January 28, 2002

8:19 AM

New gender-neutral bible planned...It seems there is a lot of controversy surrounding the revised bible known as "Today's New International Version," or TNIV. The Council on Bibllical Manhood and Womanhood has released a statement on what is wrong with a gender-neutral bible translation while admitting there are a few improvements regarding changing the word men (which isn't specified by Greek text) to all people, a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun pas According to some, this is the work of the devil and feminist groups everywhere. There have been outright denouncings of the gender-neutral bible by several Christian groups... but really, what do you think? Is it really the big deal people make it out to be? How can the church teach that man and mankind in the Bible refers to all of God's human creatures and yet, not support a genderless translation???
posted by gloege (64 comments total)

Well, I personally don't have a problem changing references to humanity from the male to the non-gender specific noun. However, if they want to start changing "God" to she and stuff, I think that might weird me out.

It's also the point that these are historical documents, 2000 to 4000 years old. And quite possibly pure oral tradition before that. In a patriarchal society, that was how things were.

This seems to be yet another case of political correctness gone too far. And hardline Christain Right on the other side trying to subvert society to where women don't work etc.

Moderation y'all. It's so lovely.
posted by eljuanbobo at 9:18 AM on January 28, 2002

People who take the bible as god's literal word would, of course, be put out about it. But they're against so much that one more thing that they get riled up about, big deal. They have so much hatred for things that are different. No surprise there.

I say I'm all for it! When we got married, we had a female, lesbian Episcopal minister say our wedding. Instead of "Father, son, and holy ghost" she liked to say "Creater, sustainer, and reedeemer." I really liked it. She eventually left the Espiscopal church because of their hostility to lesbians, but the way she changed the wording to feel more inclusive will always stay with me. Not enough to join a church (which are still too exclusive and hateful for me) but it made me feel better about having a religious wedding.
posted by aacheson at 9:23 AM on January 28, 2002

However, if they want to start changing "God" to she and stuff, I think that might weird me out.

Nah, don't worry. They're changing "God" to read "Mr. Roper" and "Mary Magdalene" to "Chrissy," but that's it.
posted by Skot at 9:25 AM on January 28, 2002

It feels like deja vu all over again.
posted by Iberaband at 9:43 AM on January 28, 2002

I say I'm all for it! When we got married, we had a female, lesbian Episcopal minister say our wedding. Instead of "Father, son, and holy ghost" she liked to say "Creater, sustainer, and reedeemer." I really liked it.

Well that's nifty for you.
But the point here is whether or not we are changing the content of the bible to suit current socio-political trends. If in fact, we have been misinterpreting 'all people' for 'men' all this time, then it may be prudent to make the change. Otherwise, we should not make the change. History is history. Completed works should remain as such. Your minister didn't change the bible, she changed the wedding ceremony.
posted by glenwood at 9:51 AM on January 28, 2002

I'm sorry to hear that the Episcopal Church was hostile to your minister, aacheson. As Christians go, Episocpalians are by and large open and accepting. (John Spong, anyone?) I've known individual Episcopal churches to do things like bless lesbian adoptions, for instance.
posted by Vacaloca at 9:56 AM on January 28, 2002

Translations of the bible vary widely, glenwood. No two are the same. Does that make one wrong and bad? Is there one "right' bible translation? This could be seen as another translation, or version, of the bible. I don't see that as wrong. The fact that it exists dosn't mean you have to use the bible, use the one you want, but why stop others from making a bible that some people may find better and more comforting?
posted by aacheson at 9:57 AM on January 28, 2002

"men" already means "all people," but I suppose if you're ignorant you need it to actually say "all people" so that you don't get confused.

If they want to do it, I say happy synonym hunting, but it seems like a colossal waste of time to me.

But the best marketing trick would be to give it a bright yellow cover and call it "The Bible For Dummies."
posted by David Dark at 10:06 AM on January 28, 2002

Anyone that's particularly excited about this change (positively or negatively) is missing the point of the book anyway.
posted by revbrian at 10:12 AM on January 28, 2002

wierd, but i don't have time to comment. i've got an empty kitchen and a wife that needs impregnating. thank the lord i don't have to shop for her shoes as well.
posted by quonsar at 10:12 AM on January 28, 2002

I wonder how these will look in the new version:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

Oh baby, gotta love Christianity.
posted by Eloquence at 10:25 AM on January 28, 2002

Glendwood-
"But the point here is whether or not we are changing the content of the bible to suit current socio-political trends"
...ever hear of the council of trent?
...maybe you aren't aware of some of the debate concerning the King James version
..and hey if it happened to the Unicorn, it can happen to men.

Did you know that the "content of the bible" was written over a 2000 year period? That it had what some scholars believe might have been at least 150 authors? How about the fact that the word "bible" comes from the Greek word biblos?
...there are a lot of neat things about this LIBRARY of works that are pretty interesting, but i would venture the most interesting is the fact that people insist that we absolutely should not change the words of this body of text...that has been changed countless times before. "We must preserve the sanctity of this text completely modified from the original!"..heh
posted by das_2099 at 10:39 AM on January 28, 2002

Eloquence: Not one of those quotes is from Jesus or the Gospels. In fact, they're mostly from the Old Testament, so you gotta love Judaism, too.
Here's my question: Christianity is about humility and submission. So what are we to think of female Christians who are too proud to submit to the minor league humiliation of accepting the inclusive pronoun "he?" What happens when their faith is tested by real degredation?
posted by Faze at 10:39 AM on January 28, 2002

Instead of "Father, son, and holy ghost" she liked to say "Creater, sustainer, and reedeemer."

