Skip to comments.PETA Wants More Animal-Friendly Language In Bible
Posted on 03/26/2011 4:38:57 PM PDT by NYer
After they heard that the latest translation of the New International Version of the Bible will now use gender-inclusive language such as "he or she" instead of just "he", PETA saw an opportunity to change one other thing. The organization has petitioned the Committee on Bible Translation to suggest that its next translation remove "speciesist" language, by referring to animals as "he or she" instead of "it." “When the Bible moves toward inclusively in one area...it wasn’t much of a stretch to suggest they move toward inclusively in this area. Language matters. Calling an animal 'it' denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God," Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vice president for policy, told CNN.
PETA said it hopes the switch to include more gender-inclusive language will spark translators to readdress the ways animals are referred to in the Bible. "Updating the Bible's language regarding animals would not only reflect modern writing trends but also reinforce the idea that animals are living beings valued by God, not inanimate objects. Jesus taught us the importance of mercy and compassion, and this update would encourage mercy and compassion for all God's creatures—including those who have feathers, fins, and fur," Friedrich wrote.
But David Berger, the dean of Yeshiva University’s Bernard Revel graduate school of Jewish studies, said shifting the language would be difficult, given the original Hebrew: "In Hebrew all nouns are gender-specific. So the noun for chair is masculine and the noun for earth is feminine. There’s simply no such thing as a neutral noun. It’s unusual to have a noun that would indicate the sex of the animal."
David Lyle Jeffrey, a professor at Baylor University who teaches about ancient texts and the Bible's relationship to literature and the arts, sympathizes with PETA, but isn't sure if it would be true to the text: "When you get to the point when you say, 'Don’t say it, say he or she' when the text doesn’t, you’re both screwing up the text and missing the main point you addressed."
Yea - what is it with PETA and naked women? They seem to have some issues. Nothing a nice, thick, juicy steak wouldn’t help.
Every time I see a rainbow. I’m reminded of 3 things associated with that bow instituted by God.
1) He will not destroy the earth by a flood again.
2) Some crimes including homosexuality are punishable by capital punishment.
3) It’s OK to eat a large steak.
I laugh when the godless are so concerned about God’s Book.
Obviously if the gender of the animal is relevant to whatever’s being discussed, the bible does mention it. If it is unimportant it is not referenced.
Perhaps we should start discussing why PETA feels the best way to get their message out is to make sexually explicit posters of naked women to somehow show how much they care about animals. Can we point to somewhere in God’s Word for them as to how God feels about selling things with sex, or trying to seduce people with naked women? PETA prostitutes?
Thanks for mentioning the NET- I wasn’t familiar with it.
He knew after the flood, the entire climate and nature of the earth would be so different, and would necessitate man actually having to eat meat for proper nutrition.
Why would they care, I suspect most hard core PETA folks don’t believe in the Bible.
Oh, you may not like the outcome, but at least you will have the opportunity to hear from him.
“That is why I stick only with the King James version of the Bible. All these new versions change the Word. I stick to the original translated from the Greek.”
Ummm, ALL bible translations are translated from the Greek. If a bible version doesn’t use the Greek it will be called a “paraphrase” (e.g. The Living Bible). The question becomes, from which Greek texts? The King James Version (KJV) used traditional texts received by the Anglican Church as of 1611. It is also called by some proponents the “Authorized Version” even though that just means it was authorized by the homosexual and cowardly English king, James I.
Modern translations tend to use different sets of the ancient Greek (and Hebrew) texts, often weighting the oldest texts most, or, perhaps the greatest number of (”majority”) texts....for dealing with textual differences. An example of a textual difference might be the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt. 6, which has, “for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever” in some versions (the received texts of KJV) but does NOT have that phrase in other, older Greek manuscripts (reflected in modern translations).
Is any essential meaning changed? No. Any decent translation too will make a note where the Greek or Hebrew texts differ from each other.
The KJV is an excellent translation—given it’s limited texts, and, given Elizabethan English. Unfortunately most people get tripped up by “thees and thous” today, and there actually are some excellent-—NON-GENDER-BENDING modern translations—that are reliable in modern English. I’d recommend the English Standard Version(ESV) (2004) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) (2003). The New King James Version (1980s(?)) is also considered an excellent, but traditional, translation.
The problem with NIV, is that the translators want to reflect modern English usage, where we often hide gender-distinctives (”I knew a PERSON who had....”) in the name of being polite and inclusive. The Hebrews and Greeks.....like 99% of people throughout the world throughout history, didn’t worry about such niceties (or bending toward animal worshipers either....).
Of course the silly thing is virtually any Church, conservative, liberal, evangelical, traditional, whatever....will have a majority of women. Clearly they don’t feel excluded...while men, actually, tend to be more alienated from Church, across the board. Therefore there really is no need to mess with the literal original meanings... Gender neutrality only makes that PC feeling—and male exclusion worse, IMHO.
So, like, when are they going to start ragging on the followers of the Koran for cherishing a book that calls dogs and pigs filthy animals?
I saw a PETA protest in Fort Worth a few years ago. The protesters were wearing leather belts and shoes.
I want a Turduckin with a side of Prime Rib!
I’m personally a fan of the Challoner Douay-Rheims.
I’m willing to meet PETA half way on this.
Let’s make an announcement to all the animals and solicit input. If they say or write that they are equal to us, then I’m willing to go with that. Sorry though, I don’t accept human translations of grunts.
would that be the version where many books were deletedbecause the "reformers" did not agree ith their interpretations????perhaps 1,500 to 1,600 years after the Catholic version of the bible was written??????great choice, take a good look at the Koran, just as legitimate
that's cute, Jesus had no idea (as a man) what a bible was, and the edited KJV came along about 1500 years AFTER the true, Catholic, version of the bible.....and it is at best, incomplete
I thought it was fig leaves.....maybe just a fur wrap???
I know...I was being sarcastic.
Excellent observation. I enjoyed reading your enire post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
An ass will now be referred to as a “smallish horse-like animal that could either be male or female that was forced into cruel toil by humano-centric ancient myth-makers”.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings