Inclusive language

  • Thread starter Thread starter HannahLisa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HannahLisa

Guest
What is the big deal with inclusive language in Bibles? By inclusive language, I mean “brothers and sisters” instead of “brothers” when “brothers” is used as a general address, NOT inclusive language as in avoiding using masculine pronouns when referring to God.

My personal viewpoint on this is that in everyday English, we don’t use the masculine in referring to people in general, or a non-specific person. Instead, we use a term including both men and women, or we use “they.” Why is it so offensive to carry that over to recent Bible translations, when the original intent of the author was to refer to men and women? I completely understand why it is bad for pronouns referring to God to be changed, or ones specifically referring to individuals. I also do not know of any Bible which has done that.

Do you have a problem with inclusive language, and if so, why? If not, why not?
 
I don’t, and in fact I like it. I use inclusive language Bibles in my teaching, because they are clear and easy to understand. 🙂
 
I have nooooooo problem whatsoever (in the same instances as the OP described), and (dear Lord forgive me) I think that those who do should have their heads examined.
 
In older bibles God was, indeed, referred to as a male. As far as other “inclusive” language, I think it’s you who need your heads examined. By adding inclusive language we are basically saying that we know better than God. Anyone who has any sense would know that all are included when “brother” is used. In fact, a few years ago I was looking up something in the online dictionary (oed.org if I remember correctly) and came across something interesting. The “word of the millinium” was SHE. Before then, there was no specific word for this.

Sure, I know you are, no doubt, think I’m off my rocker. But, to me, inclusive language is an insult to the word of God.
 
Christy_Beth said:
In older bibles God was, indeed, referred to as a male. As far as other “inclusive” language, I think it’s you who need your heads examined. By adding inclusive language we are basically saying that we know better than God. Anyone who has any sense would know that all are included when “brother” is used. In fact, a few years ago I was looking up something in the online dictionary (oed.org if I remember correctly) and came across something interesting. The “word of the millinium” was SHE. Before then, there was no specific word for this.

Sure, I know you are, no doubt, think I’m off my rocker. But, to me, inclusive language is an insult to the word of God.
Click to expand...
The original languages of the Bible use gender neutral language. The closest we can come to gender-neutral in English is to use incluslve language - this is the most accurate way to convey the original meaning, when using English.

I don’t think women and girls should need to do the mental gymnastics required to see themselves as “brothers” and “men” - and the inclusive language Bibles are much more clear on when, in fact “brothers” and “men” are indeed the intended target audience - for example, when talking about the Apostles.

In these cases, inclusive language, when used properly, serves an additional educational purpose, because it shows the places where women are, in fact, excluded from the meaning of the text, by showing that the Apostles are “brothers” and not “brothers and sisters” it makes clear that the Apostles were only male. But if “brothers” is used to signify “brothers and sisters” then when it is referring to the Apostles, or other male-only situations, there is no way to differentiate them from situations where there are both brothers and sisters being referred to.
 
jmcrae said:
I don’t think women and girls should need to do the mental gymnastics required to see themselves as “brothers” and “men”…
Click to expand...
As Alice Von Hildebrandt said, there was a time, before feminism, when women could understand that “men” meant mankind.

:blessyou:
 
jmcrae said:
The original languages of the Bible use gender neutral language.
Click to expand...
This is flat out untrue. Hebrew has no neutral gender and the Greek wording used male nouns to indicate collective nouns, as it is the grammatically correct norm when forming plural of subjects of both genders. The same was carried over to the Latin Vulgate.

:blessyou:
 
Augustine said:
As Alice Von Hildebrandt said, there was a time, before feminism, when women could understand that “men” meant mankind.

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I don’t think “mental gymnastics” are required at all. It’s just common sense. I don’t find it hard to understand at all that I, a woman, am included in “mankind”.

Amie
 
Christy_Beth said:
In older bibles God was, indeed, referred to as a male. As far as other “inclusive” language, I think it’s you who need your heads examined. By adding inclusive language we are basically saying that we know better than God. Anyone who has any sense would know that all are included when “brother” is used. In fact, a few years ago I was looking up something in the online dictionary (oed.org if I remember correctly) and came across something interesting. The “word of the millinium” was SHE. Before then, there was no specific word for this.
Click to expand...
I know that in my generation (I’m 19), “brother” does NOT mean everyone’s included when used in everyday English, and “men” does not mean “men and women”. I also think this gulf will only continue widening. It was common sense to know that “brother” meant everyone in certain Bible passages, but it is now only somewhat common sense. It will probably become something that one has to be told before understanding what’s actually going on in those Bible passages…just because of the way the language is being used today.

What do you mean when you say “there was no specific word”?
 
HannahLisa said:
What is the big deal with inclusive language in Bibles? By inclusive language, I mean “brothers and sisters” instead of “brothers” when “brothers” is used as a general address, NOT inclusive language as in avoiding using masculine pronouns when referring to God.

My personal viewpoint on this is that in everyday English, we don’t use the masculine in referring to people in general, or a non-specific person. Instead, we use a term including both men and women, or we use “they.” Why is it so offensive to carry that over to recent Bible translations, when the original intent of the author was to refer to men and women? I completely understand why it is bad for pronouns referring to God to be changed, or ones specifically referring to individuals. I also do not know of any Bible which has done that.

