New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/17/2011 5:37:37 PM)

quote:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – In the old translation of the world's most popular Bible, John the Evangelist declares: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." Make that "brother or sister" in a new translation that includes more gender-neutral language and is drawing criticism from some conservatives who argue the changes can alter the theological message.

The 2011 translation of the New International Version Bible, or NIV, does not change pronouns referring to God, who remains "He" and "the Father." But it does aim to avoid using "he" or "him" as the default reference to an unspecified person.

The NIV Bible is used by many of the largest Protestant faiths. The translation comes from an independent group of biblical scholars that has been meeting yearly since 1965 to discuss advances in biblical scholarship and changes in English usage.

Before the new translation even hit stores, it drew opposition from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.


New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language


I still prefer the King James version myself, along with a Catholic Bible, but I think this is going to far.



belleunchained -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/17/2011 6:17:53 PM)

I think this issue depends on whether one believes the Bible is A) the absolute word of God, B) some suggestions for leading a good life, C) a load of bull, or D) a work of literature.

If the answer's C, there's no point in arguing. If it's A, one would be offended that they changed a single blessed word.

Many Christians and others fall into B: the Bible is a set of helpful suggestions. In this case, you'd want these suggestions to be understood and appreciated by the masses. In that case, changes in wording matter less than getting the message and morals across. When I was a child, the use of "he/him" as a default pronoun confused me. The default "he/him" is growing rarer. I have a scientific degree and almost never see this usage in journal articles or textbooks for any field, whether it's medicine, psychology, sociology, or biology. "He/him" is also hard to find in the popular press, news, and novels. You're more likely to find it in documents written 20 or more years ago. So I'd say that if churches want to use a gender-neutral Bible for personal comfort or enhanced understanding (the way many use plain English Bibles), that should be fine under this logic.

Now, if you appreciate the Bible as literature (D), I'd go old-school. The antiquated language makes the words feel special and beautiful, even if I don't agree with them.

-Belle, feminist, agnostic, and sometimes over-thinker



DomKen -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/17/2011 6:31:24 PM)

Well I am mostly C with a little D. If you find the more gender nuetral language to not be for you, you are of course free to not buy or read that version.



cpK69 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/17/2011 7:07:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I still prefer the King James version myself, along with a Catholic Bible, but I think this is going to far.


I guess I’m not getting it… If the word used in the original language is known to mean “brothers and sisters” what’s the problem with acknowledging that within the text?

I'd be more concerned that someone thought it was a good idea to exclude that fact, in earlier translations, than to worry about someone reintroducing the idea now.

Kim



Kirata -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/17/2011 11:56:47 PM)


This is the translation that I think is going to prove interesting:

The Original Bible Project

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/18/2011 1:56:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


This is the translation that I think is going to prove interesting:

The Original Bible Project

K.


It sure will! Divine flak jackets all round people? [:D]



Moonhead -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/18/2011 6:02:12 AM)

FR:

I can see why some are going to find this offensive, as the misogyny is an important part of the Bible for a lot of fundamentalists.



DarkSteven -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/18/2011 6:27:35 AM)

Beyond weird.

When the Bible was first written, woen held the same status as children - part of a man's household, someone for whom he was responsible, but certainly not an equal in the eyes of the law.  Well, in 2000 years, things have changed.  Not God himself, but the people he is speaking to.  Women are now equal to men under the law in Western countries. So acknowledge that change in the Bible.

I am assuming that in the original, the word for "men" is the same as for "men and women", similar to Spanish, which makes all mixed-gender collectives male in referring to them.  If so, then the word could be translated either way, and it's damned arrogant to claim to know how God wanted us to translate it.

I wouldn't refer to this as gender-neutral as much as gender-inclusive.



Moonhead -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/18/2011 8:21:09 AM)

Yep.
I've cited the only reason I can think of for anybody fussing about this in the first place, sadly...



tweakabelle -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/19/2011 9:28:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Yep.
I've cited the only reason I can think of for anybody fussing about this in the first place, sadly...

There has been a considerable power structure erected on the misogynist foundation you outlined Moon head. People aren't going to surrender that power without an intense struggle.

Many argue there is another aspect to this too. Most religions take a profound interest in regulating sexual behaviour, reproduction and related fields, often expressed as some kind of 'Natural Law'. Sex reproduction birth and death are limits/boundaries on life that religion likes to police. Hence we see religions take strong anti-women positions on issues like contraception, abortion etc etc.

The suspicion is that historically, the erasure of women from language in the Bible has fed into and informed the erasure of womens' perspectives in the construction of these 'Natural Laws'.



Aylee -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/19/2011 9:50:44 PM)

~Fast Reply~

For FISK'S sake people! First Huck Finn and now the Bible, what is next? Are we gonna re-write the Declaration of Independence?

The Magna Carta?

What else can we re-write?

How about Uncle Tom's Cabin?

Moby Dick?

Plato's Republic?

Sappho?

What the hell is wrong with these people?



Real0ne -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/19/2011 10:36:14 PM)

fr

i think they should have 1 bible for women with Goddess's and 1 bible for men God's.

So in the male version Eve at the apple and in the female version Adam ate the apple.

that way everyone can be happy!






Termyn8or -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 1:22:26 AM)

That might be the only way. People are not gender neutral and neither is life.

T^T



Kirata -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 1:31:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i think they should have 1 bible for women with Goddess's and 1 bible for men God's.

Oh sure... and why shouldn't the men be allowed to have the Goddess bible if they want it, or the women the God bible if they want it?

You're just another pig. [:D]

K.



cpK69 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 5:46:44 AM)

~Gen. Reply~

I was under the impression that the way the original text has been translated, already amounts to a rewrite. Is that not true?

Kim



Moonhead -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 5:55:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
The Magna Carta?

See who you've drawn to this thread by mentioning the magna carta, Aylee?



Elisabella -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 5:55:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I am assuming that in the original, the word for "men" is the same as for "men and women", similar to Spanish, which makes all mixed-gender collectives male in referring to them.  If so, then the word could be translated either way, and it's damned arrogant to claim to know how God wanted us to translate it.



Well...the thing is...it's that way in English too. When you talk about "man" or "mankind" you're not just referring to males. A phrase like "leader of men" means a leader of people, not a person who only holds sway over those with a penis.

So in a way this is sort of like changing "mankind" to "man-and-womankind" or something.

Oh and ETA the way I learned Spanish it was hombres (men), mujeres (women) and personas/gente (people, depending on the context used).



Aylee -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 6:02:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
The Magna Carta?

See who you've drawn to this thread by mentioning the magna carta, Aylee?


Sowwy. [>:]



cpK69 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 6:29:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

So in a way this is sort of like changing "mankind" to "man-and-womankind" or something.



I hadn’t thought of it in that way.

Perhaps, Robert Heinlein had it right, and we should just ditch the word 'sister', brother.

Kim



DarkSteven -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 7:21:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

~Gen. Reply~

I was under the impression that the way the original text has been translated, already amounts to a rewrite. Is that not true?

Kim



A translation will be imperfect.  Period.

1. Modern day English is a very powerful language.  Older languages did not have the same vocabulary.  So they were less precise.  We have several words today that are subtly different but all correspond to the same word in the original.  And in some cases, there is no exact modern day equivalent to an original word.
2. It's not that easy to read the originals in some cases.  Hebrew has no verb "to be", for example - its use is implied.  Not only that, but usually Hebrew is written with vowels omitted, making it occasionally hard to figure out which word was intended.
3. Cultural contexts change.  For example, when the Bible was written, slavery was an accepted practice and in some cases equivalent to an employer-employee relationship today.  Some of the admonishments concerning treatment of slaves could be construed as advice to employers. 
4. The translator has their own biases, even if he or she tries to minimize them.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.076172E-02