What words will be changed in two new editions of the Bible?

Transcribing the text of the Bible has been an ongoing and often controversial process ever since the Greeks translated ancient Hebrew manuscripts around the 3rd century BC. The revised New International Version (NIV) and The New American Bible, respectively, will include gender-neutral language and substitute words that the editors claim will reflect a modern understanding of the book’s theology. What are some of the words that will be changed in this translation? And how will the use of gender-neutral pronouns affect reading of the text?

In Indo-European languages (primarily the languages of Europe) there are three gender noun classes or categories: masculine, feminine and neuter; the latter refers to words that are non-gender specific or refer to language and cultures that recognize a third gender, where the gender of the subject is always referenced by the subject of the word. In contrast, gender-neutral language aspires to “neutralize” any reference to a specific gender; replacing “stewardess” with “flight attendant” is a widely understood example, as is “chairperson” for “chairman.”

The Apostle Paul writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female…”  – this passage from Galatians 3:28 makes a statement about gender roles by using the specific masculine and feminine pronouns. However, if replaced with a gender-neutral pronoun, as in the case of NIV, the intended meaning may simply get lost in the translation. The same could be said for the passage: “Man cannot live by bread alone” (Mathew 4:4), as it has become such a popular cultural phrase.

(On the topic of religion, do you know what the common word “amen” literally means? Check out our analysis, here.)

The New American Bible’s revisions also attempt to reflect the evolution of modern language. For example, in the original scriptures “holocaust” refers to the offerings made to God. Most people equate that word with World War II and the genocide of Jews. The new version reads, “burned offerings” which denotes the original, positive meaning.

Booty,” which has a modern sexual connotation, has been replaced with the “spoils of war” – a reference to the gains inherited from the winning of a battle.

What do you think of these examples? Can you think of other circumstances where translation has changed the way you experience a piece of writing? Let us know.


The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) November 28, 2008 Byline: Catie O’Toole Staff writer ; Staff writer Bob Niedt contributed to this article.

John and Billie Mero, of Geddes, want to give their four children a special Christmas this year.

But they know the only way they can do that is to get up early — or possibly to stay up all night — and stand in lines to get the best Black Friday deals.

“It’s really good deals. Why pass it up?” Billie Mero asked. “Yeah, you get up early in the morning, but we want the kids to have a good Christmas. We probably would not buy as much if we didn’t get these good deals.” The Meros started their holiday shopping at the Kmart on Route 57, in Clay, before the sun rose Thanksgiving morning.

A few other stores — including Big Lots, Dollar General and Sports Authority — opened their doors as early as 7 a.m. Thursday to people looking to beat the crowds today.

Dave Anthony, of Salina, was the first to arrive Thursday at the Kmart in Clay. He showed up at 4:30 a.m. and waited in his car until the Meros arrived a half-hour later. go to site best black friday deals

“I was hoping you’d sit in your car a lot longer,” Anthony told the couple, who beat him to the front of the line.

By the time the store opened, about 100 people had lined up.

“We come every year on Thanksgiving and on Black Friday to get a jump-start on our Christmas shopping,” Billie Mero said. “It’s less crazy (on Thanksgiving), but we’re still going (today).” The Friday after Thanksgiving typically is the second busiest day of the holiday shopping season. The busiest shopping day is usually the Saturday before Christmas. Today is called Black Friday because it’s said to be the day when retailers pass from a loss — in the red — to a profit — in the black — for the year.

Anthony said he went to Kmart early Thanksgiving morning so he could buy his 24-year-old daughter a plasma TV for Christmas. The TV usually costs about $1,000, he said, but it was marked down to $699.99.

“I want to make it a special Christmas for my kids and not spend too much,” Anthony said.

The Meros, who expect to spend about $1,400 on Christmas presents Thursday and today, said they will need to bring their 15-passenger van to fit all the gifts they buy today.

“We will probably need every ounce of (space in the van),” John Mero said, sipping a 64-ounce jug of caffeinated coffee outside Kmart. “We have four kids, and you save quite a bit, and it’s fun.” “We will be out at two o’clock in the morning (today),” Billie Mero added. “We might even go to KB Toys. They open at midnight.” Even so, New York retailers are bracing for a challenging holiday season, as they expect to take a hit from the financial crisis, according to an informal survey of members of the Retail Council of New York State.

