Religion Watch Archives

Monitoring Trends in Religion - From February 1990 to January 2016

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Archives
    • By Issue
    • By Article
    • By PDF (2008-14)
    • By PDF (1985-97)
    • All Articles
  • Sections
    • Current Research
    • Findings & Footnotes
    • On/File
  • Google Search
You are here: Home / Archive / Bible translation debate divides evangelical community

Bible translation debate divides evangelical community

November 1, 1997 by Richard Cimino

Print-friendly

More than such headline grabbers as the Pensacola revival, the Disney boycott, or China’s most favored nation status, the most controversial issue among evangelicals continues to center on new translations of the Bible and whether they should adjust pronoun references and other gender issues to harmonize with current usage in mainline translations and with new evangelical scholarship.

Christianity Today magazine (Oct. 27) reports that on the one side, scholars are reaffirming that translations must adhere always to the original text, leaving the matter of understanding up to the pastors, laity, and teachers. The other camp insists that the translators must themselves make the changes or reword traditional passages to make the non-sexist meanings of the scriptures understandable to the readers.

Editor David Neff suggests that most translators do not  want to eliminate gender differences in family life and church or promote women’s ordination. Further, some translators continue to be influenced by the traditional evangelical missionary impulse to present the Bible in terms and words that non-Christians can understand. More conservative translators believe the scriptures must be preserved against contemporary fads and current vernacular speech.

To further develop these two perspectives, Professors Wayne Grudem and Grant R. Osborne of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois) present extended arguments, and reply to each other’s positions. Grudem asserts that the generic use of he-him-his, or man is not sexist but clearly reflects the Biblical authors’ common understanding of humanity by these terms.

By using these words, the authors are not being exclusivist as critics  charge. The original authors did not intend to exclude women. To bow to today’s fad for gender-inclusive language is simply to ignore the explicit intent of the authors of the Bible.

Osborne  rejects these arguments and insists that translations that are aimed at general audiences (as opposed to scholarly) should indeed reflect inclusiveness for clarity and accuracy in passages that refer to men and women together. “They” or its equivalent is closer to the intentions of the writers of scripture than “he” and its equivalent. Osborne argues this is not a surrender to a feminist agenda but an implementation of the desire to communicate accurately and clearly.

(Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Dr., Carol Stream, IL  60188)

— By Erling Jorstad, RW contributing editor.

Print-friendly

Filed Under: Archive

Also in this issue

  • On/File: November 1997
  • Findings & Footnotes: November 1997
  • Aum makes comeback despite restrictions
  • Current Research: November 1997
  • The Family’s UFO teachings come out of the closet
  • Tibetan Buddhists experiencing growing internal divisions
  • Marianne Williamson is rated the high priestess of pop religion
  • Growing millennial interest is found on college campuses
  • Eastern rite now an option for disaffected Catholics
  • Immigration brings changes and tensions to southern churches
  • Gradual move to political right among American Jews?

Search the Site

Download the first issue of RELIGION WATCH (1980)

Download the first issue of RELIGION WATCH (1980)

Click on the image for downloading

© 2016-2023 Richard Cimino / Religioscope
·News Pro Theme · Genesis Framework by StudioPress · WordPress