Sorry Don. I wasn't referring to you at all. I realized you were just
summarizing my point. I objected to a later post quoting your summary as my
words. I really don't have any emotional investment in this issue, which
was why would not have used the word "undesirable" myself. I don't find the
generic use of "man" as desirable or undesirable. I was trying to convey
with the word "justifiable" that these decisions must based on objective
principles (ie. that they can be justified not desirable). Whether or not I
*like* exclusive language wasn't my point and "undesirable" just seemed like
a subjective term, that all. If that is just my mis-definition, sorry for
> To be neutral we
> would have to add "person" or "individual" (which is awkward and puts too
> emphasis on the singular) or perhaps something else more awkward. Using
> "person" is probably best, but it connotes to conservative readers of the
> a deliberate attempt to be "politically correct" and sounds bad to those
> have long since memorized the statement.
I agree. I do not "like" the NRSV on this either. However, is it not
possible to take hO DIKAIOS as a generalizing singular referring to a group;
hence, "the righteous." Or am I off the wall to suggest the KJV translators
may have been on to something here?
My apologies for sounding "deeply offended."
P.S. I hope you don't think that I am trashing the NASB. After all, I do
own one (and frequently use it).
-- A. Brent Hudson Ontario, CANADA ___________________________ Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org ___________________________ At McMaster University email@example.com ___________________________