Posted on 05/29/2002 5:58:59 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
New Gender-Neutral Bible Stirs Controversy
Run Date: 05/29/02
By Anne Eggebroten
WEnews commentator
Many religious women and men herald a new, non-sexist translation of a popular version of the Bible, yet a strong-willed conservative critic cries foul.
Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's Enews.
(WOMENSENEWS)--James C. Dobson, psychologist and radio personality has come out against Zondervan Publishing House's new edition of its popular New International Version Bible.
The good news is that Zondervan, the world's largest publisher of Bibles, has decided to replace words such as "men," "sons," and "he" (when referring to believers) with "people," "children," and "they" in its new edition, Today's New International Version New Testament with the new language was released this spring and now in bookstores. The complete, inclusive version is expected to be completed in 2005.
The bad news is that Dobson, whose 90-second radio spots are heard on 2,000 stations in the United States, is throwing his weight against these changes. He says they dilute "the masculinity intended by the authors of Scripture" and result in "obscuring the fatherhood of God," as he recently told USA Today.
Actually, Zondervan's is "the last translation to get on the gender-accuracy train," says Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality, a group working to overcome sex bias in Christian churches. But still the new edition is notable because, with some 150 million Bibles in circulation, the New International Version is second in popularity to only to the King James Version--which reads exactly as it did when it was published in 1611.
Other translations go much further, changing masculine references to God and Jesus--such as "He," "Father" and "Son of Man"--to gender-neutral terms. For example, "The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version," Oxford University Press, 1995, changes the Lord's Prayer to "Our Father-Mother in Heaven . . ." The "Inclusive New Testament" by Priests for Equality, 1994, offers "Abba God in heaven . . ." For "Son of man," the messianic title Jesus often used to refer to himself, Oxford uses "the Human One" and Priests for Equality translates "the Chosen One."
With so many Bible translators and major publishing houses committed to giving the Scriptures a voice that appeals to women today, one wonders why James Dobson is holding out for a male God and men-only in passages that describe the early Christian community. Is the command "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God . . ." so fragile that it is impaired by loss of the masculine tone?
A look at Dobson's politics provides some of the answers. After the success of his early books, "Dare to Discipline" in 1971 and "The Strong-Willed Child" in 1978, he founded Focus on the Family, a conservative group that teaches parents how to discipline children, maintain strict gender roles and fend off sex in the media. He now has television and radio programs heard around the world.
As right-wing politics gained ground in the 1990s, Dobson became a voice as well-known as preacher Jerry Falwell and conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Robertson. In the culture wars, he and his organization defended "family values" against such "immorality" as divorce, gay marriages, extramarital affairs and legal abortion. Focus devotes over $4 million annually to lobbying and otherwise influencing public policy.
Dobson's fear of neutering the Bible may be genuine. After all, such notable Christians as C.S. Lewis held to a theology in which God's power had some masculine essence, in relation to which all Christians play a passive "feminine" role.
Many thinking men, however--such as scholar Ken Barker, who served on the translation committee for Today's New International Version--feel comfortable changing men-only phrases to more inclusive ones. "We want to communicate clearly God's truth to the people of the 21st century," he says.
Dobson's opposition may lie either in power politics or in the idea that any change threatens respect for Scripture as the inerrant, eternal word of God. He is not alone in this feeling. An Israeli friend tells me, "We can't change one word of the Torah, not one comma"--but at least the Hebrew scriptures are an original ancient text, not a recent translation, as is the King James Version. The Vatican also opposes changing "men" to "people" in Bible translations, though many U.S. Catholic congregations are already using inclusive versions in worship.
But most likely, Dobson's resistance comes from a messy mixture of ideas and emotions--love of the past, inability to abandon eons of entrenched male privilege, fear of empowering women and fear of changing the magical holy words.
When I was mother of a 2-year-old, I bought Dobson's "The Strong-Willed Child" and sought advice on how to cope with tantrums and willfulness. But after some reading, I grew skeptical. His prescriptions for breaking a child's will seemed like boot camp in the Army. For children as young as 15 months, he recommends, "two or three stinging strokes on the legs or bottom" for disobedience. He equates a child's self-will with original sin but somehow thinks that parents, unlike God, should be able to win this battle and produce docile children. Fortunately, I found other books with very different philosophies, and as my children grew older, I began to admire their strong wills. After all, how would a weak-willed child make it in this world? Would he or she become a teen who could "just say no"?
Dobson's books have since gotten more political and polemical. His "Children at Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids," 1990, says we are engaged in a "Civil War of values." He opposes sex education in public schools, childbearing outside of marriage, divorce, homosexuality and gay rights. "When did parents begin to lose control of our children to government bureaucrats and an 'anything goes' culture?" he asks.
While other men grow and learn, Dobson remains stubborn in resisting even an inch of change in Bible translations. His behavior looks only slightly related to deep respect for the Bible. Instead it appears bound up with his other political positions, which are rooted in fear, a sense of losing control and wanting to preserve power.
