Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jun 15, '12, 3:29 pm
itullian itullian is offline
Banned
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2012
Posts: 9,823
Religion: Roman Catholic
Question Inclusive language in the Bible?

Are you for or against and why?

i'm very conservative on these kind of things myself. and don't agree with the changes.

thank you
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 15, '12, 3:32 pm
buffalo's Avatar
buffalo buffalo is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 7, 2004
Posts: 28,096
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

We do not have authority to change Jesus' words.
__________________
IDvolution - God "breathed" the super language of DNA into the "kinds" in the creative act. Buffalo

"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."

“Science presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, the ‘design’ of creation.”

"A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth."
Pope Benedict XVI

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 15, '12, 3:39 pm
Lutheranische Lutheranische is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2011
Posts: 6
Religion: Lutheran
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Quote:
Originally Posted by itullian View Post
Are you for or against and why?

thank you
I am for the original text. English does not have a neutered pronoun; one could argue that the "singular they" is acceptable. Terms such as Adelphoi should be translated as brothers and sisters or siblings instead of just as brothers because the original languages were inclusive. If the originals are inclusive, the English should be inclusive. If the originals are referring to a specific gender, the English should be specific.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 15, '12, 5:14 pm
Abrigham Abrigham is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2012
Posts: 106
Religion: Catholic, Confirmed Easter 2013
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Agreed. I think it just allows for even more confusion. People have already been able to take one verse and translate it's meaning into multiple meanings, pretty much anything they want. It doesn't need to be even more complicated by actually changing or adding words in the versions they're reading that were never there just to be politically correct.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jun 15, '12, 6:19 pm
Justice_Mercy Justice_Mercy is offline
Junior Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 189
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Inclusive language sounds like a good idea on the surface.
However, as was already said here, it involves tampering with God's word. To change the word of God is not something we should do. Passages that refer to "men" are easily recognized as being directed at males or at human beings in general, anyway. If someone is offended by language that is supposedly "non-inclusive", they probably have other, deeper issues with God and the Church.

God personifies wisdom as female in Proverbs and we know that it specifically refers to Christ (a male) in the New Testament, so God is not a chauvinist. I believe it is best just to accept the scriptures as they are written, because we were given them as they are for a reason.
__________________

He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

-Micah 6:8
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jun 15, '12, 6:32 pm
tabycat's Avatar
tabycat tabycat is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2012
Posts: 2,691
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutheranische View Post
I am for the original text. English does not have a neutered pronoun; one could argue that the "singular they" is acceptable. Terms such as Adelphoi should be translated as brothers and sisters or siblings instead of just as brothers because the original languages were inclusive. If the originals are inclusive, the English should be inclusive. If the originals are referring to a specific gender, the English should be specific.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jun 15, '12, 6:33 pm
po18guy's Avatar
po18guy po18guy is offline
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Radio Club Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2007
Posts: 23,772
Religion: One. Holy. Catholic. Apostolic.
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Our Lord did not ask "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" Matthew 16:13 NAB/NJB/NIV/NASB
__________________
"He was the first one in the world to break all of the commandments at once"
- Bishop Fulton Sheen referencing Moses throwing the stone tablets -
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jun 15, '12, 6:35 pm
tabycat's Avatar
tabycat tabycat is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 21, 2012
Posts: 2,691
Religion: catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abrigham View Post
Agreed. I think it just allows for even more confusion. People have already been able to take one verse and translate it's meaning into multiple meanings, pretty much anything they want. It doesn't need to be even more complicated by actually changing or adding words in the versions they're reading that were never there just to be politically correct.



Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jun 15, '12, 6:43 pm
DaveBj DaveBj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Posts: 7,535
Religion: Catholic, Tiber Swim Team Class of 2005
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

As a retired professional translator, I'm for translating what the original says. Period. Women should get used to the fact that in Biblical language, unless the obvious meaning is male men or male siblings, then they are included in the concept of "men" (humans) and brethren. I don't think the women of St. Paul's time had any problem with it; why should the women of our day get bent out of shape?
__________________
Author of The Children of the Maker, Kindle Edition
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jun 15, '12, 7:05 pm
CalCatholic CalCatholic is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 1,603
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

That is why we have choices in our translation; D-R, RSV-CE/2CE & Jerusalem Bible for those who don't wont inclusive language and the NRSV, NABRE & NJB for those who don't mind (or want) inclusive language.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jun 15, '12, 11:31 pm
Lutheranische Lutheranische is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2011
Posts: 6
Religion: Lutheran
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

I'm sorry, but if the original language is inclusive, the English should be as well. If not, then we are perverting the meaning of the source text and are, therefore, perverting the word of God. Why would we even hesitate to inclue our women when the original languages force us to include them? It is not about being politicially correct (a straw man and red herring if I ever heard one!), it's about being transparent to the source.

Now, are there problems with "gender-inclusive" translations? Yes. The NRSV, in particular, suffers in the Psalms, IMHO.

Another thing we have to consider is the genre of the particular section we are translating.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jun 16, '12, 12:12 pm
patg patg is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 9, 2004
Posts: 1,777
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".

Taking this into account, statements like "We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.

As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jun 16, '12, 12:17 pm
Justice_Mercy Justice_Mercy is offline
Junior Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 189
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Quote:
Originally Posted by patg View Post
All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".

Taking this into account, statements like "We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.

As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
While we do not have original mss and the gospels are probably secondhand in source, most of the NT books are the epistles (mostly from Paul), which is exactly the part that most people have inclusive language issues with, not the gospels.

The Biblical Commission's statements does not concern the epistles specifically.
__________________

He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

-Micah 6:8
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jun 16, '12, 11:19 pm
Lutheranische Lutheranische is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2011
Posts: 6
Religion: Lutheran
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Quote:
Originally Posted by patg View Post
All of the "absolute" kind of talk would actually be meaningful if we had any of the original gospels, if we had any of the "original words" of Jesus,, or if Jesus spoke English. We don't have anything close to any of this and yet some are making pretty strong judgmental statements as to how minor pronouns should be translated. As the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI stated in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, we don't have anything close to first hand accounts: "...the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense".

Taking this into account, statements like "We do not have authority to change Jesus' words" are pretty much meaningless and indicate a basic misunderstanding of what the gospels are.

As Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. (the English translator of the document) states, "...the Biblical Commission calmly and frankly admits that what is contained in the Gospels as we have them today is not the words and deeds of Jesus in the first stage of tradition, nor even the form in which they were preached in the second stage, but only in the form compiled and edited by the Evangelists."
Very well said!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jun 17, '12, 5:58 pm
edwest2 edwest2 is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 26, 2007
Posts: 19,829
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Inclusive language in the Bible...................

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCatholic View Post
That is why we have choices in our translation; D-R, RSV-CE/2CE & Jerusalem Bible for those who don't wont inclusive language and the NRSV, NABRE & NJB for those who don't mind (or want) inclusive language.


"inclusive" has become a code word for "we must change the words because we want to." There is no reason to change the words. I am against having two different Bibles and dividing people or encouraging tampering for no apparent reason or to establish an agenda that is purely human in origin and not Biblical.



Peace,
Ed
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8244Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: janiejnb
5009CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4342Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3830SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3561Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: James_OPL
3221Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3203Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3108Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3045For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:01 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.