Translating and Texts About Women

When it comes to Bible verses about women, translation choices can dramatically alter how readers perceive their roles, status, and the instructions given to them.

It’s not always about clear-cut errors, but often about subtle biases in how ambiguous words are translated, which specific nuance of a word is chosen, or whether a disputed passage’s textual issues are even mentioned.

This page explores several key passages where translation decisions significantly impact our understanding of women in the scriptures, moving beyond mere interpretation to look at the translation process itself.

Our List

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 — Women, Be Silent?
1 Timothy 2:9-10 — Modest, Respectable, and Sensible Apparel?
1 Timothy 2:11 — Learning in Quietness or ‘Silence’?
1 Timothy 2:12 — ‘Not Permitting’ or ‘Not Arguing For’ Teaching? Domineering or ‘Having Authority’?
1 Timothy 2:14 — Eve’s Deception or Seduction?
1 Timothy 2:15 — ‘Saved in Childbearing’ or ‘Sustained by Children’?
Ephesians 5:23 — Husband is the Head of the Wife?
Romans 16:1-2 — Phoebe, Servant or Deacon?
Romans 16:7 — Junia or Junias?
General Bias: Translating ‘People’ as ‘Men’

Note that there are other verses relevant to the role of women in the Bible. However, those are more about interpretation; this page is about translation bias.

1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 — Women, Be Silent?

Perhaps one of the most contentious passages is 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. It usually reads something like this:

‘…As in all the congregations of the holy ones, women should remain silent in the congregations. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.’

These words have been used for centuries to restrict women’s speech and participation in Christian gatherings. However, there’s some evidence that they might be a later addition, an interpolation, rather than Paul’s own words.

Why is the authenticity of these verses questioned?

Manuscript Variance: In some important early Greek manuscripts and some Latin versions, these verses are found not here, but at the end of chapter 14, after verse 40. This kind of textual instability – where a block of text moves around in different manuscript traditions – is often a hallmark of a later addition, because later copyists know it might not be original, but they don’t want to remove it completely in case they’re wrong.
‘As the Law Says’: The passage claims this instruction aligns with ‘the Law.’ However, there’s no such specific command in the Mosaic Law (the Torah) that women must be silent in religious assemblies or ask their husbands questions only at home. Furthermore, Paul repeatedly argues that Christians are not under the Old Law covenant (e.g., Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:23-25). It would be highly inconsistent for him to appeal to ‘the Law’ as a basis for this instruction.
Contradiction with Paul’s Earlier Instructions: Just a few chapters earlier, in 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul gives instructions for how women should pray and prophesy in the congregation (provided their heads are covered). If women were to be completely silent, instructions for how to speak (prophesy) would be nonsensical. This creates a direct contradiction within the same letter.
Contradiction with God’s Use of Women: Throughout the scriptures, God used women in prominent speaking roles. Deborah was a judge and prophetess who led Israel (Judges 4-5). Huldah was a prophetess consulted by kings (2 Kings 22:14). Miriam prophesied (Exodus 15:20-21). Anna prophesied about Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:36-38). The New Testament itself mentions prophetesses like Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9). An instruction for absolute silence seems to fly in the face of this scriptural pattern.
Disruption of Context: The verses interrupt Paul’s discussion on the orderly practice of spiritual gifts, particularly prophecy, in the assembly. The alleged instruction about women’s silence feels like an abrupt detour. Removing them makes Paul’s argument flow better — which would make sense if it wasn’t supposed to be there!

Given these points, it’s entirely possible that these verses were not part of Paul’s original letter but were added later.

The problem is that we don’t have more than fragments of 1 Corinthians before the end of the 2^nd century. So if this was interpolated at any point in the previous 100-150 years, we would have no way of knowing it.

It’s also easier for very early interpolations to happen in Paul’s writings, because they weren’t very widely circulated or considered scripture immediately after being written. His writings were first widely circulated by the Marionite sect, whom we know tried to make certain changes to some of Paul’s letters. They removed the last two chapters of Romans, adding their own spurious ending (still present in most Bibles at Romans 16:24-27). They are also strongly suspected of adding the bizarre verse about baptism for the dead.