That is really nice. I mean, I'm atheist and don't really go for the tenets of christianity even in a symbolic way, but I really like that "translation".

As history, mythology, literature - that is, as a way to study our roots - a genderless translation would miss a lot of vital points of our past. That we have grown from an extremely patriarchal society is unquestionable, and important to remember, because it's taken a lot of work and a lot of time for that to change as much as it has.

But for the basis of someone's personal way of centering themselves, finding moral grounding, feeling connected / loved / loving, & whatever else religious people find through their religions, I'm all for it. I'd be all for some kind of edited "jefferson bible" type thing, too, in this context.

Of course, from my angle, why bother with a bible at all... but that's me & everyone's got their own way blah blah blah.
posted by mdn at 10:41 AM on January 28, 2002

[I wonder how these will look in the new version: ... Oh baby, gotta love Christianity.]

Thought I would point out that you managed to find a whole bunch of verses that don't include anything said by "Christ".
posted by revbrian at 10:42 AM on January 28, 2002

But the point here is whether or not we are changing the content of the bible to suit current socio-political trends.

Some might suggest that the Bible is not a static, dead document, but a living conversation between the adherents of the religious ideas upon which the book(s) is based. The basic process of translation (be it into English, Latin or Klingon) changes the the content of the Bible to suit society.
posted by ahughey at 10:50 AM on January 28, 2002

Anyway, the article I read said that 70% of the changes dealt not with gender words but in updating archaic phrases such as replacing the phrase "with child" with "pregnant." The new version might be less eloquent, but the meanings might be more clear for some readers.
posted by mariko at 10:57 AM on January 28, 2002

Instead of "Father, son, and holy ghost" she liked to say "Creater, sustainer, and reedeemer."

Awful. The relationship between the Father and the Son is of upmost importance in understanding the relationship of the Trinity as a whole. It simply has to be recognized out of reverence for God.

Remember when Jesus cried, "Abba, Father"?
posted by aaronshaf at 11:04 AM on January 28, 2002

Instead of "Father, son, and holy ghost" she liked to say "Creater, sustainer, and reedeemer."

Awful. The relationship between the Father and the Son is of upmost importance in understanding the relationship of the Trinity as a whole. It simply has to be recognized out of reverence for God.

Remember when Jesus cried, "Abba, Father"?
posted by aaronshaf at 11:05 AM on January 28, 2002

Ah, what the heck- if someone's up for spending time changing He and His name to It and Its name, then that's just great. Then again, the little bearded man up in the sky might take offense. Hey, do people still have that Michaelangeloesque image burned into their minds?
posted by Quixoticlife at 11:05 AM on January 28, 2002

As suggested by eloquence, isn't it the height of hypocrisy to attempt a gender-neutral version of a text whose content is so absolutely patriarchical?
Anyway this rewriting of ancient texts so that they can conform to what is currently considered as "politically correct" smacks too much of historical revisionism and, indeed, stalinism for my taste.
posted by talos at 11:06 AM on January 28, 2002

Some might suggest that the Bible is not a static, dead document, but a living conversation between the adherents of the religious ideas upon which the book(s) is based.
If that's so, then shouldn't we have had a few new books of the Bible in the past two millennia or so? I suppose you could count the Koran or the Book of Mormon in this, as each builds on the Judeo-Christian tradition... but if we're talking strictly Old/New Testament Bible, it's pretty static. Retranslating it doesn't reveal anything new.
posted by darukaru at 11:13 AM on January 28, 2002

It all depends on what's being changed. Changing stuff like "All men" in references to equality and whatnot to "All people", I don't have a problem with. I do see a problem though, with a lot of changes which might be snuck in that would change meaning along with syntax. The Bible is a Catholic thing; it was written by the followers of Christ. One of the fundamental beliefs in Catholocism is the fact that universal truths exist independent of popular opinion and wishful thinking. That includes teachings and facts in the Bible that Catholics believe to be true. The Book isn't something you can up and rewrite because you don't like what it says. If you don't agree with that, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and move on to another regligion or philosophy.

It's the difference between saying "I don't believe your religion, change it for me."

and saying "I don't believe your religion, I'm going someplace else."

The former is not an option. The latter, you are free to do whenever you want. This is America.

This is on the same general plane as re-writing history in the "politically-correct" version of the WTC Firefighters statue.
posted by tomorama at 11:13 AM on January 28, 2002

[Awful. The relationship between the Father and the Son is of upmost importance in understanding the relationship of the Trinity as a whole. ]

Maybe that's true for you. A year contemplating the qaballah did me more good than 8 years of catechism.
posted by revbrian at 11:30 AM on January 28, 2002

People choose their religion based on what makes them most comfortable and speaks to them the best. And thus the bible they use is comfortable to them. That's all this is. If someone is uncomfortable with the sexism in the bible, they find one they like. Bibles have been rewritten and changed to meeting the times more times than we can count. The Vatican changes the bible like it's going out of style to promote whatever dogma they are pushing at the time. As do the evangelists.

BTW, the bible isn't strictly a Catholic thing.

