Generic "man" being misunderstood
This misunderstanding is in fact nothing new. At least since the 1960s the primary sense of "man" for most English speakers has been the male-only one. I have previously suggested here that one explanation for Dr Wayne Grudem's strongly complementarian understanding of the Bible is that, as a young man in the 1960s, he misunderstood "man" in English translations as gender specific; when he later learned Greek he did not allow this to correct his theology, but rather reinterpreted Greek words to fit his theology.
But now, 40 years later, the generic sense of "man" is so little understood that people can completely misinterpret English Bibles without realising it. I came across an example in a comment on Dave Warnock's blog 42, where Theodore A. Jones wrote:
God has said that he requires an accounting whenever any male human's life is taken by bloodshedWhen I asked Theodore
Where is the restriction to males?he replied by referring to Genesis 9:5b NIV, which reads:
And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.It didn't seem to have occurred to him that "man" in this passage is intended to be gender generic, as clarified (by the same translation committee) in TNIV:
And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.The Hebrew word for "man" here is 'adam which is almost always used in a gender generic sense. (In fact 'ish is also used here, but not meaning "man", but "each".) So there is no justification at all for Theodore's gender specific exegesis.
The sooner IBS and Zondervan phase out NIV and replace it by TNIV, the better.