jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (22 posts)

Gender neutral Bible draws criticism

  1. pisean282311 profile image56
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    In the old translation of the world's most popular Bible, John the Evangelist declares: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." Make that "brother or sister" in a new translation that includes more gender-neutral language and is drawing criticism from some conservatives who argue the changes can alter the theological message.

    The 2011 translation of the New International Version Bible, or NIV, does not change pronouns referring to God, who remains "He" and "the Father." But it does aim to avoid using "he" or "him" as the default reference to an unspecified person.

    The NIV Bible is used by many of the largest Protestant faiths. The translation comes from an independent group of biblical scholars that has been meeting yearly since 1965 to discuss advances in biblical scholarship and changes in English usage.

    Gender neutral Bible draws criticism

    Before the new translation even hit stores, it drew opposition from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.

    The council decided it would not endorse the new version because the changes alter "the theological direction and meaning of the text," according to a statement. Similar concerns led the Southern Baptist Convention to reject the NIV's previous translation in 2005.

    At issue is how to translate pronouns that apply to both genders in the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts but have traditionally been translated using masculine forms in English.

    An example from the translator's notes for Mark 4:25 to show how the NIV's translation of these words has evolved over the past quarter-century.

    The widely distributed 1984 version of the NIV quotes Jesus: "Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."

    The more recent incarnation of the NIV from 2005, called Today's New International Version, changed that to: "Those who have will be given more; as for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them."

    The CBMW had complained in 2005 that making the subject of a verse plural to convey that it could refer equally to a man or a woman "potentially obscured an important aspect of biblical thought - that of the personal relationship between an individual and God."

    The NIV 2011 seems to have taken that criticism into account and come up with a compromise: "Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them."

    While the translators' former grammar teachers may not like it, the translators offer a strong justification for their choice of "they" (instead of the clunky "he or she") and "them" (instead of "him or her") to refer back to the singular "whoever."

    They commissioned an extensive study of the way modern English writers and speakers convey gender inclusiveness. According to the translators' notes on the Committee on Bible Translation's website, "The gender-neutral pronoun 'they' ('them'/'their') is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents such as 'whoever,' 'anyone,' 'somebody,' 'a person,' 'no one,' and the like."

    Randy Stinson, president of the CBMW and dean of the School of Church Ministries at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the changes are especially important to evangelicals.

    "Evangelicals believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture. We believe every word is inspired by God, not just the broad thought," he said.

    So if the original text reads "brothers" - even if that word in the original language is known to mean "brothers and sisters" (such as the Hebrew "achim" or Spanish word "hermanos") - many evangelicals believe the English translation should read "brothers."

    Stinson said a notes section would be the best place to point out that the original word could be read to include men and women.

    It's not yet known if the Southern Baptist Convention will reject the new translation the way it did the 2005 version. The nation's largest Protestant denomination still sells the 1984 translation in its stores. If it chooses to condemn the new version, that would happen at its national convention in June.

    The publisher says the NIV 2011 will replace both the 1984 and 2005 versions.

    Even while panning the new translation, the CBMW thanked the Committee on Bible Translation for being open about the process they used to develop it. That included taking comments from all sides of the gender debate.

    And the new version doesn't always use gender neutral language. It takes reader sensibility into account by not using inclusive terms for some of the most familiar verses where that might sound jarring. For instance, Matthew 4:4 is rendered, "'Man shall not live on bread alone."

    That's a change from the TNIV, where the same phase read, "People do not live on bread alone."

    "I think that clause has entered into standard English," translator Douglas Moo explained of the move back to the more traditional "man." "People know it who don't know the Bible."

    Moo said the translators hope that the phrasing of the new NIV is so natural that the average reader won't be aware of any of the gender language concerns that are debated by biblical scholars and linguists.

    The group's website says its goal is "to articulate God's unchanging Word in the way the original authors might have said it if they had been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today."

    While the change to the generic "man" in verses like Matthew 4:4 is applauded by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, linguist Joel M. Hoffman, author of "And God Said - How Translations Conceal the Bible's Original Meaning," said it is simply incorrect.

    "'Anthropos' (the Greek word in the original text) means 'person,' plain and simple," he said. "It's as much a mistake as translating 'parent' as 'father.'"

    He doesn't buy the argument that "man" is understood in English to refer to men and women.

    "If you walk into a church on Sunday morning and say, 'Will every man stand up?' I would be shocked if the women stood up, too."

    ________________________________________________________________

    your comments on this?

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      maybe they'll upgrade the donkeys to motorcars etc while they're at it?

      Interesting how god is male, yet presumably does not have a penis

      1. pisean282311 profile image56
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Southern Baptist Convention would do well to condemn the new version, just as it did the NIV.

      People (both MEN and WOMEN...LOL) indeed aren't totally stupid.  The Bible is clear enough already on which passages are only directed at males and which can be taken by both genders.

      Most of the newer versions only serve to confuse people anyway, and the version you've referred to here is apparently an effort to become "politically correct".  It's pure nonsense.  I can only imagine what the intent of the next "new version" will be.

  2. pisean282311 profile image56
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    no one seems interested?

  3. kess profile image59
    kessposted 6 years ago

    It is a natural thing to critersize and change the a thing you do not understand.

    So we men constantly modifying writings to accommodate their understanding and at the same time critersizing the author for their lack of understanding.

    Maleness and femaleness has a very different connotation to the spiritual Mind. This why they will speak of Father and son of God instead you would never hear them speak about daughters of God.


    For the Father has no daughters, for femaleness is that which do not yet exist nor ever will.

    1. pisean282311 profile image56
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ironically father should not exist in spirituality...mother is more important aspect...as nature shows many species dont even need father and in future even humans would design system which wont need father..experiments are on which would help women conceive without needing male inputs..so god even in metaphor terms becomes female...since giving birth is feminine attribute and god is suppose to have given birth to universe...

      1. kess profile image59
        kessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Natural thinking is the mind of the female, which focus on the tangible aspects of life.

        Spiritual thinking is the male thinking and focus on the intagible aspects of Life.

        This is the mind Of Father.

        Any Spiritual mind already know that, the maleness is the symbol of wholeness,oneness.

        Therefore it is need nothing, for it is self sufficient all things including his own female.

        So I tell you that the very perception of femaleness can only be by the initiative of the male.

        And femaleness is a concept that only exist within Time....meaning it is always a temporary state.

        Also know this, that collectively this world is of the feminine mindset.For she is in her final trimester and is about to deliver her children who are all Sons.

        Look around and you will see the extent of the feminine mindset,it is so strong that even the natural male feel compelled to act just as if they are female.

        I can yell you this because I am one of those sons, and though i explain all these things to you, I tell you truly only the son have the capacity understand.

        1. pisean282311 profile image56
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          wow...so you mean to say it take son's capacity to understand god...no wonder why god is so misunderstood ...had it been daughter's role , they would have done to perfection....finally i would like to say that your opinion is your opinion and so i wont comment on it

  4. Rafini profile image87
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." Make that "brother or sister" in a new translation that includes more gender-neutral language


    Good grief!   Why can't gender-neutral language say "yet hates fellow mankind" instead?

    1. pisean282311 profile image56
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      right...

    2. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      the PC brigade might have a problem with 'MANkind'?

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Try Humankind. tongue

  5. profile image0
    just_curiousposted 6 years ago

    I think people put way too much worry into it. Many seem to think God wrote the king james bible. I think the newer translations have a much better chance of sharing the original meaning. We have a better understanding of language now and every new translation, when done by an unbiased group, should be seen as an improvement. Having it more inclusive seems to make sense to me.

  6. kirstenblog profile image79
    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago

    Funny how if I criticize the bible for being deeply sexist, I get told that that is just because thats what the world was like back then (like that makes it OK! What was Jesus supposed to be doing if NOT to tell people that what they where doing was evil). I am not supposed to take it so literally yet if these folks are trying to create a new translation to bring the English bible more in line with its original text thats an outrage?!?!
    The church is still a sexist institution. Then again it is a totally evil institution so....

  7. kirstenblog profile image79
    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago

    kess, I find your post deeply offensive, as a woman.

    1. pisean282311 profile image56
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol even i found it offensive even though i am man but i restrained from commenting..

      1. kirstenblog profile image79
        kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        my offense probably doesn't count for anything since I am a woman lol

        no excuse for him to not listen to you tho, wonder what excuse he will come up with to justify his offensive post? It should be good wink

  8. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 6 years ago

    So in this Bible were the sons and daughters of Aaron ordained priests?

  9. kess profile image59
    kessposted 6 years ago

    Rather than taking offence, why not take the time to learn Truth...

    Truth never leads a one to take offence but enable all to see clearly.

    For even I had to deal with this issue.....

    1. kirstenblog profile image79
      kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Because you don't have a clue what crap it is that you are spouting. Truth that can be twisted into justification for harming and oppressing another is a truth I want nothing to do with, find deeply disgusting and repulsive. There are places for that sort of truth, places unmentionable, but lets just say you are sitting on the very thing you can stick the truth of yours up! As the saying goes, the devil can quote scripture when it serves his purpose, and here you go giving him a helping hand and provide exactly the sort of scripture he can twist on a silver platter. Some christian you *sick*

      1. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        the bible has been used as justification for slavery & for oppression of women

 
working