Again, if you don't like the "new" bible translation, don't use it. I'm sure there's one of the hundreds of versions out there that you feel is "correct" and the "proper version" even though NONE are probably direct translations from the original, as people have stated above.
posted by aacheson at 11:36 AM on January 28, 2002

Darukaru... well, Mormons would say that we have had some great new stuff since the close of the New Testament. Of course, our fellow Christians have a few hang-ups about the claim.

: )

My only compaint about this new "translation" -- or any for that matter -- is that such changes are inherently dangerous... and I hope that the translators, and those who will use it are aware of the changes, and how they affect the message.

As for me, I'll stick to the King James Version -- even with all of its quirks.
posted by silusGROK at 11:46 AM on January 28, 2002

If that's so, then shouldn't we have had a few new books of the Bible in the past two millennia or so?

It's not like there haven't been attempts. More to the point, the translation and interpretation can (and do) change the meaning of the text.

but if we're talking strictly Old/New Testament Bible, it's pretty static.

No, it's not. There are multiple sources from which to pull a "pure" translation. That's one of the reasons for the proliferation of Bible versions these days. Many use different source manuscripts for their "authoritative" text. (Authorative doesn't necessarily mean better or more accurate, it just means the edition is a reliable source of dogma.) And then there's the problem of competing canons.

For instance, the Deuterocanonical books, while accepted by Catholics, have been ignored, unrecognized or even outright banned by Protestants. Eastern Orthodox has a different Canon as well.

ORB has a piece on the Brief History of the Bible which should shed some light on the discussion. There are also fairly good articles on the editions of the Bible at the online Catholic encyclopedia.
posted by ahughey at 11:51 AM on January 28, 2002

Great links, ahughey... thanks!
posted by silusGROK at 12:00 PM on January 28, 2002

Awful. The relationship between the Father and the Son is of upmost importance in understanding the relationship of the Trinity as a whole.

You'll find that the Church agrees with you. We finally got rid of those damned Arians. However, those blasted Greeks still refuse to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father AND the Son. We've still got Monophysites running around (careful, some of them masquerade as "non-Chalcedonian"). Thank God we got together and killed all those Albigenses. Don't even get me started on the Waldenses.
posted by ahughey at 12:02 PM on January 28, 2002

Clearly, the NIV folks aren't out to make a gender-neutral translation. That's sensationalist reporting (and reacting). They're planning on following respected scholarly translations (like the NRSV) in translating the meaning of semantically inclusive but grammatically masculine usages. If you want to get worked up over a Bible translation that goes too far, we should be talking about one, not about the TNIV. Did you notice the wire story doesn't even quote an explanation or justification from the publishers or translators?

Granted, "measured and scholarly" translations sometimes go overboard. For instance, the New Jerusalem Bible (for my money, overall the best translation, especially of the Hebrew Bible) generally adheres to sound scholarly principles in its gender rendition policy. The gender-specific meanings of Eloquence's list shine through. But then, in the Ten Commandments, they translate not coveting your neighbor's woman as not coveting your neighbor's "spouse." Go figure. I think cases like these are where the meta-editor sweeps along behind through the famous passages and makes a change that wouldn't have gotten past the scholars responsible for the actual work...
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:02 PM on January 28, 2002

The former is not an option

I dunno, I think it's an option - what percentage of modern christians take to heart all that stuff about women submitting themselves to their husbands ' in all things' 'as unto the lord', etc, & not speaking in church? And how many modern christians take revelations seriously? The religion has changed for most people from what it was 500 years ago. Yeah, there are some evangelical crazies who follow what's actually written, but I doubt most casual christians bother with that aspect, as it goes against the society in which they live.

Of course, I'm a little out of the loop, here in the east village.
posted by mdn at 12:15 PM on January 28, 2002

So what are we to think of female Christians who are too proud to submit to the minor league humiliation of accepting the inclusive pronoun "he?" What happens when their faith is tested by real degredation?

I don't know. What about the male Christians too proud to submit to the minor league humiliation of "men" being rendered "all people"?
posted by thomas j wise at 12:19 PM on January 28, 2002

Lest I be accused of only considering one side of the equation, here are some alternate links about Bible revisions. For a pro-KJV, anti-Catholic view, chick.com has several FAQs Concerning Bible Versions as well as a reprint of An Understandable History of the Bible.

If you're not sure what all these versions are, here's a Brief Guide to Bible Versions and another Version List/Bible History

For an example of one modern denomination's view on the Bible, check out the Southern Baptist's Basic Beliefs.

If you prefer your history lessons from little pictures, Jack Chick has a brief history of the Bible, which reminds us that Jerome's Vulgate was based on Satanic Egyptian sources.
posted by ahughey at 12:34 PM on January 28, 2002

gloege: pas

pas, the greek word, is not "all men", but all, each, a collection of, a grouping.....

Thus, it can't faithfully be rendered "all men", because it doesn't mean "all men." If you want every man, you'd be required to include anthropos ( or hekastos::people, or even plethos::multitude/assembly of the people), which means both "gender, male" and "person". Just like "man" does in English.

Thus, translation is going to be weird. It's much easier to teach nuances of "men" than it is to make changes and hope they're reasonable and well considered. The entire tone of a few verses will change, as the greek produces a nice sounding scripture, while the english, after mangled, sounds stilted at best.

Of course, I feel that way about almost ANY translation of the Pauline epistles. Paul had a way with phrases.

thomasjwise: the minor league humiliation of "men" being rendered "all people"?