According to the council, survey results indicated “anxiety mixed with cautious optimism” even as they expect the Wall Street crisis, low consumer confidence and the national economic downturn to affect holiday sales.

According to the Retail Council, several retailers indicated they would offer sizable sales and promotions, particularly on luxury items, to attract shoppers.

Virginia Leigh Kramer, manager of the Kmart in Clay, said the Nintendo Wii, plasma TVs and the Sony Blu-ray disc player were among the most popular items at her store.

She handed out coupons Thursday to those standing in line to guarantee they’d get those hot-ticket items. Both the plasma TV that Anthony bought and the $299.99 Blu-ray player that was on sale for $179.99 were marked down significantly. this web site best black friday deals

“I think customers are looking for the best value wherever they go,” Kramer said. “People have to do what they have to do to make ends meet. We try to provide good value at good prices.” Katie Casler and her sister, Sarah Spataro, both of Fulton, said they have cut back on how much they will spend this holiday season.

“We haven’t spent nearly as much as we usually do,” Casler said. “We’re trying to give the kids a good Christmas but without going overboard. That’s why we’re after the deals.” Casler, a stay-at-home mom, said her husband is working three jobs to pay the bills and put food on the table.

“He usually works a ton of overtime at McLane Northeast, but they’ve done a lot of cutting back,” she said. “There’s no overtime at all now, but he’s lucky he still has his job.” Casler said she usually spends about $2,000 on Christmas presents for her 3-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son. This year, she’s spending half that amount.

Spataro said she’s also cut her Christmas-spending budget, from $1,200 to $500. She and her sister planned to get in line outside Wal-Mart at 10 or 11 p.m. Thursday for a 6 a.m. opening today, so they can buy winter jackets for $8 and hooded sweatshirts for $4.

“It’s hard because with little ones you want to buy them everything. But with the price of gas and the price of heating, it’s very hard to spend the money we usually spend,” Casler said. “We have to spend our money wisely.” Catie O’Toole can be reached at cotoole@syracuse.com or 470-2134.

WhatAEs hot?

Black Friday shoppers will be scouring the stores today for the seasonAEs hottest items:

Nintendo Wii gaming system iPods Sony PlayStation Microsoft Xbox Computer games: Wii Fit and Guitar Hero Barbie, American Girl and Hannah Montana merchandise High-definition, plasma and flat-screen TVs Computers and laptops GPS systems Digital cameras Source: Deloitte & Touche USA More on Syracuse.com Shop aetil you drop on syracuse.com The Post-Standard will be out and about on Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday covering the holiday shopping frenzy, with news, photos.

Find it all at www.syracuse.com/business CAPTION(S):

PHOTO Lauren Long/The Post-Standard JIM O’HARA, of Cicero, holds his 20-inch flat-screen television high above the crowd of early bird shoppers at Kmart in Clay shortly after the store opened at 7 a.m. Thursday. Reserve tickets for electronics and other popular items were distributed ahead of time to those waiting in line outside the store.

Lauren Long/AP KATIE DURKIN (second from left),, 24, of North Syracuse, looks through a stack of marked down games for the Wii with her mother, Kathy Durkin, of Clay. In the background are two of Kathy Durkin’s sisters, Joan Mahar (left), of Onondaga Hill, and Patty Gersbacher, of Baldwinsville. The sisters have shopped together at the early-bird holiday sales at Kmart for more than 10 years.


  1. ememi -  November 27, 2013 - 4:04 pm

    The Holy Bible has been changed many times in the past. Most of those changes, some call them attacks, are taught as being the message of the Holy Bible even though the opposite is actually in the Biblical text.

    1) Trinity – false; not in Bible. A verse here and there is twisted to pretend it says this.

    2) All kinds of people are descended from Adam and Eve… false; not in by Bible. Old Testament storyline was constantly separating the kinds. Cain married before A&E gave birth to daughters

    3) Paul, Timothy, Titus teach same message as Jesus Christ … false; not in Bible. PTT change many things from what Jesus taught.

    4) Old Testament has different message than New Testament….. false, not supported by Holy Bible text. The message is exactly the same.