We don’t know if they added this verse too, but the point is that we have identified two other early interpolations added to Paul’s letters. It would not be shocking for this odd, contradictory verse to have been added by the same people.

Our Editor Comments:

The fact that many translations present these verses as undisputed, without even a footnote about the questions over their authenticity, is a betrayal of their translation’s readers. It exposes their biases, their adherance to their Church’s teachings, and/or their translation’s sponsors. At worse, it may betray an active attempt to suppress facts they don’t like.

The problem is that it’s political.

Many churches (who sponsor translations) are actively involved in disputes over whether to allow female pastors, and keeping this verse in the text is useful to fight against female ordination. However, it’s not the job of a translator to get involved in that debate. The job of a translator is to check the authenticity of the text, to translate it faithfully, and to let people know if there are issues.

The truth is that the role of a ‘pastor’ who is a kind of ‘ruler’ over an entire congregation is not found in the Bible at all. Translators know this. It’s not that ‘only men can be pastors’ because if you’re going to argue about what the Bible does and does not allow, well then… Men can’t be pastors in the modern sense either; these are all later inventions not found in the New Testament. Again, translators know this.

The nearest thing in the Bible are the instructions for assigning older men to oversee a congregation, and I can’t see any translation issues around those verses. There are also verses saying that only men should be teachers, and not many at that! Teachers are not spoken of as being leaders or bosses. They are also mentioned as traveling around different congregations, leading Paul to warn people about false ones.

Again, I see no translation issue there. Some may see interpretation issues there, but that’s a different matter.

So a nonsensical political debate leads to suppression of knowledge about a suspected fake Bible text. That’s totally unacceptable, and betrays the lack of emotional maturity of those who are involved in it.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 — Modest, Respectable, and Sensible Apparel?

The discussion in 1 Timothy 2 about women begins with instructions on appearance:

‘Likewise, the women’s clothing should be modest, respectable, and sensible; not with fancy hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. But instead, [their fancy clothing] should be good works – something befitting women who say that they fear God.’ (2001 Translation)

Traditional translations often use terms like ‘modest apparel, with propriety and moderation’ (NKJV). The challenge lies in conveying the subtle distinctions between the Greek (and similar Aramaic) terms, which can all relate to ‘modesty.’

Greek kosmios (for apparel) suggests orderliness, good arrangement.
Meta aidous (with respect/shamefastness) points to a respectful demeanor.
Sōphrosynēs (discreetness/sobriety) implies sensibleness, soundness of mind, self-control.

Translating these as ‘modest, respectable, and sensible’ aims to capture these nuances in modern English. The bias here isn’t usually overt distortion, but older or less nuanced translations might not fully convey the range, potentially leading to overly simplistic interpretations. The emphasis is on an inner quality reflected outwardly, but many translations make it just sound like a dress code.

Our Editor Comments:

In most translations, ‘modesty’ just sounds like it’s talking about not showing skin. But that’s not the full meaning. The original words want to convey a much richer picture than just ‘don’t wear revealing clothes.’ The real ‘adornment’ highlighted is ‘good works,’ which often gets overlooked.

1 Timothy 2:11 — Learning in Quietness or ‘Silence’?

The opposite of being quiet and obedient is being loud and argumentative.

Verse 11 is typically translated like this:

‘Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.’ (NKJV)

The key Greek word here is hēsychia (ἡσυχίᾳ).

While hēsychia can mean ‘silence,’ its semantic range also includes ‘quietness, rest, stillness.’
In a learning context, ‘quietly’ (as an attentive student would behave) is a strong possibility. Translating it as an absolute ‘silence’ may make it sound much stricter than the apostle intended.
The opposite of learning ‘quietly and obediently’ isn’t necessarily any speaking, but rather being loud, disruptive, or insubordinate – behavior unbecoming of any student.

A translation that says ‘quietness’ and ‘obediently’ acknowledges a woman’s active participation in learning along with everyone else; it’s the opposite of being loud and argumentative, fitting the wider context (just before Paul says he wants everyone to ‘set aside their anger and their arguments.’). On the other hand, stronger terms like ‘silence’ and ‘submission’ sounds like you must never talk and just do whatever you’re told.

