I love this Christian ASMR

I personally don't mind gender inclusive language, but I find the conversation interesting, especially how it relates to the underlying Greek. It is good to be aware of, especially where the meaning may be obscured. I primarily use the NRSV, and most of it seems fine, but I don't like friend/friends for brother and brethren, though I understand what they're trying to accomplish. I'm glad the footnotes are there to indicate the original Greek. I hadn't considered how gender inclusive language may be implemented in different ways, so that was very educational, and it was nice to see comparisons with the 2011 NIV. Thanks for taking the time to create this!

Man I can’t get enough of your longer videos. Thanks so much for putting so much effort into all of your content. :)

Even the Grail psalms are now translated as a 'gender inclusive' work. This is annoying and deviates from the original sources in order to be politically correct. We should respect the literal translations of Sacred Scripture, as such scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Very informative work on Scripture, as always.

Fantastic video! Very brave to take on this topic. It's fascinating how the bible itself (in every translation) has become the deal-breaker for so many people.

Errata: 00:24 - delete 'normally' in the text beneath THGNT. At one point as I was preparing this video, I intended to use a passage where the THGNT follows a textual variant that places it at odds with all three translations. I planned to use the Society of Biblical Literature's text instead. As it turned out, that passage didn't make the cut. 05:41 -- the last line should read as follows: Shouldn't it read, "We want to make sure your child has the information they _needs_ "?) [The question mark is missing.] 07:50 - in the lower left quadrant, 'speaks' should be in blue. 08:58 - I said, 'anyone who', but meant to say 'the one who', which is plain from the chart. 19:51 - in the blue text box, replace 'brothers' with 'brethren'.

Thank you so much for this thorough comparison of the translations and their styles. Fascinating. A very helpful piece of work indeed.

I absolutely love the NIV2011, and I don’t think the gender neutral language is as problematic as people make it out to be. And being a revision of the TNIV, they did away with about 25% of the gender neutral language found in the TNIV.

Another well-done video, Dr. Jones! Thank you for your painstaking efforts in bringing this content to fellow Bible enthusiasts. Additionally, the audio in this video is fantastic! As an aside, as a fan of Tolkien myself, the Gollum reference was quite clever and funny. God bless.......

Thank you for the information, Mr. Jones; very much appreciated, as always!

Very interesting and informative, Mr. Jones. You may be pleased to learn that several of the shortcomings of the NRSV (1989) that you pointed out in your video have been addressed in the new NRSVue.

Very messy subject. Thanks for doing this great video to shed light on two popular translations and how they chose to approach it. Personally, I see some good things about both of these but would not trust one as my "primary" bible. One thing that really struck me was a quote from one of the NRSV translators in which he stated that they had basically tried to eliminate all male pronouns, including those that refer to God. (Obviously, this translator was overruled on that last point- quote came from article by that gentleman) In general, having spent time with both the NIV and NRSV, I find the former is more faithful in sticking with a masculine pronoun when it really matters in the context and in sticking to "soul" and "hell" where many modern translations have chosen to go with "life" or "grave." It's ironic, since in many ways the NRSV is less dynamic but due to their agenda, they have many passages that are more dynamic than NIV. If they had done the update without the gender agenda, I believe the NRSV would be one of my top three English translations for its accuracy and quality of English renderings. But as it stands, I cannot recommend it. Peace.

The problem with gender inclusiveness is that it makes the passages clunky, they lose some of their meaning and distort the meaning of others. Heb 5.1 is an argument for the male priesthood but in NIV (and NRSV) anyone could be a priest.

My Dear Sir, as Uncle Bob said when we were both in elementary school, “The Times, They Are A-changing.” Actually l though my 2nd grade teacher, Miss Bowler, was a witch. Love your stuff. Thank You so much. Blessings Rev John Wilderspin

Thank you for such a brilliant item. I think it is important to have a Greek interlinear for comparison. If anyone asks me about gender inclusion in the bible, I refer them back to Genesis 5:1 -2 (NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV).

