[RogueIsland]

"Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's life partner" perhaps?

[Utah Girl]

Oh, ick. I was taught while reading the Bible growing up that girls and women were included, just take the "he" pronouns as meaning both sexes. As far as changing "the Son of God" to the Human One, I take offense at that one. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and all the gender PC junk isn't going to change that fact...

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Anne Eggebroten is author of "Abortion: My Choice, God's Grace

You have got to be kidding me. At least this version of the NIV doesn't go as far as those other volumes mentioned by the author, those versions are disgusting. Just checked, My New American Bible has none of these gender changes that the author seems so proud of. But where does this woman come from, lecturing us on the need for inclusion in the Bible, what about the unborn. God Bless

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

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.

does anyone buy this

[IronJack]

one wonders why James Dobson is holding out for a male God and men-only in passages that describe the early Christian community.

Maybe James Dobson isn't "holding out" as much as you and your revisionist ninny friends are blaspheming Holy Writ. Maybe he shouldn't be defending a Bible that has endured 500 years; maybe you should be defending one that tries to read like Marvel Comics.

Is the command "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God . . ." so fragile that it is impaired by loss of the masculine tone?

First of all, there is no "masculine tone" to that commandment. None. It is symptomatic that that charge exists only in your head.

Secondly, is the place of women so fragile that they can't celebrate the feminine heroism in the Bible and leave the masculine virtues intact? Are women so petty they must recast God Himself to suit the whims of a vacuous minority?

[Paul Atreides]

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?

One wonders why the offended women just can't accept the original scripture and quit being so fragile. Do they really hate the thought of respecting a male that much?

[RightOnline]

"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."

Words damned near fail me.................................................................................................................but not quite.

Who in the hell is this group of drooling morons that would DARE to inject bulls**t political correctness in The Holy Bible?????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just getting started......................ggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Jorge]

It's true... while some people are changed by the Word of God, others are busy trying to change the Word of God to suit themselves.

[cva66snipe]

I would say Zondervan Publishing House has just committed fiancial suicide and has lost any intergrity and good reputation it may have aquired over the years in Christian publications. It's going to cost them plenty in future book deals as not too many writters will want their name associated with Zondervan. I'll be looking for their name and will not buy their products.

[AmericaUnited]

Original: Genesis 2:22-25 "The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.'' For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."

New: Genesis 2:22-25 "The LORD God fashioned into person#2 the rib which He had taken from person#1, and brought person#2 to person#1. Person#1 said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; Person#2 shall be called WoPerson, Because person#2 was taken out of Person#1.'' For this reason a person shall leave their parent person and their other parent person, and be joined to the other person; and they shall become one flesh. And person#1 and person#2 were both naked and were not ashamed."

YEECH!

[yooper]

Even a big time liberal like Garrison Keillor has lampooned the practice of re-writing scripture to make it less offensive to certain easily offended groups. The Lake Wobegon religious community was the recipient of a new age type religious text which "translated" chiseled scripture into a paragraph of meaningless loonacy; Wobegonians characteristically said nothing, but discarded the tracts and went about their lives.....

[John Locke]

... the King James Version--which reads exactly as it did when it was published in 1611.

Amen to that.

[billbears]

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

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.

[randita]

This is much ado about nothing.

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.

[Chuckster]

Anne Eggebroten is author of "Abortion: My Choice, God's Grace," New Paradigm Books, Pasadena, Calf., 1994.

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.

[Jemian]

Many religious women and men herald a new, non-sexist translation of a popular version of the Bible

The trouble is, they're religious, but probably not really Christian.

[Pete]

This article is so full of holes it ain't even funny. Here are two links to Dobson's own words on this subject. If you decide to follow the links, you will find out that the group that is putting out this new translation backed out of an agreement on translation guidelines and that they mischaracterized and flat-out lied about this issue.

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.

[Terriergal]

I wonder what bunch will be the next to come in and want to change something to make the Bible more comfortable for them? I just don't get how women feel the Bible is sexist. It never ever struck me that way at all.

[Kevin Curry]

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.

Christianity is a shallow and shifting fashion statement--like MTV--not a living faith, to the person who penned this snide comment.

[hinckley buzzard]

If this baby-killing pagan had been a Christian, she would know that Jesus too, not just her Jewish "friend" said "not one comma (jot or tittle)" could be changed.

Funny how none of the apostates currently desecrating Scripture give a fig for the Word.