Question about Bible Version....

[Louis J]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

 

[T. E. Smith]

D-D-W For example, "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (RSV) That's an unhelpful translation. A better one could be...

• "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (NIV)
• "Examine yourselves" (NRSV)
• "Let a person examine himself" (ESV)

I prefer the NRSV and NIV here because it avoids the usage of the term "himself", and also because "person" can be awkward. I would also propose the translation "Each one ought to examine themselves", or also "All must examine themselves".

 

[OzSpen]

D-D-W For example, "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (RSV) That's an unhelpful translation. A better one could be...

• "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (NIV)
• "Examine yourselves" (NRSV)
• "Let a person examine himself" (ESV)

I prefer the NRSV and NIV here because it avoids the usage of the term "himself", and also because "person" can be awkward. I would also propose the translation "Each one ought to examine themselves", or also "All must examine themselves".

T.E.

The translation, "each one ought to examine themselves" runs into the problem that the subject is singular, "each one," and the referrant, "themselves," is plural. Technically, the correct translation should be, "each one ought to examine himself or herself," but that is clumsy. Therefore, the NIV and NRSV are the better translations - in my view. The ESV turns the generic, "person" into the sexist, "himself," which I don't find to be suitable.

Oz

 

[T. E. Smith]

T.E.

The translation, "each one ought to examine themselves" runs into the problem that the subject is singular, "each one," and the referrant, "themselves," is plural. Technically, the correct translation should be, "each one ought to examine himself or herself," but that is clumsy. Therefore, the NIV and NRSV are the better translations - in my view. The ESV turns the generic, "person" into the sexist, "himself," which I don't find to be suitable.

Oz

Shakespeare, Jane Austin, and others used the third person plural pronoun to refer to a singular person. It has much English history. So your post is at best incomplete.

 

[OzSpen]

Shakespeare, Jane Austin, and others used the third person plural pronoun to refer to a singular person. It has much English history. So your post is at best incomplete.

That doesn't make the English correct in agreement of the cases.

 

[T. E. Smith]

That doesn't make the English correct in agreement of the cases.

It's arbitrary, it's just semantics, there's no objective standard of "correct." It's all just based on whoever uses it. In recent years, "they" to refer to one person of unspecified gender has become even more prevalent than in the past. That's not "incorrect", because language evolves.

 

[D-D-W]

However, that does not make the "man" use correct when it is the generic for men and women (based on context).

Yes it does. There is "man as opposed to beast" and "man as opposed to woman." Both are equally valid.

 

[D-D-W]

Shakespeare, Jane Austin, and others used the third person plural pronoun to refer to a singular person. It has much English history.

That is true and is often quoted by those trying to come up with other pronouns to fit the current opinions of multi-gender.

It was bad grammar then and it is bad grammar now.

 

[T. E. Smith]

That is true and is often quoted by those trying to come up with other pronouns to fit the current opinions of multi-gender.

It was bad grammar then and it is bad grammar now.

Why is it bad grammar? There's no objective standard for what bad grammar is; it's all just based on how people use it. "They" for one person has been and continues to be used. Thus it is legitimate.

 

[D-D-W]

Why is it bad grammar? There's no objective standard for what bad grammar is; it's all just based on how people use it. "They" for one person has been and continues to be used. Thus it is legitimate.

Grammar rules in all languages require agreement in many things, including the singular/plural distinction.

Just because everyone uses bad grammar does not make it "legitimate." Does the fact that the majority of people in the last century used the "N" word make it legitimate? Of course not.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Does the fact that the majority of people in the last century used the "N" word make it legitimate? Of course not.

First of all, the term "negro" was indeed considered perfectly normal and acceptable. Nowadays, not so much. Even "black person" is being replaced with "person of color."

As for the other word, the slur you are referring to, that was never legitimate, but not for grammatical reasons. It was never legitimate because it was always intended as a degrading slur.

Just because everyone uses bad grammar does not make it "legitimate."

It is not correct to compare "they" for one person to the n-word.

EDIT: Also it is worth mentioning that some black people call each other the n-word in friendly conversation. (Black rappers used the term frequently too.) Obviously it would be inappropriate for a white person to use the word, even in that context.

