I was reading the Book of Hebrews the other day, and I was offended by all of the verses that claim sin entered the world through one man, Adam. As a man, I felt all judged and ostracized and enslaved. Umm, excuse me, mystery writer of Hebrews, don't you know that Eve plucked that fruit?
For two thousand years, the Church has had to endure this gender bias, believing that Adam was responsible for the plague of sin. Men have foolishly been compelled to adopt other offensive ideals, such as leadership.
The TNIV, or the Today's New International Version, did a great thing for mankind--er, humanity--um, for people by rewriting the Bible. They scrubbed the Word of God clean of offensive terms such as "he", "father", "brother", "man", "son", and "the Jews". That last one has nothing to do with gender, but as long as they were improving the Scriptures, why not get it all?
But they didn't get it all, because the TNIV Bible I was handed at Mars Hill Bible Church on Easter morning included that oppressive reference to Adam! I almost rended my clothes and heaped ashes on my head, but that isn't seeker-friendly.
I propose an even better Bible than the TNIV; it will be called--
"T2: No Judgment Today Bible".
This progressive work will replace all of the names in the Bible with numbers. That way, we won't get caught up in peripheral ideas such as gender. Instead of reading: "Paul, an apostle...", and getting all confused by Paul's manhood, we could peep this: "24601, an apostle...".
While we are at it, we will add the phrase: "...if you feel like it." to any bible verse that is too harsh. We might as well get all of the mistakes out of the Word of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Oneway, how could you possibly forget the emotionally charged references to darkness and light. In these racially charged times, it is totally inappropriate to use darkness and lightness as analogies for righteousness and sin. I think the_Dude would agree with me that it would be much more fitting to use something that isn't so emotionally charged, like binary. I would also highly recommend non-inclusive terms like the word "the". "The" implies an authorative singular. It is much more appropriate to use "a" whenever it is applicable. Here's an example of a particularly charged verse, and how I would rework it: "I am a way, a truth, and a 1, one can come to the Parent through me, if you feel like it."
brilliant
Spectacular post.
Suddenly, Dude, Where's My Car? takes on a whole new religious significance!
I can see it now...
Genesis 1:1
At some point in the past/future/never, someone/a giant turtle/Gaia/Allah/James Caviezel/me/Jehovah [obselete reference - delete in next revision]/Morgan Freeman, created/evolved/dreamed/birthed/was nominated for a Golden Globe/forgot the heavens and the earth/just earth/clouds/tiny stones/churches/the San Fernando Valley/the first IKEA store. Maybe.
Also, I've been reading the TNIV exclusively, and, what is this sin of which you speak?
Between us, we could write the most sanitized version of the Bible ever. I'll contact Zondervan.
>>we could write the most sanitized version of the Bible ever<<
i am pretty sure eugene peterson already did that. and then there is the guy that made the 100 minute bible.
>>TNIV<<
i think i have said this before, but i like the tniv. that may be because i usually know the greek word they are struggling to translate, but i respect their efforts to make the greek language more compatible with modern gender distinctions (thus it is not gender neutral, but gender accurate). i probably wouldn't study with it, but i would not mind if a congregant used it for daily reading.
paraphrasing g.w., translation is hard. i read your link and understand the criticism. the question is one of purpose. is your goal to translate the text literally (father's house means father's house) or translate it for its modern equivalent (father's house means parent's house)? And if you choose to go with the modern equivalent some people are simply going to disagree, especially if they think ancient gender distinctions are to be maintained today (its not your parent's house, it is just your father's house and your mom happens to live there).
I don't think Peterson's The Message is exactly "sanitized", but it is a paraphrase, as is the NIV.
>>(thus it is not gender neutral, but gender accurate)<<
This is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't pan out. It's clear the authors of the TNIV had one main intent: No matter how it warped the verses, remove all masculine words.
Replacing "father" with "parent" is a stark error. There is an intimacy in the word "father" that is not captured with "parent". Since the TNIV mistranslates "father" to placate those without fathers, what about those without parents? Surely they'd object to being "excluded", according to the same logic. That's why in my post, I satirized that numbers should replace names. This way, no one is excluded, and no one is included. The Bible is sterile.
Instead of changing the Word, people should change themselves.
>>Since the TNIV mistranslates "father" to placate those without fathers, what about those without parents?<<
i don't think this is the purpose. my example was acts 7:20. when the greek says father's house, ancient folk would have understood this to mean the whole family's house. but today, due to language gender distinctions and the fact that we have so many broken homes, when we here father's house we think a house different from the mother's. thus, when the tniv changes it to parent's it more accurately translates the meaning.
so, the purpose is not to placate those without fathers, but to acknowledge that the biblical text was not referring to a one parent home, but to a parents' (mom and dad) home. it creates a more accurate translation into english.
>>when the greek says father's house, ancient folk would have understood this to mean the whole family's house. but today, due to language gender distinctions and the fact that we have so many broken homes, when we here father's house we think a house different from the mother's<<
People today should read "father's house" and understand that it means "Moses' family's house", which is evident from the context, as the next verse refers to Pharoah's daughter taking Moses and raising him as royalty in Pharoah's household. The use of "father's house" also affirms the father's role as head of the family, which is the real problem for the TNIV.
This is the reason egalitarians, rejecting a biblical view on gender, endorse the TNIV. On top of this, ostensibly the TNIV is for those who have poor reading skills.
Clearly the purpose of the TNIV is to placate egalitarians, and possibly also to placate the foolish. These are both bad ideas.
Post a Comment