Fascinating video. My overarching issue with these multiple updates of Bible translations and gender inclusive, now subtly called gender accurate language is that translators are trying to bring the Bible into today's society rather than bringing today's society back into the days, world and culture of the Bible. The Bible was written by specific people to a specific audience in a specific culture. Take that away and you take away from the intended meaning of the writers. Look at the NT writers, whether the quoted from the Hebrew Old Testament or the Septuagint, they quoted and wrote exactly what was written by the original author they quoted. They never tried to bring the old testament into new testament times. This should be how today's translators translate the text. Their argument that when we see the word brethren, or man, today's people might not understand the intended meaning, are we that dumb now in 2020 and beyond. Whenever I see these words, their context immediately tells what is being said, so unless these learned scholars are trying to tell me that today's people are not capable of reading context, which in and of itself would be a tragedy, there is no need for these multiple updates and gender inclusive or so-called gender accurate language. Are they trying to me that Paul and co, were inaccurate when the wrote man or brethren? Are they trying to me that the first readers of the Bible were far more intelligent than we are today and we are as dumb as dodos that they have to spell out every jot and tittle of the word? I don't buy that. Are they trying to tell me that people back in the early 1900s, in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and even the early 90s didn't understand what they were reading when they read the bible? This is just a dumbing down of the word of the God to increase Bible sales and money. As you point out in the video, they have to change words and tenses in the text for it to conform to proper English to accommodate their gender inclusive language. It's even more deceptive when they then add a footnote to tell that the Greek word literally translated brother or man or ect. With the updated NASB 2020, they put sisters in italics in the phrase brothers and sisters, that proves that they did not have to do it. But using italics, they are telling me that sisters is not original but was added. Again that shows me their intent on being gender inclusive. So in their preface, they are more than deceptive when they use the gender accurate language card just like the CSB. Oh, there was a time when Holman scholars criticized the NIV translators for using gender accurate language and now look what they have done with the CSB, that is down right hypocritical. Sir Jones, I'll stick with the NKJV and pray daily they don't update it and if they do and go gender inclusive, I'll go to the KJV (I just gave the KJV onlyists a up vote there inadvertently). Great and informative video, Dr. Jones. Looking forward to the NKJV vs ESV.

In Sept of 2021, Schuyler is publishing a new edition of the Revised Standard Version. I'm presently using the NRSV but will stop using the NRSV and downgrade to the RSV- especially after this video. I believe there are no currently editions of the RSV other than the RSV-2CE (Second Catholic Edition.) The Schuyler RSV will have a beautiful Firebrick Red Goatskin cover.

Great review, and very in-depth. I'm always impressed with people who have an eye for detail, as I am a big picture person. That said, I appreciate gender-inclusive language for public worship. When we use gender exclusive language, over 50% of my church--and likely your church too--has to take one more step in translating the text even before they can hear the word. When it comes to public worship, it is not a matter of personal preference--there is a theological imperative to include everyone when appropriate. I dislike when someone reads from a gender-exclusive in worship (we have lay readers every Sunday, and they use the version of their choice), and they leave out my wife when they say, "Brother...brother...brother...". But when that happens, although I am the pastor, I do not correct people or tell them to change versions. People get it. Yet, just because we are familiar with something doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Nor do we need to go crazy (like the Common English Bible, which translates "Son of Man" as "Human One"...eesh). I think the NRSV deals with the language with modest common sense. And, yes, that singular "them" and "they" has to go. Sorry, NIV! Great stuff, Docta Jonze!... don't let my comments take away from your hard work and good review!

I seldom comment videos on KZfaq, but this one was so good that I had to. Very, very helpful. Thank you! Would be helpful to see a video of how CSB is doing it compared to the new NASB2020.

to the translators of the NRSV it seems that anyone having a brother may have been just offensive

I like generally like gender inclusive language and I also feel pluralising can help with communication to a congregation but at times the NRSV does go too far but it is consistent in its approach so I am generally aware of what it’s doing. I am currently using an NRSV as my main bible as it compliments the ESV well and definitely better than the CSB which is my preferred translation - but isn’t really used in the UK. If I really don’t understand or like the NRSV rendering I will go to the ESV or CSB for clarification. I think male teaching is often one area people don’t like gender inclusive language but the NRSV maintains the masculine in 1 Tim but uses the word bishop that is perhaps to high church, but in 1 Cor it is inclusive. However, I now read 1 Corinthians as still applicable for women too because, whatever a person’s stance on female teaching, women are allowed to teach children and the same principles of accountability should apply to those who teach children.

Regarding your section on "son," I think in many cases, the NIV especially translates those phrases as commonly understood Greek idioms, which often began with "son of..." because it was borrowing from stock phrases in Aramaic, a mode which many of the NT writers were operating in. "Son of peace" for example does not really mean only a man, but is a general term to describe anyone who is peaceful and promotes peace. So these aren't necessarily instances of trying to be "sensitive," but simply usages of dynamic translation for clarity, which is what the stated goal of the NIV is. In fact, the NIV translators, unlike the NRSV translators, explicitly deny that the gender changes they have made have anything to do with an agenda of trying to be culturally sensitive. They are simply trying to make it more understandable to modern audiences. You can disagree with that, but keep in mind that people in general should be taken at their word when giving an explanation unless there is proof to show otherwise.

This was fascinating! I too am old enough to remember being taught in school that "he" meant both men and women.

Do you think I should go out of my way to get a 1984 NIV bible?

