You know why people quote argue over new age garbage versions? Because for YEARS things were changed, replaced. New age theology. Words were taken out especially in Bibles like niv doing replacement theology in multiple bibles. People don't even know king James a high corrupted elite member not only left out books like Enoch that should be in the bible though king James sent out his servants got all the REAL texts made a Bible for himself and left out TONS in our KJV Bible that still is being altered

That's usually the case.

Why? People are not allowed to disagree and therefore didn't watch the video?

@@ElsieLyn It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. It’s about whether or not you even know what this video is about. Clearly some don’t.

Agreed

No, because the Masculine should be the Gender neutral. It's not right. This should not be a concession, because it does matter.

The problem I have with that is it creates the impression that Hebrew society in the Bronze Age and later as well First Century were egalitarian just like the 21st century West. The original authors had the option to use more “gender-inclusive” language and chose not to do so because society was undeniably Patriarchal. The more “gender inclusive” a translation is, the less useful it is for serious study of Biblical society.

@@Michael-bk5nz I understand your point, but there are many translations and to study the Bible in encourage everyone to use multiple translations. And to just comprehend the central meaning a gender inclusive translations seams to be better. Even the famous Luther translation from the 16. century used „people“ instead of „men“.

No it's NOT alright you're giving into an elite satanic bullcrap pushed so people get so confused and caught up on what's a man what's a woman And how people should be called. What you just said is completely opposite of what the bible is or should be you myswell say homosexuality and trans choices due to real demons of lust who push people to that sin is just fine. NO not fine it's pushing the new age garbage created by the elite themselves to confuse the public and keep them fighting. If think like that you myswell not read a Bible lol

Read the article on sodium and and remordan and he is distrowing them for the acts of the acts of man with man and woman with woman witch that are committed a sin

Yes, and we need to keep it that way. It's healthier.

The point that was made is that language changes over time. In 1600 King James english was the language of the modern man, but today if you had a random person read from the KJV they would have no idea what it means. The KJV was an excellent translation for its day, it is a faithful translation its just a translation for a different language.

That’s a separate issue. And to your point, I don’t like that version either.

I agree that the NRSV (and CEV) often cross the line, using gender-inclusive terms in places where the meaning almost certainly applies to men. In those places, all other major gender-inclusive versions correctly reflect the male meaning, including NIV, NLT, GW, ERV. The Themelios journal article on "Gender in Bible Translation" listed above gives examples of this.

When Paul addresses either men or women, children or slaves I have not seen any translation that changes that. It would make no sense there.

Just to please people, not God.

Amen

I do appreciate him addressing this topic. It is a point of contention for many Christians, whether it should be or not.

​@@melodysledgister2468 Agreed. When people are concerned that their or their neighbors' Bibles may have corrupted translations, it encourages contention, suspicion, and a loss of faith in the reliability of the scriptures that is not needed.

Unless your using something like the Catholic, JW, or the new "Queen James" and the Mormon's AI created "Pirate Bible" versions.

Glad it was helpful!

The kjv isn't super accurate, even misunderstands much of the original languages.

What do you mean by "original?"

I was looking for this comment. This is important context.

Quoting: " 'Brethren' meant the men in that culture, and there is no way around that. Yet by proxy this included their wives and children as men are the heads of their homes. It was assumed by the original audience that good men would convey, teach, and reinforce these truths to their home." This sounds a bit like IBLP dogma (the Gotthard triple umbrella). Can you show it from Scripture? While I would agree that Scripture teaches a headship order (especially in 1 Cor 11), all Christians are free to directly hear public ministry, and evaluate it by the Spirit of God as to whether the speaker is teaching it correctly (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:29). When Paul wrote a letter and then expected it to be publicly read before a local assembly, and said "Brethren...", he was obviously doing so on that basis. Men and women were both in the audience and hearing what was spoken.

@@aaronvienot Both can be true. It is true that the message is for everyone, and it is also true that when Paul was speaking, he was primarily speaking to "the Brethren," who had the responsibility to relay the message to their families and congregations that the Brethren had headship over. Paul teachers in Ephesians that husbands were responsible for the spirtual leadership of their families. So, many messages had a specific audience of the "Brethren," even if the broader message included everyone. This is important context in the way that Paul and the rest of the prophets spoke, that should not be tampered with. As it is said in the last chapter or Revelations. These words should not be taken away, as the new translations attempt to do.

@@JamesDeanStudiesLanguage I was hoping you had Scripture to offer, not just more opinions.

