I don’t think any translation philosophy is truly practical. But if TNIV-style becomes the least impractical, then I will deal with that. There are flaws to translating the generic masculine as a plural though. What do you do with statements when it might not be generic, for instance?

James 1:20 is an example where it might be generic. It’s obviously a proverbial expression. It says, rigidly, “for the wrath of a man does not work the righteousness of God.”

What if it’s referring to that testosterone-laden aggression of men? Then, I’d translate it “For ‘manly anger does not serve God’s purpose.”

If it’s generically inclusive there, then I could make a wittier translation. “For human anger does not engender divine justice.” Taking both andros and theou as qualitative nouns.

If egalitarians will mirror read for 1 Timothy 2, then I (a complementarian) might mirror read here a problem with anger among males. However, I prefer the qualitative reading, because it just sounds more proverbial. Wrath and righteousness are contrasted, so it makes sense for “man” and “deity” to be in contrast here, too.

P.S. I agree with Brant.

It was my impression that the Bible, especially the OT was written by Middle Eastern Men in a Middle Eastern culture. I never viewed them and still don’t as being pro feminist. If people today want to use the Bible to show that God viewed women as less than, then shame on them.

. Its a matter of accurate translation reflecting the speaker which my guess wasn’t particularly PC at the time let alone now, BUT this only causes a disconnect if you believe GOD wrote every word in the Bible. I doubt the speakers usually addressed groups as brothers and sisters, but I could be wrong.

One might wonder the same thing about conservatives and their “gender accurate” translations.

It is my observation that gender neutral translations are not that neutral and gender accurate translations are not that accurate.

Flipping through the TV channels we found an American documentary with French subtitles. They were interviewing people about a woman involved in some crime. When the narrator and an official wearing a tie said in good formal American English that the woman worked in two places, the subtitles used the formal French verb travailler “work”. But when a bus driver spoke in colloquial English about the woman’s two places of work, although he also used the English word “work”, the subtitles used the colloquial French verb bosser. It was obviously hard for the translators to indicate in brief subtitles that the bus driver was speaking colloquially, but they did an excellent job by choosing to use bosser – even though they could be accused of lacking concordance and consistency.

Perhaps this kind of translation strategy is needed also in Bible translation.

And that I Timothy quote is my passage that I gave for others to write my name by.

ja, Rich, antwoordde u perfect!