Difference between revisions of "Feminist Bible"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(building list of words targeted by feminists for censorship or distortion)
(finishing of my editorial - it's the right idea, even if not in the right place)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
(add to list)
 
(add to list)
 +
 +
:Feminists don't like words which imply that there are innate differences between the sexes. This is odd, in light of Genesis 1:27 which says that men '''and''' women are made in the image of God. They are probably confused about human [[value]] and so have decided to slap the label ''equal'' on the sexes without making a distinction between "having just as much value" and "being exactly the same in character and ability".
 +
 +
:Likewise, feminists along with other liberals have a problem with the child-adult dichotomy: think Doonesbury comics, where the little girl in the daycare center celebrates a birth by saying, "It's a baby '''woman'''!" Children are just as valuable as adults, and to the parents who love them often more so. The real hope for ending the [[battle of the sexes]] is the cry heard on a sinking ship, "Women and children first!" Men will sacrifice their lives for those they love even more than their own selves. (As the Bible say, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for ...")
 +
 +
:If we love our children, even in the womb, then they have the same value as regular, air-breathing out-of-the-womb people who have been born already. The demand for a "right of abortion", right up to the last possible legally-allowed moment betrays an utter lack of love. Who would say, "I'm thinking of having an abortion" one day and "I love this baby with all my heart" the next? It's a sheer impossibility. People are not pets or "specimens of living tissue". Forget about the 'rights' aspect; think rather about Who loves us.
 +
 +
:Thus, feminism is anti-family. At its core is simply "me first, by myself" (with apologies to [[Carly Simon]]). If I get pregnant, oops, we can take a morning-after pill or get an abortion. After all, it's not a [[human]] life, just alien tissue growth (a foreign body). The problem with this approach is it makes it hard to answer the question, "When do I start loving my baby?" If it's only a [[fetus]] and not a [[boy]] until some arbitrary (legal) moment, then what is the basis for developing a parental heart towards my son? Do you start loving the baby when it's born, or when the umbilical cord is cut? How can you love a lump of tissue which, while composed of human cells, is nonetheless non-human?
 +
 +
:It really comes down to love. And we can love other people because God loves us first.
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==

Revision as of 21:53, 6 September 2009

The Feminist Bible refers to translations of the Bible that kow-tow to feminist ideology. These translations are contrary to the different roles of men and women set forth in the Bible, as in the Book of Genesis and the letters of Paul. These translations also distort the original text itself, not for purposes of clarity (as claimed) but for purposes of the non-Christian feminist agenda.

The most obvious feminist translations consist of inserting unisex, gender-neutral language to obscure differences between men and women. But there are additional significant feminist mistranslations that focus on:

  • diluting recognition of the unborn child in the womb, in order to promote or defend abortion
  • diluting passages, particularly by Paul, concerning the wife's duties in marriage
  • promoting equal, indistinguishable roles for men and women in Christian ministry [1]

(add more)

Revisions to the bestselling Bible, the NIV, constitute a prominent example of this manipulation.[2] The new retranslation of the NIV lacks any self-described "complementarians" who support the differences between men and women, for example.[3]

Specific Examples

The term "womb" appears 80 times in the word-for-word translation of the ESV, and eight of those references are in the first and second chapters of the Gospel of Luke. The NIV and TNIV resist translating that word literally, which has the effect of downplaying that the unborn child is a living human. For example, in Luke 1:15 the NIV version states, "... and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth." Only in a footnote does it use the translation of the literal ESV: "... and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

Other words that are disfavored by feminists and are targets for censorship or distortion by a Feminist Bible:

  • girl
  • unborn
  • manly

(add to list)

Feminists don't like words which imply that there are innate differences between the sexes. This is odd, in light of Genesis 1:27 which says that men and women are made in the image of God. They are probably confused about human value and so have decided to slap the label equal on the sexes without making a distinction between "having just as much value" and "being exactly the same in character and ability".
Likewise, feminists along with other liberals have a problem with the child-adult dichotomy: think Doonesbury comics, where the little girl in the daycare center celebrates a birth by saying, "It's a baby woman!" Children are just as valuable as adults, and to the parents who love them often more so. The real hope for ending the battle of the sexes is the cry heard on a sinking ship, "Women and children first!" Men will sacrifice their lives for those they love even more than their own selves. (As the Bible say, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for ...")
If we love our children, even in the womb, then they have the same value as regular, air-breathing out-of-the-womb people who have been born already. The demand for a "right of abortion", right up to the last possible legally-allowed moment betrays an utter lack of love. Who would say, "I'm thinking of having an abortion" one day and "I love this baby with all my heart" the next? It's a sheer impossibility. People are not pets or "specimens of living tissue". Forget about the 'rights' aspect; think rather about Who loves us.
Thus, feminism is anti-family. At its core is simply "me first, by myself" (with apologies to Carly Simon). If I get pregnant, oops, we can take a morning-after pill or get an abortion. After all, it's not a human life, just alien tissue growth (a foreign body). The problem with this approach is it makes it hard to answer the question, "When do I start loving my baby?" If it's only a fetus and not a boy until some arbitrary (legal) moment, then what is the basis for developing a parental heart towards my son? Do you start loving the baby when it's born, or when the umbilical cord is cut? How can you love a lump of tissue which, while composed of human cells, is nonetheless non-human?
It really comes down to love. And we can love other people because God loves us first.

References

  1. Complementarians support the traditional complementary roles for men and women, and oppose the insistence on equal, indistinguishable roles.
  2. The Feminist NIV
  3. "Moo declined to label any of the committee members as "complementarians' ...."New NIV translation due out in 2011

See also