I've no problem with it being translated that way, if it is faithful. Problem is, as you see above, it isn't always. Your best bet for checking translation of any of the Bibles produced today is Psalms 1:1. "Blessed is the man..." comes from the hebrew "eesh", meaning man, husband, etc. It is often mistranslated as "the one", to avoid sexist language, though it changes tone immediately. The greek there by the way, is aner, which means "man".

Our ultimate problem is that we have to guess, sometimes speciously, about the language usage 2000 years ago, and how it might have influenced and been influenced by local culture and custom. Greek was a trade language, and thus most people spoke both greek and their native tongue, to some degree. Native cultures would have different impact on the language around the Mediteranian basin.

But, enough of the lesson. Just remember, "pas" doesn't mean "all people", and you'll do fine.
posted by dwivian at 12:46 PM on January 28, 2002

I knew from the get go that once they began putting the bible into English it was all downhill. God (He, She, It) was an Aramaic or Latin or Greek but not English! Only the angels are genderless, and the cherubins too, and no wonder they flit about so nervously
posted by Postroad at 12:51 PM on January 28, 2002

If you want every man, you'd be required to include anthropos

Even this isn't quite right. Greek anthropos, like German Mensch, means "human being." ("Man" is aner.) So much of the hang-up in rendering meaning correctly comes from the awkwardness of adapting to English idiom. For example, no one wants to read about a human being this, a human being that. And "one" in such phrases as "the wise one," just sounds off. Above, I praised the NJB. But it commits a barbarous act against the English tongue when it puts "the wise" and treats it as grammatically singular (an idea possible in almost every European language except English...). So, we can choose among a nonstandard jargon/idiolect, tortured English, or distortions of meanings.
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:59 PM on January 28, 2002

Zuri: I knew I should have left it with hekastos for every man (used all over for "each of the assembly", loosely translated as "people", but the assembly was all male in those days, and in many conservative and all orthodox congregations is still).

Anthropos is often used for gender male, though. It doesn't only mean Human Being. (eg: Son of Man::huios anthropos, If a man::ei anthropos, among others). Aner means, quite literally, "a man", or "the man" (greek being really unhelpful with those articles), and is used to distinguish "that guy there" from "an individual among a collective."

But, you're right. It's much nicer to read the source material we have, than to attempt to wrap our minds around the manglings necessary to take a semitic or helenist language and turn it into a germanic one.


posted by dwivian at 1:17 PM on January 28, 2002

BTW, the bible isn't strictly a Catholic thing.
-Um, who wrote the Bible? If i recall correctly, it was a "Catholic thing" for the first 1500 years...

Creater, sustainer, and reedeemer
Awful. The relationship between the Father and the Son is of upmost importance in understanding the relationship of the Trinity as a whole.
-I agree that this is horrible. God (Father) may be the creator, but saying sustainer and redeemer falls right in line w/ the Trinity. As much as that may be true, it fails to actually name the Trinity's 3 parts- and even at that, it misses the entire point of the Sign on the Cross (another "Catholic thing"). And i would guess that the redeemer is the Holy Sprit, which is nowhere even close to reality as Jesus is the redeemer.
Oh, and the translation of the Bible DOES matter. One cannot just translate the Bible and take it as Truth. The Bible translations range from literal word-for-word to idea-for-idea. While idea-for-idea might sound good, it leaves way too much room for interprutation, this causing disprepencies between various versions of the Bible (such as the King Jame's version vs. the New American Bible). I don't have a link for it, but as far as literal goes, the Douray-Rheams is regarded as THE literal translation, allowing for a little room for interpretation as possible (yes, i know words still have to be interpreted to a point, but better a few words than entire concepts)
posted by jmd82 at 2:04 PM on January 28, 2002

Well, jmd82, why don't we take every single other bible out there and just toss them right out so everyone is using the one, supreme, bible? So everyone who isn't using the Douray-Rheams bible is being led astray? Are they going to hell?

Yes, so the bible was a "Catholic thing" for the first 1500 years. So now it isn't. Deal with it. What's the debate here?

It's not like this translation is going to change what is the ultimate message of the bible...it's just going to take out some of the sexist stuff and make it more open. I still haven't been convinced by what the harm is in that.

I knew I was going to get people's panties in a wad when I said about the "Creater...reedemer" stuff. That's the problem with dogma, people get squirmy when someone messes with it.
posted by aacheson at 3:55 PM on January 28, 2002

I didn't mean that we should throw out the other versions, but I don't think every version is reliable for the True word of God. If you take parts of the Bible of different versions and compare them, you will come up with COMPLETELY different meanings. In cases like this, i think the literal translation is the best off.
What am I supossed to do when people try to mess with dogma??? Taken from the dictionary: "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true."
I don't consider myself a religious fanatic, and you may not agree w/ dogmas of the Catholic Church, but if I don't stand up and state the central beliefs to what i feel to be absolutely true, I feel i have no right to stand up for anything i believe in- whether it be religious or secular.
posted by jmd82 at 4:10 PM on January 28, 2002

Good point about dogma and what choice you have.

I guess my point about all this is that I don't believe that one religious brand or another has a corner on the market on being the "one true religion." Just as I don't believe one bible or another, as long as the message remains true, is the "one true bible." I will never understand how Catholics can feel that everyone else is wrong and going to hell. Or Mormons. Or Muslims. Or Christians. Or any other religion can feel that way. I believe there are many paths to God and spirituality. People just choose the one that makes most sense to them. This bible is just another path for people to find spirituality.

