Response to Adrian, part 3, neutering

Adrian writes,

There is no doubt that English is in a state of flux where the use of the word 'man' - with or without pronouns such as 'he' - is being attacked for political reasons connected with a feminist agenda. In fact, at least in some quarters, the battle seems to have been lost and ancient English language structures consigned to the trash-heap of history. The question is whether our Bibles should go along with this neutering of our language or whether we should try to use words that are, at times, intended to be inclusive whilst still retaining a sense of male representedness.

Adrian ignores the fact that using both 'human' and man' in English to translate Greek makes the translation more transparent to the Greek, not less. This is not a feminist agenda. He then posits that replacing 'man' with 'human' neuters the language. How does calling a man a human neuter anything?

Adrian is, in fact, in spite of this kerfuffle, a warm and generous human being. I hope that doesn't hurt, Adrian! Do you really find this neutering? I just don't have the expression 'warm man' in my vocabulary, so 'human being' comes into my head first. It is intended as such a compliment, such an expression of fellow feeling, such an inclusive and friendly expression. And please don't read sarcasm into this. You have been welcoming and friendly to us, albeit with your own quirky humour.

Another odd thing is that I have such a warm place in my heart for many translations that use the word 'man' in the generic sense: the KJV, the original GNB, the NEB, etc. But the ESV simply cannot decide. It sometimes translates anthropos as people and sometimes as man. It is ambiguous and confusing, neither fish nor fowl.

And Adrian, if you visit our comment section often enough, you will find that some of us are still dwelling in that 'trash-heap' of history, clinging to the Wycliffe Bible, the Tyndale, the KJV, the Hebrew, the Luther, etc. etc. No, I don't think that acccusation is going to fit here!