kwmc@hou5d.UUCP (K. W. M. Cochran) (10/24/83)
I have two questions to ask concerning the National Council of Churches' new "Inclusive Lectionary" in which an attempt is made to de-sex references to God and Christ .... 1) Does anyone in netland LIKE this lectionary ? I don't, and I don't know of anyone, of any belief/persuasion who does. I would be interested to know WHY someone who likes it does like it. 2) What do people think the effects will be ?. (I do not intend to defend the premises I am about to make in this paragraph ... maybe some other time). Assuming God inspired the Bible, that He will make "The Word of the Lord endure forever" and that Satan would like to twist God's Word ..... What is Satan up to ?. I think this attack on the Bible is too unsubtle!. Is it possibly a smoke screen for an attack of the form "ALL Modern translations are bad ... If the King James was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me " ? Comments please, Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/26/83)
It seems that the purpose of altering existing texts of any kind in this manner is a matter of sensitivity. By doing this, it is presumed, those who are somehow neglected in the text will be represented. Thus, by calling Jesus a child rather than a "son", it implies that he identifies with ALL people, men and women. And by changing other similar references that seem to apply exclusively to males, those people who see things in that restricted way will begin to see them in a more universal, non-sexist way. I have my doubts about the long-term usefulness of this. But I have even stronger doubts about those who seem to have strong violent opposition to it. 1) It is an example of Satan's twisting the words of the bible to his own evil ends. It would seem that over two thousand years the churches have done more to twist the meaning of the bible than this one alteration could. Who is playing "devil's advocate" here? What does it mean when someone says that making all references to god into ambisexual references is the work of the devil? 2) I'd go along with God saying "This is my child...", if the folks pushing the change could come up with evidence of Jesus being a hermaphrodite... Since when does "child" mean "hermaphrodite"? Are your "child"ren all "hermaphrodites"? Child means young person of either sex. Would it shatter your beliefs in god if Jesus was indeed a hermaphrodite? Would it be beyond the scope of your beliefs if "Jesus" were to "come back" in female form? And then of course there are those who would say that any alteration of the obviously correct King James Version is sacrilegious. Wouldn't it be funny if the translators used the English word "not" where they should have translated it as "always"... (Thou shalt always covet thy neighbor's wife...) If a given translation were, based on the words it contained and the way they were interpreted, defiling the original "intended" purpose of the words, wouldn't it behoove you to correct it. Of course, as with everything in religion, whether or not this defiling is happening is a matter of faith.
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (10/26/83)
The National Council of Churches should have been particularly careful in "translating" the Book of the Revelation to John--the warning at the end sounds ominous! ---------------------------------------- Dave Decot ..!decvax!cwruecmp!decot
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (10/27/83)
Point of fact (*sigh*). Most of the Christians I know do not believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the one and only acceptable version. Most of them know: 1. The original language of the Bible was *not* the King's English. 2. While the KJV contains beautiful language, it's not exactly modern English, and there have been enough changes to the English so that it no longer an accurate translation into English for the average speaker of English and that it is misleading... 3. There are more accurate translations and more accurate sources available now than when the KJV was translated. The most popular translations (as far as Christians I know of) are the New American Standard, the New International Version and the Revised Standard Version. The NAS is as close to the original as they could possibly make it -- even to the point of retaining some of the original word order. Unfortunately, it is not as readable as it could be. I prefer NIV because it is quite close to the original and uses good English -- much easier to read. I don't know much about RSV. As far as the discussions on arguments about alternate translations go, well... Let's put it this way. The scholars that translated the NIV were from many different protestant denominations and from many English speaking countries. All of them managed to agree. I know this leaves out the Roman Catholics and groups like the Mormans, but it still does cover quite a lot... -Liz -- Liz Allen, Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:hou5d:-71600:uokvax:8300013:000:1244 uokvax!emjej Oct 30 21:04:00 1983 You have a point; I should have chosen one of the examples such as Jesus referring to God as "father and mother," perhaps (although English has a generic word for that, namely "parent," which would seem a lot less clumsy). Also, I should state that Jesus's gender does not affect my belief (or more accurately, lack thereof) one whit. (On the other hand--if I were a Christian, then if I accepted the argument that Christ's gender was unassociated with his essence/soul and hence gender-specific references were unreasonable, then I would be driven logically not to use gender-specific references for any human, as they all have immortal souls.) My interest, such as I have any, in the Scriptures, is in its reflection of and shaping of the actions and culture of a goodly portion of this earth for two millenia (and probably a few more). The fact of gender, and of referring to a deity for whom gender-specific references is dubious at best as male, tells me something about the culture that does so (and this one too, one must admit). Every generation tries to reinterpret Christ in view of its attitudes and the fashions of its time; I think Albert Schweitzer pointed out the fallacies of so doing better than I ever could. James Jones