Talk:Christianity/Gospel 101

"to a modern translation preferably gender neutral"

Sad, pretty sad.

Sorry, just can't comply to such a politically correct and that should not be a prerequisit for participation.

Real Discussion Points
Because of inept import the original discussion page was not redirected.

First Anonymous Comment - 19 September 2005.

I don't understand...why would you paraphrase the KJV in order to study? First, there are swarms of paraphrases already published; second, if you want to understand the original meaning and intent of the writers, you'll have to study the Scriptures in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) instead of simply converting 'thee' and 'thou' into modern English. Third, your admonition to be gender neutral is inconsistent with the original text of Scripture, because it was -not- gender neutral. This is a nice idea, but modernizing the English of the KJV is going to produce scant growth in the overall life of the Christian, in my opinion.


 * In some places, the original text was "gender neutral" where modern English is not. In other cases, it might be the other way around.  All languages have unique divisions of grammatical gender roles, just like the societies they complement are different,  eg. languages like French are not at all "gender neutral" and cannot be made to be. Notably, concepts commonly translated "man", are often more "gender neutral" or inclusive in the Semitic languages, approaching the meaning of the English terms 'mankind' or 'humanity'; so that in my own translations I have tended to substitute 'person' for 'man' when used in the singular (eg. 'A person cannot live by bread alone'), but only where appropriate; a reference to 'man' should be acceptable when clearly referring to a masculine character. Greatest attention should be paid to the concepts in the original languages, for greatest accuracy possible, and I feel we ought to avoid giving an impression that we intend to radically change the ancient Word into something else, solely to accomodate any modern ideology. Codex Sinaiticus 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Welcome to Modernity
Sorry for the delayed response, I forgot to watch-list this page. This course is only for those who might want to venture into translation as a theological exercise. Most are afraid and just want to cast stones, but I am in up to my elbows and it is quite rewarding. I have expanded into Syriac, Coptic and Latin just like the church fathers. The gender issue came to a head at John 3:6 and I decided to pursue it. The context of verse 3:5 is the breaking of water at birth, not baptism as most assume. That the original language would refer to the birthing woman as only "flesh" was corrected in Modernity. Even the Living Bible reads, "Men can only reproduce human life." That may be "biblical" in your eyes, but a medical impossibility in mine. The Bible is all things to all people, and worthy of pursuit in what ever form. &#45; Athrash | (Talk)  06:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also John 3.6 discussion note from Modernity Version in Wikibooks:
 * Gender issue, double entendre in v. 6 comment. Issue, whether to pursue gender neutral at all? Why tick some people off, because the clock has been ticking long enough and, God willing, the time may have arrived. Issue (meaning, definition number 30 in the Random House, offspring), the birth itself is to issue forth and all human offspring are the bodily issue of a woman. The alternative, flesh, is only skin deep, yet beauty is … This too, a mind, body, and spirit exercise as in v. 9. If the process becomes at all cumbersome then a retraction can be issued. She/he designation (v. 5) is not appropriate for these times, but see nothing wrong with an occasional his/her. The Wikipedia article on the NRSV is of interest, commenting:
 * Gender-inclusive language does represent a change from the traditional translations, however, in many cases, the original language, Koine Greek, is gender ambiguous. For example, adelphoi, can be translated as either "brothers" or "brothers and sisters." See Matthew 12:49.

&#45; Athrash | Talk 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename
There was a proposal to rename this page as not following Naming conventions. However, the name comes from '101 ways (or mention) to believe in the Gospel of John', rather than a course or lesson number. Therefore, the rename recommendation has been removed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)