    5) j*ws are descendants of Jacob in Old Testament … false; not in Bible. Old Testament storyline, new Testament storyline, and Jesus Christ all refute it

    Do you have the guts to post this comment?
    I really doubt it

  2. rimple -  November 27, 2013 - 3:51 pm

    Deception by small actions….
    One word at a time
    One meaning at a time
    One doctrine at a time

    All working for….
    One confused and lost Child of God at a time

    • Bro. Nick -  November 12, 2015 - 11:01 pm

      rimple – AMEN !

      [6] Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
      [7] Casting all your care upon him;
      for he careth for you.
      – [8] Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil,
      – as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
      [9] Whom resist stedfast in the faith,
      knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
      [10] But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus,
      after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
      [11] To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.

      • Bro. Nick -  November 12, 2015 - 11:23 pm

        [6] Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
        [7] Casting all your care upon him;
        for he careth for you.
        – [8] Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil,
        – as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
        [9] Whom resist stedfast in the faith,
        knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
        [10] But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus,
        after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
        [11] To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
        (1 Peter, Chapter 5 ~ KJB)

  3. Kayleigh -  October 26, 2013 - 9:49 pm

    I really believe that when the Bible says it’s wrong to add or subtract to what was written, such as in the case of the Revelation verse, it’s not meaning word choice.

    Even if you read a dozen different translations, the overall message is still the same, regardless of what words are used or where they’re placed in the sentence. The problem is when people take what is written and blow it out of proportion–add something in that wasn’t there or take out whole sections of text rather than just a few words. If your intent is to further clarify the meaning of the text for a particular group of people rather than chip away at it, there’s nothing wrong or evil about it. Adding or removing whole portions of it with the desire to mold the meaning to what you want it to say is.

    God is so much larger than the limitations of language. We need to remember that.

  4. gatekeeper -  April 27, 2013 - 3:43 pm

    In Genesis 11:1. And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

    So we were of one speech a long time ago and everyone new the word of God in that one speech, yet there is only one God and his word through the ages the bible has change but the word is still the same yet words were removed or changed. That is between you and God and when it’s time to pass on to the next life – death and let’s not forget that everything we do or say is well documented in the Book of Life And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire Revelation 20:15

    The bible is a way that God teaches us to lead a good life we all intrepid the bible in different ways meaning we all get a different message when we pray in our closet – Matthew 6:6.

    The bible says not to add or remove words in the bible. Revelations 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in. NIV.

    I have a 1938 King James Bible its old the words are the same but what God wants for us is to love each other and not pass judgment to one another. Because to love one another is hard and we try.

    Peace to all.

  5. zach -  July 15, 2011 - 10:03 am

    the bible is an irrelevant and outdated book that makes little sense in specific and none as a whole. update the language, fine. just remember that people wrote it, not some kind of magic beardy man in the sky.

    • steve -  February 29, 2016 - 1:36 am

      but on the other hand, if hundreds of millions of people would rather put their faith and believe in this irrelevant and outdated book instead of you, you are fine with that yes?

    • Bible Student -  November 3, 2016 - 10:25 am

      If you read the Bible you would understand that yes it was written by men but they were chosen and all word is God breathed.

    • Robert Graff -  December 5, 2016 - 5:13 pm

      Then why are you here?
      What truth do you seek?
      Would you create lies to benefit your belief by creating more which believe as you?
      You were not alive in the eons past, you have no authority to state about knowledge being obsolete. It is to be understood that as a tool to confuse many the greatest is to change the tools which were made to teach the truth. If we are to know what was, we are to learn of the past. Many books were written of history and many versions were written, all with lies to benefit there benefactor who gained the power to modify the stories of time from the spoils of war they did confiscate and lay beneath their thrones. Lies are many and all for the creation of further confusion because confusion and deception are a great war waging in the minds of all who search for truth. It is obvious that to change the meaning of words is an act of deception with no other reason but to deceive and change the understanding of history passed. This act is not limited to religious scripture it is also a great political tool used by the left leaning for from the left comes deceptions and lies.