Our Editor Comments:

‘Silence’ is such a strong word. If the aim was simply an orderly learning environment, ‘quietness’ or ‘attentiveness’ fits much better. To insist on absolute ‘silence’ for women learners alone, while men could presumably ask questions or discuss, seems like an unnecessary and potentially biased imposition based on a narrow reading of hēsychia.

1 Timothy 2:12 — ‘Not Permitting’ or ‘Not Arguing For’ Teaching? Domineering or ‘Having Authority’?

This verse contains two highly debated phrases, often translated:

‘And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…’ (NKJV)

Part 1: ‘I do not permit’ (ouk epitrepō) a woman to teach…

The Greek epitrepō (ἐπιτρέπω) means ‘to permit, allow, yield.’
However, the Aramaic equivalent (a strong inflection of ‘to persuade’) potentially meaning ‘I don’t argue for / plead for / insist that’ a woman should teach.

If Paul is stating a personal conviction or what he wouldn’t advocate for as the ideal, it’s different from laying down a universal, unbreakable law (‘I do not permit’).

I do not allow X.
I do not argue for X.

These are two different things.

We tend to find that the Aramaic text gives less power to church leaders than the Greek text. We strongly believe these are a pattern of deliberate corruptions unique to the Greek manuscripts.

The Greek text is actually illogical, as it would prevent newly converted men, or men who are simply curious, from being taught anything about Christianity whenever there are no men around. It would also prevent women from teaching other women in towns and cities that don’t yet have any Christian men.

The Aramaic wording is both more thoughtful and logical, with Paul merely saying it’s not something he would argue for, in other words, not the ideal. Such a statement would express his preference, but cause no problems.

This verse may be another case where the Aramaic preserves the original reading, but the Greek text has been massaged to be more strict.

Part 2: …or ‘to have authority over a man’ (authentein andros).

The Greek verb authentein (αὐθεντεῖν) is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament (appearing only here), making its precise meaning difficult to ascertain definitively. Its usage outside the NT is varied, ranging from ‘to exercise authority’ to more negative senses like ‘to dominate, usurp authority, to act masterfully.’
The Aramaic points to ‘domineer’ or ‘to be bold [in a domineering way].’

Translating authentein as ‘to have authority over’ can imply that such authority is legitimate for men but forbidden for women, thus establishing a hierarchy.

On the other hand, if the meaning is closer to the Aramaic’s negative ‘to domineer’ or ‘to be bold,’ then it’s a prohibition against a specific type of abusive behavior that would be wrong for anyone, male or female.

So the two versions of the text are extremely different.

Our Editor Comments:

There’s a definite pattern in the differences between the Greek and Aramaic texts. The Greek always gives more power to church leaders, while the Aramaic text gives less.

It’s no trivial difference. To not allow something is very different from not arguing for it. I wouldn’t argue that pineapple goes on Pizza, but that’s very different from not allowing it.

And ‘have authority over’ versus ‘domineer’? Well, one indirectly allows for a power structure, while the other condemns bad behavior. If it’s about domineering, then it’s a warning to everyone, not just a restriction on women. It’s frustrating that these nuances, well-known in scholarship, rarely make it into the main text or even footnotes of many popular Bibles.

I should also mention that Jesus said ‘All you are brothers’, and that your ‘only leader is the Anointed One.’ So even if a woman was a teacher, she would still not have ‘authority over a man’ because even men shouldn’t have that — only the Anointed One has that right.

For that reason alone, I’m inclined to say that the Aramaic text is the original. Also, when we consider that the words for man and woman also mean husband and wife, it’s possible that Paul was really saying: ‘I don’t argue that [a] wife should teach or dominate [a] husband.’

1 Timothy 2:14 — Eve’s Deception or Seduction?

The verse states:

‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.’ (NKJV)

The Greek word for Eve’s experience is exapatētheisa (ἐξαπατηθεῖσα), an inflection of exapataō.

This is a stronger form than simple deception (apataō). The ex- prefix literally means ‘going out,’ a bit like how in English we may say out and out to mean extremely. So it implies being completely deceived or fooled.
The scholar Deissmann noted that deception with this word often carries sensual connotations.

This agrees with the word used in the Aramaic text. The word used has a broad range of meanings, including to be seduced or to go astray. The Aramaic term, therefore, lines up beter with the actual story in Genesis.

