Inclusive language in the Bible?

[PJM]

=itullian;9412975]Are you for or against and why?

i’m very conservative on these kind of things myself. and don’t agree with the changes.

thank you

I’m with you AND God is on OUR SIDE

Genesis 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” *So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. *And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

THIS COMMAND TO BE “Fruitful and multiply” can be found another 28 TIMES is the Bible… I’ can’t think of any other teaching except “belief in God” that has so many repitations. GOD OBVIOUSLYN SAID WHAT HE MEANT; AND MEANT WHAT HE SAID.:yup:

If God wnated UNISEX humanity He would have made us “Ameba” … He didn’t bcause BOTH genders HAVE a ROLE to fulfill!:dancing:

"THY WILL Father; NOT MY will BE DONE!

God Bless,
pat

 

[dougbrec]

A brief walk through history. The first modern English translation of the bible was during the early 16th century, called the Tyndale Bible. The first complete Catholic translation was the Douay-Rheims Bible completed in 1609, followed by Church of England’s King James Bible in 1611. So, a complete English bible is a relatively new occurence in the context of the history of the Catholic Church.

Since the 17th century, the English language itself has changed dramatically. A modern linguist must take into account the changes in our modern English language when translating from the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

Our English language changes all of the time. At the risk of being crude, a simple example is the word “gay” which had a very different meaning 100 years ago from what it has in our language today. So, what “he” meant in the English language during the early 20th century is very different from what “he” means in the early 21st century. A contemporary linguist would translate the Greek, Hebrew, or Latin into the word “he” very differently today from how they would have 100 years ago.

A 100 years ago, the English word “he” would have been used interchangable for “he” or “she” much like other Latin languages. Today, our society is very sensitive to the fact that “he” means a term refering to a male. As a result, a contemporary linguist must take this change in our modern English into account and properly translate the intent of the original language.

Like many, I am a skeptic of a single translation of the Bible. To make sure I have the best understanding of the original text, I use many Catholic translations of the Bible from the last 50 years to make sure I have as many perspectives on the translation as possible.

Good luck in trying to decide on whether inclusive language is bad or not. I recommend looking at several other translations (from the last 50 years) to see whether they also translate the same term inclusively or not, and then make a decision on whether the translation has a bias towards political correctness.

God bless!

 

[dmyrtle]

I think we have to be very careful as to the purpose of adding inclusive language to the Bible. A number of women are of the mistaken impression that equality between the sexes implies a competition between us, to prove which is superior. Their version of inclusive language would remove any reference to men from scripture to further that cause.

Another purpose is to remove any sense of male-ness from God, thus God becomes “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”, instead of the personal “Father, Son and (referred to as He) Spirit”. While it’s understood that God is so much greater than us and transcends male and female, this type translation is all part of the aforementioned competition between men and women. I know a former nun who says the prayers of the mass in this way - replacing “His” and “Him” with “God” just to be sure we all know where she stands.

On the other hand, I find inclusive language to remove the gender-specific peculiarities of the English language most welcome. If the earliest texts don’t indicate gender, and the translators can make it gender neutral without hiding the meaning, it should be translated without referencing a specific gender, rendering as close to the original meaning as possible. That, after all, is the purpose of a good translation.

 

[dmartin11]

I’m with Lutheranische: brothers and sisters. anything else would be changing the sense of the Word.

 

[dougbrec]

I think we have to be very careful as to the purpose of adding inclusive language to the Bible. A number of women are of the mistaken impression that equality between the sexes implies a competition between us, to prove which is superior. Their version of inclusive language would remove any reference to men from scripture to further that cause.

Another purpose is to remove any sense of male-ness from God, thus God becomes “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier”, instead of the personal “Father, Son and (referred to as He) Spirit”. While it’s understood that God is so much greater than us and transcends male and female, this type translation is all part of the aforementioned competition between men and women. I know a former nun who says the prayers of the mass in this way - replacing “His” and “Him” with “God” just to be sure we all know where she stands.

On the other hand, I find inclusive language to remove the gender-specific peculiarities of the English language most welcome. If the earliest texts don’t indicate gender, and the translators can make it gender neutral without hiding the meaning, it should be translated without referencing a specific gender, rendering as close to the original meaning as possible. That, after all, is the purpose of a good translation.

