in the Bible mean something other than the literal word? Sus

[@nathanielotto258]

@@starliteinn5397 what do you mean by a "literal word"?

[@RevanJJ]

So we should change God’s word to adapt to the fads and feelings of whatever age we are in? Interesting that only started over the last 30-40 years.

[@rev.dr.donniegamblemdivdmi8812]

I personally think that are places in the text where gender is correct in today's reasoning everything not just pronoun are translated neutral thereby intentionally making it what each individual wishes the text to say rather than what it actually says. We must remember that to have the biblical change with culture means the text is ever evolving which it is not.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

I completely agree.

[@drbill-r9f]

The singular use of “they” has a long history in English. There are several articles about it on the internet.

[@yuiopoli9601]

Link?

[@jaredvaughan1665]

This video reinforces my existing view that the King James Version (And Majority Texts) is the most accurate and best version out there.

[@youtoo2233]

I agree, these modern versions are just a mess

[@mikerichards1264]

Outstanding educational video. I agree. We should remain as close to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as possible. When difficulties arise, the teacher should explain the details to the hearers and students. I believe the "gender neutral" translations are motivated by modern cultural ideologies in many ways instead of textual accuracy.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Well said Mike!

[@susyhebner2543]

Very helpful, thank you!

[@Occhiodiargento]

Hey! I'm in the way of starting to read from the greek, 25 of 30 lesson of my basic greek grammar. With reagard of neutral gender languange, I'm Spanish speaking, but I personally don't like it. There is a lot of Bibles today but not many read it, so I prefer a more literal translation and work with the text.

[@jacques3402]

I am also on lesson 25 of my Greek grammar. (It happens to be the last chapter for me though). I wish you good courage in finishing!

[@Occhiodiargento]

@@jacques3402 I finished the participles, those were a nightmare; subjuntuve, infinitive and imperative (chapters 25, 26 and 27) are way more easy. Thank for the encouragment, it's a great achievement for both of us.

[@bma]

Keep up the great work!

[@church7180]

I think it it best to avoid the gender neutral translation. I like the KJV.

[@roberttrevino62800]

KJV has many problems if you know Greek

[@church7180]

@@roberttrevino62800 I guess the translators of The KJV didn’t know Greek.

[@roberttrevino62800]

@@church7180 I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not lol

[@cmdvol1]

Your volume is clipping in places. A simple mic placement would fix it.

[@bma]

The mic was under my shirt in this which caused problems. Thanks for pointing it out! I won’t do that again.

[@fireplacebible]

There's enough Gender Neutral confusion going around today... I'm content with LSB, NASB95 as primary. I also enjoy HCSB, NKJV and my KJV.

[@Loupoonug23]

Thank you for sharing. -- Keep seeking God and truth, share and help people with love, and never let anyone or this world take you away from him. Please stay filled with humbleness and wisdom, most of all love and desire to truly help people with God and his compassion. Keep sharing the truth and not what people want to hear. Stay strong in your relationship with Jesus and keep following his words with love and righteousness. 🙏🏼💗

[@rinonegro98]

If I could add to the comment, a "Gender Neutral" pseduo-translation. Distorts the world of the text and the world within the text. In the NT World and OT World, when these texts were written and later on collated, there is no neutrality unless to refering to specific neutral nouns and never the case to the nomitave for names, lest when referring to men and women. Also the pericopes of the text refer to an specific epoch of humanity where gender actually maters, specifcally masculine and femine, when the Bridegroom comes and the 10 virgins waiting, for instance, specific male-female relationship clearly defined through the Greek grammar. Perhaps the World infront of the text has changed, but it will always change ideologies will come and go. However, the Word of God, was, is and will always be the same.

[@evanhadkins5532]

Literalism is part of a worldview. Word for word can be misleading and confusing - the benefit being it is easier to get at the original. Translation is conveying meaning - which resides not in an individual or text but in their meeting. There are studies of what sense is conveyed when humanity is referred to with gendered nouns.

