|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you believe in the Bible, you should be outraged. If you don't, this is good ammo in a debate about questioning the validity and credibility of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you're an atheist, you can be outraged. This is not just tampering with another person's faith, but it's also revisionist history and political correctness.
I wonder if they'll change the story of Adam and Eve so that Eve is Adam's victim? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @10:24AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
They won't change that, but now when talking about Adam and Eve, we will have to say Eve and Adam (the woman first). Just wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @12:04PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
In a "gender equal" publication, would not the notion of alphatbetical order apply? If so, then it would remain Adam and Eve.
Just a thought...
But if Satan was male, then Eve was victimized by him, wasn't she?
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I never found the story of Adam and Eve to be implicative of female vice. The serpent chose to tempt Eve first (perhaps because the serpent was predatory of women?). Being the first tempted, she was naturally the first transgressor. And when she "tempted" Adam in the same fashion as the serpent had tempted her, Adam gave in as easily as she did. So...
As far as changing words go, I suppose I'm ambivalent. When I was in Catholic grade school, the words of a modern hymn that we often sang in church were changed to become gender neutral. On the one hand, I saw the genders as being basically equal, and so I agreed that masculine pronouns should not be used to denote "all" people. On the other hand, I wasn't quite sure that changing the original lyrics just to "make a point" about gender equality was necessary. To be honest, it seemed like kind of a namby-pamby thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if they'll change the story of Adam and Eve so that Eve is Adam's victim? ;)
LOL Nightmist! I, too, wonder that. There are some congregations, both Jewish and Christian, who will only refer to God as "She". Go figure.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But if Satan was male, then Eve was victimized by him, wasn't she?
There are some congregations, both Jewish and Christian, who will only refer to God as "She".
Many feminist Christians insist on considering Mary as part of the deity. Perhaps someday they will declare that she is the leading deity because she is the "mother of God." If we want to be egalitarian and we take Mary to be part of the deity, then we should consider Eve to be part of the Satanhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @02:55PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
In most cases, I've heard of god referred to as either he or androgenous but satan always as a he. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are of course a great many translations of the bible, some having different views on gender.
The problem with Mary is there are no known documents under her hand. There are several under the hand of Mary Magdelene, including the Gospel according to Mary (which I've been working on a better translation of for years.) The church cannot use the Marion documents (those written by Mary M.) as that means explaining away her fight with Peter and THAT they do not want to do as it gets into a lot of gender based arguments which the leaders do not want to get into. Also, opening the Marion can-of-worms means allowing the Phillipian arguments which are nasty to those currently in power.
So? What I am saying with all this rambling about things which I'm sure you have no information on is that the church cannot use a female in a deity position as that means they must do things they clearly DO NOT want to do.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not just tampering with another person's faith
This is not tampering with another person's faith at all. No one is talking about forcing you to hand in your bible and replace it with this version. There are lots of different translations out there and this is just one more. I fail to see why this would upset anyone unless male domination of women is central to their faith.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, yeah, thats fine for the short term. Who's taking the bets on how long before the bibles the churches provide in the pews are these particular bibles, or the Gideon bibles one finds in hotels, or the bibles that are taken overseas to smuggle into poor repressed countries. Little by little, the marxist concept of gradualism takes it's toll. Feminism has had Jesus by the balls for some time now anyway. Guess I'm just surprised it hasn't happened sooner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who's taking the bets on how long before the bibles the churches provide in the pews are these particular bibles, or the Gideon bibles one finds in hotels, or the bibles that are taken overseas to smuggle into poor repressed countries.
Never fear, I'm fairly confident that feminist Christians will never manage to completely take over all major churches, the Gideons, and the various missionary groups, and get them all to use this "egalitarian" version instead. Even if they did, I'm sure that there will still be plenty of old-school, fire-and-brimstone, a-women's-place-is-in-the-kitchen-and-subserviant- to-her-husband-in-all-things Christian sects out there, who will continue to use the more traditional bible translations into English. It is quite evident that many English-speakers simply can't appreciate Christ's message without all the emphasis on the male gender added by insightful translators living in the era of the Inquisitions, when Church authorities were more aware of the "sinful" nature of woman. This translation was clearly not produced for such people, and none of them are being forced to read it. Some of you people make it sound like they are changing all the fables around so dramaticly that Jesus is no longer portrayed as a man, and I simply don't get that at all from the bits I have read on the matter.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Some of you people make it sound like they are changing all the fables around so dramatically that Jesus is no longer portrayed as a man, and I simply don't get that at all from the bits I have read on the matter."