I always am suspicious when people pick on former nuns, and current nuns for that matter. Just be careful to ask your former nun why she uses “God” versus “His” and “Him”.

My son-in-law was taught to use “God” instead of “His” and “Him” in the 1980’s in a northern state. He has told me that the 1st edition of the English Sacramentary for Canada (and all other English-speaking countries except the U.S.) translated the term to “God” - not the male term used in the U.S. As a result, the Catholic churches and schools in his diocese, with the blessing of the ordinary, seemed to have adopted the more gender neutral translation from Canada.

Until the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal came out where all English speaking countries adopted the same language, my son-in-law continued to use the terms “God” instead of “His” or “Him”.

 

[mamaharper]

I have always thought that, since Jesus referred to himself as the “Son of man”, He was not speaking about His Father, (God), but His mother, Mary. Now, since Mary is not a man, but represents mankind (humanity), I assumed that man is to be interpreted as humankind. If Mary, His mother, did not object to His use of the word “man”, then why should we?

 

[dougbrec]

I have always thought that, since Jesus referred to himself as the “Son of man”, He was not speaking about His Father, (God), but His mother, Mary. Now, since Mary is not a man, but represents mankind (humanity), I assumed that man is to be interpreted as humankind. If Mary, His mother, did not object to His use of the word “man”, then why should we?

Why don’t you pray to Mary and ask her? Both Mary and Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic when they spoke of the “Son of Man”. And, when the words were written in the New Testament, the original manuscripts are found in Greek. Most scholars would agree that Jesus never spoke “Son of Man” in English. So, we have always relied on a modern-day person to translate their words.

1. Hopefully, you know that there are many words in Greek that translate into the English word “man”. Some of these words had distinct male denotations and some had humankind denotations.
2. Hopefully, you agree that our language changes over time. And, linguist should translate for everyone who speaks English - and we want the most accurate translation possible into English.

 

[mamaharper]

Why don’t you pray to Mary and ask her? Both Mary and Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic when they spoke of the “Son of Man”. And, when the words were written in the New Testament, the original manuscripts are found in Greek. Most scholars would agree that Jesus never spoke “Son of Man” in English. So, we have always relied on a modern-day person to translate their words.

1. Hopefully, you know that there are many words in Greek that translate into the English word “man”. Some of these words had distinct male denotations and some had humankind denotations.
2. Hopefully, you agree that our language changes over time. And, linguist should translate for everyone who speaks English - and we want the most accurate translation possible into English.

Why do I need to pray to Mary? I don’t really understand your logic on that one. The Bible and Tradition have always been our sources of Catholicism, as that is called the Deposit of Faith. And nowhere have I read or heard that Mary objected to anything Jesus said. Anyway, since you obviously do not believe that Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of man, what do you suppose He actually said? I have always relied on the words of the Bible as being true and authentic, especially the Duoay Rheims Bible, which I thought was the one translated by Saint Jerome. Now are you saying I should not believe the words of the Bible? How confusing…

 

[edwest2]

Respectfully, your perspective is simplistic and a straw man. We don’t change it because we want to, we “change” it to be linguistically faithful to the source. I don’t even see why this is an issue, frankly.

Jesus is a man.

The Father is a man.

Men refers to mankind, generally.

What does the word inclusive mean to you? How do you define it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[mamaharper]

Jesus is a man.

The Father is a man.

Men refers to mankind, generally.

What does the word inclusive mean to you? How do you define it?

Peace,
Ed

Jesus is a man. God is male, but not a man. God is the Supreme Being, so I wouldn’t think that Jesus would say "Son of man, if he was referring to His Father. I would think that He would say “Son of God”. However, you do have a point there. Jesus was the Son of God, who is male, and the son of Mary, who is female. But only His mother was human. So that is why I considered that quote to mean Son of mankind.

As to inclusive language, I was thinking more along the lines of those who say God instead of He, or God’s instead of His, and of those who feel that to use the masculine “man” or “men” is offensive to women.And I don’t think “man” has to be plural (“men”) in order to stand for human, or mankind.