Anne Eggebroten is author of "Abortion: My Choice, God's Grace," New Paradigm Books, Pasadena, Calf., 1994.
Something we could all take a lesson from here.
Then I wholeheartedly endorse everything you said!
Exactly how is any of that political? Except for the sex ed in schools (which I imagined is covered somehow) every other aspect of this 'political' move is covered specifically in the Holy Bible
-but at least the Hebrew scriptures are an original ancient text, not a recent translation, as is the King James Version
Well because most of the folks in England couldn't read Latin Vulgate!! So every translation phase is supposed to take out something they don't like to fit more in with their 'lifestyles'? What about the Geneva, Tynsdale, Coverdale, or the Bishops translation all done in the 100 years before the King James and from which much of the King James version drew from?
New International Version is second in popularity to only to the King James Version--which reads exactly as it did when it was published in 1611.
Well spank me and call me Jim!! Of course it reads exactly like it did in 1611 or else it wouldn't be the King James version!! Are the words too big for you there? Is it a little too difficult to understand not only the meaning but the beauty(unintended BTW) in which it was written? I've never read anything BUT the King James version or earlier
Anne Eggebroten is author of "Abortion: My Choice, God's Grace,"
Well Anne that says it all right there doesn't it? You don't like the Bible because you can't sit down and read it without feeling some conviction that possibly you have the wrong ideas.
As I understand it, both the Hebrew and Greek languages have gender neutral words which include both men and women. The English language does not have such words. When the Hebrew and Greek were first translated into English several hundred years ago, the gender neutral terms were rendered as masculine terms.
I've been using the NRSV for many years now and I don't find it the least bit offensive. I find it more true to the original language.
The gender neutral translations don't change words which were originally masculine in the original languages and those include references to God. All it does is change words which were clearly meant to be inclusive of both genders to words like "one", "person", "humankind" (instead of mankind), etc.
and she is critical of James Dobson because
"He opposes sex education in public schools, childbearing outside of marriage, divorce, homosexuality and gay rights." and "When did parents begin to lose control of our children to government bureaucrats and an 'anything goes' culture?" he asks.
Gosh, imagine that.
That's true to an extent. But a large part of the problem is that words change meaning over time. For example, the word "gay" meant a completely different thing when I was a child than it does now.
You are absolutely right. We just left our Presbyterian church because of this very problem. We're now happy to be a part of a fundamentalist, Bible-believing (as opposed to Bible-editing) church. The same mindset that seeks to rewrite American history and the U.S. Constitution now endeavors to tamper with the Word. Political correctness is a POISON! Women of America, wake up!!! The devil is using you to do his bidding. Dr. Dobson is right, as always.
I don't have trouble with most more up to date English translations of the Bible as long as the Gospel Message is preserved and not subverted. The translation in this artice subverts the word of GOD as GOD created man in his own image and took woman from man.
In general the newer translations have better translations thanks to such discoveries as the Dead Sea Scrolls and more information on the writtings and dialects{sp} of that day. KJV is a good version especially Psalms and the writtings of Solomon. But myself I use two or more different translations in my readings all of them pretty well say the same thing and the integrity of the Bible stays intact. The one mentioned in this article doesn't fall into that catagory or no where even close IMO. I do think the translations into different languages and more readable or rather understandable text though is great and fullfills the prophecies of Daniel.
BTW when I was in public grade school the Bible was read and prayer was said. I grew up on the KJV. But I learned faster on other translations.
The trouble is, they're religious, but probably not really Christian.
http://www.focusonthefamily.org/welcome/press/a0019505.cfm
and
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-20-02/opening_5.asp
For a presentation of translation inaccuracies in the new version, go here: http://www.cbmw.org/resources/tniv/
Dobson is not alone on his condemnation of the new version. Anyone who spends even five minutes researching this issue will find out the new version has essentially been abandoned by everyone except those with an agenda of political correctness.
Christianity is a shallow and shifting fashion statement--like MTV--not a living faith, to the person who penned this snide comment.
I sure hope no one buys it... and I hope they don't *spend money* on it either! It sounds unfit even for emergency TP in the woods!
Funny how none of the apostates currently desecrating Scripture give a fig for the Word.
Sorry, but I don't believe this for a minute.
Gender neutral translations are efforts to cleanse God's Word of the masculine references, especially those refering to God in order to suit the feminist extremists who care more about their own agenda then they do about what God has to say to mankind.
A great deal of care has been taken throughout the years to preserve and pass on accurate translations, and the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and other portions of scripture have confirmed that the KJV and other traditional translations are virtually the same as the original language.
This claim that NOW all of a sudden, the feminists have discovered the TRUE original language is nonsense.
They are distorting God's Word to suit their narrow selfish agenda. And they will answer to God for it.
18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
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.