Politcally Correct Christ

There have been a number of subtle attacks on the divinity of Christ throughout the ages, however, in recent times it seems that the best way to undermine Jesus is just to invent ones' own cushy version of the Bible. Few instances better illustrate the point than a recent translation offered by the Oxford University Press's release of a "culturally sensitive" version of the Bible. This comes to me from a back issue of "Neewsweek," that cleverly quips such poignant comments as:"Readers who find the Bible sexist, racist, elitist and insensitive to the physically challened, take heart. Oxford University Press's new "inclusive language version" of the New Testament and Pslams has cleaned up God's act. In this version, God is no longer "Father" and Jesus is no longer the "Son." The hierarchical title of "Lord" is excised as an archaic wy to address God. Nor does God (male pronouns for the deity have been abolished) rulle a "kingdom"; as the editors explain, the word has a "blatant androcentric and patriachal character." Even God's "right hand" has been amputated in deference to the left-handed. Some examples:

​

In the majestic opening of John's Gospel, "the glory he has from the Father as the only Son of the Father becomes "the glory as of a parents only child." (John 1:14)

​

The Lord's Prayer now begins like this: "Father-Mother, hallowed be your name. May your dominion come." (Luke 11:2)

​

Jesus' own self-understanding as God's only son is generalized to: "No one knows the Child except the Father-Mother; and no one knows the Father-Mother except the Child." (Matthew 11:27

​

Avoiding another traditional phrase, "Son of Man," the Oxford text reads: "Then they will see 'the Human One' coming out of the clouds with great power and glory." (Mark 13:26) -Kenneth L. Woodward, "Religion: God Gets the Ho-Ho," Newsweek, Sept 11, 1995

​

The editors don't claim that Jesus spoke in a gender-neutral language, but they obviously feel as though He should. You know, one is tempted to ask the Oxford University Press if they would dare tamper with or so implicitly demean the Qur'an in this way. Perhaps they know they only backlash they will recieve with Christians is a stern talking to as opposed to some of the more color actions taken by certain Muslims.

​

Does anyone think that it is appropriate to change the meaning of the text in order to be 'sensitive' to the readers feelings or should anyone wanting to read the Bible take it for its face value?

​

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

I agree on both parts. Yes, I think everyone needs to make a concerted effort to understand different cultures and to learn the views taken by people's all over the world. There is much benefit in that. However, any text that claims holiness, including but not limited to, the Bible, the Vedas, the Qur'an, any teaching by Buddha, etc, should be exempt from tampering. Its sacrilege no matter how you spin it. The Word means what it says and says what it means. But this push in the West for sensitivity training has been going on now for a good 15 years steadily. Yeah, I know you think Christianity is archaic and looking from the outside in I understand your view, perhaps more than some atheist/agnostics could ever believe, but yes, this is a bit much. Well, the Divinci Code spins the yarn that the early Church was out to eradicate the matriarchal notion of female pagan deities so that it could institute its own patriarchal rule. This, of course, is pushing the boundaries of reality because the Tanakh (Old Test) came thousands of years before and so ascribes male attributes to Yahweh long before there ever was anything known as a 'Church.' But its been said that the Shekina glory of God expresses feminine attributes. I don't ascribe to an athropomorphic God, however, changing the text is just, no. Well, that's just it. If someone wants to view the Bible as sexist or misogynistic or whatever other denunciations they feel are expressed within the text, then simply don't believe in it. But to change the Word in an attempt, I guess, to trick people into liking it better is something demeaning to the atheists who don't like it for a reason. I believe in miracels. The miracle in this case is that the translators hands were not at once palsied for their blasphemy.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Yeah, I realized that this issue of Newsweek is 11 years old, so that obviosuly negates the Inclusive NT being new as well. I shouldn't have said the 'recent' translation. If an entire country can be firebombed over one man's cartoons, something tells me that whoever would dare to alter the Qur'an would looking down the barrel of a horde of angry Muslims. Nobody would be so bold. That was my point. Only the Word of YHWH is considered refuse. You think Father means Father-Mother and you think the Son of Man means the Human One? There is no interpretation of the actual words that comes out of someone's mouth. You can interpret the underscores and overtones of their words, but not the word's the themselves. If Jesus literally said, "Father, I praise You for you have hidden these from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children," then that's what He said. That's what a quote is. Now, if you wantd to interpret that in some bizarre way, that's on the reader, but don't misquote someone because it might hurt somebodies feelings. No one seems to care if its insensitive to have spoofs about Jesus. Such a dichotomy. Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

The physical book of the Bible is just ink on pages, this much is true. But what is contained in a certain order is information. And its the information that offers any value. Just like a hard drive is just a piece plastic, but on the other hand carries all of this information. We don't worship the Bible, in a a sense of it being an effigy or an idol, however, we worship the information because the Word is God and God is the Word. To be sure:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness could not comprehend it.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