Hi R. Grant Jones, I hope you do not mind me asking for your help on this but could you assist me to a bible that is not particularly eye-straining as I have vision issues, (dark font, spaced out, etc.) and one that is most like the literal translation, but also one that is understandable for someone that just started reading the Bible? I recently came back to Catholicism and you’re videos are helping me understand how important it is to be aware of the several types of bibles out there. Thank you greatly.

Acest videoclip compară implementările limbajului modern incluziv de gen în Noua versiune internațională (NIV) din 2011 și Noua versiune standard revizuită (NRSV) din 1989. NIV are tendința de a înlocui pronumele masculine cu singularul „ei”, dar uneori permite pronumelor și cuvintelor masculine ca „om” și „frate” să rămână nemodificate. NRSV are mai multe șanse să pluralizeze pasaje și rareori nu reușește să elimine textul substantivelor considerate a exclude femeile. Textul grecesc al Noului Testament este citat din Noul Testament grecesc Tyndale House. Versiunea standard revizuită din 1971 este utilizată pentru a reprezenta engleza standard de la mijlocul secolului al XX-lea. Acest videoclip conține citate din „Amy Herbert” și „Margaret Perceval”, două romane ale lui Elizabeth Missing Sewell, o autoră din secolul al XIX-lea, pentru a arăta că vechea engleză standard includea genul. De asemenea, arată exemple de utilizări recente ale singularului „ei” în publicații, videoclipuri de pe KZfaq și alte rețele sociale. Ez a videó összehasonlítja a modern nemi befogadó nyelv megvalósítását a 2011. évi új nemzetközi változatban (NIV) és az 1989-es új átdolgozott standard változatban (NRSV). A NIV hajlamos a férfias névmásokat helyettesíteni az egyes számú „ők” kifejezéssel, de néha megengedi, hogy a férfias névmások és olyan szavak, mint az „ember” és a „testvér”, változatlanok maradjanak. Az NRSV nagyobb valószínűséggel pluralizálja a szövegrészeket, és ritkán nem képes megtisztítani a nők kizárására gondolt főnevek szövegét. Az újszövetségi görög szöveget a Tyndale House görög újszövetség idézi. Az 1971-es átdolgozott standard verzió a huszadik század közepének standard angol nyelvét képviseli. Ez a videó idézi az "Amy Herbert" és a "Margaret Perceval", Elizabeth Missing Sewell tizenkilencedik századi író két regényét, amelyek megmutatják, hogy a régi angol nyelv a nemek között van. Ezenkívül példákat mutat be az egyedüli „ők” közelmúltbeli felhasználására a kiadványokban, a KZfaq-videókban és más közösségi médiában. Thank you R. Grant Jones. God bless you.

The issues regarding mixing singular pronouns with otherwise plural language could be resolved by simply going back to using thee/thou for singular and you/ye for plural.

I’m not sure the gender inclusive language transition bothers me that much. Just because western society understood brethren to mean both men and women for a long time doesn’t mean that’s how it has to stay. For the same reason we don’t have to exclusively read KJV English. Now we’re it does bother me is when the gender inclusiveness glosses over clear contextual and cultural nuances in the text. For example, there are many places in the New Testament that talk about being heirs in Christ who is the firstborn son of God and through him we all have the rights of the first born son in Abraham. Whenever I check the gender inclusive language in a translation, this is the passage I always look at: “for through faith you are all sons of God in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” Galatians‬ ‭3:26, 29‬ ‭CSB‬ The NIV and NRSV say “children of God” which I believe glosses over the clear significance of the rights of the firstborn son being ours in Christ as taught here. The CSB and NET do a wonderful job by allowing this to come through while still adding gender inclusive language elsewhere. The NIV and the NRSV missed the mark in my opinion.

Thanks

this is why I stay with the KJV

I seriously doubt the PC complaint is against a benign change in English usage. I think their complaint is against the original text.

When I was at University 15 years ago, I was taught that "they" is acceptable as a gender neutral replacement for singular "he" or "she". It's clunky, but I can usually make it work... Today, I am being told that to participate in some popular online forums, I need to use a person's preferred pronouns. Even my country's newly re-elected government is looking at a law (similar to Ontario) to force me to use someone's preferred pronouns over gender neutral or assumed ones. I have no idea how we will accommodate this in Bible translation!

I can't take seriously any book, Bible or otherwise, that habitually uses the singular "they." It just sounds ignorant. At best, it's far too casual for use in a Bible. At least the NRSV finds ways to use "inclusive" language while remaining grammatically sound.

