Translating is always a tricky issue. Especially with the Bible. I may be wrong, but I believe the Old Testiment was originally recorded in Hebrew and then translated into Greek, and then translated again into English (whereas the New Testiment was recorded in Greek). So, you end up with a translation of a translation, and something's going to get lost. To claim that one version is more correct simply because it conforms with your view of the Bible and the relationship between men and women is absurd.

There are many issues with translating the Bible. For one, the Hebrew word for God is plural. This is commonly explained as "the royal we." But, it could just as likely be the result of the influence of polytheistic religions at the time the Bible was written.

I never really understood why Christians don't encourage scholarship of the Bible (learning the original languages and reading the original texts). Then you could cut out the pesky translater middleman.

The history of the bible is insanely interesting, so much so that even I as agnostic with strong atheistic leanings find it really fascinating.

However, rather than seeing it as an organic living document that has changed quite considerably (had whole sections added in and taken out, for instance - and it has been made 'contemporary' a number of times throughout its history) a lot of fundamentalists/evangelicals honestly see it as the literal 'Word Of God', unchanging and absolute throughout time (the fact of it's changing nature ignored - these are people that still have Jesus on the cross as a white european guy).

I think it has something to do with the absolutist mindset (ie there is only one truth, one way, one everything) that finds it repugnant and inconceivable to think of something as central to that absolutism as the Bible as being something that changes.

So, what they are arguing for is that it is the words that are important, not the meaning. The rest of us look at the document with a historical, contextual lens and see the meaning behind the words (not that I particularly LIKE the meaning behind that text, its phenomenonly misogynistic and xenophobic, but that's an aside), but for a lot of these people its all about the words.

There are a number of times that absolutic and pluralistic (the latter of which most liberals tend to take) come into conflict, and this is really one of them. It's a mindset difference, and really difficult to cross.

As a religious studies student who has had the task of translating both biblical Greek and Old Testament Hebrew, I would like to assure everyone that the Bible is already mistranslated due to concepts that cannot be conveyed in English. The English version is the best the translators could do (a freakin' hard task as is). However, putting gender neutral ideas into the Bible is inflicting the current culture on a text that was written in a time when women were mere objects. It sucks to keep that in our history, but we can't rewrite out history just because we don't like it.

However, putting gender neutral ideas into the Bible is inflicting the current culture on a text that was written in a time when women were mere objects.

Popular feminist nonsense. We are created male and female. Christ told man to love his wife as Christ loves the church. He told the woman that her husband shall rule over her.

The punishment to man was to till the ground all the days of his life, and his days are to be filled with sorrow.

Womans punishment was increased pain in childbirth. There is nothing in there that stats she should have to work and partake of mans punishment.

Women had wonderful lives, women where only objects if they allowed themselves to be used as such. Man can only feel sorrow for you ladies for so long before we say enough with this objectification thing. Worry about your souls, your children, fathers, mothers and husbands. Enough is enough!

The best thing about this venture is that it's marketed to teens. The KJV (based on the horribly flawed Textus Receptus (I think that link should work when Wikipedia comes back up)) and other traditional translations have a stranglehold on many adult Christians, but their kids are open to new things. If they grow up accustomed to the language of the TNIV or similar projects, there's hope they'll (rightly) find the "traditional" language odd and skewed in a masculinist direction.

And to counteract the comment above this one (Verlich), I'll point out I'm a Christian, too, and I find it sad that someone can read the stories of Hagar and Tamara and honestly believe women have only been viewed as objects when they objectified themselves. That's errant nonsense. As for being created male and female, read Galatians 3:28 for a change.

16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20: And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Does a slave still respect the order of his master until he is no longer a slave?

A wife should still respect the social order with her husband. A married man and woman become joined in Chirst.

The bible also says its better to live on the roof of your house that with a contensious woman!!!

It doesn not change the social order of things here on earth.

In heaven there will be no more marriage and the such. So then man and woman will be like they where in the garden....But still Eve was created Adams Help Mate.

