Posted on 03/26/2011 4:38:57 PM PDT by NYer
After they heard that the latest translation of the New International Version of the Bible will now use gender-inclusive language such as "he or she" instead of just "he", PETA saw an opportunity to change one other thing. The organization has petitioned the Committee on Bible Translation to suggest that its next translation remove "speciesist" language, by referring to animals as "he or she" instead of "it." “When the Bible moves toward inclusively in one area...it wasn’t much of a stretch to suggest they move toward inclusively in this area. Language matters. Calling an animal 'it' denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God," Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vice president for policy, told CNN.
PETA said it hopes the switch to include more gender-inclusive language will spark translators to readdress the ways animals are referred to in the Bible. "Updating the Bible's language regarding animals would not only reflect modern writing trends but also reinforce the idea that animals are living beings valued by God, not inanimate objects. Jesus taught us the importance of mercy and compassion, and this update would encourage mercy and compassion for all God's creatures—including those who have feathers, fins, and fur," Friedrich wrote.
But David Berger, the dean of Yeshiva University’s Bernard Revel graduate school of Jewish studies, said shifting the language would be difficult, given the original Hebrew: "In Hebrew all nouns are gender-specific. So the noun for chair is masculine and the noun for earth is feminine. There’s simply no such thing as a neutral noun. It’s unusual to have a noun that would indicate the sex of the animal."
David Lyle Jeffrey, a professor at Baylor University who teaches about ancient texts and the Bible's relationship to literature and the arts, sympathizes with PETA, but isn't sure if it would be true to the text: "When you get to the point when you say, 'Don’t say it, say he or she' when the text doesn’t, you’re both screwing up the text and missing the main point you addressed."
“In my world, Miss Silverstone, vegetables are what food eats.”
You are welcome to use what you might. I will stick with the KJB
Since I am not Catholic, I do not follow what you think is what is what. I will stick too what I know and believe. If you are comparing the KJV of the Bible with the stinking koran, and only accept the Catholic version, that is your problem, not mine.
And the first lesson that sin can only be covered by the shedding of blood. Hence the animal skin covering for their nakedness rather than fig leaves
I'm sorry, I didn't see the little /s until too late.....I really was astounded that anyone could be that uneducated
I did not compare KJV with the Koran, I merely pointed out that an edited version of the bible was no more an authentic version of the word of God than is the Koran.....both are incomplete
Genisis 3:7 says something like....they saw that they were naked and sewed aprons of FIG LEAVES to cover their nakedness.....no dead animals yet......however they have had steak for supper, the book doesn't tell us everything!!!
The Bible tells the truth.
What will they come up with next?
Good grief.
One of its so called original Greek texts was actually reverse engineered from the Latin Vulgate.
It’s difficult today to tell manmade leather substitutes from the real thing without a close examination. I’d assume you didn’t ask whether those garments were actually something like Corfam.
When rendering the texts of a gendered language into non gendered English, some genuine information is lost and some meaningless artifacts are also lost. English speakers in Shakespeare’s time did not have any objection to referring to a human baby of indeterminate gender as “it.”
It’s cool, no biggie.
I own several Bibles, the NKJV, the NASB, the NAS, and a digital Olive Tree version that I use in church sometimes...
See ya’,
Ed
They did indeed make their own covering of fig leaves but God had a better idea:
Genesis Chapter 3:
V.7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
V.21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
His getting two answers is no record by any means. Try making a major mistake and you'll hear about it for the entire thread, even if you've already acknowledged it.
“The Holy Bible is the Bible as passed down through each successive generation and not one word of it should be changed for to do so would be committing an unforgivable sacrilege and blasphemy.”
And those who do will bear it. Forever.
I did ask and there was leather. The rationale is this, “Well the animal was already dead so it’s OK to use the leather.” More like brain dead.
Very apt - thank you. I just wonder if the gods are planning to destroy all of us together.
We're all going to die. Not all of us will be destroyed.
On that happy note...
Take a hike, PETA!
Every several months they come out with a consciously outrageous campaign to get media attention and dollars from dummies.
Like most liberal "idealists", they're mostly concerned with getting other people's money without the inconvenience of working to provide useful goods or services.
I am SupplySider, and I'm a vegetarian. Oh, and I hate PETA.
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.