 

[ProVobis]

1. Hopefully, you know that there are many words in Greek that translate into the English word “man”. Some of these words had distinct male denotations and some had humankind denotations.

Good point. The words “love,” “worship” and the demonstrative pronouns (this, these, etc) all seem to fall into the same category. In many cases you have to go back to the Greek or Latin to check on its true meanings. One shouldn’t rely only on the English.

1. Hopefully, you agree that our language changes over time. And, linguist should translate for everyone who speaks English - and we want the most accurate translation possible into English.

I agree that it changes over time but you’re going to wind up with 50 different versions changed every 40 years or so if you want “accuracy.” English has no ideal period or region to use as a standard.

 

[ProVobis]

…especially the Duoay Rheims Bible, which I thought was the one translated by Saint Jerome. Now are you saying I should not believe the words of the Bible? How confusing…

St. Jerome didn’t translate into the Duoay Rheims Bible.

 

[DaveBj]

I’m with Lutheranische: brothers and sisters. anything else would be changing the sense of the Word.

Or, if you prefer the older English, “brethren and sistern.”

running and hiding now

(Full disclosure: That was a chapter title in Art Linkletter’s classic book Kids Say the Darnedest Things)

 

[mamaharper]

St. Jerome didn’t translate into the Duoay Rheims Bible.

Sorry. You are right. St. Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate.

The Douay–Rheims Bible is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church.

That is why I thought the Douay Rheims Bible was the most accurate English version of the Catholic Bible.

At any rate, I am not a Bible scholar, seeking out minute translation changes from one language to another. As a typical Catholic lay person, I don’t want to traipse around studying the different languages and examining each with a microscope to see if any hairs have been split. Consequently, if I want to read the Bible, I read the Douay Rheims Bible, and I trust in its authenticity to get me through the day.

So if Jesus didn’t refer to Himself as Son of man, what did He actually say?

 

[dmyrtle]

I always am suspicious when people pick on former nuns, and current nuns for that matter. Just be careful to ask your former nun why she uses “God” versus “His” and “Him”.

My son-in-law was taught to use “God” instead of “His” and “Him” in the 1980’s in a northern state. He has told me that the 1st edition of the English Sacramentary for Canada (and all other English-speaking countries except the U.S.) translated the term to “God” - not the male term used in the U.S. As a result, the Catholic churches and schools in his diocese, with the blessing of the ordinary, seemed to have adopted the more gender neutral translation from Canada.

Until the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal came out where all English speaking countries adopted the same language, my son-in-law continued to use the terms “God” instead of “His” or “Him”.

Interesting. I had never heard that about old translations of the Roman Missal. I’ll certainly keep that in mind in the future.

When I asked her, politely, why she uses different language, I got no such explanation. I believe that my description of her attitude is accurate.

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry. You are right. St. Jerome translated the Bible into the Latin Vulgate.

I figured it was an oversight.

So if Jesus didn’t refer to Himself as Son of man, what did He actually say?

The Latin is hominis (2nd person, genitive, “man, mankind”) and the Greek is ἀνθρώπου, which is used countless times in the Bible, including in Genesis where “God created man in his own image.” “Son of” is merely a descendant. But then “Son of man” could very well just be a collective expression such as in Psalm 80.

forum.bible-discussion.com/showthread.php?10115-%26%238001%3B-%26%23965%3B%26%237985%3B%26%238056%3B%26%23957%3B-%26%23964%3B%26%23959%3B%26%238166%3B-%26%237936%3B%26%23957%3B%26%23952%3B%26%23961%3B%26%23974%3B%26%23960%3B%26%23959%3B%26%23965%3B

But I’m sure that there are better Latin, Greek and Hebrew scholars than I.

 

[Nicea325]

As a retired professional translator, I’m for translating what the original says. Period. Women should get used to the fact that in Biblical language, unless the obvious meaning is male men or male siblings, then they are included in the concept of “men” (humans) and brethren. I don’t think the women of St. Paul’s time had any problem with it; why should the women of our day get bent out of shape?

Because secularism has even affected religious thought that is why.