* Bravo to CT for the issue on translation! [Oct. 27]. The articles on inclusive language were well written and informative. I have often confronted these issues in teaching mixed groups. I have also felt the frustration of the limitations of our language. (I tend to agree with Wayne Grudem that the ambiguities of the language will not be resolved any time soon.) Both authors demonstrated the pitfalls of following a rigid methodology in translation. Grant Osborne's affirmation that there is room for "both literal and dynamic translations" should challenge every translator to render the most accurate translation of each passage, rather than adhering solely to one methodology or another. When the best translation is offered apart from an agenda, both the serious student of the Word and the population at large will benefit.

Mike Field
Austin, Tex.

* I couldn't help but be struck with the different approaches in Osborne's and Grudem's articles. One was struggling over issues like "singular and plural" while the other was trying to determine how best to communicate God's truth to a biblically illiterate generation.

Don Gerig
Ann Arbor, Mich.

* Anyone who has studied the textual history of the Scriptures (which I'm sure Grudem did at Cambridge) will see the difficulty he raises by referring to an original (a term he doesn't define in his article). Is oral tradition the inspired original? Or does inspiration only occur when pen is put to parchment? Is the original text that which was finally put forth by the redactors and editors who supposedly made changes to reflect what God exactly wanted, or were they distorters too?

Alan Koeneke
Durham, N.C.

I, too, consider both Wayne Grudem and Grant Osborne good friends and agree with each of ...