>>24698
They are ADDING words to clarify intent in a modern climate while STILL retaining the original meaning. If you actually read the mission statement of the NASB and why they changed it, you'd understand.
If the point you're getting at is some NWO muh gender politikz garbage, that's absolutely not the case. The Bible is not compatible with modern 'gender theory' and despite the new wording is still, in intent, unequivocally opposed to it because it is still the Word of God. They also still preserve every one of Paul's verses about homosexuality completely, still using the word 'homosexual' to refer to the Greek word.
Example:
>Verse uses 'he' in general sense to literally just refer to a person
>Gramatically, there is nothing wrong with using 'he' to refer to a person in general, but it's somewhat outdated and might be a little bit of an antiquated term for modern readers
>Translation swaps 'he' for 'person'
This way, the full context and intent of the translation is preserved. Yes, words are often swapped, interchanged, etc. That is indeed the point of a translation.
If you are still under the impression this has anything to do with appealing to gender politics outright, you'd be wrong. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is outmoding masculine descriptors in favor for neutral ones. While the gender stuff might have something to do with it, it's still primarily a leftover antiquity of older English, simply because it has fallen out of common use as is normal fro an ever-evolving language.
That being said, I apologize for the anger, and thank you for the recommendation of the LSB translation. I'll have to check that out.