National Church of Sweden moves toward gender-neutral usage
scholar - 24-11-2017 at 23:47
At this point, the suggested changes are not required.
Toward the end of the article, there is a remark from the Church of England:
In the original languages, and in their context, there is generally clarity whether a reference is intended to indicate one sex, or a person of either
sex/neutral. If there is a neutral meaning in the text, then it makes perfect sense to use a more neutral word (e.g. humankind is fine,
where older translations might say mankind, meaning the very same thing). If there is a sex-specific idea involved (e.g. when Paul speaks of
the adoption of Christians as "sons," which is a position heirship and benefits in the culture), then changing to a gender-neutral word would change
the meaning and be a less accurate translation.
Here is a test of humility and faithfulness. If a person keeps the God-given meaning in their translation and usage, that is humble and faithful. If
a person changes their translation to reflect what they would have wanted the text to say--changing the Bible to suit themselves, instead of
conforming themselves to what the Lord says in the Bible--then they are putting themselves above God's Word.
marymary100 - 25-11-2017 at 10:37
That presumes of course that a) there is a God and b) those who wrote down God's word had no agenda of their own.
As any inquisitive person knows throughout history many deities have been worshipped and, amazingly enough, have largely resembled those who
worshipped them for their superior beyond-humanity qualities. Those who believed in Izanagi and Izanami, Ogun and Osun, Min, Neith, Anubis, Atum,
Bes, Horus, Isis, Ra, Meretseger, Nut, Osiris, Shu, Sia and Thoth, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Athena, Demeter, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes,
Hestia, Poseidon and Zeus et al would all have argued that they were correct and, no doubt, used the arguments that were around at the time to
"prove" they were correct.
Monotheists are only the latest version of a long line of folk looking for the meaning of life. If you need to believe that your God is male because
it makes you more secure and someone a long time ago wrote it down then by all means do so.
John_Little - 25-11-2017 at 12:40
But that is exactly what has happened over the centuries! You only have to consider the Dead Sea Scrolls to realise that.
LSemmens - 25-11-2017 at 22:21
Actually Judaism was the only religion in history (ancient) that had a religious text. All of the others worshipped their respective deities for what
the "deity" could do for them. Which is why some cultures had so many deities, one for each season, one for each day, one for each crop, an so
forth. None of their texts were codified until much later, if ever.
marymary100 - 26-11-2017 at 02:11
Not sure what you are getting at Leigh.
LSemmens - 26-11-2017 at 09:18
All of the other tenets that you quote, Mary, had no texts that codified their beliefs until
marymary100 - 26-11-2017 at 10:33
The first paragraph is a response to the OP about his version of deity. The other paragraphs do not state that those version of deities were written
down at the time.
However, the Shinto gods were oral traditions until about 700 CE when an empress paid her scribes to write some of the tales down (female leader
includes female god whodathunkit). Ogun and Osun are Nigerian spirits of an old belief system where oral tradition held sway for a long time until
they were written down. You can look up the rest if you have any interest in the subject.
You say that Judaism was the only written text but that also started as an oral tradition before the Tanach combined all Jewish scriptures and
versions of how to live according to the god they believed in's word. The torah had over 600 laws to live by supposedly written down by Moses after a
conversation with his God. These writings incorporate Judaism’s written and oral law.
There is no ancient religion that didn't start off with an oral version of the belief system.
The more modern ones like Mormonism and Scientology were written down almost from day one. Those followers who buy into those continue to believe in
special plates and other things that non-believers find incredulous.
If you look at any belief system the source for the system is always at least one human with an agenda. You can choose to "believe" that they had a
special connection with a supernatural being when they espoused their tenets but none of it can be proven. Show me a religion which was written down
that didn't empower those who wrote it down/demanded it be written down without giving them privilege and status.
No hurry, I'll wait.
LSemmens - 26-11-2017 at 23:35
No argument with you there. All religions began as an oral tradition. The difference with the Bible (as we know it) is that it was written by some 40
different people over a period of approximately 2000 years in different languages. NO OTHER religious text can claim that, and still come up with a
similar consistency of message. A quick Google will give you this info.
scholar - 27-11-2017 at 00:54
There certainly are people who have departed from the meaning of the words of the original languages, and written their own ideas into something
presented as if it were a translation. The New World Translation (by the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses) is an example of such.
The Qumran sect from roots in Judaism is no evidence with respect to the Christian handling of translations. And it is from one relatively short era,
But there certainly have been great numbers of honest, studied Christian scholars of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic who have given the most faithful and
accurate translations they could manage, even when the passages so rendered did not agree with what they might have liked to have found. And, this
has been the general practice over the centuries, not the exception, especially in the years since the restoration of Biblical prominence from
Reformation era, onward.
marymary100 - 27-11-2017 at 06:52
It is incorrect that there is no similar consistency in other religions. Islam has its own scholars who over millennia have also interpreted their
scriptures without deviation. The first word in the Quran is "Read" because it is the observant's responsibility to read the texts for themselves.
The interpretations which agree or modernise are up to individual scholars. The words of the Quran have never altered which is why their claim to
consistency might be better. It still doesn't make it true unless you are a believer however.
LSemmens - 27-11-2017 at 09:29
Islam, hence the Quran, is only a relative recent religion. The New Testament is also recent. Christianity, unlike Islam, willingly accepts the Law
and The Prophets (i.e. the "Old" Testament) The Quran was written by one bloke and is substantially inconsistent in its presentation.
John_Little - 27-11-2017 at 15:56
Not as recent as the Moonies or Mormons.
marymary100 - 27-11-2017 at 18:19
Actually they do accept all biblical prophets Leigh. Where they deviate is in the claim that Jesus was a prophet and not the literal son of God. They
are supposed to say Peace Be Upon Him for all of those prophets. Mohammed could neither read nor write. He got others to write down his teachings. The
Qoran is the agreed version and the Hadith are the other things he advised that didn't make it in when his nephew (I think) took over after Mohammed
Katzy - 27-11-2017 at 21:58
God is currently sitting on my lap. Egyptians worshipped cats and mine seem to think that they had the right idea.
Just thought I'd cool this topic down, a tad...
People may and do believe in what they desire. But, trying to force those beliefs on others has caused way too many deaths and caused far too much
suffering, especially when most claim to desire peace.
scholar - 28-11-2017 at 02:44
That isn't, at all, the nature of truth. If that which is stated agrees with what actually is, then the statement is true, with no regard to whether
anyone believes it. If a person sincerely believes a statement, and the statement does not match reality, then it is not true.
marymary100 - 28-11-2017 at 07:42
Who are you quoting scholar? You appear to be using the quote tags very poorly.
My point is that you can't prove your "truth" and nor can they. Your point seems to be that you are right and everyone else is wrong unless they
believe what you believe. Your truth is just a belief. Once you "get" that you might have a bit more respect for alternative views of the meaning of
life. Cats as gods was a common viewpoint at one stage as was statues of fertile women being worthy of respect. 1000 years from now it might be none
of the above or there might be no humans to believe in anything because they will have wiped one another out in their battle to get their own view
God as female, god as male - pick one or none. You're free to do so as long as you don't try and convert everyone else to your belief.