Do you have a problem with inclusive language, and if so, why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Inclusive language that refers to God as a female --I definitely object to. The Vatican has come down against this trend. There were some priests who were baptizing in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier (instead of the “chauvinistic” Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Vatican declared baptisms done in this manner were not valid. You can read about it here:
americanpapist.com/2008/02/cdf-officially-ends-dispute-on-baptisms.html

The rest of it (referring to “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers”) doesn’t bother me so much except for the fact that I know what’s behind it–the feminist movement–which I object to. The feminist movement is very anti-Christian and has done a lot of damage to the family and society. Still there are a lot of people within the Church who are heavily influenced by the feminist movement, and they are the ones pushing for the inclusive language.

If you have time, read up on some of the heroes and founders of the feminist movement–Judith Jarvis Thomson, Simone de Beauvoir, Elisabeth Badinter, or Margaret Sanger–to get an idea of where it’s coming from.
 
HannahLisa said:
What is the big deal with inclusive language in Bibles? By inclusive language, I mean “brothers and sisters” instead of “brothers” when “brothers” is used as a general address, NOT inclusive language as in avoiding using masculine pronouns when referring to God.

My personal viewpoint on this is that in everyday English, we don’t use the masculine in referring to people in general, or a non-specific person. Instead, we use a term including both men and women, or we use “they.” Why is it so offensive to carry that over to recent Bible translations, when the original intent of the author was to refer to men and women? I completely understand why it is bad for pronouns referring to God to be changed, or ones specifically referring to individuals. I also do not know of any Bible which has done that.

Do you have a problem with inclusive language, and if so, why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
That is not correct. “Mankind” refers to everyone. Everyone knows that.
Are you suggesting we should now say “mankind and womankind”?
Do you want the Bible to say God the Father/Mother, Son and Holy Spirit?
The Bible should not be changed to use inclusive language. Its ridiculous.
 
Most (if not all?) of the 630 times in the KJV and 578 times in the DR ‘children of Israel’ is found in the O.T. it derives from

בני ישראל

which should read ‘sons of Israel’

so these two older versions already have sort of inclusive language…?
 
Hannahlisa

According to what I read at the time I came across that reference there wasn’t a distinctive word for “she.” “She” was a new word. At this moment I can’t look up for specific words because the OED web site is by subscription only. The library has a subscription, but I’m at home and can’t gain access.

I have no problem with the “generic” brother being used. I never had any problem with it. I know, in general, when it includes women. I know that all of the apostles were all men. But I also know that some of Christ’s followers were women.

I can think of two instances (can’t remember the exact verses though) where Jesus used the word “woman.” One was at the wedding feast in Cana. His mother had approached Him about the wine running out. His reply was, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” This may sound rude to us, but back then that wasn’t necessarily true.
 
“inclusive language” is a holdover from secular humanist feminist propaganda of the 1970s that sought to overthrow what they called our patriarchal society. Women had to be “equal” in everything. Businesses had to have a 50/50 man-woman mix or they were anti-woman. In fact, a lot of immoral things are labeled anti-woman.

Inclusive is a divisive term. Jesus was a man, and He referred to the Father. This is the way God, not man, chose to present himself. The false sense of fear, mistrust and suspicion caused by the radical feminist movement in the 1970s was meant to destroy the family and turn men and women into two warring camps. God never intended it to be like that. He commanded husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and wives to love their husbands.

God bless,
Ed
 
Heres an exmample of the problem with inclusive language:

Psalm 127

Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one’s youth.

Is changed to:

Children are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one’s youth.

"The problem is this Psalm was fortelling the coming of Christ(the son of God). It loses all its meaning when it is “sanitized”
 
estesbob said:
Heres an exmample of the problem with inclusive language:

Psalm 127

Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one’s youth.

Is changed to:

Children are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one’s youth.

"The problem is this Psalm was fortelling the coming of Christ(the son of God). It loses all its meaning when it is “sanitized”
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of this psalm being a Messianic prophecy. Where did you get that information?

I think it’s pretty obvious that “mankind” refers to all of humanity. I also don’t remember any incidence of Jesus being referred to as the “Son of Mankind.”

Just to reiterate - by inclusive language I DO NOT mean God being referred to as some kind of gender-neutral or male-female being; I mean something like the general addresses at the beginning of epistles being changed to say “brothers and sisters” instead of “brothers” or something like that.
 
NoelFitz said:
Most of us prefer not to use inclusive language.

I think the sound of “Son of Humankind” is a bit odd.
Click to expand...
I can provide you an even worse example. I ran across a paperback Bible (not sure which translation, but it was a putrid one using so-called inclusive language throughout) which altered Jesus’ own title of “Son of Man” to “Child of Humanity”.

No, I am not a fan of so-called inclusive language. I find it patronizing and I dislike the agenda behind it (as well as the fact that it is ordinarily perpetrated by someone who has no idea what he is doing to the meaning of the writing he is altering). And yes, I do still use “he” as a pronoun when referring to a single person of unknown gender.
 
jmcrae said:
I don’t think women and girls should need to do the mental gymnastics required to see themselves as “brothers” and “men” - and the inclusive language Bibles are much more clear on when, in fact “brothers” and “men” are indeed the intended target audience - for example, when talking about the Apostles.
Click to expand...
I am all for inclusive language having been in a number of situations in my younger days, after people had patiently explained to me that “man” or “mankind” included women (and girls to find that this was not always true.

Also non-inclusive language makes half or humanity invisible and any group who is invisible can so easily be ignored or regarded as inferior.
 
Tut tut! We should not say *mankind, humankind *perhaps.
The Trinity of Parent, Child and Holy Spirit, rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit would sound strange
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top