No, I didn't and this is why: Translations don't change the meaning of a word. If I in Spanish told you that the word 'gato' means cat in English, I'd be right and I would not change the meaning of a word. If I told you that it meant dog-cat to be sensitive to dog lovers, I'd be espousing a lie and changing the definition of a word. The English language has many synonyms to use a plethora, a surplus, an overabundance of differnt words that mean the same things. That's the difference. Father doesn't mean mother and father isn't synoymous with parent. And to be sure that it doesn't mean the same thing, if it did, there would have been no use in changing the definition because it would have been evident to everyone in the first place. No, this is a mistranslation. Its not a matter of forcing me to read it. Its a matter of some impressionable young person investigating the scriptures and is going to be confused on what the Word says or means. Its not for my benefit its for others who don't know any better. As for Christians hating gays and atheists, I guess it would counterproductive to spend time trying to reach them if they actually hated them. Do you feel sufficiently martyred now?

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Some languages may have more precise meanings for certain, such as in the Greek, there are five descriptives terms for the word, "love," whereas the English language only has one word to describe it. Same thing in Inuit as it has upwards of 20 different words to describe snow. But if you think that the word Father couldve secretly meant Mother, you're going to have to go back through the lexicon to show that. Now, I would agree that some words lose their direct meanings occasionally, but those are usually with descriptive verbs or adjectives, not with nouns or pronouns. Its kind of hard to mistranslate Father, unless there was some slang introduced into the vernacular. As well, its one thing to make the mistake of translating a word with an incorrect usage, but its entirely another matter when someone intentionally changes the translation to suit an agenda. Because we look at the word, the context its being used in, and its relation to what it conveys. In fact, I have several Bibles and the most recent translation is from a Jewish and scholar who translated the Complete Jewish Bible. His rendering is almost identical to that of the King James Bible. He only substitutes European names with their traditional Hebrew names, such as Jesus = Yeshua, Paul = Sha'ul, John = Yohana, Isaiah = Yeshayahu, Simon = Shimon, Jonah = Yonah, Moses =Moshe, etc. Which verse(s)? I'd like to look that up in Strong's Complete Concordance. Paul's words most likely is not invented, it was probably common slang in Greek in those days. And that's what I meant earlier when I said that nouns tend to be free from that kind of cryptic rendering. Couch-women was most likely slang for a prostitute, as you've shared. But beyond that I can't offer a further explanation until I know where it refers to couch-(wo)men. If the writer was speaking about homosexuality then there should be no qualms with this. Calling somone a "Human One" when it says "Son of Man", this is a large departure from the original translation. If Paul intended for the reader to understand male and female prostitution, then that's what he intended. No it isn't. The word used is "Abba," which is a very endearing term for someone's father. It denotes a little kid calling their father, "Daddy." Abba is not gender-neutral. I don't believe God is a male or a female simply because I don't believe He has any physical feature. I think all of His descriptions concerning Himself have Him explaning things in physical terms because that's what we are, physical beings. As for His using male terms in self-descriptions, I believe He is illustrating where man recieves his gnosis. Just as is it says in the Scriptures, a man's desire will be for His God and the women's desire will be after her husband.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This is an even better argument than I made. You're absolutely right. Yes, as far as God the Father I don't believe He is male or female. These descriptions, I believe, are about God to help us understand that which has no physical personhood or at least not the need of a physical personhood. I mean, if God exists certainly there is so much we could not fathom about Him. I must we describe that which is transcendant? I believe God ascribed Himself in a certain way for our benefit and for understanding. This has some disturbing implications for me. If God finds us that implies that He never knew who we were and it implies that certain are "lucky" enough to get a chance for His salvation. I believe that God has offered eternal life to anyone and that He imparts certain 'pangs and feelings of longing' in the hearts of men to compel them to seek Him. However, if by chance you mean that the only way for us to understand God comes only by His own power to reveal Himself, I would agree with that statement. That verse speaks about how God doesn't show preferential treatment based on race, gender, nationality, etc. God is an equal opportunity employer. :smile: Here in the world of finite dimension you are a male or a female and it all serves its purpose. Are we going to be male and female in heaven? I doubt it based on what Jesus said told us. He said to the scribes asking Him about marriage:"For in the resurrection they will neither marry, nor will they be given in marriage, but will be like the angels in heaven." -Matthew 22:30I disagree with Kreeft for many reasons. This one verse brings that into disrepute, as Kreeft is placing too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of sex rather than the spirutual attributes it was designed to hone. That sounds notoriously Mormon theologically with its "spirit babies."

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Tell this to Crashfrog. It sounds like you and I are in agreement.

