RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language

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

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

Message

Aylee -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 7:34:18 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 No, it is a translation. A re-written translation would be 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea , with Ned Land changed to Nelly Land.

cpK69 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 8:20:50 AM)
Yes, exactly, though I've been told, some things were also intentionally 'modified'. Thank you, Steven. Side note: that's one way to discribe it. [:D] quote: Modern day English is a very powerful language. Kim

Aylee -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 8:32:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 Yes, exactly, though I've been told, some things were also intentionally 'modified'. Yeah, King James was rather terrified of witches.

JohnWarren -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 8:49:07 AM)
Maybe the Islamics have it right, and if you want to read a holy book you have to do it in the language that the author used. They hold there are no "translations" of the Quran. There are only "commentaries in another language."

cpK69 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 8:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Yeah, King James was rather terrified of witches. I can’t tell if you are being factious, or not. Kim

GotSteel -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 11:02:49 AM)
@darksteven Which parts of the Bibles endoresment of slavery apply to an employer/emplyee relationship?

Aylee -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 12:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Yeah, King James was rather terrified of witches. I can’t tell if you are being factious, or not. Kim I was being serious as a heart attack. The English translation, also known as the King James Version, had a couple changes put into it (okay more than a couple). These were very political things. One of them was the change in the Exodus verse from thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live to thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (chasaph is the word) More changes had to do with it conforming to the Church of England.

Moonhead -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 1:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Maybe the Islamics have it right, and if you want to read a holy book you have to do it in the language that the author used. They hold there are no "translations" of the Quran. There are only "commentaries in another language." Actually, there's some debate about that: a lot of sects are willing to condone translations, and converts who don't speak Farsi. The "read it as Muhammed dictated or die as a heretic" lot tend to be the more rabid element of shi'ites as a rule. Those wankers who seem convinced that it's still the fourteenth century...

DarkSteven -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 1:30:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel @darksteven Which parts of the Bibles endoresment of slavery apply to an employer/emplyee relationship? I was talking off the top of my head. And the Bible didn't exactly "endorse" slave relationships as much as concede that they existed. I shouldn't have mentioned the Bible - the Talmud was what I meant. In it, directives are given for treating slaves. They are outmoded now, but you could redirect some of the advice to apply to employees.

Moonhead -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 1:34:13 PM)
That said, isn't most of the old testament a straight swipe of chunks of the talmud in the first place?

Rule -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 2:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: belleunchained I have a scientific degree ... 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. You may have a scientific degree, but by agreeing to change data in order to to get the results you desire you most certainly are not a scientist.

Rule -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 3:01:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Maybe the Islamics have it right, and if you want to read a holy book you have to do it in the language that the author used. They hold there are no "translations" of the Quran. There are only "commentaries in another language." That is due to the unique poetry. In any case Mohamed did not write the Koran. It was compiled - and perverted - after his death.

Rule -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 3:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ~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? They lack a conscience.

belleunchained -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 4:30:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: belleunchained I have a scientific degree ... 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. You may have a scientific degree, but by agreeing to change data in order to to get the results you desire you most certainly are not a scientist. What "data" ? If you mean the Bible, I don't consider it as such. My argument was that using "he/him" as the default pronoun no longer common in scientific or other forms of writing. Therefore, the language has changed, as all languages do. Many people use plain English Bibles to more easily understand the text, and this seems highly similar. Using forms like "he or she" rather than "he" doesn't significantly alter the meaning of the text. Since living by a translation of an ancient book runs counter to my own logic, I'm at most stepping into someone else's shoes to consider their viewpoint. As a scientist, I find this more productive than simply hurling accusations. ;) I have no personal stake in someone else's selection of a religious text. P.S. - If you want to reply to multiple people, it's simpler if you bundle those replies into one post; it keeps the thread cleaner.

dcnovice -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 4:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Maybe the Islamics have it right, and if you want to read a holy book you have to do it in the language that the author used. They hold there are no "translations" of the Quran. There are only "commentaries in another language." And don't Jews tend to read their scriptures in Hebrew? Christians may b the only Abrahamic believers who read their major work in translation.

tazzygirl -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 4:49:02 PM)
quote: P.S. - If you want to reply to multiple people, it's simpler if you bundle those replies into one post; it keeps the thread cleaner. No offence, but with 10 posts under your belt at the moment, you arent the one to give such advice. Nor is it against TOS to post as Rule does. Im not a Rule fan... just saying. As far as your comment ... Since living by a translation of an ancient book runs counter to my own logic... dont you study translations related to Louis Pasteur, Aristotle, Paracelsus or even Democritus? Democritus formulated the atomic theory for cosmos... amazing that he was died 370 BC, isnt it? Or are you saying that because all these founders/fathers/leaders of science are irrelevant, and do not apply to your logic? Im curious.

jlf1961 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 4:59:48 PM)
Okay, the original scriptures were either in Aramaic or Greek, from there it was translated into Latin by 500BCE the bible had been translated into 500 languages, in 995 was the first anglo saxon translation. The first truly English translation was in 1535. The point is that in all those translations, things got changed. Words may not directly translate from one language to the other. This is a complete rewrite.

tazzygirl -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 5:01:17 PM)
I have no issue with your point. My issue is as stated.

belleunchained -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 6:09:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: P.S. - If you want to reply to multiple people, it's simpler if you bundle those replies into one post; it keeps the thread cleaner. No offence, but with 10 posts under your belt at the moment, you arent the one to give such advice. Nor is it against TOS to post as Rule does. Im not a Rule fan... just saying. This isn't my first message board; the etiquette is similar in most places. Nor did I say it was against the rules, just that it's "simpler" and "cleaner." Also, if I'm right - or wrong - it shouldn't matter who I am. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl As far as your comment ... Since living by a translation of an ancient book runs counter to my own logic... dont you study translations related to Louis Pasteur, Aristotle, Paracelsus or even Democritus? Democritus formulated the atomic theory for cosmos... amazing that he was died 370 BC, isnt it? Or are you saying that because all these founders/fathers/leaders of science are irrelevant, and do not apply to your logic? Im curious. Thank you for your curiosity. No, historical scientific documents were not integral to my education. Additionally, while these authors made amazing discoveries, many aspects of their research have been corrected, debunked, or elaborated upon. Sometimes they were just plain wrong, and that's part of the process. We owe a debt to our predecessors, but ideally, we shouldn't accept simply their ideas wholesale. The words of deceased scientists are not considered the one, true way to see the world. In contrast, many Christians view the Bible as pure fact without attempting to prove or disprove its claims. I don't disapprove, but it's not the way I choose to live.

outhere69 -> RE: New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language (3/20/2011 7:10:17 PM)
There already is translation in the Christian bible, especially the famous verse about a virgin giving birth to the Messiah, when the original reads "young woman". The same with deciding what goes into a given Bible or not. And the King James author had no access to the earlier source documents discovered centuries later. The hard core fundamentalists and evangelicals will take each male reference as applying to men, not "men and women". They go for black and white, separate roles and duties. What's weird to me is that there are tons and tons of modern translations and there aren't protests about those, only this new one.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875