[@WeakestAvenger]

The form of a language is the vehicle for conveying the meaning. So the question is, what meaning does this form convey, including referential meaning, rhetorical/emotive force, etc., and how do we replicate that in the Receptor Language? Different languages use gender in different ways. So gender-neutral language is not bad in and of itself, as long as we aren't thinking of it in terms of "one-size-fits-all" where we get rid of all gendered language. For English, I generally don't like using "they/them/their" as singular pronouns, because - as you point out with Psalm 34:20 - it can obscure the meaning of the text. The problem with Proverbs 5 is: who is the referent of "son"? Is it just "the reader, whoever that happens to be"? It may very well be Solomon himself, receiving proverbs from his father David; that may be what all of Proverbs 1-9 are. So if the son is Solomon, the male referent should be kept (presuming this is possible in the Receptor Language, which it probably is; having a word for a single male offspring of the immediately next generation seems pretty universal across languages). And we see the problems that might arise with gender neutral language there with Pro 5:2. But it is all perfectly applicable to all people with the original gendered language. For John 12:32, I disagree that it is "neither here nor there," because if the meaning of the Source Language is "everybody generally," then that should be reflected in the translation. The question is whether "all men" adequately reflects that in English in our sociolinguistic environment. That used to be perfectly understandable in that way, but it is less so today, and it is actually better to translate it as "all people" in that case. But again, you have to evaluate the audience and the Receptor Language to find the natural ways of conveying the intended meaning of the Source Language. In fact, I was also rather surprised at the comment at the end of the video that you "prefer to make things more difficult to understand, in a way, so that I have to explain those distinctions... so that you have a better understanding of the original text." I mean, sure, that depends on your intended audience, but it is striking to hear someone talking about translations (which are done so that people can understand the meaning of the original text) and then say that he likes to make them more difficult to understand. I think part of the problem I have with this is that often we English speakers talk about "Bible translations" as a shorthand for "Bible translations in English." English has a rich history of Bible translations and linguistic influence from the Bible, many such translations available, a vast array of resources to help us understand the text, an innumerable list of teachers to learn from, etc. But if you are translating the Bible into a language that has never had it before, in a culture that has not been significantly shaped by Christianity, the idea of "making it more difficult to understand so that I have to explain it" is just not going to be the right approach. In fact, I see this as tacit admission that sticking too close to the form of the original (i.e., Formal Equivalence) can sometimes actually obscure the meaning of the text rather than being faithful to it.

[@bma]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The key point to take away from any translation is that there is no perfect translation. They all have problems. So the question is, which set of problems do you want to introduce into the translation? Do you want the reader to have a closer English to the Greek (and so more difficult to read) or would you like to make it easier to read but obscure the original meaning more? My comment indicates I would opt for the former over the latter, but that doesn't mean there is no place for either. In fact, the comment I made assumes that I'm teaching, where I have the opportunity to give the explanation. If I was doing it in a translation, there is a place to add footnotes to give further explanation of difficult passages. So rather than saying that formal equivalence obscures the meaning of the passage, I'd say our own ignorance of the original culture obscures the meaning of the text. A more literal translation simply allows that ignorance to stand rather than addressing it by smoothing out the meaning through interpretation. Finally, I agree that the target culture shapes the translation, and that English has a richer history than most when it comes to translations. So in a culture without that history, we'd have to make a different set of decisions to English. I recommend the book I mentioned at the end if you'd like to read more on this subject.

[@WeakestAvenger]

