Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Gender-Neutral Language: Where are you on the expression "sons of God"?
Line 34: Line 34:  
==Gender-Neutral Language==
 
==Gender-Neutral Language==
 
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that.  In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)
 
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that.  In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:Good point.  Where are you on the expression "sons of God"?  All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?).  But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God."  "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,367

edits

Navigation menu