@@aaronvienot Absolutely, my brother in Christ. Paul reenforces a Husband's headship. 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. In Acts we see the word Brethren being used to describe appointing of men to positions of authority in the church, one of which was Stephen. We know the women would not have been part of the decision of who to raise to a position of authority. The Brethren, in this case, would have been the men, who had the authority of Church headship. Acts 6 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. In 1 Corinthians we see more examples of the word "Brother" being used to exclusively refer to men, and women being excluded from the use of it. Paul specifically refers to women as "sisters," which makes it clear that when he uses "brother," that is directed at the men. 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. In the same chapter, Paul continues to address the men of the church as Brethren. He addresses them and those who have wives. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; My Brother, you are right. In many (not all) instances where the term Brethren, Brother, Man, or Men is used, it can apply to women. However we see several occasions where it would not make sense to include women, because the speaker is specifically speaking to an audience of the men of the church who have the authority and responsibility to teach the church and lead their homes, teaching their wife and children. Much of the context is directed towards individuals who have authority in the church. Of which, Paul specific excluded women from having, via the direction of the holy spirit. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. Since we know the Holy Spirit has forbid women from having authority in the church, then we must pay attention to when Paul is talking to just the men, which reenforces the divine order of Men's headship over the church and home. In conclusion, The KJV has existed for over 500 years, and only in the new feminist era are we trying to "update" it to blurr the lines between gender differences. It is not a coincidence. This is the Devil's work to slowly erode and destroy the natural order God established as early as Genesis. It is important that we discern it and fight back against this demonic agenda, which is attempting to change God's word to suit man's will. I take seriously what Revelations says about adding and taking away from the book. The KJV has been good for 500 years and, I believe, is the direct inspirted word of God, created in a unpresecidented process, guided by the holy ghost. It took the power of God's word out of just the hands of the Catholic church, (where the NIV, NKJV, and most every other "updated" bible stems from), and put the word directly into the hands of the people. It does not need to be updated, added to, or taken away from. It was good for 400 years, and it still is today. By trying to "improve" God's word, all we do is create more confusion, and followers of Christ who are lead astray by false teachings. More people who will say "Lord, Lord," and still do wickeness because they were led astray by a false teaching. So I'll leave with the verse in Revelations I take seriously, and I pray you do as welll. Revelation 22 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Nice!

Me too... and I agree.

This used to be quite common and the formal standard by which people were taught, but it's no longer common and practically obsolete by now. I'm still comfortable doing this, yes, because that's how I learned formal grammar instruction in middle school, but I think this is a place where I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur and where most people younger than I am have moved on to different linguistic conventions. It's not a hill worth dying on.

Some people also remember when English grammar didn't allow for split infinitives, but that's not considered a serious rule of English anymore.

And thee, thou and thy used to be common enough that people could use them in the right grammatical positions. Language changes. Particularly since the early 2000s, as documented in academic papers, the use of 'he' as a neutral has plummeted so far that English native speakers no longer understand it to mean that. So yes, historically, it was like that. It is not like that today.

@@fhengal We need more dinosaurs then.

Not anymore thanks to the Marxists

Nothing God does is by accident, so I believe he intentionally made sure the original manuscripts did not survive. People would have venerated them and over-analyzed them, doing handwriting analyses of the authors and much, much more. Of course, since none of the original manuscripts survived, all we have are copies and copies of copies. But I believe these copies are indeed reliable. Experts in textual criticism have been able to sort out the differences between them and come to very good conclusions regarding what was likely the original wording. In places where there are differences between the manuscripts, none of the differences change the Gospel or any important doctrines of Scripture.Dave Brunn

It's not about Grammatical Gender, but altering words to fit a narrative, and come off more politically correct. Which, the fact is, we need not do that. It'd produce such a worthless language. It's part of cognitive reprogramming, of the Beast System.

That topic is covered in detail in the Themelios article ("Gender in Bible Translation...") mentioned above with its link.

Did you watch the video?😆

@@AimeeWithFourEes⁠Not yet, I commented as soon as he announced the topic. I support Sean who always takes firm stances against any deviation from the authority and truth of Scripture. God bless you 🙏🏼

I'm pretty sure that if you look at the list of videos you will find that one.

Because man can mean mankind. See genesis1:27 Let us make man in our own image.... Now because some people get offended and the LGBT.... has spoken, people now want to abandon the use of man for mankind but using they

Bible societies of the 1800s wanted to cut costs, and since the Apocrypha holds a secondary status in Protestantism anyway, these books were deemed expendable. Later generations of Protestants (namely ones that didn't see any value in these books, unlike the Anglican translators of the 16th-19th centuries) subsequently produced translations that didn't bother to include the books in the first place.

@MAMoreno that's not true yo why the apocrypha is rejected by protestants. It's because they contradict other books and some because they were written too late. Check DLM CHRISTIAN LIFESTYLE for more information or the men who rocked the world

The Roman Catholic Church wanted to proclaim that the Pope could be infallible. So, they had him add these books to the scriptures.

The primary problem with the Passion Translation is that it is not a meaning-based translation. It adds a lot of the author's own interpretations (i.e. eisegesis) which add in additional information that is not present in the original texts.

I doubt that would be considered as a Translation - despite the title.

