Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 33092 | ||
Greetings again, Steve, I believe that we must understand the subject of just what exactly "gender-inclusive" language is. "Gender-inclusive" language is language that seeks to avoid masculine terminology when the original author was referring to both sexes. I'm pretty sure that both you and I agree with this definition. Therefore, a Bible can still be considered a "gender-inclusive" version and not change the names of the different Persons of the Trinity. A 'bible' that changes the different names of the Persons of the Trinity is a 'Feminist' Version. Some feminists believe that a truly inclusive version goes beyond the author's meaning, which is bound to his culture and worldview, and reinterprets the text in order to draw out its contemporary significance. And, unfortunately, some feminist versions of the Bible go so far as compromising the names of the Persons of the Trinity. The feminist 'versions' DO compromise the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The gender inclusive versions do not make an overt effort to compromise the names of Deity. Examples of feminist versions include: An Inclusive Language Lectionary (ILL, 1983); The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (NTPI, 1995); and The Inclusive New Testament (INT, 1994). So, while you are correct that the TNIV is not a feminist version, the TNIV still remains a "gender-inclusive" or "gender-neutral" version, based upon the fact that it seeks to avoid masculine terminology when the translators perceived that the original author was referring to both sexes. However, I would say that the TNIV has gone even farther from just seeking to change a few masculine forms in the text, and evidence of this can be seen in 100 different places in the TNIV's text at http://www.cbmw.org. If you would like to view a history of the "gender-inclusive" language debate and see how it got started in the first place, then view this link, which is excellent: http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html If you have any more questions, then the following link should be most helpful: http://www.bible-researcher.com/links02.html If you would like to gain a perspective of the debate from the NRSV's perspective, then surf here: http://www.adoremus.org/396-ScripConfus.html And for even more on "gender-inclusive" language, here's another good article to read on the subject at Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9td/9td083.html All of the links above should help you gain an excellent perspective on the 'gender-inclusive' debate and where it stands now. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
2 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | Norrie | 33096 | ||
Way back, in ancient times when I was in school, I remember them teaching that when you were talking about both sexes, you referred to masculine nouns, pronouns, etc. When you're talking about tigers, you don't say tigers and tigresses, lions and lionesses, etc. Why must nan be so stupid? Oh, I forgot, women's lib...I was a draftsman, when people tried that draftsperson or draftslady junk on me, I'd correct them-draftsman, I'm no woman's libber! That's the way it was before people became fools anyway. I remember them teaching protocol, you would say Madame Chairman, etc. I say to women libbers-get a life!!! | ||||||
3 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | SavedandSure | 33119 | ||
A M E N!! Norrie :-) We calls-um like we sees-um! | ||||||