Translating it merely as ‘deceived’ or ‘completely fooled’ can portray Eve as simply being tricked. It may even paint God as unjustly punishing a victim of deception. But we know from Genesis 3 that Eve also developed a desire for the fruit:

‘Well, the woman saw that the tree was worthy as food, it was a pleasant sight to her eyes, and it was a beautiful thing to think about. So after picking its fruit, she ate it.’ (Genesis 3:6)

Therefore, understanding it as being ‘seduced’ conveys the enticement and exploitation by the serpent, better aligning with the cunning described in Genesis 3 and the broader meanings of the words.

Our Editor Comments:

‘Deceived’ sounds almost passive, like she was just gullible and that’s that. ‘Seduced’ paints a much more accurate (and colorful!) picture. Given the actual story in Genesis, the possible sensual sense of the Greek word, and the broad range of meanings of the Aramaic word, seduced seems to be the better translation.

The difference is subtle, but important. One is implying that Eve was just gullible or stupid enough to believe a lie, while the more accurate translation talks of Eve as being more vulnerable to being emotionally manipulated into believing the serpent’s lies.

1 Timothy 2:15 — ‘Saved in Childbearing’ or ‘Sustained by Children’?

This verse is notoriously difficult:

‘Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.’ (NKJV)

Key translation issues:

‘Saved’ (sōthēsetai): The Greek sōzō (σῴζω) can mean spiritual salvation, but also ‘to preserve, keep safe, deliver, heal, sustain.’ Context is crucial. Attributing spiritual salvation to childbearing is not only very strange, but also theologically problematic — salvation is through Jesus’ sacrifice, not through having kids!
‘Childbearing’ (teknogonia): The Aramaic potentially means ‘her children’ (plural offspring) rather than the abstract act of ‘childbearing.’
Pronoun ‘they’: If ‘they’ refers to ‘the children’ (as suggested by the Aramaic grammar), the meaning shifts significantly.

The alternative, ‘she will be sustained (or kept safe/preserved) by (or through) her [grown, faithful] children – as long as they [the children] remain in the Faith…’, resolves the theological conflict entirely, and it’s entirely supported by the Aramaic text.

So here the Aramaic either preserves an older, more original version of this text, or at least shows us how Aramaic understood it at the time (and they knew more about Ancient Greek than we do). It’s also possible that the Greek verse was mangled or somehow corrupted in the early decades before Paul’s writings became widespread.

Our Editor Comments:

‘Saved in childbearing’ has always sounded odd and completely out of place. It contradicts core Christian theology. Nor does it fit with anything else Paul or the Bible says about salvation. Why didn’t Paul mention this again, if it’s an actual path to salvation?

But if it means something like ‘she’ll find well-being and support through her faithful children,’ that makes perfect sense in a world where family and offspring were vital for social and economic security (there were no social security systems). And all contradictions disappear! It’s amazing how a shift in understanding a couple of words can solve a theological ‘puzzle.’

However, that hasn’t stopped some men from using this verse to try to put women in their place, making ridiculous claims like ‘women are saved by having babies.’

Ephesians 5:23 — Husband is the Head of the Wife?

The source of a river is the headwaters.

Ephesians 5:23 is a cornerstone verse for many discussions on marriage roles, often translated as:

‘For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.’ (KJV)

This translation, particularly the word ‘head,’ has been widely interpreted to mean the husband has ruling authority over the wife. However, a deeper look into the Greek word kephalē (κεφαλή), translated as ‘head,’ reveals a crucial nuance often missed – that of ‘source’ or ‘origin.’

As detailed in our translator note ‘Head’, ‘chief’, or ‘origin?’:

At the time Paul wrot, the Greek word kephalē primarily referred to the literal, physical head.
Metaphorically, especially in older uses, the word meant ‘source,’ ‘origin,’ or ‘starting point,’ like the ‘headwaters’ (source) of a river (this was even used by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus).
The common modern English understanding of ‘head’ as ‘leader, chief, or person in charge’ was a possible meaning at the time, but not the primary meaning of kephalē in Koine Greek. That sense developed more strongly later.
The Aramaic equivalent, risheh, shares a similar primary meaning of physical head or source/origin (e.g. the source of a river), with ‘chief’ being a less common usage.