Matthew18:15 on NRSVue I believe instead of brother they use "member" Passion Translation lost me on John1:1 when it says in the beginning was the Living Expession. What is that? I never read all of it

This presentation is covering actual translations, not "translations" like the Passion Translation, which is "translated" by a man who claims to have literally been visited and commissioned by Jesus Christ to complete a new translation through the help of the spirit of revelation (which Jesus Christ purportedly literally breathed out onto him) -- he's received "downloads" from God teaching him "secrets of Hebrew" to enable him to work on the project. This presentation is strictly about disagreements among translators on how best to translate actual copies of scripture, whether translation decisions are made because of undue cultural influence, and whether the move to "gender-neutral" or "gender-accurate" wording within translations is contributing to gender confusion.

This is a good one. They should definitely address this in a follow up.

In many cases it would not. Primarily because people don’t talk like that anymore. If your translation doesn’t use the language as it is actually spoken in that time than it definitely could have been better. In modern english how often do you hear mankind vs. people?

I agree that the NRSV (and CEV) often cross the line, using gender-inclusive terms in places where the meaning almost certainly applies to men. In those places, all other major gender-inclusive versions correctly reflect the male meaning, including NIV, NLT, GW, ERV. The Themelios journal article on "Gender in Bible Translation" listed above gives examples of this.

Yup. The slippery slope is real.

They specifically addressed this point and talked about how radical feminist translations are beyond the topic being discussed. How is describing an unknown individual or a mixed congregation in a gender-neutral way a slippery slope to neutering or misgendering a specific individual?

@@MM-jf1me I believe I answered your question in my original comment. Yahweh is not an unknown individual and his characteristics are masculine in his nature.

@@aj225 I was asking about why you thought it would be a slippery slope from describing unknown individuals in neutral terms to purposefully misgendering a known individual (God). I'm genuinely curious as it seems a long stretch to me, but perhaps you've a perspective I've not heard before -- I'd still like to understand your reasoning if you'd care to share your thoughts.

@@MM-jf1me I'm happy to keep the conversation flowing! At this point after being on my feet for 10 hours I don't think I will have the stamina to say all in one go. So, I am assuming that you have a Christian world view. If not then please let me know. If you don't think Satan is running everyone ragged with confusion through lies and deception then I am off on a tangent here anyway. We know that God is being assigned both male and female pronouns and it is being refuted by some and promoted by others. So, now, we as individuals have to decide which attitude is correct. The Bible is the authority when it comes to the nature and characteristics of God. Some are trying to rewrite the Bible and give it a somewhat "modern" feel to it. With that, they are also threatening the authenticity of the scriptures. The "slippery slope" analogy was used by @user-71435 I used the analogy of an avalanche as the slow increase in pressure leads to a sudden shift in the snow to a lower level. From prohibited to permitted in this case. So I am looking at the big picture and asking myself: What should we look for in attempts to change public attitudes, who is doing this and to what end? I'll leave it at that and await a response from you. All very best wishes, AJ225

It's not "capitulation" in a linguistic sense, any more so than it is capitulation to the culture to no longer speak or write using the pronouns "thee" and thou" or to end 1st- and 2nd-person verbs with "-eth." Language is constantly changing; and, anthropologically-defined, language itself is an artifact of culture. That can be a sign that it's not a dead language. So, the goal is to make sure that the translation is appropriately meaning-based rather than to make it a wooden word-for-word translation that sounds unnatural to the target audience using the target language. So, translators have to look at context and discourse within the passage as well and do really good exegesis based on the original languages for those texts. So, the line is "Am I changing the meaning of the text that doesn't make sense based on the discourse structure and grammar of the source language, and how do I make it best fit the target language in a way that maintains the accurate meaning based on the linguistic conventions and limitations of the target language?" If it's true that Biblical Greek uses "man" as a gender-inclusive term (which it does sometimes) but other times has the very specific meaning of "males only" (which it sometimes also does), then that's not really a problem. You've still accurately represented the meaning of the text if you translate the Greek word for "man" as 'people' in some contexts. Descriptive linguistics is invaluable to figure these things out.

Get a Bible app with plenty of versions😀

The goal (speaking as a linguist) is an accurate translation. If the word in the original manuscripts means men and women then an accurate translation will choose a word which means just that. If you use a word that just means one of those, its actually an inaccurate translation.

Correction... it's the marxists changing the language not just feminists. That's what Marxism does, it changes the nuances to hard lines and say these are "scientific" which is itself a changing of the word use of "scientific".

Exactly. Leaning left?

That’s not with this video is about

Homophobes can not be Christian.

Christians follow Christ. Christ is against all sexual immorality. It is sin. LGBT living is disobedient living. And btw, this video is about how to translate the Bible regarding masculine pronouns, etc.

It depends what you mean with Christian. A Christian by name or a born again Christian.

@@freddyheynssens1950 I'm just here to discuss the literature with you. I'm not a religious person. According to the literature what is Christ like is what's rejected by religious people for not following their religious laws. I find no fault with the LGBT whatsoever. What have they done? what say you?