​@@bma Well, I do want to make clear that I think you explained some helpful principles to consider in this video. The passages in Proverbs 5 and Psalm 34 really help highlight the kinds of things one needs to keep in mind when translating. Psalm 34 is especially important, because prophecy or any kind of text that will be quoted or referenced in other parts of the Bible need to be given special care. How we translate them will impact how the parallels are translated or understood. In some of the translation work I have been part of, we had an issue concerning the number seven in Proverbs 26:25. Should we keep the number itself in the translation or translate the meaning that the number symbolizes? We found that the language community was confused by the number itself, but I argued we should keep it in so as to bolster the thread of how the number seven is used throughout Scripture, which underpins what the number means in Matthew 18:21-22. I suppose I am approaching the question from a standpoint of general principles of translating gendered language into any language, whereas you are specifically talking about English translations. And that's fine. So, sure, in contexts where teaching is readily available, teachers or other resources can fill in that gap in knowledge of the original language and culture to help readers understand literal translations better. But if a language community does not have those resources available, I would be reluctant to choose a translation that requires such teaching (or if the translation is an audio translation for an oral culture or a video translation for a sign language, "footnotes" are going to be more difficult). But I'm still not sold on literal translations preserving more of the original meaning, at least not always. It really depends on the target language. When translating πάντας as a substantive into English, we can preserve both the primary meaning ("all men") and the secondary - and likely intended - meaning ("all people"; although, even "all" is likely being used with a secondary sense, which I think you touched on in this video). Other languages may not align both primary and secondary meanings, so a translation like "all men" might only align in the primary sense and thus be understood as "all adult human males (and no others)." This would, then, obscure the intended meaning of the original for the target audience. You say that it is not formal equivalence that obscures the meaning but our own ignorance of the original culture [and language]. I don't see much difference. Formal equivalence *can* - though not always - obscure the original meaning *because of* such ignorance. (Don't get me wrong; certainly dynamic equivalence can obscure or lose meaning as well. It's just that I see the comment online a lot that "literal" translations are "more faithful" to the text, and I often want to push back a bit against that.) Of course, teaching and informational resources are a great way to bridge that gap, but the problem can be addressed to an extent within the translation itself. Having said all of that, and probably more than I needed to, I would say that any time we can keep the form of the original and be "literal" in our translation and still successfully transfer the intended meaning and force of the original, we should do that.

[@WeakestAvenger]

I just remembered something else I meant to say. I agree that dynamic equivalence - for example, in John 12:32 - can obscure the meaning of the original in the sense that you would miss the fact that Greek uses masculine words in the way that they do and the implications that may have for how Greek speakers in the first century categorized the world. But if that isn't the point of the passage, then we don't lose out on something terribly important, at least not for that passage. If that concept plays into a larger point that a teacher wants to bring out of the text or multiple texts, then the teacher who knows the original language can still do that.

[@RubSLee-oj6nk]

So wisdom in the Hebrew is referred to as hiy, or she in the Hebrew. And in chapterc2 talks of the hidden wisdom which none of the princes of this world know for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But if he is the image and glory of God and she was out of him but they are also 9ne in Christ Jesus would this make Jesus himself A hermaphrodite. Which the DNA of one is Xx/Xy so that the male and femaleshare the first form, called Adam,

[@sufiameen6093]

I remember when NRSV bible with Bruce Metzger involved. I was excited until I tried to read it. 😢 I thought What was Dr. Metzger's influence in this xxxx translation. I thought of Satan's words "Hath God Said??? "

[@BrockJamesStory]

Nice! your KJV only too?

[@Kayokak]

There is some interpretation involved in translation. This was a big motivator for me to learn Greek. I don't want any amount of interpretation or translation between me and the text. I can see the value of dynamic equivalents, especially for work with new believers and kids. However, I raise the question: what other ancient writing do people go to the same trouble to modernize? If you want to read the Bible, you have to read it in its context. When translations obscure the meaning for the sake of their methodology, then it's gone too far. Enjoyed the video! Looking foward to reading the book.

[@RubSLee-oj6nk]

And only Chrisy is called the second man and Adam before the fall is the first man. But fell.

[@SamStGeorge]

Thank you Dr. Letter. keep sticking to individual letters and you will make a huge amount of followers who like other to think for them. NOT FOR ME because it is obvious that He meant ALL as ALL who follow Him not the denying ones. DAH!!!???

[@WgB5]

I have one Bible version that carries gender neutrality to extremes. The Common English Bible.

[@kathymiller4332]