 

[OzSpen]

It's arbitrary, it's just semantics, there's no objective standard of "correct." It's all just based on whoever uses it. In recent years, "they" to refer to one person of unspecified gender has become even more prevalent than in the past. That's not "incorrect", because language evolves.

That doesn't make it correct English grammar!

 

[T. E. Smith]

That doesn't make it correct English grammar!

Why is it correct to only use "they" to refer to one person? Defend that objectively. You can't do it historically, since it was used for multiple people historically.

 

[WIP]

Why is it correct to only use "they" to refer to one person? Defend that objectively. You can't do it historically, since it was used for multiple people historically.

Here's some of what Merriam-Webster says about this.

"Much has been written on they, and we aren’t going to attempt to cover it here. We will note that they has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun since the late 1300s; that the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you, yet we don’t complain that singular you is ungrammatical; and that regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing."

Singular 'They'

Though singular 'they' is old, 'they' as a nonbinary pronoun is new—and useful

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[D-D-W]

There already is a non-binary singular pronoun: it.

 

[T. E. Smith]

There already is a non-binary singular pronoun: it.

Not an appropriate thing to call a person.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Here's some of what Merriam-Webster says about this.

"Much has been written on they, and we aren’t going to attempt to cover it here. We will note that they has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun since the late 1300s; that the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you, yet we don’t complain that singular you is ungrammatical; and that regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing."

Singular 'They'

Though singular 'they' is old, 'they' as a nonbinary pronoun is new—and useful

www.merriam-webster.com

That's some more " Woke" smack. Love the play on the word "they". Of course Merriam-Webster has to be updated , it only recently applied the grammatical application to today. Anyone with any knowledge of linguistics, knows the use of " they" in a singular sense concerns a 'collective' in application or as in "they" working as ONE concerning -likeminded. It does not mean One with one anatomy and biology as a plural concerning binary plurality.
Concerning Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( in case you thought it wise to go there with me) There is One cohesive " They" at work and as the mechanism in totality is always the sum of its parts that mechanism with three parts is ONE. As to gender, there is only one or the other never multiple nor non . No matter if a deformity takes place in the flesh the Chromosomes give the answer as to the certainty of the sex. Always! So " They" being used as a singular in early English pretained to a collective - whether in behavior or belief and that is not non-binary in action but a mutual binary flow addressing likeness. Period!

 

[God Is My Judge]

It's wrong no matter the context. That concerning the use of the (N) word.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Not an appropriate thing to call a person.

"It" in context of people not identifying as anything in reality, "it" is a proper substitute, but I think from where you are coming from " myth" too would be wonderful .

 

[Edward]

Hello, and thank you in advance to anyone who can help.

I am currently reading the New International Version in conjunction with the King James Version of the Bible. The reason why I like the New Internation Version is because it puts the verses in a more modern English. The reason I dislike the New Internation Version is because it changes "....man" and "brothers" to things like "someone" and "brothers and sisters". I'd prefer a translation that modernized the text, without making it more "pc". Does anyone know a version that, while modernizing the text, remains more true to the verses?

NKJV.

KJV has been proven to be the most accurate translation, but the NKJV is easier to read and the next best thing.

 

[WIP]

That's some more " Woke" smack. Love the play on the word "they". Of course Merriam-Webster has to be updated , it only recently applied the grammatical application to today. Anyone with any knowledge of linguistics, knows the use of " they" in a singular sense concerns a 'collective' in application or as in "they" working as ONE concerning -likeminded. It does not mean One with one anatomy and biology as a plural concerning binary plurality.
Concerning Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( in case you thought it wise to go there with me) There is One cohesive " They" at work and as the mechanism in totality is always the sum of its parts that mechanism with three parts is ONE. As to gender, there is only one or the other never multiple nor non . No matter if a deformity takes place in the flesh the Chromosomes give the answer as to the certainty of the sex. Always! So " They" being used as a singular in early English pretained to a collective - whether in behavior or belief and that is not non-binary in action but a mutual binary flow addressing likeness. Period!

You mean being "woke" is a term that has been applied since as early as the 1300's?