I have a girlfriend who is a Catholic and is converting to Judiasm because her fiancee is a Jew. She doesn't believe she's going to hell, because she's still worshipping God. Just using a different path.
posted by aacheson at 4:36 PM on January 28, 2002

Didn't any of you ever have what they call a 'parallel Bible'? It's a Bible that has several different translations in it and lines them up side by side. So one page might have 3 translations of the same set of verses. It's a really useful tool, especially for recognizing that wedding oneself to one particular translation is probably not the healthiest thing.

I don't mind 'gender-neutral' if it means translating 'all men' to 'all people' if that's what was meant (I think some of our own modern documents could use the same scrubbing), but making 'God the Father' gender-neutral is a mistake as it does contradict the patriarchal nature of the religion (except for the bit about Sophia in Proverbs..).
posted by Medley at 4:56 PM on January 28, 2002

From dwivian: "gloege: pas [sic], the greek word, is not "all men", but all, each, a collection of, a grouping....."

I never stated it meant all men. I stated it meant all people. Hrm, please quote me accurately. Otherwise, all you do is look silly.
posted by gloege at 5:05 PM on January 28, 2002

dwivian: Okay, according to my Greek dictionary pas does mean all people... and you first stated pas did not mean all men and then you said at the end that it did not mean all people. Care to clear up my confusion? Cause now I feel silly...
posted by gloege at 5:12 PM on January 28, 2002

And "one" in such phrases as "the wise one," just sounds off.

How about "wisenheimer"?
posted by kirkaracha at 7:11 PM on January 28, 2002

I understand what you are saying aach. I agree that there is "one true Bible." But if there is ONE true Bible, then my theory is that there is ONE interpretation to what It is meant to say. I know thats not the most popular belief in the world and you (or most people) prob. won't agree with that view, but such is life for some of us. While i may think there is one real interpretation, let me also say that i agree yout friend or you would not be going to Hell- it is a moral choice one has to consciensly make (or so I think). I agree that the main thing is to live out the Gospels messages. For some people (like me), they just think too much.
posted by jmd82 at 7:32 PM on January 28, 2002

what percentage of modern christians take to heart all that stuff about women submitting themselves to their husbands ' in all things' 'as unto the lord', etc, & not speaking in church? And how many modern christians take revelations seriously?

Unfortunately, a lot of people. My mother, for one. All of her friends. Ninety-nine percent of the people I grew up with in Alabama. (I happened to exploit my oh-so-dangerous library card at a young age and disabused myself of those notions very quickly, but many of my childhood friends were not so lucky.) As one of your East Village neighbors I can see where it might seem absurd that in a country where people have ready access to information and educational resources that they can still cling to dogmatic interpretations of any religion. As an atheist and the "family heathen" I can also tell you that it *does* happen.

Otherwise rational people will make very fine distinctions based on things that have been translated, interpreted, reinterpreted, and reworded countless numbers of times over the centuries. I took Arabic in college (which is in part, a derivative of Aramaic) and after a while you learn that some things just don't translate. It strikes me as incredibly ridiculous that people will hang on to one [English] word (i.e., "submit") and use it to justify all sorts of absurdities.

And no distinction is too fine. My mom's a Southern Baptist and she'll tell you that "those Episcopalians" are "just too liberal". (The last time she said that I joked that the only difference between an Episcopalian and a Southern Baptist was that the Episcopalians say hello to you in the liquor store. She didn't think it was very funny.) The scary thing is that we're not talking about isolated wackos. We're talking about otherwise normal people in much of the South, the Midwest, and a lot of Suburbia in between. Enough people to make the Christian Coalition a political force to be reckoned with, to make Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wealthy men, to make Focus on the Family a multimillion dollar conglomerate, and to fill stadiums with Promise Keepers. It's still a minority, to be sure, but there are a lot of people and money behind it.
posted by lizs at 7:35 PM on January 28, 2002

As one of your East Village neighbors I can see where it might seem absurd that in a country where people have ready access to information and educational resources that they can still cling to dogmatic interpretations of any religion.

No, I understand that people believe weird things. What i was suggesting is that people do reinterpret religion rather than simply moving on to a different system, as tomorama claimed was the only option. People get emotionally attached to their particular system and find ways to interpret it that fit with the way they want to live, rather than being able to rationally say, hey, I don't like/believe in these rules, so i'll find different ones. it's not nearly that simple. Religion has almost nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with feeling.

When christianity was founded, it was within a highly patriarchal society and the notion of the woman submitting to the man was easy to go with. In modern society, it is commonly reinterpreted, ignored, or even held true while it conflicts with actions. I have talked with theists who simultaneously claim they would vote for a woman for president, and that they believe Paul's statements on women submitting to the authority of men is important and true. Even the women who write articles for christian magazines regarding the importance of submission are stepping outside the boundaries Paul outlined: women shouldn't have to hear that from women, if they truly submit to men - they should be content to hear it from men.
posted by mdn at 7:55 PM on January 28, 2002

Religion has almost nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with feeling.
Be careful with this. I admit that most people are all about feeling, but there are a few of us out there who are invested in reason. I am a Cradle Catholic, and at one point used feeling to say there is NO God- yet, it is reason that brought me back to my faith. I'm not as schooled as i wish i were, but you can use reason with faith and have found this true whenever i have questions. Many of my close friends don't like a faith based upon feeling; indtead they use reason 24/7. I am taking a philosophy class and i have come to realize only thing thing: Reason can neither prove or disprove the existance of God. To every statement for/against theism, there is a rebutal to that, and a rebutal to that, and so on. In the end it kind of does come down to what you feel is the right path, and i respect the atheist who are that because they truely believe it to be True and not for some alteriar motive
posted by jmd82 at 9:55 PM on January 28, 2002

Well, at least it might make it hard to use the bible to beat up homosexuals. But why not just make the translation as accurate as possible?