  6. anon nymous -  May 20, 2011 - 5:12 am

    Intresting to see that people are worried about the different interpretations of the Bible coming from changing a few words around, Does no one know that the contents of the bible have been taylored from all of the books that were originally intended to be contained in it? there are numeroous books from followers of Jesus that were cut from the version people seem to think is a direct transcription of ‘God’s word’ and they are sitting in the Vatican being kept away from the population because of how they would change the way you think about Christianity. Alone that is enough to make changing a few words here and there irrelevant unless you believe the work of various Catholic heads to be completely free of any agenda other than to write what was said and make it available to public. (I will be watching to see how long this post lasts, I notice that many posts are deleted when they say anything people have no desire to comment on or are just inconvenient to read)

  7. kim -  April 23, 2011 - 6:03 pm

    All I know for sure that in the Bible it says let no word be changed that means none. From what I have seen and can remember from childhood
    is that every time I look around there is something changed. I was brought up on the King James Version with the words (thee and thou) and for all I know there was one before that said something different. So I searched and searched and found an old KJV for my kids, but have told them to (go by faith trust and understanding and ask the LORD for guidance and trust only in him) because man even I your mother might fail you but not the LORD. After thought I can’t wait to leave this place, where these people are going I and mine shall not follow. Lord be with you in terrible times.

    • John Dietrich -  January 23, 2016 - 8:19 am

      Gender-neutral language is bullshit which is supported by sodomites, Christ-rejecting worldlings and stupid men and women deceived by “feminism.”

  8. Mick_Vicious -  April 15, 2011 - 1:41 pm

    i need help locating a bible quote…it’s in a weird spot…but it is quoted..”Even Now Angles Carry Savage Wepons In Wepons”…any help?

  9. JesusFreak -  April 13, 2011 - 10:31 am


    God is mentioned as a “He” in the Bible because He is our heavenly Father. It makes no sense whatsoever to have a female father. God says that when we acknowledge we are in the wrong and accept His Son Jesus as 100% man and 100% God who came down to earth to take the punishment for our sins, He adopts us into His family as children, becoming our Father. God created man before He did woman, and God made the man the head of the house. Therefore, it makes sense that God refers to Himself as a “He”, because He is King over all (there’s never been a female King either, has there??) and Ruler of all Creation.

    Also, “it” is a non-personal reference. God is personal and desires an intimate relationship (NOT sexual) with each and every one of us. Therefore, the pronoun “it” doesn’t work here either. :)


  10. Francis -  April 12, 2011 - 3:41 pm

    would people stop critising and accept other people’s religons?

  11. Bev -  April 11, 2011 - 12:49 pm

    I cannot believe how ignorant some of these comments are. Sheesh. Really folks, it was translated from ancient Hebrew by Greeks. Jesus did not write the King James version of the bible, nor did he read it. All meanings get distorted when you translate another language to English. It may even correct a prior mis-translation to begin with.

    • Robert Graff -  December 5, 2016 - 5:31 pm

      There is only confusion and distortion if the translator does not understand both languages quirks, you must understand the language, history, society and the hearts of both differing peoples in order to translate properly from one language to another, especially when translating a work as complicated as scripture and prophecy. It is much better to do direct literal translation and have the reader gain a full understanding of who wrote it originally and what their life was like. You must understand how they understood and perceived reality in order to understand the prophecy they recorded about things they couldn’t understand, because of the things that did not yet exist. Try writing a description of a nuclear explosion then translate it into Phoenician. Then have someone translate that back into English. Now see how different that is and apply what you have learned about translation keeping in mind how different things are after thousands of years.

  12. dennis -  April 11, 2011 - 11:52 am

    in my opiniton see revelations 22:19 , kjv, it would also be great if people would spend some time looking into the origanal writing’s in the day’s before translation’s started. those reading’s carry a pretty heavey punch. dont worry about getting thing’s wrong praying for GOD’S spirit will guide you as you go, but of’course praying for understanding is the key to learning. enjoy

  13. Madeline Loder -  April 10, 2011 - 5:43 pm

    I love the old way. I love the Thee’s and Thou’s. Don’t rewrite history!

  14. trilby -  April 10, 2011 - 2:52 pm

    I think there is one really sexist thing about the Bible – that it refers to God as “he”? Why? What is masculine about God? Why isn’t the pronoun “it” used?

  15. Migue -  April 9, 2011 - 6:38 pm

    I think it is COMPLETELY absurd and unnecessary. that should reflect the almost history [sic] of all those jewish and christian people, their traditions and all that’s wrong and negative about their sexist ideas and etcetera.