This is a fascinating piece and one is able to quickly realize that Paul was selected for very specific reasons. Paul was a devout Jew learned in the Halacha under the tutelage of Gamaliel, a very respected Pharisee of his day in Jewish jurisprudence. As well, he was well versed in the Greek language and the Hellenistic culture. Lastly, he was a Roman citizen and understood Roman law and culture. And as far as "arsenokoites" meaning Greek pederasty, I have no reason to doubt it based on the culture of that era. I've read a few articles concerning this and all about the subtle rules with it. How is that you use Abba to mean a singular male parent and then give three other descriptions, one succinctly female, the other gender-neutral, only to say that Abba is gender-neutral? That doesn't make much sense to me. If Abba is really an ambiguous term then how is that all Hebrew speakers instantly recognize that you are talking about a father? According to Josephus, the original literal name for the meaning of Adam has come to be known as man, but literally means, 'One who is red.'"God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. -Flavius JosephusAs I've shared elsewhere my beliefs concerning God is that He is not a physical being, however, He is the creator of all material as well as the creator of masculinity and femininity. Obviously a gender role transcends mere physicality. My manhood extends well beyond the possession of a penis just as any woman's womanhood extends far beyond her possession of a vagina. The impartation of masculine and feminine traits are the dual roles in symbiosis given us by God to express what God is.But none of this is the point of my post. This is a side issue. I don't mind discussing it lightly but I'd like the topic to steer back into the direction of questioning the motives of the translators and to figure out what, if any, implications they have.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Yes, I'm familiar with Ke-Bar-Enash in Aramaic, and yes, most certainly Yeshua adopted the terminology from Ezekiel and Daniel. One of the aspects most talked about concerning Jesus is His divnity, however, sometimes the least discussed was His humanity. Jesus wanted it to be known that the keys of heaven rest within His hands, but at the same time, that He was a man of frailty and subject to the same temptations that we are faced with. He wanted us to know these two aspects about Him. Whether the Human One and the Son of Man aren't synonymous or not really isn't the point. The Scriptures say what they say and if Daniel, Ezekiel, and Jesus used this terminology, what purpose does it serve to change it? The only time a translation is made is to accomodate a different language or to update to the most recent style of that language. As long as it doesn't lose the original meaning, all should be okay. That's why 'thy' can be changed to 'my' and 'thine' to 'mine,' without changing the defintion or the meaning of the original. My objection has more to do with the motivation.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This doesn't bother me at all. One, he isn't offering this as a translation, he is appealing to the youth of today by using today's vernacular in order to point them to the actual gospel. Nothing wrong with that. His artistic rendition is no different than me giving you a brief synopsis on the chapter. Now, if Lynch decided to print this as the actual gospel I would have a big problem with it.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Okay..... The Hip-Hop Bible it is. I don't envy the translator.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

quote:

---

Because we look at the word, the context its being used in, and its relation to what it conveys.

---

It wouldn't be an easy thing for us at all, however, if you have a Hebrew and English scholar who is well versed in both languages and somebody that understands the timeframe this is more than possible. Translating the Bible is no easy task, this much is true. It takes a meticulous attention to detail. Well, that's not entirely what it means. It means God has predispositioned women and men a certain way in accordance with their masculinity or feminity. Its speaking about submission, but not in the way you might automatically find yourself associating with. Submission here means honoring and that is a give take situation, just as it says in Ephesians. Anyway, I found a decent article on the subject, however, yes its a bit OT so we probably shouldn't spend much time on it. In any case, I hope it gets my point across. Link

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

No, however the differences are subtle and essentially do not change the definitions of words. Its just the Webster's and Oxford dictionaries. They are disimlar only marignally. But all of this misses the point. Father doesn't mean Father-Mother. It just doesn't. That's just hype for the sake of the overly sensitive. No one is in disagreement on what Mom or Dad means. You say Mom, you mean a female parent. You say Dad, you mean a male parent. There is no ambiguity. Everyone should arrive at the same result. That's why we have Dictionaries in the first place. Its to establish a concise rendering for all English speakers, or Spanish speakers, or Russian speakers to learn from. Imagine the tumult and chaos that would ensue if we just started changing the meaning of words. Because the word 'submission' has come to mean something that it never intended. Its come to mean a negative aspect instead of one about honor and respect. And this is the problem with changing words to mean whatever somebody wants it to mean.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

The translations are the same. The only disimilarity is them using different synonyms. Nobody is changing the meaning of the text, except Oxford University Press. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to have a negative connotation. That's all in your mind. If you have a boss, you are inferior to him. Does that means you are less of a person than him? No, it means that he's in charge and that's all that it means. Its only someone that has aspirations to be in charge themselves that assigns or engenders some negative aspect to it. The Bible says that the man is to be the head of the house, this is true. That doesn't mean women are inferior as in they are stupid or incapable. It means that God gave man the responsibility to oversee the matters of the home, not that he absolute tyrranical reign over his wife. Think of it another context. A parent is superior to their children right? Do you see that as being negative? A man being the head of the house was never intended for him to always be right on matters. It doesn't mean that he gets all the say. To the contrary. Mutual submission is required by both parties for a helathy marriage and family. It was desinged according to the strength's and weaknesses that God bestows on males and females. It also doesn't mean that the wife has no say in the affairs of the home. Here's what the Word says:" Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." -Ephesians 5:21-33

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt