Posted on 09/01/2009 11:26:58 PM PDT by paudio
The changes did not make all men "people" or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn't intend it. So in some verses, references to "sons of God" became "children of God," for example.
Supporters say gender-inclusive changes are more accurate and make the Bible more accessible, but critics contend they twist meaning or smack of political correctness.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Of course that's what they want to do.
Henceforth a gender neutral bible.
God created Man and Woman.
The devil has been peeved ever since.
The very unpopular and non-PC fact is that in biblical times the Hebrews and early Christians believed in a patriarchal male-dominated society and these views are indeed expressed in the original languages. When one changes language one changes meaning and this shouldn’t be done to make modern people who have a different world-view feel better.
Do you mean that when God said in the KJV Gen 6:6
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart"he was not referring to humans in general?
What sounds better, a man shall leave his family and cleave unto his? Wife, Spouse, Domestic Partner, Life Mate?
Well if it means “mankind”, then it should say “mankind”, not man. Translating it into “man” was a product of OUR patriarchial society 400 years ago.
Strictly speaking, God IS genderless, or more specifically, of both genders. The only problem is that in English that means calling God “it”, which has connotations of remoteness and impersonalness, which is definitely NOT what God is. Besides, there’s all these references in the Bible to “God the Father”, which is pretty conclusive. So I’d call God “him”, and certainly Jesus “him”, although I’m given to understand that the pronouns used for the Holy Spirit are female? I’m not an expert on Greek - perhaps someone else can comment?
“So in some verses, references to “sons of God” became “children of God,” for example.”
A son can be any age, but children are children. Are we sure these guys know what they’re doing?
Actually, that thread turned into a more Protestant vs. Catholic debate as much as anything. Nothing like going off-topic...
That poster established that thread as an anti Protestant thread in his first post. He wanted the thread to be as it was.
True, and still off-topic for the meat of the story.
That particular verse can be interpreted as divine frustration and anger that mankind was in a constant state of rebellion against God’s will. However, subsequent biblical passages refer to a state of atonement or reconciliation. By the way, the King James Version is a gem in terms of English literature and linguistic expression that rivals Shakespeare. However, the ecclesiastical commission that compiled it didn’t have access to the texts, philological knowledge, and discoveries about contemporary religions that we have today. As a translation it’s generally considered poor to mediocre by modern biblical scholars. That’s why there have been a multitude of different versions - it’s always a work in progress.
I think the problem is that words can have different meanings and connotations depending on their usage and context. In biblical usage, “man” usually has the generic meaning of “mankind” or “humanity”. It doesn’t have the specificity of male or female but includes both. In his great play, “Murder in the Cathedral,” T.S. Eliot famously wrote, “Human kind cannot bear very much reality.” In that sentence “human kind” has the same meaning as “man” used in scripture. Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.