Why does this distinction matter for Ephesians 5:23?

Context of Creation: Paul’s theology often draws on Genesis. In Genesis 2, Eve was formed from Adam’s side. Thus, Adam can be seen as the ‘source’ or ‘origin’ of Eve in a literal, physical sense.
Christ as ‘Head’ of the Church: Christ is indeed the Lord and authority over the church, but he is also its ‘source’ and ‘origin.’ The church comes into being through him. The ‘head’ metaphor can encompass both, but translations often emphasize only authority.
Avoiding Misinterpretation: If ‘head’ is understood solely as ‘ruler,’ it can be (and has been) used to justify a hierarchical structure where the husband ‘lords it over’ the wife. This contradicts Ephesians 5:25, where husbands are told to love their wives ‘as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ — a model of self-sacrificial love and service, not domination.

Translating kephalē as ‘head and origin,’ as our translation does, attempts to capture this fuller meaning:

‘…because a man is the head and origin of his woman as the Anointed One is the head and origin of the congregation and the savior of that body.’ (Ephesians 5:23)

This rendering doesn’t necessarily negate aspects of leadership or responsibility, but it grounds the metaphor in ‘source’ and ‘origin,’ which provides a different framework than one solely based on rank and authority.

The bias arises when translations exclusively imply ‘ruler’ without acknowledging the wide range of meaning.

It also misses the fact that Paul may have been employing wordplay here, as he often did.

Our Editor Comments:

‘Head’ in this verse has been hammered home as ‘boss.’ But if Paul was trying to play on words, combining the meaning of ‘head’ with ‘source/origin,’ (and he surely is, because in the context he’s talking about the creation account), that paints a different picture of the husband-wife relationship.

It’s not merely a chain of command, but a continuation of the loving relationship between God and the Anointed One. When translations ignore this ‘source’ aspect, they’re losing half the meaning of the verse and being over-simplistic.

Romans 16:1-2 — Phoebe, Servant or Deacon?

Phoebe arrives in Rome with Paul’s letter.

In Romans 16:1-2, Paul commends a woman named Phoebe:

‘I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a diakonos of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.’ (Romans 16:1-2, with diakonos untranslated)

The word diakonos (διάκονος) is crucial here. When this same Greek word is used for men in other parts of the New Testament (e.g., Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 12), it is frequently translated as ‘deacon,’ implying an official church office or role.

However, when applied to Phoebe, many translations historically opted for more literal words like ‘servant’ or ‘helper.’

The problem is that the later Church heirarchy of its deacons, bishops, and popes was not in place in the 1^st century. So if the word cannot be used to imply that Phoebe was a deacon, then neither can it be used that way for the men. Using deacon at all, anywhere in the New Testament, is incorrect; it’s an anachronism — something out of time.

The Koine word diakonos simply means a servant, helper, or courier. Our translation uses the term servant for everybody it’s applied to — male or female.

Our Editor Comments:

Some translations really get themselves muddled here. Their sponsors want their Bibles to support ideas of church heirarcy that did not exist yet. So they like ‘churchy’ terms like deacon to deceive readers into thinking that all this later stuff was already in place… But then they come to Phoebe, and it’s a woman! Their Church doesn’t allow women to be deacons, so now they have to be dishonest in a second way, and translate it differently just for her.

This is why lying is so stressful, you have to keep track of all the lies you’ve told in the past!

Diakonos simply means a servant or helper or even a courier. Trying to pretend that a Church hierarchy of deacons and bishops and popes was already in place in the 1^st century, is not only a lie, but an absurd lie. It’s even more ridiculous that it then has to be covered up in certain verse where the lie would be obvious!

Romans 16:7 — Junia or Junias?

Junia, a woman, was an outstanding apostle.

In Romans 16:7, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and someone named Junia, whom he describes as ‘relatives’ and ‘fellow prisoners.’ He then adds a significant commendation: they are ‘notable ones among the apostles’ and have ‘been in the Anointed One longer than I have.’