You need to also take into account the change in use of modern English language. We would use 'he' or 'she' when we know the gender of a person, but would consider it old fashioned to use 'one' and offensive to use 'it'... so the modern correct form for one person of either gender would be 'them'. So while it appears odd to use what has traditionally been considered the plural word, the modern usage is to use 'them' for the unknown gender singular and the plural! Therefore, there is some confusion potentially as to which is being used at any given time, and like we would in Greek to differentiate between the nominative and accusative in the neuter we use context, so you would need to use context to differentiate in the English. 'Anyone', combined with 'them' would indicate the singular, while 'those' with 'them' would indicate the plural. I am sure that this variety of clarification could be further encouraged in translations! While I agree there are some important Greek usages of words which can feel overlooked when the Greek uses 'kosmos' to mean 'all people groups' and the English changes it to 'everyone', unfortunately if our Bibles only reflect men it can lead many in the church who are not taught better into believing it encourages male privilege or to believe it excludes women. Neither of these narratives are helpful, especially in sharing the gospel with non-Christians who already believe these unfortunate narratives and therefore was to reject Christianity and the God who encourages this type of thinking! There will always be complexity in translations, and these will need to change according to how language is used now. To use 'men' (and hope readers realise it includes women) in our modern English translations would be counterproductive to the spread of the gospel, it would not encourage people to pick up their bibles and read for themselves, and would rely on those scholars to always be translating and interpreting for them. There is a reason we moved away from having the Bible only in Latin when the majority of English speakers only spoke, understood and read English! As the gospel message is translated inevitable changes have to be made for the text to make sense, direct translations do not work as there is not always a comparative word. For example in Greek there are different types of love and words to reflect that, in English we use 'love', maybe affection, so some level of meaning is lost. There are other times when there is one Greek word which could be translated with several different English words and only one can be chosen. Translating has to look at the meaning in Greek and opt for the best compatible understanding in the English, which in the case of this video may mean rendering 'men' as 'men and women' or as 'people'!

[@MW-lq1pf]

doesn't all men simply mean "mankind" which is basically all humans

[@bma]

Greek tends to differ between "all" which is contextually driven and can refer to groups rather than individuals and "every man" which means all individual humans. We don't tend to make that distinction in English in the same way and so it gets ambiguous in translations. Thanks for watching!

[@ksnunema]

Great video, both presenting both the cases where gender neutral language is perfectly reasonable because the text doesn’t really differentiate, and showing cases where this becomes problematic. Thank you for tackling this topic.

[@RubSLee-oj6nk]

All of this is King James or Interlinear.

[@starliteinn5397]

Really interested in your choice to make the "Gender neutral" book in the thumbnail pink. Clickbait, of course. But it's like a signal that insecure men are really threatened by the idea of gender neutral language.

[@MarkHoffmanVH1]

I appreciate your insights and experience, and I enjoy all your videos, but I'm mostly in disagreement with you on this one. I do think gender-neutral (or better, gender-accurate) translations are better. I realize it's a matter of contention among English grammarians, but I am quite happy with the use of third plural pronouns (them, their) for the generic third singular. I think we see this happening more broadly in the culture now (whether someone agrees with it or not does not matter) with people who prefer to be referred to with third plural pronouns. I also think that in most church contexts where someone is simply hearing the text read, those masculine references are heard as masculine and not processed as generics. I do agree with you that many attempts to use gender-neutral/accurate language are clunky and sometimes confusing if not wrong. (Personally I agree w/ you in disliking the one solution of switching from 3rd to 2nd person.) It's a difficult challenge to translation, and I suspect we are always having to go back to the source.

[@dianacleveland2154]

I appreciate your thoughts here. Yes, I agree I think especially for younger people masculine references are heard as masculine and not processed as generic.

[@bma]

FWIW, I understand what they are trying to do, and I sympathise with the cause, but I tend to prefer translations that are focused more on communicating what the original communicates even if I have to work harder to understand it. But that isn’t necessarily going to be helpful for all people. I agree, there are always compromises in translation and there is nothing we can do about that except learn the language to avoid having to make the compromise. 😜

[@rolandramsdale2363]

Until the English language changes to have singular gender neutral words there is going to be a mismatch and even then danger of mistranslation. Of course we could refer to people as "it" but that would not be right. The use of plural instead of singular tends to depersonalise some very important texts. As a not very competent student of biblical hebrew and greek I prefer the NASB for its literality and ease of relation to the original languages. Sadly revisions of the NASB seem to be getting further from the original languages.

[@hightechredneck3362]

Really? Gender neutral? How about-- Genesis 2-7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Genesis 5-2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one MAN sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: I would be very interested in how the Septuagint, Dead sea scrolls and the Samaritan Pentateuch handle those Genesis chapter/verse references. I want to make sure we're not looking at Masoretic text.

[@bma]

I’m not sure what you’re asking about here, but what’s so wrong with the Masoretic text? It’s far more reliable than the LXX. I’m not saying its without problems, but the OT writings were not written in Greek, and the difference between the MT and DSS is not as great as the difference between the MT and LXX. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@tsm7964]

Gender neutral language in preaching is fine, but changing the original Bible text is not. You cannot change the Word of God.

