Terminalcoffee discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
64 views
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives > Best-selling Bible May Get Revised With New Gender Terms...

Comments Showing 1-19 of 19 (19 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by RandomAnthony (last edited Sep 01, 2009 04:51PM) (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32644719/...

Interesting...but I don't mean this as an invitation to Christian-bash, so control yourself, heathens...what do you think of this revision in general, though?


message 2: by Angie (new)

Angie (angabel) Silly and pointless.


message 3: by Lori (new)

Lori Oh this is never gonna fly with conservative Christians, never ever never. But I like the way they did change "men" to "people" and others like that when the original Bible never evoked gender. But good heavens, that changes the patriarchal interpretations, oh nooooooo!

It's fascinating how different translations can be. It would be fun to compare some, especially Jewish vs. Christian.


message 4: by Angie (new)

Angie (angabel) Does it REALLY change the patriarchal interpretations, though? I mean, REALLY REALLY change? I am pretty okay with word reclamation but I feel like they're just trying to name a chunk of wood into a feather; it's still going to hurt if someone knocks it over your head.

In my experience, the Christians I know don't really think too much of the patriarchy when it is involved in the words like "men" and such, because you can change the terms, but it doesn't change the actions, necessarily: women are still going to be portrayed a certain way.

I think it's great a step is being made to make the Bible a little less outwardly sexist, but I don't think it's going to make the Bible any more approachable for people. No one is going to go, "Whew! Now that they've changed that sticky little wording, I think I'm going to read the Bible and become Christian!"


message 5: by Matt (new)

Matt | 819 comments Very intriguing that a corporation actually owns the copyright to the NIV translation...

There are still a few folks running around this area of the country who will gladly tell you all about how the NIV was the beginning of everything going to hell in a hand basket as they clutch their tattered King James Version.


message 6: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments BunWat wrote: "RandomAnthony wrote: so control yourself, heathens..."

You rang?"


You know who ya are...

:)




message 7: by Stephen (new)

Stephen (stephenT) Oh this one is right up my alley. The NIV translation is the translation of choice for the evangelicals. It's not a bad translation, but it will never be allowed to be gender inclusive. The New Revised Standard Version, replaced men with men and women; brothers, with brothers and sisters.

As hard as it may be to believe, many people even in the Catholic Church are doing their best to change these structures of patriarchy.

Sir Bumptious, Viceroy of Madagascar.


message 8: by RandomAnthony (last edited Sep 02, 2009 06:18AM) (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments I stick with the King James version when I pick up the Bible (which, to be fair, isn't very often). I don't need any, "Yo, and Jesus and his posse went to the marketplace, which was kind of like the mall..."

I agree with Stephen's post #8, too...


message 9: by Stephen (new)

Stephen (stephenT) The King James is beautiful English and there is no disputing that fact. For sheer beauty, King James wins. The problem is we don't speak that kind of English anymore, or language is alive, and thriving. I have every possible translation in my possession, each of them shows me something I might have, or often do, miss in the others.


message 10: by Sarah (new)

Sarah | 13815 comments I like that they're trying to make the language more true to the original text. I can't speak for the new testament, but I've read a good chunk of the old testament in Hebrew. Hebrew, like a lot of languages, often uses the male plural to denote mixed groups. It's not unreasonable to translate the word that has previously been translated as "men" as "men and women" or "people".
I don't think this is really radical at all, just more accurate.


message 11: by Kevin (new)

Kevin  (ksprink) | 11469 comments i use a bible translation called The Message. it is not a "hey dude" translation like the One Way or Living bible was but still something that a regular person can relate to.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...

here is my feelings on most of the gender stuff in the bible. i can pretty much tell when men means men and men means all people. also i fully understand that any translation (including King Jimmy, NIV, etc) are just that. translations from original manuscripts. people that sweat translation need to learn old greek or aramaic. as for making the bible more PC, i don't see the need for it


message 12: by Matt (new)

Matt | 819 comments Stephen wrote: "I have every possible translation in my possession, each of them shows me something I might have, or often do, miss in the others."

For some reason this line reminds me of my favorite W.C. Fields story. Legend has it that when he was on his deathbed a friend entered the room to see him thumbing through a Bible. Fields had a long standing reputation as an atheist and the shocked friend asks him what he is doing, to which he replies in a somber tone "Looking for loopholes."




message 13: by Cosmic Sher (new)

Cosmic Sher (sherart) | 2234 comments And the Big Dude Upstairs sayeth to Lil' J:
You are my only son. JK! LOL - Catch u at Strbks l8tr?


I don't know if a new translation is a good or bad thing, but I do find it interesting to see the changes that are made and how they reflect the current culture. I think that says a whole lot about how people are seeing their religion at the time.


message 14: by Stephen (new)

Stephen (stephenT) Tadpole: LOL I'd forgotten that line of Fields.

Sher: you are on the money.


message 15: by RandomAnthony (new)

RandomAnthony | 14536 comments Revised Bibles strive for balance...


http://www.jsonline.com/features/reli...


message 16: by Janice (new)

Janice (jamasc) I wonder what's been lost in translation or influenced by people over the history of the Bible's translations. Personally, I like the english of the King James Version.


message 17: by Lobstergirl, el principe (new)

Lobstergirl | 24076 comments Mod
You know Kim Kardashian is sad to see "booty" replaced with "spoils of war."


message 18: by ~Geektastic~ (new)

 ~Geektastic~ (atroskity) | 3207 comments Janice wrote: "I wonder what's been lost in translation or influenced by people over the history of the Bible's translations. Personally, I like the english of the King James Version."

Most of the writing (in English) was done by poets commissioned by the king, so the language is really beautiful if not necessarily true to the actual translation. The original texts aren't extant anymore, so who knows how much is even remotely the same.


message 19: by Phil (new)

Phil | 11605 comments RandomAnthony wrote: "BunWat wrote: "RandomAnthony wrote: so control yourself, heathens..."

You rang?"

You know who ya are...

:)

"


Who are I?


back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.