  16. HermanB -  April 9, 2011 - 7:33 am

    To me it is also amazing, in this day & time, that some people think that the KJV is the only version of the Bible. This while there are loads of versions in other languages around. And there again people seem to think that a specific version in that language, is written by God…
    Take a look at something that may be original:

  17. taosnow -  April 9, 2011 - 4:23 am

    Hey, let’s change god to allah and get it over with already. That way we can just roll over and go back to sleep and pretend nothing is going on.

  18. Tanisha Green -  April 8, 2011 - 9:03 am

    Leviticus 18:22 will be changed from:
    “Thou shalt not lie with man as with woman: it is abomination”.
    …to this:
    “If thou lie with man as with woman, you’re an old silly.”

  19. isn'titashame -  April 7, 2011 - 3:14 pm

    You are going to have to find the orginals then learn Hebrew if you want the real thing and even with that your going to have some problems with the translation of Hebrew into English. I guess we will really never know what the real Bible said.
    Good luck

  20. Ralphinjersey -  April 7, 2011 - 1:47 pm

    I don’t believe every word is meant to be taken literally. In the Beattitudes, “Blessed are the cheesemakers,” for example, is intended to refer to manufacturers of any dairy product.

  21. randy -  April 7, 2011 - 1:34 pm

    It is amazing to me, in this day & time, that some people think that the KJV is the only version of the Bible and was written by God himself. “If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.” I got news for them. Jesus had ascended into Heaven some 1600 yrs. before the KJV was written, by scholars of the King’s court, in court language, full of prose & poetry.

  22. randy -  April 7, 2011 - 12:55 pm

    To Noah: You sound like the woman who called our church & asked what version of the Bible we used. We (Methodists) use the New International Version. She replied, “we use the KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us.” I informed her that the KJV was ordered by King James some 1600 yrs. after Christ was crucified- that it was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek into King’s Court English that was full of prose & poetry to please the King. Some of the wording means the exact opposite of what was originally written. I grew up 64 yrs. ago w/ the KJV & it will always be my “main” Bible. But it was written by men who interpreted what other men wrote long ago & is full of inconsistences & other flaws, to be honest. But I still see it as the word of God for us to lead our lives- no matter what version one uses. If one version leads another person to the Lord, what difference does it make? That person is the winner.

  23. ralph -  April 6, 2011 - 4:59 pm

    The changes actually make the text more accurate. They also could improve its accuracy by using less formal synonyms of “humankind.” Maybe not as informal as “folks” but words like “people” could be used where “humankind” sounds awkward.

  24. cicoatl -  April 5, 2011 - 9:56 pm

    instead of changing a few words they should change the genre to fiction, or just change the whole thing for a lord of the rings extra series, or just change it to nothing and get rid of it, although to be honest I do think is a historic piece of literature, but I am pretty surprise that they are changing the word booty just because stupid…I mean ignorant people use it for something else, English is not my first language but since i Been learning it, it sure sound like it’s really getting dumber, special thanks to mainstream media and top 20 music! and Mtv

  25. wayneoil -  April 5, 2011 - 4:55 pm

    New Catholic Bible:
    One of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ tweaks to the Bible may evoke giggles from a back pew of 12-year-olds, but another one could provoke an outcry from traditionalists if they interpret it as a dilution of a cornerstone of Catholic theology. The new translation replaces the word “booty,” which often has a sexual connotation these days, with “spoils” in a passage involving victors’ plunder during a war, USA Today reports.

  26. felizarte -  April 5, 2011 - 1:53 pm

    fortunately for me, in the translation of the bible to my language, gender pronouns or such was never a problem: our language does not have a he/she pronoun, we use a gender-neutral word for person, no word for brother or sister but we do have a word for sibbling, no word for husband or wife, only one for spouse. We do have a word for male or female when we need to specify.

  27. hipeoples -  April 5, 2011 - 1:39 pm

    I agree with
    :D anonymous person :)
    whoever that is even.
    people should do that.

  28. Sharon -  April 5, 2011 - 11:50 am

    Noah’s comment listed above is right on target! The Muslim claim the QURAN is more HOLY than the Bible–Why? Because the Bible has been translated so much it has lost its original meaning!

    In the 21st century, with the most educated people–the excuse we are going to make the Bible easier to read and to understand–is HOG WASH!

