Are gender inclusive translations actually needed for today?

crossnote said:
Then are we not playing judges of the text? Where would it end? Personally, I don't believe these gender neutral Bibles are being honest with the text...
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

To be consistent, in the above verse, why isn't man (in the gender neutral Bibles) in this passage translated 'them'?
Click to expand...
Agreed.

In ancient Hebrew, the classis way of writing was to make a statement, then explain it later just as is the case with Genesis 1:27.
"God made MAN.............then Male and female created He them".

Creation is exactly the same. In Genesis 1:1...."In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. Then later He gives the details of what happened in that creation event.
 
Origen said:
It certainly could in some cases.

Someone whose first language is not English could misunderstand certain passages. For example, those from Islamic countries who cultures are wholly male dominated and where women are not believed to be on the same level as men.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with what is believed my friend.

Those Islamic countries make sure that all the women are TAUGHT that they are inferior much as did the Jews of Bible times. It is a "learned behavior" instead of a belief.
 
Major said:
That has nothing to do with what is believed my friend.

Those Islamic countries make sure that all the women are TAUGHT that they are inferior much as did the Jews of Bible times. It is a "learned behavior" instead of a belief.
Click to expand...
You missed the point.
 
Origen said:
There always have been and will be (in this world) those who abuse the Scriptures for their own gain. I doubt this would change that.


I am not speaking of gender neutral Bibles, nor do I know of any evangelical scholars\translators who think such a thing is a good idea.


In this context the Hebrew word for man is specific to one person. In fact Hebrew reads (for those who prefer literal translation):

"So God created the Adam in his own image..."
Click to expand...

You said.......
"In this context the Hebrew word for man is specific to one person. In fact Hebrew reads (for those who prefer literal translation):

"So God created the Adam in his own image...".

The rest of that Scriptures is.........."in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Man was created 1st and woman out of the man = ONE pair of humans which made up humanity.

"THEM" in the Hebrew is the ANTACENT to Adam in the same verse.
 
Major said:
"THEM" in the Hebrew is the ANTACENT to Adam in the same verse.
Click to expand...
The antecedent is not Adam but the compound "male and female." The phrase functions as a grammatical appositive, clarifying and defining the plural pronoun "them"

"male and female he created them."
 
Origen said:
There always have been and will be (in this world) those who abuse the Scriptures for their own gain. I doubt this would change that.
Click to expand...
Yes, so it's still dishonest handling of the text, just as those who deliberately twist Scripture to fit their agenda.
Origen said:
I am not speaking of gender neutral Bibles, nor do I know of any evangelical scholars\translators who think such a thing is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I thought that was the topic of the OP.
Origen said:
In this context the Hebrew word for man is specific to one person. In fact Hebrew reads (for those who prefer literal translation):

"So God created the Adam in his own image..."
Click to expand...
Agreed, so should the text be rendered specific to one person when the context calls for it.
 
Major said:
Agreed.

In ancient Hebrew, the classis way of writing was to make a statement, then explain it later just as is the case with Genesis 1:27.
"God made MAN.............then Male and female created He them".

Creation is exactly the same. In Genesis 1:1...."In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. Then later He gives the details of what happened in that creation event.
Click to expand...
Just think that there is some kind of "agenda" behind the more gendered translated bible
 
crossnote said:
Yes, so it's still dishonest handling of the text, just as those who deliberately twist Scripture to fit their agenda.

I thought that was the topic of the OP.

Agreed, so should the text be rendered specific to one person when the context calls for it.
Click to expand...
Many times it seems that they are trying to 'force" thier beliefs and convictions as to what bible should state based upon current cultural norms and how we now view gender, relationships, equality etc
 
YeshuaFan said:
Am jsut waiting to see the worlds first transgender bible, that will tell us that God is they them she etc!
Click to expand...

Hello YeshuaFan;

This reminds me of a song, Turn Around and Take a Look.

These books are already out there. There are so many "wanna be" bibles that are radically far from the True Word of God. Imagine God who sees all, especially those who slant His Words.

Your authorship to this thread will give many to think about when choosing a True Bible.

God bless you, brother.

Bob
 
Is it possible we're crying wolf here? Inclusive language does not necessarily mean butchering the gospel. Replacing "Created Man in His image" with "Created Humanity in His image" carries the same meaning
 
LearningToLetGo said:
Is it possible we're crying wolf here? Inclusive language does not necessarily mean butchering the gospel. Replacing "Created Man in His image" with "Created Humanity in His image" carries the same meaning
Click to expand...
Just watch out though for th day when we will be gettting bibles that stae that the Elder and/or Pastor needs to be married to one person, regardless if male or female
 
LearningToLetGo said:
Is it possible we're crying wolf here? Inclusive language does not necessarily mean butchering the gospel. Replacing "Created Man in His image" with "Created Humanity in His image" carries the same meaning
Click to expand...
LearningToLetGo said:
That would be a change in the meaning. That's not "inclusive" but heresy.
Click to expand...

Hello LearningToLetGo;

What do you mean, "Is it possible we're crying wolf here?" Please elaborate.

I can agree to a point with your post regarding man replaced with humanity. But God had a huge calling for Adam, specifically in Genesis 2; He was establishing His Creation of man. Humanity wasn't there yet, brother.

Bob
 
bobinfaith said:
I can agree to a point with your post regarding man replaced with humanity. But God had a huge calling for Adam, specifically in Genesis 2; He was establishing His Creation of man. Humanity wasn't there yet, brother.
Click to expand...
Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 
LearningToLetGo said:
Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Click to expand...
I know this is from Scripture. Is Gen 1:27 implying God is both male and female, since He made them in His own image?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top