As I am sure many of our readers know, the masculine Greek word, adelphoi, literally means “sons.” In it’s usage, however, it referred to any group of people with at least one male. The feminine version was only used for groups that consisted of all females. With Christians being a mixed group, they were always referred to in the masculine sense.

Who cares? Well, the question is, how do you translate this word? Do you go for a strict literal translation? If so, you run the risk of a person reading it and thinking it only referred to males. However, do you insert an interpretation onto the text that the uninformed reader takes at heart? That is the question.

Here are some more (refined) thoughts on the matter: Parableman: Sons (and Daughters?)

However, there’s one element of sonhood and daughterhood in the biblical context that isn’t parallel to brotherhood and sisterhood. Sons inherited. Daughters didn’t unless there were no sons to inherit. The concept of sonhood as applied to believers is clearly tied up with that in the biblical discussions of the sonhood of believers.

Many scholars think this is deliberately masculine and not just because some of the people involved are male. Just as humanity was created in God’s image, male and female, so too are we all inheritors of God’s salvation and all that comes with it. That means all, male and female. Therefore, in the concepts of the immediate context, we’re all sons, male and female, not sons and daughters. Carolyn says, “I am a daughter, to be sure. But my heart is deeply encouraged because I know God values, views and counts on me as a son. I carry on my Father’s name, build His kingdom and am a full heir alongside my brothers.”

That’s exactly what you miss out on with inclusive language translations, though I want to be careful here. This sort of missing out doesn’t just happen with inclusive translations. It happens with traditional ones just as easily with exactly the same phrases. If the goal of translating the scriptures is to capture what was originally meant in a way our culture can understand it, we have a dilemma. Do we capture the sense that it includes women by translating it as sons and daughters, or do we capture the implication that even women are sons by translating it the way translations have traditionally done so? Each captures a different element of what the original says, and each loses the other element of what the original says.

In this case, I can understand going either way, but I think this is an important point not to lose in our translations, which is why I think it’s good to have both kinds of Bible translations. Different translation philosophies lead to different emphases, which bring out different elements of the original than you might get if you just use one translation. So what I’m saying here isn’t a complaint against the TNIV or other inclusive language translations. It’s a complaint against those who would use only that sort of translation, though it’s also a complaint against those who insist on using only the opposing kind. You miss out on what the scripture says if you don’t take into account the various options for translating with these difficult matters.

Here are some more: Carolyn Custis James, Sticks and Stones and Names that Hurt.

here”s an unsettling (but hard to miss) bit of trivia: of approximately 3000 characters in the Bible, less than 10 percent are women. A ratio like that makes one wonder if God rejoices in his sons but, apart from rare exceptions, cares less about his daughters.

Does this reflect the teaching of the Bible? Or is the fallen culture that forms the backdrop of the Bible simply the best exclamation point to place alongside the true message God is revealing? After my encounters with Tamam and Kitula, I”m leaning toward the latter.

Myself, I just want it footnoted. For personal study, I want the literal footnoted with the meaning. For readings aloud, I favor the cultural translation.

What do you think about this?