    • Rajnikant Singh -  September 6, 2015 - 8:43 am

      Why can’t the Bible be printed in original language. Like Quran. It should be responsibility of the Chuch Head, to make people learn Bible (Reading and understanding) in original language. If people have faith, it is writen small children will be blessed to know and understand the secrets. Didn’t translaters believed GOD’s word ! How it can be made easier to understand, its not mathematics or science. Its GOD’s word, God will provide the knowledge to understand it, if He finds the person a deserving person, otherwise no matter how easy one makes the Holy Bible to read, understanding comes from GOD.

  29. donquijoterocket -  April 5, 2011 - 8:31 am

    I’m surprised that no one has yet mention the version supposedly being produced by Phyllis Schlaffly’s son Andy the Conservative Bible which will expunge any words or phrases the compilers feel are too “liberal”. Surely that will become the definitive version in the English language.I have no idea if they’ll also delete the thees,thous, and, thines or what they say about gender neutrality but if it’s as funny as the conservapedia I might read it just for the giggles

  30. Oh so Pogi -  April 4, 2011 - 11:59 pm

    we can’t understand God’s language, that’s why we adapt it to our own. Just like how you adapt japanese to korean to chinese to English, it may not be perfect, but still, it gives us understanding of what they want to say.

  31. Monica Riley -  April 4, 2011 - 12:32 pm

    I’ve been told that a mistranslation at some point changed “rope” to “camel”. The original is supposed to have said “It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a richman to go to heaven.” Does anyone know if this is true?

  32. [...] has made an executive decision to ‘update’ some of the words therein. The standout – they’re replacing the word “booty” with “spoils of war”. Because we might actually have thought that going to war in the Middle East would lead to everyone [...]

  33. Boo Boo :) -  April 1, 2011 - 5:43 pm

    Love all of the banter here. Especially between Moses and Jesus Christ. Great reading guys.

  34. Logan -  April 1, 2011 - 1:46 pm

    Why change the word, instead why don’t people just expand their education. I guess the scholars also need to have an Ebonics version, so the people who cannot read or write standard American English will be able to read Gods word. We as a society are stupid, lets go back to school and learn reading comprehension.

  35. #1 Skillet Fan -  April 1, 2011 - 8:28 am

    @Jay: you’re absolutely right! Thanks for pointing that out to all of us :)

  36. cozmot -  April 1, 2011 - 4:55 am

    @Noah, people have been screwing around with the words of the Bible from the time they were first written, long before translations emerged. The scribes who copied the manuscripts were notorious for this. That’s why John issued the warning at the end of Revelation. The original manuscripts no longer exist, but the copies through the centuries have many changes. There are more changes among the copies than there are words in the New Testament.

    Since the original words are lost, we have no way of knowing what was or what was not truly written by the authors. Through textual criticism we can surmise, but that’s about it. So, revising a translation to give more contemporary and inclusive meanings to certain words pales is not screwing around with the “purity” of the Bible. That purity was compromised by the scribes long, long ago.

  37. Mackey Lee Rivers -  April 1, 2011 - 12:14 am

    JESUS said (John 14:26): But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

  38. David -  March 31, 2011 - 11:35 pm

    “Language is always changing, always fluid, always moving here and there. As a matter of fact, the only thing that is absolutely true is that the language we use is constantly changing. Therefore, there are no absolutes in words. And therefore we can never really know for sure what the true meaning of the Bible is because of this. Many people complain saying that absolutes truly exist and we all know that that is absolutely not true. There are no absolutes and meaning, and truth in words can never be grasped.”

    Can anyone see how utterly self-refuting this statement is? People who say this are actually claiming that there is one thing that does not change and that is the words they use to say language is constantly changing. If that were true, we could not communicate. Therefore, the statement is self-contradicting. The truth is that some words (very few) do change over a long period of time and that does not happen without any notice. It’s very obvious which words are having different connotations and associations. Language does change over long periods but in logical, understandable ways. It’s not a mystery. Therefore, words do convey absolute truth, particularly the words of Scripture.

  39. Stacy, Tyler & Sawyer -  March 31, 2011 - 10:49 pm

    God’s word may be “pure” but wo/man’s translations can really, really suck. All the NIV and NAB are attempting to do, is to have our silly, Heintz 57-generated, language–English–bibles be more true to the oldest writings of the books of the Bible.
    NIV and NAB are not attempting to re-write the Bible, but to modify the English versions to be a more exact translation.