I guess you can't, since there are so many people who take that particular book so seriously and would have to rethink a lot of things if it were changed.

Has anyone read "The Other Bible"?
posted by Poagao at 11:43 PM on January 28, 2002

Unfortunately, a lot of people. My mother, for one. All of her friends. Ninety- nine percent of the people I grew up with in Alabama. (I happened to exploit my oh-so-dangerous library card at a young age and disabused myself of those notions very quickly, but many of my childhood friends were not so lucky.)

lizs: Would you mind sharing with me what you found? If you'd rather not get into it on MetaFilter (and who could blame you?), feel free to email me. I would really appreciate it.
posted by gd779 at 5:59 AM on January 29, 2002

the boundaries Paul outlined: women shouldn't have to hear that from women, if they truly submit to men - they should be content to hear it from men.

I'd be careful about attributing misogyny to Paul at this point. There is considerable scholarship suggesting the misogynstic parts of the Pauline epistles were later additions. (Some argue that Timothy is not written by Paul at all.)

Indeed, in Corinthians, we find Paul addressing women as deacons of the early church and saints, the equals (or betters) of men. This would be closer in line with the more egalitarian views expressed by Jesus. Now, the church fathers like Tertullian and St Augustine, they had some issues with women (and they or their contemporaries are some of the sources of Christian misogyny).

But if there is ONE true Bible, then my theory is that there is ONE interpretation to what It is meant to say.

One true interpretation for you or one that covers everyone in all times? And whose interpretation will we choose? Pope John Paul II? St Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Martin Luther? Jack Chick? Pat Robertson? jkottke?

If there is only one true interpretation, why bother reading or studying the Bible at all? Just let the one true interpreter tell us what it means. I'll go back to what aacheson wrote earlier: People choose their religion based on what makes them most comfortable and speaks to them the best.
posted by ahughey at 6:38 AM on January 29, 2002

gloege: I never stated it meant all men. I stated it meant all people.
[from the FPP]:changing the word men [...] to all people, a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun pas

True. But all I quoted was your use of "pas". And, what I said, is that it doesn't mean either all men, or all people. It just means "all". A worthy comment, and one that doesn't make me look "silly", as I can determine by the proper continuance of learned discource that followed my comments.

dwivian: Okay, according to my Greek dictionary pas does mean all people

Check your Greek dictionary, I guess. I'm using one for liturgical translation, which differs from another I have for classical translation, and one for current Greek. In fact, in my liturgical translation, it explicitly says "pas is almost NEVER used to mean "all people", but "all", as it is accompanied by other words which indicate the group in collection." It then points to other words which I listed above.

In a check of my classical greek, pas is rendered as "all, when used of many, or when of one, all, the whole." It is translated to omnis in latin, which is a more obvious translation to "all". It's also used to indicate totality, as in "the whole nine" (ennea pant' etea).

To get "all people", or "all men", there is always a second term. A cool exercise for you would be to look in Luke at the three occurences of "all men" in the KJV. Luke 3:15 renders pas as all men, but only in this structure: "...de tou laou kai [...] panten en...", where "all" is in reference to "people" (laos), meaning all of them. Luke 6:26 has pas as "...pantes oi anthropoi...", blending "men" in the current sense of "people". Luke 13:4 does the same thing with "...para pantas anthropos tous..."

So, you can see that pas is often used in structures that mean "all the assembly", but one has to be careful, culturally, to understand if that assembly included women or not. It, in and of itself, means merely "all"

So, were I you, I'd get a new Greek dictionary. When attempting translation of Ancient Hellenistic Language, it is proper to find a dictionary that dwells directly on that topic. Hell, if you wanted to get a half-assed one, even Strong's lists pas as "every, all", with a note about it not being used for "all people" particularly often.

I support the constant re-translation of the Bible, by the way, as any translation is immediately static to the language of the time. Not to re-translate to meet the culture of the people (and thus destroy the culture of the Bible), but instead to reflect the terms and ideology of the times. One of my favorite issues of translation is the attempt to avoid mentioning "unclean" things during translation.

Who here knows what an emerod is? From 1 Samuel 6:4, we find that a plagued people created five gold emerods to put on the Ark of the Covenant (they'd stolen it) to be sent away to take away their plague. Later translations try "tumor" and "sores." Well, the Hebrew basically means "burning butt piles... hemorrhoid". Without updating our language, we wouldn't know that the Ark of the Covenant has five faithful renditions of hemorrhoids in it!

Poagao: "The Other Bible"

Got it. A rather interesting read! I love the Gospel of Nicodaemus, for being a different perspective and take on the whole Ressurection thing. But, in the end, the collectors of texts decided to stick with known Apostles (though I still wonder about Paul) or their scribes.
posted by dwivian at 7:07 AM on January 29, 2002

lotsOpeople: women submitting to men

My wife and I follow this doctrine. She submits to my authority, allowing me to be the last word in the family. But, there is a second thought following that one, that most men ignore. "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loved his church."

