news-record.com

Either it is the undisputed, unalterable word of god or it isn't.
Prove to me god is demanding these changes, and while you're at it prove that god demanded the Bible be published in so many languages, and I'll buy the rest of the dogma that goes with it.
But if god's minions need a committee to rewrite a Bible that's already been re-written thousands of times--instead of god just rewriting it himself--then it puts the rest of the dogma on shaky ground. Ya think?
By the way, SC Governor Mark Sanford says god told him to stay in office. Obviously, that means those thousands of Republicans Xians who also pray and are insisting Sanford resign were either lied to by god or are getting their signals crossed somehow....right?
I'll wait for a suitable answer. But I won't hold my breath.

I should think that a "translation" should attempt to be done with dedication no accuracy, not political correctness. If the Hebrew or Greek text should be translated as "sons" -- then print "sons" in the translation. If women don't care for the male-centric views of the Bible writers, they need to learn how to deal with it. Believe me -- there are far worse matters that readers need to deal with in that book anyway. Gender roles are small potatoes compared with lost of other matters.

nemo, if I read your post correctly, you're saying that arguing over the sexism in the Bible is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic--a waste of time since the entire missive is doomed to failure to begin with. If that's your point, count me in. If not, I ask kindly that you please explain further. Thanks.

Well, I was only arguing for fidelity in the effort of translation. If Paul used the Greek for "Sons of God" for instance, it would be ethically wrong to change his original wording just for sparing the feelings of today's readers.

Regarding the other issues a reader might take with the Bible, I would not consider it a "failure" or a "success." The intent of its creation, the gathering of writings sacred to a religion for use by followers, may have been met in its day. Its use today is highly questionable, because it must be picked over rather carefully to avoid cultural displacement for today's followers.

Thank you for taking the time to honestly answer my question. I do appreciate the time and respect with which you crafted your response. I agree; to translate something carries a moral obligation, otherwise it should be properly deemed a 'rewrite.' And either way, that opens up a whole other set of interesting questions for debate.

I'm with you, Nemo. A translation that distorts the meaning of the text to support a political or theological position is not a translation but a paraphrase. I've seen "inclusive translations" that refer to "Our Parent in Heaven" and been to churches that pray to the "Father-Mother God," which is simply a pagan concept. If you're going to worship a pagan god/dess, then pretending to be Christian is simply dishonest. Those who believe Jesus is God incarnate should accept that when he refers to God as "my Father and your Father," (John 20:17). he means what he says, and "go and do likewise". However, if the original language allows for gender neutrality, I have no objection to its use.