Degree of change is irrelevent; the fact that it is being deliberately altered in any respect is questionable practice at best. Perhaps they should change the ten commandments because people don't want to live by them anymore? Little, insignificant changes add up over the course of 2000 years (and still going), and before you know it, the Old testament is nothing but a compilation of culturally biased, social laws of morality written without regard to the religious significance behind them. It's so funny that people think they can go around changing history to suit their agenda. It makes you wonder how much of factual history you learned in school is really just fables constructed to support some political agenda 200 years ago.
Anyway, my point is, it doesn't matter how little you change the Bible, because if everyone over the course of the past 2000 years thought "well, we'll just change it a little", then it probably lost all meaning a long time ago. So I guess changing it now doesn't matter anyway ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just had a funny thought... maybe Jesus WAS a woman originally, but due to political pressure sometime long ago they changed him to a man. Or maybe he was orginally a man, and they changed the Bible to say he was a women about 1000 years ago... then they changed him back to a man... and now we are slowly changing him back to a woman... Who knows, when everybody runs around changing history wherever they see fit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little, insignificant changes add up over the course of 2000 years (and still going), and before you know it, the Old testament is nothing but a compilation of culturally biased, social laws of morality written without regard to the religious significance behind them.
Well, yeah. Supposing just for a moment that the good church fathers over the years haven't ever done any intentional editing out of "confusing" passages or even complete books, the mere act of first passing stories down through the generations by word of mouth and then translating them from Hebrew into Greek and then from Greek into Latin and then from Latin into archaic English, is quite enough to impart "cultural bias." If it wasn't, we wouldn't already have so many different versions already in existance and in popular use. As I understand it all this latest translation seeks to do is correct for a culturally-biased "mistranslation" which uses male nouns and pronouns where gender-neutral nouns and pronouns are more appropriate. No need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch, no one is proposing any changes to the Ten Commandments (unless the translation contains male-specific phrases where gender neutral ones would be more appropriate).
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yeah. Supposing just for a moment that the good church fathers over the years haven't ever done any intentional editing out of "confusing" passages or even complete books, the mere act of first passing stories down through the generations by word of mouth and then translating them from Hebrew into Greek and then from Greek into Latin and then from Latin into archaic English, is quite enough to impart "cultural bias."
According to research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known versions of the Biblical Pentatuch (first five books of the Old Testament), are so far pretty much word-for-word what we know today. There are also other books of the Bible in the scrolls which are remarkably similar. The book of Esther is extended and one other book (I don't recall which) is shorter.
Granted, there are many books which were left out of the final Biblical canon, and I am quite certain there had to be some political motivations as well as other prejudices involved in the process.
As for the English translations, it is worth pointing out...again... that the Old English word "man" actually did NOT mean "male human." It simply meant "human." Therefore, "mankind" actually meant "humankind." Those definitions of "man" carried forward into the King James English, although by that time "man" was ALSO used to refer to "male human."
The original Old English term for male human was "wer." Female human was "wif."
I think Scott Adams should change the ending of that Asok "Man Hating Supervisor" comic strip to read "I am a WER!" :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @07:58PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible has been translated and retranslated so many times, how can anyone be certain how the original text really read? Shit, maybe Adam and Eve *were* Adam and Steve.
Like you, I also don't see the feminists storming through churches, seizing Bibles and replacing them with rewritten versions that portray Eve as having been framed. For every so-called progressive church exists a fundie congregation ala Fred Phelps.
All of this reminds me of exactly why I turned my back on organized religion years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @08:38PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @07:51PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 04, @07:50PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not even an athiest, but I think all the arguing over whether God is a man or a woman is absurd. Let's look at this from a logical stance. If God exists, why would God have to be either? Maybe God isn't a male or a female. Maybe gender is a purely human concept.
Try bringing that up in Catholic high school and seeing how far it gets you.
Just another reason why I turned my back on organized religion ages ago. They're bleeding hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Just another reason why I turned my back on organized religion ages ago. They're bleeding hypocrites."
Can't agree more. What I find most interesting is that over the course of time, neoteric Christianity (to include Catholicism) has become rather contradictive in many ways to Bible itself. Christianity has changed so much over the last 500 years that it has practically become a different religion altogether... I wonder if their God has changed His ideology to fit their rendition [sarcasm].
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