In fairness to modern translators, many other grammar and usage trends have changed since the early 20th century. For instance, the Winston cigarette ads of the 1950s and 1960s were criticized for saying, "Winston tastes good LIKE a cigarette should," instead of the (then) more proper phrasing, "Winston tastes good AS a cigarette should." So too, Star Trek had the audacity to split an infinitive every week as Captain Kirk declared that the Enterprise's mission was "to boldly go" instead of "to go boldly." Now, these rules are obsolete, and essentially no one gives them a second thought. The NRSV still holds to some obsolete rules, such as the now-defunct distinction between "shall" and "will." I am curious to see if the upcoming update will eliminate that distinction.

I think it’s insulating to people’s intelligence to think they can’t sort this out on their own. It seems to many of us that gender inclusive language is motivated by political correctness.

I dislike the NRSV in Mt 18:15, it eliminates the familial relationship we have as brothers in Christ. At least it's in the footnotes, but that's definitely not being read by all those members of the church.

Good ole governing bodies, making sure we comprehend... their truth😂

This is an excellent and informative video. When the gender-neutral movement began in the early 1970s, none of its promoters thought that the generic masculine excluded females. They knew that it does not. What they objected to was the very use of the masculine, because (they claimed) males are deemed oppressors of women. Every Greek and Hebrew manuscript in existence uses the generic masculine. The rejection of the generic masculine in English (a product of the modern feminist/homosexual/transgender political movement) is logically a rejection of the inspiration and authority of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek. This is not an issue for unbelievers, but for supposed believers it is a major issue. "Translators" who fail to properly translate the generic masculine are no longer translators; they have become commentators and propagandists for the feminist political movement. The generic singular "man" has NO SYNONYM in English. This word is masculine, singular, personal, and yet at the same time inclusive. None of the proposed substitutes for this word accurately or adequately give the full range of the meaning of this word. Not are those Bible "translators" being inaccurate with their rejection of the generic masculine, and not only are they in effect rejecting the inspiration of the Bible, they are actually going further, accusing the Holy Spirit of being a "male chauvanist sexist pig" by giving us the generic masculine in the first place. Didn't the Holy Spirit know that in the latter part of the 20th Century that Americans would be demanding gender-neutral English that didn't "offend women"? If so, does this not make the Holy Spirit reprehensible? If not, does this not make the Holy Spirit something less that God, for obviously not being omniscient? The answer to all of this political language (foretold by George Orwell in 1984), is to give the punt to all these modern "politically correct" versions.

Lol, I’ll stick to the Rheims, the Knox and the KJV and avoid all this Marxist nonsense. I love your vids by the ways👌

I found no reference to the KJV in this video. And, also, no mention to the TNIV.

Gender-inclusive, scholarship-exclusive.

;)

More interesting is this: public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/#

As I understand the indefinite "he him his" is actually a novelty of 18th/19th century grammarians. Traditional English used singular they before this fashion became common in education.

It's very bad English and obviously ideologically motivated. We should try to preserve our language, not deliberately mutilate it.

What happened to this guy's voice???

NRSV is supposed to be a literal translation. So if the written Greek passage is interpreted as implying both males and females, then the literal translation would include literal words for male and female. Why is that important? For the Historical Record, if a hundred years from now someone reads the "literal" NRSV and they read "he" within a passage, then they will interpret that to mean a male. Today we understand that he might be inclusive of Everyone, but that understanding might disappear in the future. And, to those who only understand literal English today, it is important. Even so, that's a huge problem in translating ancient texts, in that modern translations erase the common idiom of the ancient day. To solve that problem, Bibles need to have the idioms of the ancient day included for reference. However, I doubt that will happen as it seems many want to erase history and make believe that ancient people had the same mores and values and idioms as we have today. No they didn't. And, that needs to included within a Literal Bible Translation, however, it isn't. And, that's a problem for males as they are being erased from the Bible, all the figurative speech of them. Perhaps the interpretation of a masculine word being intended for an inclusive audience. If that's the case then the literal translation is simply wrong. When Jesus was speaking of his Brothers, was he really thinking of his Brothers and Sisters? Today, society has become coed as the norm, however, in ancient times it simply was not coed. In that case, the Bible is being changed, not re-translated. Also of interest in this "changing Bible" to suit modern societies desires, the words "fornication" and "fornicate" have been eliminated in many modern translations, all post WW2, including ESV, NIV, NLT, TEV, CSB (zero references to fornication) and many others (but Not NRSV). the word had been replaced with "immorality" in most cases so that conservative ministers could bully homosexuals with damnation and brimstone in their sermons, implying the "immoral" were homosexuals. "Fornication" is in all English Bible Translation prior to World War 2, and is in the Latin Vulgate ("fornicat" Latin Stem Word) representing a thousand years of Christian tradition. The Bible was changed in translations like ESV, NIV and the others so that the homophobia campaigns could supersede the strict separation of males/females in schooling and dating etc., to spur population growth (including through fornication). After WW2 we did have the baby boomer generation, where as after most wars, there is lower birthrate. so it was a political success.