Sunday, January 15, 2017

Eisegetical Biblical Translations

It seems that a great many liberal people are incapable of differentiating between "gender-inclusive" and "gender-exclusive." They seem to be confused with their terminology. The use of man, or mankind, is gender-inclusive, because it includes women. Every language in the world is gender-inclusive in this manner. Take Spanish, for example. When referring to a group of men, it uses the masculine Los. When referring to a group of women, it uses the feminine Las. When referring to a mixed group of both men and women, it uses the masculine Los. These translations are already gender-inclusive:
Wycliffe Bible (1382)
Tyndale NT (1526)
Matthew's Bible (1537)
Great Bible (1539)
Geneva Bible (1560)
Bishop's Bible (1568)
Douay-Rheims (1609) [Roman Catholic]
KJV/AV (1611)
RV (1885)
ASV (1901)
RSV (1946, 1952, 1971)
NASB (1963, 1995)
JB (1968) [Roman Catholic]
NEB (1970)
NIV (1973, 1984)
GNB (1976)
NKJV (1982)
NIrV revised (1998)
ESV (2001)
HCSB (2004)
When a liberal translation affected by feminism and so-called political "correctness" changes the gender-inclusive man to "people" or "humans," it then becomes gender-exclusive or gender-neuter because there is no gender specified. Unlike several other languages, every word in English is not either masculine or feminine.

When you change gender-inclusive nouns ("man") to gender-exclusive pronouns ("you"), and third-person pronouns ("he," "him") to second-person pronouns ("you") or first-person pronouns ("we," "our"), and singular pronouns (along with their resulting verb forms) to plural pronouns, you destroy the meaning of the text. The Greek text is very specific, and the words it uses are deliberate. The Greek already includes gender-inclusive or gender-specific language so as to determine who the subject or the audience is. To alter this for the sake of feminism and so-called political "correctness" is to add to and/or remove from the Word of God (Rev. 22:18-19). If you can do that with a clear conscience, then may the curses associated with doing so be yours for eternity.

Because a number of other languages are similar to Greek, having either masculine or feminine words (and their corresponding adjectives, articles, pronouns, or verbs), their translations are more exacting. When a sentence in the Greek is said in masculine, feminine, or neuter, there is no mistaking what it is saying. However, in English, people can argue all day and all night as to what it might be saying because, with the exception of certain nouns and pronouns, our words are all neuter. That is why I continue to remind people that if you have two people with opposing interpretations of a passage, or opposing doctrines from a passage, consulting the Greek text will determine who is right and who is wrong. Both people can be wrong, but both people cannot be right.

These liberal translations are engaging in "cultural leveling," where they attempt to express biblical ideas in terms of modern customs, modern ways of thinking, and modern modes of expression. This is to engage in eisegesis, and the result is eisegesis. You cannot apply modern customs, modern ways of thinking, or modern modes of expression to the Bible! There is a 2000-4000 year difference between them and us. You need to learn about their customs, ways of thinking, and modes of expression, and you must understand them. This is why people like Alex Haiken continue to engage in eisegesis while thinking they are performing exegesis. It does not matter how you attempt to dress something up and sell it, in the Bible it says what it means and means what it says. If the Bible condemns something, attempting to camouflage it with a false notion of "love" does not in any way impede the prohibition thereof. Would anyone ever dare to argue that adultery was acceptable as long as you "love" the other person? I would hope not!

People have a difficult enough time as it is understanding the Bible as an English translation, making assumptions as to the interpretation and meaning of passages based on the translated words used, let alone for liberal God-hating individuals who muck up the language even more by muddying the waters so as to obscure any legitimate understanding. If these gender-neuter translations were conservative enough and took the time to examine each passage before making changes, only making changes where it legitimately warrants such a change, then their translations might be acceptable. For example: "If any man..." could be rendered "If any individual..." "Individual" is a better and more precise term to use than "person." The context needs to be examined before they attempt to make a change. Any God-fearing individuals taking part in these translations would look at some of their alterations, stand up and deny that such an alteration take place. But these translation committees clearly are not God-fearing men and women!

Gender-neuter translations are frequently inconsistent with their methods. New Testament quotes of Old Testament passages, they often alter the text of the one and not the other. Or, in cases where the text is clearly speaking of Christ Jesus, they alter it so that it speaks of humanity instead. The new NIV 2011 text is no different. It commits the same errors.

Avoid these God-hating eisegetical translations containing blatant and deliberate heresy:
TLB (1971)
NJB (1985) [Roman Catholic]
ICB (1986)
NAB (1988) [Roman Catholic]
NCV (1987, 1991)
NRSV (1989)
REB (1989) [partially gender-neuter]
GNB revised (1992) [presently GNT]
CEV (1995)
GW [God's Word] (1995)
NIrV (1995)
NIVi (1995, 1996)
The Message (1995)
NLT (1996)
NLT revised (1996)
TNIV (2002, 2005)
NIV (2011) [repackaged NIVi/TNIV]