State of Non-English Bibles

[garysibio]

I’ve been reading some of the threads here discussing the quality and the problems of some of the English Bible translations and it made me wonder about the quality of Bible translations in other languages. Being a typical American I’m monolingual - I know just enough Spanish and German to get myself in real trouble - but I’m curious anyway.

I understand that the phenomenon of inclusive language is an English issue only since English is the only major language where the grammatical and biological genders coincide so that’s not a problem, but what about accuracy? Are there any issues in Bible translations that don’t come up in English translations?

Gary

 

[inthecloud]

Inclusive language is a English phenomena. The feminist has tried to do in Spanish but is just imposible.
The Spanish Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not use inclusive language.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been reading some of the threads here discussing the quality and the problems of some of the English Bible translations and it made me wonder about the quality of Bible translations in other languages. Being a typical American I’m monolingual - I know just enough Spanish and German to get myself in real trouble - but I’m curious anyway.

I understand that the phenomenon of inclusive language is an English issue only

No, it’s not. In German, for instance, they have a perfectly good inclusive word “Menschen” for human beings (as opposed to “mannern” which means “male human beings”). But that’s not good enough for the feminists. They insist on “mannern und frauen” (men and women), since “menschen” is grammatically masculine and still reflects male dominance.

In other languages, such as French, there is one word “hommes” for men and for human beings (though it’s less clunky to say something like “les humains” than to say “humain beings” in English, perhaps), so the same issue applies as in English.

If anything, I think that inclusive language is less of a big deal in English precisely because we don’t have much grammatical gender as distinct from biological gender. It’s easier to have language that is gender-free. In many other languages, all language is necessarily gendered–hence the fact that Germans *have *to say “men and women” if they are going to be truly “inclusive.”

I think that grammatical inclusivity is more reasonable and less silly in English than in some other languages. But it’s certainly not only an issue in English.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Inclusive language is a English phenomena. The feminist has tried to do in Spanish but is just imposible.
The Spanish Catholic and Protestant Bibles do not use inclusive language.

It’s not only an English phenomenon. I suspect that the reasons it hasn’t caught on in Spanish are cultural rather than purely linguistic, but I may be wrong on that. I know that it has caught on in German, and I believe in French also, though it seems less intrusive and clunky there.

Edwin

 

[garysibio]

No, it’s not. In German, for instance, they have a perfectly good inclusive word “Menschen” for human beings (as opposed to “mannern” which means “male human beings”). But that’s not good enough for the feminists. They insist on “mannern und frauen” (men and women), since “menschen” is grammatically masculine and still reflects male dominance.

In other languages, such as French, there is one word “hommes” for men and for human beings (though it’s less clunky to say something like “les humains” than to say “humain beings” in English, perhaps), so the same issue applies as in English.

If anything, I think that inclusive language is less of a big deal in English precisely because we don’t have much grammatical gender as distinct from biological gender. It’s easier to have language that is gender-free. In many other languages, all language is necessarily gendered–hence the fact that Germans *have *to say “men and women” if they are going to be truly “inclusive.”

I think that grammatical inclusivity is more reasonable and less silly in English than in some other languages. But it’s certainly not only an issue in English.

Edwin

Thanks for the update on the situation in German-language Bibles. I wasn’t aware of that. However, I don’t see the difference between what you describe in German and the situation in English. The feminists are insisting that we use “man and women” also, unless, of course, it refers to sinfulness. Then it’s OK to restrict it to men.

I understand the differences in the languages (I speak a little German) but there doesn’t seem to be any difference with respect to the results. In English we have perfectly acceptable words which mean both men and women but the feminists seem to believe that women are so stupid that they won’t realize this.

When I started this thread I mentioned inclusive language but didn’t want to limit it to just that. I’m also interested in whether or not the Bibles in other languages are suffering due to bad translations or heterodox footnotes and explanatory text.

Gary