Note that Christ only lashed out at those that perverted his Father's house -- not at his church. In fact, he gently rebuked them, asked them to think about puzzles, and gave them answers when they needed them. In short, he was willing to die that they could live. Any man that raises his hand in anger at his wife shouldn't expect her to keep a promise he won't.

Now, my wife also knows that, as the last word, I make the decisions. So, anything that can be discerned, evaluated, and repaired without my attention doesn't require my authority. So, she runs the house, and occasionally I'm asked to go buy a major appliance. Seems like she's in charge, to an outsider! *grin*

In any given house, there needs to be a final say -- one who makes the tough decision, and is willing to take the extra efforts to make it a right one, or to decide again should it be wrong. That is what the verse means. If you want to be the boss, but don't want the cross, it's time to consider celibacy.
posted by dwivian at 7:17 AM on January 29, 2002

If you want to be the boss, but don't want the cross, it's time to consider celibacy.

Heh. I like that. I'd never heard it before, but it's remniscient of something C.S. Lewis wrote in his book, The Four Loves:

"Christian writers (notably Milton) have sometimes spoken of the husband's headship with a complacency to make the blood run cold. We must go back to our Bibles. The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church. He is to love her as Christ loved the Church -- read on -- and give his life for her (Eph. V, 25). This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is - in her own mere nature - least lovable. For the Church has no beauty but what the Bride-groom gives her; he does not find, but maker her, lovely. The chrism of this terrible coronation is to be seen not in the joys of any man's marriage but in its sorrows, in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of a bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiescence... The husband whose headship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs...

The sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it."
posted by gd779 at 7:34 AM on January 29, 2002

In any given house, there needs to be a final say -- one who makes the tough decision, and is willing to take the extra efforts to make it a right one, or to decide again should it be wrong.

I disagree that all households should be like this, that this is the way it should be. It is quite one thing to be persuaded into something one doesn't particularly favor. On a small scale, that would be something like "I don't think now is the best time to re-do the bathroom, but okay, if you really want to, let's do it now." On a large scale that might be "I don't really want to move to California, but since this school means a lot to you I'm willing to try it." It is quite another thing to be overruled, to have something forced on me against my better judgment. "I've decided we're moving to California."

I prefer that people who live together make tough decisions together, compromising where they need to, but with neither one "in charge." Therefore, I live in household that works that way. I would not, however, presume to tell you and your wife that your way is wrong, since you seem to like it. (well, we here don't know her opinion, but you probably do, so I'm assuming you're both happy.)
posted by JanetLand at 8:30 AM on January 29, 2002

She is as happy as a pregnant woman can be, Janet. Which is to say, she wants me dead on a regular basis.

I don't make unilateral decisions without input. Nor would I be able to and follow the requirements of my faith -- that I love my wife as Christ loves his church. In order to exalt her, I must do what I can make her life as easy as possible. She's a stay-at-home mom, because she has chosen to be. I don't require her to be at home, nor would I. I have given her the possibility to choose.

However, there needs to be some place where "the buck stops." As I said before -- I'll make every decision I'm presented with. Who's fault is it if I never see 80% of the decisions of the household? *grin*
posted by dwivian at 9:39 AM on January 29, 2002

whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is - in her own mere nature - least lovable. For the Church has no beauty but what the Bride-groom gives her; he does not find, but maker her, lovely.
Perhaps you think you're being truly giving to love the hollow unlovable women, but most women see it a little differently. Of course, I have a similar problem with the whole christian theology, that we should be so grateful that god could love us dirty little sinners. I agree that humans are fundamentally flawed, but I disagree that we're worthless and unloveable, and even if god were perfect, it doesn't make sense to me that it should be considered an incredible gift that he should forgive our imperfection. Anyway, according to the details of his actions through the old and new testament, he is decidedly imperfect himself - sometimes good, or wise, other times mean, or stupid. Like any one.

In any given house, there needs to be a final say
From my POV, discussion and compromise are vital to a relationship. Giving one party the final say sounds like preferring monarchy to democracy, to me... You & your wife may find this system works for you, but it is certainly not the only way.

I'd be careful about attributing misogyny to Paul at this point. There is considerable scholarship suggesting the misogynstic parts of the Pauline epistles were later additions.
to me, this sounds like another attempt to find a way to reinterpret a religion that has some rules you don't like... in any event, whether or not paul actually said something is impossible to determine: the point is, it's in the bible, which is the basis of christianity. The problem with the scholarship on who actually said what is that so many of the people studying it are hoping that particular conclusions will be drawn (like the Jesus Seminar concluding he did say all the nice things, and didn't say any of the mean things, because he was nice, which we know because he said all those nice things...)

Reason can neither prove or disprove the existance of God.
reason can't prove to someone who feels like there must be a god, that there isn't. Reason also cannot prove that there are no invisible leprechauns behind you right now. To those brought up without religion, the "rational" arguments of the religious are not compelling. Many who argue rationally fall back in the end on a gut feeling. Wm Lane Craig has made arguments like, well if it weren't true, the world would be a terrible thing, so it must be true (when he runs out of other, more reasonable, arguments).

any are welcome to email me if they'd prefer not to bring it to MeFi
posted by mdn at 10:14 AM on January 29, 2002

it doesn't make sense to me that it should be considered an incredible gift that he should forgive our imperfection.

