J
JeanneH
Guest
could some one please site me a verse that would have inclusive language in it so I can compare it to the same verse without inclusive language? Hope that made sence.
Thanks
JeanneH
Thanks
JeanneH
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fantrl
Guest
This one doesn’t really altar the meaning, but it’s still “inclusive.”
John 1:4
The NAB says: “through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;”
The Bible says: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men.”
John 1:4
The NAB says: “through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;”
The Bible says: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men.”
Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the [man | one | those ] who follow not in the ways…
The Psalms also have their full meaning in Christ, and changing “man” to something else removes its attachment to Jesus.
Galatians 4:4ff "But in the fullness of time, God sent his Son… so that we may receive adoption [as sons | as children]…as proof that you are [sons | children], God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts…So you are no longer a slave but a [son | child].
The proper term in Galatians is “son” not “child” and it has theological meaning. In Biblical times, the son, especially the first-born had special privileges and responsibilities. In Christ, we relate to God the Father in much the same way the ancient sons related to their fathers. The most important feature of sonship was heirship: they were entitled to the family’s inheritance. This patterns Christ’s relationship with his Father, and that relationship is the model of our own relationship with God. We were adopted as sons, and because of that we are heirs of a heavenly inheritance. In that sense, everyone, both male and female are sons of God. Changing it to “children” loses this meaning.
The Psalms also have their full meaning in Christ, and changing “man” to something else removes its attachment to Jesus.
Galatians 4:4ff "But in the fullness of time, God sent his Son… so that we may receive adoption [as sons | as children]…as proof that you are [sons | children], God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts…So you are no longer a slave but a [son | child].
The proper term in Galatians is “son” not “child” and it has theological meaning. In Biblical times, the son, especially the first-born had special privileges and responsibilities. In Christ, we relate to God the Father in much the same way the ancient sons related to their fathers. The most important feature of sonship was heirship: they were entitled to the family’s inheritance. This patterns Christ’s relationship with his Father, and that relationship is the model of our own relationship with God. We were adopted as sons, and because of that we are heirs of a heavenly inheritance. In that sense, everyone, both male and female are sons of God. Changing it to “children” loses this meaning.
S
SueKrum
Guest
what I don’t understand is why they have changed all the episil (not sure if I spelled that right) readings in mass. they all start out with “beloved” or “bretheren” and now in mass, they always start them with “brothers and sisters” and it never says that in the bible. it kind of irks me a little bit.
J
JeanneH
Guest
Thank you for responding. I now know what they mean by inclusive language.I would rather the language NOT be inclusive.
Thank you so much for the mini education.
JeanneH
Thank you so much for the mini education.
JeanneH
- Status
- Not open for further replies.