  40. Ryan -  March 31, 2011 - 10:31 pm

    Go ahead neuter genders. Translators have been systematically removing God’s personal name יהוה (pronounced YHWH (Yahweh) or JHVH (Jehovah) in English) from the bible for years! People have an accounting to make with God (Romans 9:28, Hebrews 4:11-13)

    The truth is Jehovah God created man first. He then created woman as a complement and helper for man. (Genesis 2:18-22) Woman are described in bible as a “weaker vessel, the feminine one” to be assigned honor. (1 Peter 3:8) Husbands are admonished to love their wives as their own bodies. (Ephesians 5:28) People forget how profound this was. These instructions were given during a time when woman where less than second class citizens. Here the apostle Paul was literally revolutionizing the way men treated their wives and woman in general. But, like I said, go ahead neuter genders… dilute the meaning of the bible. They’ve done a “fine” job with God’s name. Don’t stop now. :-/

  41. Mike McKelvy -  March 31, 2011 - 9:29 pm

    The proper word is “Humanity”, long in use. “Human” is used to describe any human.individual. Where Gender identification is important to the context, one must supply the year and social set so the text may be discerned by a ratified participant or analyst.
    Humanity has had radically differring perceptions about the role of females in society for the last several millennia.

  42. Another -  March 31, 2011 - 7:09 pm

    @ MOOT and others like him/her (see, political correctness!)

    You seriously think Jesus read Scripture in English? Modern English? And yes, even though it’s not the kind of English we use today, it is ‘Modern English.’

    The King James Bible did not come into existance until the 1600′s, and the Geneva Bible (another Bible in English) was around before it. In fact, much of the King James Bible was taken from the Geneva. People who insist that the King James Bible is the most accurate Bible or (this really makes me laugh) ‘the Bible Jesus read’ are simply displaying their historical ignorance.

    Now on the topic of the new Bible, I am all for making the Bible more understandable. After all, if no one had wanted to make the Bible understandable to the common man, no English translation would exist and we’d all be reading it in Latin or asking our church official to tell us what it says. But there comes a point when revision goes from understandable to ridiculous. Many of the changes suggested here are simply blows for political correctness, which, like sleep, is extremely beneficial and necessary in some situations, but when overused, causes us to become idiots. If something can easily be explained and is not extremely offensive, there is no reason to change it.

  43. Chase -  March 31, 2011 - 7:03 pm

    God gave us the Bible so we could understand his huge plan. In my opinion, every word God inspired in the authors, He inspired for a reason. I don’t personally have a problem with the words that are being substituted, but I do have a problem with why they are being substituted. God is above all political correctness. In fact, if Christ had wished to be politically correct during his ministry, he would not be who he said he was, and his purpose for coming to Earth would be irrelevant to us. Deliberately changing the translation for the purpose of pleasing people is completely against what God wants us to get out of His Word.

  44. Mary -  March 31, 2011 - 6:12 pm

    Its stupid why they would do such a thing God put it in that way so we can understand!Taking a piece out and fixing it is messing up the whole thing i say leave it the way it was because thats how the lord wants it to be..

  45. :D anonymous person :) -  March 31, 2011 - 5:41 pm

    But maybe think about it this way. If God didn’t want all those other versions out there, then wouldn’t He have stopped it somehow? God is God and He has all the power in the world (and even out side of it (: ) Maybe instead of US deciding and argueing over what we think may be right, we should ask God what He wants and let Him have his way. After all, we’re just like sheep…very very dumb and just need a shepherd to rule over us. In this case, Jesus is our shepherd. So maybe we should just take time and ask Him what He wants and live that way. :)

  46. anonymous person -  March 31, 2011 - 5:23 pm

    Oh I just had an idea! You could use a parrallell Bible! :) It can have several different versions in one Bible and you can compare the texts.

    I think KJV is a good Bible so for any words you don’t understand just use a dictionary! You can even just use biblegateway.com for a bible and then for a dictionary just use dictionary.com.


  47. anonymous person -  March 31, 2011 - 5:20 pm

    I think people should just use whatever version speaks to them the most. And if people don’t understand the language of KJV, like all those thee’s and thou’s….then they could switch to a different version. But eventually I think they should get a good KJV study bible once they understand it. I use basically all the versions because I use biblegateway.com, :P but I do have a bible of my own. I think KJV is the closest we have in english to the “original” so people should use those too. :) I guess I don’t really understand what’s the big deal…as long as we understand what it says and apply it to our lives we’re good. But what would I know? I’m just a twelve year old kid. But that’s what I think about the bible. :)

  48. peter schmidt -  March 31, 2011 - 4:51 pm

    1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    God saw that every thing he made, man and woman, male and female, was very good.