[@slippery_slobber]

Should this video exist?

[@edenswaterislife9214]

They do not want to hear MA in MAn and woMAn who are mothers MAterial made off of MA whose husband is Da they are stealing from MA, the spirit who lives giving life 2 legs and 4 legs. Feathers and fins, Mama is the living spirit. Revelations 22:17 The spirit and bride say come. Proverbs 3:18 Grab hold of wisdom for she is the tree of life. Man put his man made woman, Eve ate the begining. Uses her flesh to beat down the living Mama's, to exalt " The Man" as god. They shed the blood of her children taking the life, she has shed her own blood to give. Who is the higher spirit here? Mama not man whose laws and creations kill. Mans evolution is man and woman as 1. Mama's evolution is the caterpillar who becomes the butterfly. We will be back to claim what belongs to THE LIVING! Water Seed and Mama's Heart man renamed mother (material) earth. Then claimed is shaped like his scrotum. The seeker awakens daily with wisdom. This is salvation and daily bread of truth, that is setting hearts and minds free, from the lies we were taught to believe. Mama lives god is a scientist who died long ago.

[@markwalker3484]

Adjusting the English rendering of an underlying Greek text based upon contemporary understanding of language is fraught with problems. It is clear that a certain vocal minority of the population has an agenda in changing English usage (taken to it's logical extreme in Orwell's unfortunately prophetic Nineteen Eighty-Four) having a translation overly influenced by this is dangerous. I can see cases where in the NT brothers can refer to brother and sisters and there are instances in koine Greek that have this outside the NT; however, having "and sisters" as a footnote (or in italics) is a more honest version of the source text. As for translating according to contemporary sensibilities / societal pressures -- the NRSV takes it to extremes and in several places obscures the text, particularly in the matter of same-sex relationships. It seems to me that the translators of the NRSV are shaping their translation based upon their target audience -- mainstream, theologically liberal leaning churches and are breaking their own guidelines stated in their preface: "As literal as possible, as free as necessary." It seems to me their definition of "necessary" changes with every cultural headwind they encounter. It is the purpose of the bible (and the faith expressed therein) to influence society -- not the other way round.

[@3ggshe11s]

Given how the mainline churches continue to cater to contemporary culture, it's little surprise that their favored Bible translation would do the same.

[@RubSLee-oj6nk]

Gay women too.

[@pavlosstaios6954]

Άνθρωπος means human!

[@roberttrevino62800]

No it doesn’t. It means “man” in the sense of a “mankind” . Ανδρός also means man or husband. You cannot say that Jesus is the “son of human”. He is the “son of man”

[@pavlosstaios6954]

@@roberttrevino62800 I agree with what you say about the word άνθρωπος in its biblical use! But in casual speech, how would you translate the phrase " He or she is a human being"? And I would also like to point out that ανδρός is the genitive case of the word ανήρ. So ανήρ means man or husband.

[@tonyb408]

The argument for gender neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. It is the job of the teacher to explain and the job of the translator to translate.

[@joesbibles5636]

Bad... bad... bad... Gender neutral should not happen unless it's the meaning and intent of the original language.

[@buskingkarma2503]

I don't think it's as good as the,, atheists friendly translation though!😆 what ever next?!

[@yuiopoli9601]

Translations aside, not one jot or one tittle! Blasphemy.

[@RubSLee-oj6nk]

In Strong's concordance 3149, the breast of the woman as if needed up. Mastos is the definition.

[@LuisRamirez-vv4dk]

No...Simple as that. No.

[@mrtdiver]

I'm not going to change my translation to appease this culture. Take for example the most popular English version. Our KJV of old changed the West for the better. In other words the Bible influenced and changed the culture, rather than the culture changing the Bible. “There are three grades of translation evils: 1. errors; 2. slips; 3. willful reshaping”- Vladimir Nabokov We live in a upside down backwards society. kids wanting to change gender; homosexuals flaunting their sin (Pride marches). What do you identify as? - All of this didn't happen in the vacuum. I think these translations are widely adopted in the gay churches (NRSV, NLT). Our gender neutral Bible translations influenced our culture in a grave way. Don't believe me? Listen how this guy speaks about the NRSV: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmi7f5uGfKpll68

[@kingston163]

It is Satan's own bible. Very simple!