With the high Divorce rate you can see that American woman are trying to make the husband the help mate and it doesn't work. A man would sooner lose his wife than lose his manhood or what makes him feel special as a man. All it would take for Westurn women to save a marriage is pleasure in the works of your husbands. To find that his hard work means something to you. Just speaking out of adoration of his the works of his hand. Your marriage will be sound. A little lip service.

20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Verlch, is that you calling yourself ShackandAwe?
Funny, the writing style is indistinguishable.

Are you trying to demonstrate that feminism is incompattible with a literal interpretation of the bible? I'm not sure anyone disagrees.

If you're trying to win any of the Feministing readership over to your interpretation of the bible, however, I fear you're wasting your time. Those of us who don't reject the divine origins of the bible outright read it very differently from you.

furrfu. thank god i'm an atheist, is all i have to say.

well, that and thank something-or-other i found a like-minded spouse. no way i could stay married to any religious person; the confusion and cognitive dissonance would have me out the door in no time.

Nomen:

I'm married to a Catholic, and I'm an atheist. It really doesn't cause any problem -- I'm non-religious, but not at all anti-religious. I judge people's faith-based convictions just like I judge secular ones.

Thomas,

more power to you, and i hope your marriage remains a happy one. but speaking for myself, i doubt _i_ could make it work. it seems -- for reasons that would be not only too long, but way off topic here -- that the older i get, the less tolerance i can muster up for religious convictions of any kind; they bother me more and more the more i notice them.

(and i notice them a lot, since immigrating to the U.S. some years ago. i think i'd prefer to have an established state church; it tends to moderate the extremists, i believe.)

(yeah, i know those last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other... i could probably explain it, but that'd take *way* too much text!)

Firstly, the word in Hebrew (ezer) that is commonly translated into "helper" is better translated into "partner." Eve was Adam's partner. The Hebrew word was also used to describe God in ways that implied partnership to people. In other words, God was described as a "helper" to people...but if we're using "helper" like the patriarchal societies do, that would make God submissive to people...instead of the intended "partner."
Read Exodus 18:4, Psalm 10:14, and Psalm 118:7 to see God described as "ezer" or "partner."

Also, the verse that says God said that woman would want her husband and her husband would rule over her was not God's commandment, but rather God was telling what would happen in the future because of sin.

So using Genesis as a basis for patriarchy is erroneous.

"Also, the verse that says God said that woman would want her husband and her husband would rule over her was not God's commandment, but rather God was telling what would happen in the future because of sin."

Mel, you're absolutely right about this - that it is indicated not as a commandment, but as a consequence. It implies that if we lived in a LESS sinful world, people would be more egalitarian. So how to explain the existence of groups who are very egalitarian and fair? Maybe these groups have less sin than others.

Hmmmm... that would indicate to me that someone as unfair and sexist as Verlch is just wallowing in sin... but I could have figured that out already by his intellecutally dishonest and rude engagement in this forum.

And by the way, I wanted to point out to those who otherwise might not know that Jesus himself never said anything about the status of women in relation to men, except that a man "becomes one" with a woman when he marries.

So this statement:

"Christ told man to love his wife as Christ loves the church. He told the woman that her husband shall rule over her."

is completely false. Those were writings of Paul. And Paul even had some disclaimers in there wrt his inspiration in writing them.

Hm. I sure did my part defending Christianity today... and I'm not even a Christian!

Verlch:

Once again, and I think I speak for virtually every reader on this point:

We reject your view of God. We reject your interpretation of the Bible. Your position offers no ground for discussion. Preaching at us will merely waste your time.

Please go away.

I'm a minister of religion who's married to a very well-informed moderate feminist, who's also a staunch atheist. We've had countless discussions in the Bible and the role women played in its stories, and the ways women have been portrayed in it.

It always amazes both my wife and I that words written for specific people in specific times could be seen as written for everyone at all times. If that were the case, then we wouldn't be allowed to use mould killer in our homes or wear two different types of fabric on the same day.

What amazes me more is that people feel they can use the letter of the Bible to profess the subordination of women, while the letter of the Bible proclaims women to be the stronger and braver sex.

If anyone professes that a Christian family has the male as its head, tell them to read the Bible and find out who were present at Christ's death and who were the cowards who ran away. An then tell them what Christians should really think about the power of women.