This verse seems straightforward, but when you compare Bible translations, you might notice a curious difference. While many read ‘Junia’ (a woman’s name), others translate it as ‘Junias’ (a man’s name). Why this discrepancy? And how can a name seemingly change gender?

The issue hinges on a quirk of Greek grammar. In the original Greek manuscripts, the name appears as Iounian (Ἰουνίαν). Do you notice that '-an’ ending? Well, this is the ‘accusative case,’ a Greek word ending that shows the role of different people in a sentence. And herein lies the problem…

Both the female name Junia (Ἰουνία) and a hypothetical male name Junias (Ἰουνίας) would be written as Iounian (Ἰουνίαν) in the accusative case! So, from the grammatical form alone, it’s literally impossible to tell if the name is male or female.

This is where translator bias can creep in. If a translator or tradition is uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being ‘outstanding among the apostles,’ the grammatical ambiguity provides an opening for a translator to prefer a male name.

However, strong evidence points towards ‘Junia’ — the female name — being correct:

A Historically Female Name: Junia was a common Roman female name. In contrast, there’s no solid evidence of Junias existing as a male name during that period. The name Junia itself is linked to the Roman goddess Juno, to whom women prayed for childbirth – it couldn’t be more female if it tried! The male version didn’t appear until centuries later.
Early Church Understanding: For the first thousand years of Christian history, commentators like Origen of Alexandria (writing in the 2nd/3^rd century) and John Chrysostom (4^th century) consistently understood Junia to be a woman.
The Aramaic Testimony: The Aramaic text, which doesn’t use the same word endings as Greek, spells out the name phonetically as the female ‘Junia.’
Not From Discoveries: The shift to ‘Junias’ in some scholarly circles and translations is a relatively recent development driven by assumptions, not by new manuscript discoveries.

The term ‘apostle’ (apostolos) itself means ‘sent one’ and was used more broadly in the early church than just for the Twelve. It often referred to prominent missionaries and those who found new Christians congregations. There’s no reason why a man and a woman could not be doing this.

Changing Junia into a man, therefore, could be erasing a woman acknowledged by Paul as being ‘notable… among the apostles.’

Our Editor Comments:

Some translators hide behind the grammatical ambiguity to avoid admitting the strong likelihood that Junia was a woman. It would be perfectly fine if they acknowledged the ambiguity and supplied a footnote, but many don’t even do that.

General Bias: Translating ‘People’ as ‘Men’

‘Man’ and ‘men’ often means ‘human’ or ‘people’ in the original Greek.

Have you ever read a Bible verse that talks about ‘men’ doing something, or ‘men’ being addressed, and wondered if it really only meant males? Often, the answer is no.

The Greek word often at the heart of this is anthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος), and its various forms like anthrōpoi (plural human beings) or anthrōpois (to/for/by human beings). This word fundamentally means ‘a human being,’ ‘a person,’ or ‘mankind’ in a general sense – referring to the human species, not specifically the male gender.

Yet, many translations will translate it as anthrōpos and its forms as ‘men’ even when the context is clearly speaking about people in general. While there are instances where ‘men’ is a suitable translation (if the context specifically refers to a group of males), it’s often used by default, creating a male-oriented slant where the original Greek was probably not trying to be so specific.

Why does this matter?

Inaccurate: When general statements about humanity are translated as applying to ‘men,’ it can make some women feel as if the message isn’t directly for them — even when the context shows that it’s aimed at everyone!
Not the author’s intent: It can narrow the perceived application of biblical teachings in a way that the original author may have not had in mind. In this case, it could be a mistranslation.

This isn’t about being ‘politically correct’ (imposing modern sensibilities onto ancient texts). It’s about accurately reflecting the breadth of the original language.

If the context likely means ‘human being’ or ‘people,’ a faithful translation should strive to convey that breadth in meaning.

Our Editor Comments:

The problem is that over time, words tend to become more specific, whereas words in the ancient languages are more broad. Even in English in the recent past, a term like ‘men’ was widely understood to mean ‘human’ unless the context implied males only.

Words like ‘men’ being more specific to males is a modern change. Bible translations need to update their language, or key verses will sound like they’re targetting males alone, when that wasn’t the intended meaning at all. They are effectively creating whole swathes of mistranslations simply by keeping the old wording.