You misstate the issue. In order to redeem us, it was necessary that God himself suffer the pain of Hell. There's a big difference between being willing to forgive someone and being wiling to suffer in their place. Who could reasonably expect that the Creator would be willing to suffer for his Creation? In our imperfection and sin we justly deserved death - why didn't God just give it to us?

God's perfect love gave us a second chance at redemption; we should be grateful for the suffering, voluntarily undertaken on our behalf, needed to give us that second chance. You have to understand the depth and purity of God and His love before it makes any sense to become grateful for his willingness to love us.
posted by gd779 at 10:44 AM on January 29, 2002

to me, this sounds like another attempt to find a way to reinterpret a religion that has some rules you don't like

Then you weren't listening closely enough. I was specifically addressing Paul's role in some of the Church's misogynistic teachings. I also suggested more probable proponents of the view. I never denied that some kinds of Christianity have a very well developed sense of misogyny. Again, see Tertullian or Augustine for more.

Early Christian history is full of female leaders. It is only later that the anti-woman (and especially anti-woman as temptress, ie Eve) becomes such a large part.

A large part of this discussion has resolved around what is and isn't part of the Bible. I'm suggesting that parts of what we take for granted as the Bible aren't what they seem to be. Although I see a case for exonerating Paul with respect to Christian misogyny, I'm not denying the whole of Christian misogynism.
posted by ahughey at 11:19 AM on January 29, 2002

I never denied that some kinds of Christianity have a very well developed sense of misogyny.
that's what I mean: saying that those quotes are not necessarily christian, that people just misunderstood what jesus or paul "really" meant - that the church or the writers of the bible were mistaken but you can see through their errors, & jesus actually meant something much closer to your personal opinion... To me, that seems like a way to hold onto something to which you have an emotional connection, while being able to reinterpret it to fit your world view.

Early Christian history is full of female leaders. It is only later that the anti-woman (and especially anti-woman as temptress, ie Eve) becomes such a large part.
None of the disciples were female. None of the books were written by women or about women in positions of power. Jesus lived in a highly patriarchal society and never addresses it. Jesus believes in scripture that is highly misogynist, and never addresses it. There are numerous explicit statements in paul's letters that women should submit to the authority of men, not speak in church, not draw attention to themselves etc, and this is tied back to Eve being the one who screwed up originally (- women can't be trusted with decisions etc. ) Peter makes similar statements.

In our imperfection and sin we justly deserved death
That's where I disagree with you, as I explained above. Do you feel that men are being christ-like in not killing their foolish, hysterical wives?
posted by mdn at 11:58 AM on January 29, 2002

I agree totally when you say "To those brought up without religion, the
"rational" arguments of the religious are not compelling." (by the same
token, the reverse can also hold true- the "rational" argunments to
disprove God are not compelling) I was raised on religion, private
school- the whole shot. While it is all very compelling to me, i have
also come to the realization that I have NO rational reason to expect
any non-believer, or someone of a different faith, to have to have the
same faith as me, or any at all. The Lane Craig argument reminds me of
an argument by Anselem that i know of: (note that God = Greatest
Possible Being) 1) God exists in the understanding (we can concieve of a
God). 2) God is possible. 3) Something would be better if it existed
in reality than not have ever existed (ie, and existing dog is better
than a non-existing dog...and, by better, he doesn't mean make the world
better, so no Hitler analogy here). 4) Say God does NOT exist, and
according to the 3 premises, you're saying there is a greater possible
being than the greatest possible being, which is a contradictions.
Therefore one of the premises much be false, and sinse 1-3 are true, 4
is false of course, there are numerous rebutals to this argument, and
counter-arguments to those. This holds true fpr every arguemt for God
i've learned. The point i am making is when you say, "Many who argue
rationally fall back in the end on a gut feeling," I have found this to
be true for ALL people (in reference to the existance of God), simply by
virtue of the fact that you can neither prove or disprove the existance
of God through reason. If this were possible, then the single (or one
of the) greatest question to haunt mankind would cease to exist. Well,
seeing as you can't prove God/no God exists, then what exactly is that
reason to believe in what you do? While I have found reason to back up
my faith, I also realize it IS a gut feeling that causes me to believe
in Him. At the same time, i would also think that the same is true for
Atheists- There are reasons to back up their views that God does not
exist, but in the end it does come down to a gut feeling.

PS-> mdn: when i tried to e-mail you, my server said your e-mail didn't exist.
posted by jmd82 at 3:45 PM on January 29, 2002

I have NO rational reason to expect any non-believer, or someone of a different faith, to have to have the same faith as me, or any at all... If this were possible, then the single (or one of the) greatest question to haunt mankind would cease to exist.

Yes, because people always put aside their personal feelings in the objective search for truth. Uh-huh. Right.

The day that I conclude you're correct on this, I'll join the ranks of the agnostics. (Fortunately, I'm pretty sure you're wrong).
posted by gd779 at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2002

Show me a way to prove a God w/ reason alone. My views do not make my agnostic...I find no problem w/ thinking I am as likely yo turn Atheist as an Atheist is to turn Christian (or any faith). Agnostic is simply believing there is a Higher Power, and i believe God to be more than just a Higher Being.
posted by jmd82 at 4:58 PM on January 29, 2002