Comments on: Sneaking the feminist tropes into scripture will damn you.

By: jg

Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:01:00 +0000

True.

]]>

By: chrisgale

Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:59:00 +0000

There is a remnant. But finding them is not easy… so yeah.

]]>

By: jg

Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:25:00 +0000

I appreciate the thought in pointing me to other not pale skinned christian bloggers, but I don’t care about having a dialogue with other not pale skinned christian bloggers. I want to dialogue with christian bloggers, true sincere christian bloggers. My faith and my family of the faith is more important than anything else…..including original culture. Matthew 10: 34-37 & Galations 3:28.

please excuse me if this response has gone a little off topic.

]]>

By: Confrontation is a feature of the Gospel, not a bug. | Dark Brightness

Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:52:45 +0000

[…] I had a commentator going on about how the use of the text is in some way oppressive. Well, I think that is what they were saying, particularly when I bothered doing a textual revision of the verse properly — yes I can read […]

]]>

By: Bobbye

Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:34:00 +0000

http://biblehub.com/greek/444.htm

What is your point? That a person must know ancient Greek and Hebrew to understand Scripture? Only if God does not exist, and then why bother? God is not limited to any language, but translations ALL have some bias of the translators and God expects a person to use their brain to challenge and approve or reject evidences presented( Not the ‘Word of God’, but the particular translation).

]]>

By: chrisgale

Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:52:00 +0000

Exactly how good is your Greek? Because this is the Wilson Hort Gk Text.

???
??????
??????
??
????????
???
???
????????
???????
???
???
?
????????
???
??
????????:

Freely translated — and [he] to them the man was not given to the sabbath, but the sabbath to men. You have some fun words in this — neither elegen nor egeneto translate easitly.

But to anthropos — strong’s gives you an idea of just how this has been translated.

#444.
?????????
anthro?pos; prob. from 435 and ??? o?ps (eye, face); a man, human, mankind:—
NASB – any(1), anyone(1), child(1), enemy*(1),
everyone*(1), fellow(1), friend(1), human(5), human judgment(1), human
relations(1), king*(1), Man(89), man(232), man’s(8), mankind(5),
men(164), men’s(2), nobleman*(1), one*(3), others(4), people(13),
people*(1), person(2), persons(1), self(4).

You have to watch translators carefully, for they date their translations by the assumptions they make on correcct language.

]]>

By: Bobbye

Sat, 15 Mar 2014 04:45:00 +0000

Strong’s #120 and #121 are exactly the same word, adam. Why Prof. Strong chose to use two numbers for the exact same word is a mystery…or not. Perhaps it was a reflection of a bias already well established in the church. That bias being that ‘adam’ meant Adam, the first man, or simply ‘a man’, being any man. The English translations we use reflect this. Adam (#120y) is found over 560 times in the Old Testament. In these translations we see that ‘the man’ was driven from the Garden. We see that the wickedness of ‘man’ is great. We even see that ‘the man’ has become as God knowing good and evil. Thus ‘the man’ has original sin but it doesn’t say that the woman does. The Catholics make a Cult of Mary out of such thinking. The reason that the church can sell the script that men are bad and women are good is because the bias of the translators wrote that script into the bible.The Word of God is the only weapon you can use to bring people to the Truth. You would question a Jehovah’s Witness translation, or Joseph Smith’s translation. It is not a sin to question your English translation no matter which one it is. The church is where it is because it has believed the Bible it received. You cannot change or rescue the church by using the same translation the church has received. Go back to the beginning and let the Holy Spirit teach you the deep mysteries of God and God’s Word.

I had posted this comment elsewhere but it fits here. All translators have to deal with biases when they translate any type of literature. Plus, languages are ever changing. It is silly to use language from 400 or 600 years ago today. Translations need updated and you must remember; translations are just translations. Leon Podles has shown that feminist bias has existed in the church and church writings for centuries. I would claim such bias since Jerome’s Vulgate.http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm

]]>

By: chrisgale

Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:51:00 +0000

Firstly, thanks. I think you should also look at Will — who writes at patri — he’s Canadian, and not pale skinned. Alte at TC is black. Elspeth is Black.

On the issue of humankind vs mankind — the greek is anthropos which can be translated both ways. The divisions we make in English don’t quite work in other languages. So, you are correct. However the process of making things gender neutral is something we should be leery of.

For women are quite different from men, and any differences we have among men (males) between races are nothing compared with the differences between men and women. We are divergent. We are complementary.

We are not identical, but in a moral and ethical way: equally free, of equal dignity, and we have an equal need for salvation

____
Additional: Culture does matter, though. And I’m a New Zealander — over here the ethnic groups are different, and what in the US is called “Black” becomes over here “American, rare, and cool”. I do not understand the racial tensions that exist in North America at a visceral level.

My reactions are much more to Maori, Samoans, Indians and South Africans (“Yarpies”), Australians (“Aussies”) or Englishmen (“Poms”). We play the same sports… abuse each other, but in Europe and North America (where we get lumped together as “Antipodean” or “unwanted white colonials”) we back each other.

]]>

By: jg

Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:01:00 +0000

I am moved to write in order to say a small thank you. It is only a small thank you because I haven’t read much of your writings, so I am unsure how much this post is indicative of others. I am saying thank you for the section of the post that touches on race. I am a christian (conservative leaning) black male. As I was reading that section, I was waiting for the punch in the gut I usually experience when I read posts by other supposed christian bloggers such as thinking housewife or oz conservative who use their forum to disseminate, if not hate, then contempt for those of my race. The punch never came. “Thank you.” Something told me to give it chance (as in don’t stop reading) and I am glad I did. It gives me hope for my kind, and by that I mean the christian kind. I actually don’t have much of a comment on that section(other than thanks), because I kind of missed the point. It seemed a little out of place, but that might just be my lack of understanding. I do have a comment on your lager point.

Although I agree with your larger point, I disagree with the example you chose to make that point. The substitution of humankind for ‘man’ is the correct thing to do in that context. Sometimes even feminists get it right. My guess is that ‘man’ (in that context) was the accepted vernacular of the day to express the idea of humankind. Since today we have the word humankind, why not use? If humankind expresses the same idea and also helps some people(namely women) feel more connected, accepted and loved by the scripture, then isn’t that word the better option as it does the greater good. As christian men we are commanded to lead and love, and this is a change I would make to show love for my sisters of the faith. In this case I think you might be the one who is trapped by old conventions and missing the chance to help others. But I understand the need to be leery of the intentions of feminists. A greater issue would be if they tried to change ‘son of man’ to ‘son of humankind’ as ‘son of man’ is a title with special meaning and historic significance.

]]>

By: Wiless

Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:41:00 +0000

Ah.

]]>