The best argument I've heard for inclusive language

[mmortal03]

Of course they do. You have removed the context of my statement and your response in no way disputes it whatsoever, so I wonder the point you are attempting to make?

See what dacoobob just said. He got what I was saying.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Translators create bad translations all the time, that’s why we have so many bad translations.

But my point was not that translators make bad translations all the time. My point is that most translation is not simply a word for word translation. That cannot usually be done because grammar is so different between languages. Straight translations would often be unintelligible. Translators must understand the sense of what is said and try to translate that sense. Some of course do it better than others. But all do it to one degree or another. One cannot negate that some translations are overly tied to a personal theological belief system which may not be fairly gleaned from the actual text.

 

[TheMese]

I wasn’t aware of Paul’s apparently “inclusive” language either, I find the revelation interesting to be sure…

I’ve only burnt one book for ‘overly-inclusive language’. It was a RSV lectionary from a Carmelite Monastery in the U.S. The inclusiveness was so extreme that it actually had Abba, Amma (Father, Mother) God, etc. and a thorough going agenda throughout to disgender God. Dreadful and heretical.

As far as I’m concern I quite happy with the Imprimatured NRSV along with the NJB and my other favourites for personal Bible study. The Church has told me these are fine for my studies.

As for the Liturgy, its the bishops and the Pope who decide the level of inclusiveness at Mass. That’s their business and I’ll go along with them without criticism.