Re: Gender-specific or gender-inclusive?

Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 22:16:57 EST

In a message dated 2/22/2000 9:52:55 PM Central Daylight Time,

 That's largely the point that some are making here, isn't it, George?
 Namely, that the inclusive meaning of the original should be faithfully
 produced in translation? And what English word faithfully preserves the
 inclusive meaning of ANQROPOI for English speakers today? It's not "man"
 since for many, many English speakers today, "man" only refers to the male
 members of humanity. That would be un-faithful translation. And we shouldn't
 have to have a commentator, whether in hard copy or a human, beside us, when
 we read the translated Bible, telling us, "Well, that's what you think the
 word means, but it really means this." >>

I can only state that there are many today who are WILFULLY IGNORANT of the
meaning of words. If they choose to quibble about the use of the word "man",
they will undoubtedly quibble over anything. Apparently they think that
Thomas Jefferson only thought males were equal (". . . all men are created
equal. That they are endowed by their creator . . ."). I'm certain that
many did think that in those days, but I'm far from certain that this was
Jefferson's position -- he was a rather singular individual.


B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:58 EDT