tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post114670584654010590..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: The International Standard VersionSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-34620660233417077872008-04-01T07:32:00.000-07:002008-04-01T07:32:00.000-07:00The NT writers had a Greek translation of the OT w...The NT writers had a Greek translation of the OT which they often quoted so they were quoting Greek. <BR/><BR/>So for example, in Eph. 4:8 the Greek says anthropos, and the Hebrew adam, in Psalm 68:18, where the quote comes from, both are words for "humans" and not for "men." <BR/><BR/>I really only understand the use of the masculine to be a desire on the part of the editors to promote male leadership where the scriptures are talking about God's relationship to humanity.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-25069091771880157062008-03-31T21:27:00.000-07:002008-03-31T21:27:00.000-07:00You're talking greek, but not hebrew. what about ...You're talking greek, but not hebrew. what about the times when the OT is quoted in the NT? <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the quick answers and not impaling me with words for asking questions! That rocks!!Kimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686317212827617240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-38015862831093269932008-03-31T21:21:00.000-07:002008-03-31T21:21:00.000-07:00Accuracy is the only reason, Kimberly. Anthropos m...Accuracy is the only reason, Kimberly. Anthropos means "human being" in Greek and not "man." Adelphoi means "brothers and sisters" and not "brothers". These are the first entry in any Greek lexicon. The terms "man" and "brethren" in the KJV were gender inclusive. <BR/><BR/>I can't imagine why all versions of the Bible now are not gender neutral.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-56737995717447436072008-03-31T20:55:00.000-07:002008-03-31T20:55:00.000-07:00what is the goal in having a gender neutral bible?...what is the goal in having a gender neutral bible? not to offend. yet the bible itself says it will be offensive to people....Kimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686317212827617240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-1146787486092356552006-05-04T17:04:00.000-07:002006-05-04T17:04:00.000-07:00Tim,First and foremost, I feel that there should b...Tim,<BR/><BR/>First and foremost, I feel that there should be at least one version of the Bible that churches of different persuasions could share. That might be a very literal version but it should exist, at the very least. I see the KJV, Darby and Luther Bibles are in that tradition. Little to offend either way. <BR/><BR/>This is probably the most in dfficult passage in the Bible to decode, and I don't really think I have that much to offer, nothing new at the moment. A while ago Talmida made this comment. <BR/><BR/><I>Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair once they are married.<BR/><BR/>A woman's hair is part of her feminine beauty, and makes her attractive to men. Once she is married, she covers her hair when she is not alone with her husband, because her "attractions" are now reserved for him alone.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you can find someplace that explains it better than that, but that is how it was explained to me by one who practised this concept of modesty.<BR/><BR/>And I think there are other examples where girls (aka unmarried women) CAN go bare headed, but once married, the hair is covered. I have a memory that girls can wear their hair down too, but that married women wear it up? Don't know what corner of my brain that comes from. ;)</I><BR/><BR/>I only observe that wearing a shawl/veil is shown in Classical art and statuary as a beautiful and dignified custom, the prerogative of the wealthy free woman in society. Wearing a veil did not keep women silent.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-1146779230540291082006-05-04T14:47:00.000-07:002006-05-04T14:47:00.000-07:00Suzanne,The trouble with "a quest for a 'neutral' ...Suzanne,<BR/><BR/>The trouble with "<I>a quest for a 'neutral' Bible translation</I>" is that too often it leads to over literal versions.<BR/><BR/>Verses 7-10 printed as a paragraph, just make no sense. As a reader of English with a fairly wide vocabulary and years of experience in decoding difficult texts (both scholarly and student essays ;) it transmits no meaning at all to me!<BR/><BR/><I>7A man should not cover his own head, because he exists as God's image and glory. But the woman is man's glory. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. 10This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels.</I><BR/><BR/>If the man should not cover <B>his own head</B>, whose head should he be covering?<BR/><BR/>Does Paul really mean that men are God's "glory"? I could have understood if he'd invoked a sunset over the sea or something...<BR/><BR/>And how does the "for" at the beginning of verse 8 work? <B>I</B> don't get the logic! etc. etc... the paragraph is just gobbledegook. Unless I already know the passage from Greek or KJV or wherever and speak Bibglishâ„¢!Tim Bulkeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-1146778919975358542006-05-04T14:41:00.000-07:002006-05-04T14:41:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Tim Bulkeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.com