Related articles and links |  1 of 6

* Bravo to CT for the issue on translation! [Oct. 27]. The articles on inclusive language were well written and informative. I have often confronted these issues in teaching mixed groups. I have also felt the frustration of the limitations of our language. (I tend to agree with Wayne Grudem that the ambiguities of the language will not be resolved any time soon.) Both authors demonstrated the pitfalls of following a rigid methodology in translation. Grant Osborne's affirmation that there is room for "both literal and dynamic translations" should challenge every translator to render the most accurate translation of each passage, rather than adhering solely to one methodology or another. When the best translation is offered apart from an agenda, both the serious student of the Word and the population at large will benefit.

Mike Field
Austin, Tex.

* I couldn't help but be struck with the different approaches in Osborne's and Grudem's articles. One was struggling over issues like "singular and plural" while the other was trying to determine how best to communicate God's truth to a biblically illiterate generation.

Don Gerig
Ann Arbor, Mich.

* Anyone who has studied the textual history of the Scriptures (which I'm sure Grudem did at Cambridge) will see the difficulty he raises by referring to an original (a term he doesn't define in his article). Is oral tradition the inspired original? Or does inspiration only occur when pen is put to parchment? Is the original text that which was finally put forth by the redactors and editors who supposedly made changes to reflect what God exactly wanted, or were they distorters too?

Alan Koeneke
Durham, N.C.

I, too, consider both Wayne Grudem and Grant Osborne good friends and agree with each of them at different points as they debate translation theory. What proves decisive for me, however, is my experience with raising two daughters and interacting with their friends. They have no trouble understanding "those who do something" to mean "and you, too, if you do it." But I've stopped counting the number of times I've heard the questions "why not brothers and sisters?" or "why not women too?" One can teach them that "men" means "men and women," but it still doesn't feel the same to women, and it's not the way their friends or their teachers talk. The question nobody is addressing is why couldn't Zondervan/IBS have published the NIVI for those of us who wanted it (I had to go to England to get my copy!) and still keep publishing the old NIV intact for those who wanted it? Not to do so is a heavy-handed censorship that is utterly astonishing.

Prof. Craig L. Blomberg
Denver Seminary
Denver, Colo.

* Osborne is correct that inclusive language may be used when the context demands it. However, his claim that this is not a gender issue is hard to fit with his concerns about offending readers. Are today's readers likely to be "offended" simply because a given translation might not fully explain the meaning? Or is offense more likely taken—in our pc times—when feminist interests are rebuffed? It's one thing to make the Bible understandable to each generation. It's quite another to make changes that are demanded by those whose ideology has from its secular manifestation in the 1960s onward been characterized by opposition to a number of Christian beliefs.

Rick Wade
Garland, Tex.

In providing clear and thorough coverage of the gender-inclusive Bible language debate, CT was at its very best. At first glance, it appears CT upholds a neutral position, favoring an approach that engenders mutual respect by providing some much-needed light to replace the heat that has been generated over the last several months.

next page... |  1 of 6

December 8 1997, Vol. 41, No. 14