    Who are those people who think it is not good to have male and female?

  49. Jay -  March 31, 2011 - 3:26 pm

    When Jesus quoted the Jewish Scriptures, he quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Since Greek was widely spoken during the first century, Jesus thought it necessary to be clear and understandable to the listeners of his day. It is necessary to update the language and not corrupt the original meaning of the text. King James thought so.

  50. anonymous person -  March 31, 2011 - 3:23 pm

    they should take down this page we shouldn’t argue about this on Dictionary.com!!!!!!

  51. amo -  March 31, 2011 - 2:52 pm

    hey umm there are already so many editions to the Bible i believe we should just stick to the orginal as much as we can or else over time there will be many problems with the story line of christ in many ways. peole are going to not know the orginal story!! MY BELIEVES!!

  52. DayVid NightOwl -  March 31, 2011 - 2:23 pm

    They should change “behemoth” with “argentinosaurus” and “leviathan” with “sauroposeidon.” :)

    As for the the other changes, I don’t mind as long as they follow what Don Stewart has said many times: “‘If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest you come up with nonsense.”

    Changing a connotation, such as neutrality, is just the same as changing the word or phrase entirely. Make it a cultural translation and not a contextual or definition morphism.

  53. sherryyu -  March 31, 2011 - 2:21 pm

    wow this way everybody will unders,and it

  54. Anonymous -  March 31, 2011 - 1:54 pm

    Oops…I meant to do a regular smiley: :)

  55. Anonymous -  March 31, 2011 - 1:53 pm

    @Noah: Exactly!! Thank you. That’s a great reference from Revelation! :o)

  56. Nicole -  March 31, 2011 - 1:47 pm

    @Authorpsych: God is the Author of the Bible. That is why it’s so important that the men were inspired. They wrote it as God planned it. They are therefore God’s words, not the words of the inspired men who recorded it. 2Peter 1:20-21 says “For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by the holy spirit” (NWT.) Just to clear that up, the men were inspired, which is exactly why God IS the Author of the Bible.

  57. Marissa -  March 31, 2011 - 1:44 pm

    I completely agree with you.

  58. Haroldo -  March 31, 2011 - 1:41 pm

    God is alive, then when I don’t understand something I ask directly to Him. In my opinion, it’s a kind of experience we need to have instead of making a new translation.

  59. Martin -  March 31, 2011 - 1:13 pm

    Are you kidding me? The terms in the Bible are not suposed to change precisely because they meant something different inancient times and as readers we should understand them as so. This only denotes lack of positive study and effort of understanding a book as important as the Bible for literature and world history… sad…

  60. Lucia_108 -  March 31, 2011 - 1:09 pm

    the original bible is in hebrew…
    through many translations the bible has anyways lost most of its true meaning
    so i’d say learn hebrew to get closer to the actual words of the bible
    but understanding them has nothing to do with which language theyre written in

  61. Frankrezo -  March 31, 2011 - 12:53 pm

    I would have to agree with many of you about the true nature of the words of GOD. And the only book that comes the closest is the KJV 1611 which is the authorized version by King James himself. I not a scholar but I understand that history repeats its self over again. And for those who don’t understand do some homework and then post your feedback. I feel their are a lot of fools who don’t no much about the history of bible, but yet speak like the scribes. and the bible says beware of false prophet.

  62. Westlib -  March 31, 2011 - 11:54 am

    If everyone just lived their life by the “Golden Rule” all of this debate would be ended. (It is the simplest concept to believe in, but maybe the most difficult to actually practice.) “Do unto others as you would have done to you.” includes everyone, regardless of gender, faith (or lack there-of), or any other differences that exist. Who needs hundreds of pages of ambiguous text to learn how to be a good person?

  63. True Believer -  March 31, 2011 - 10:02 am

    King James, Luther and others understood that it was important for the Bible to be written in the language of the common people. It’s been a while since their versions were written though, and language has evolved. We need a new version that speaks in today’s language if we are to truly grasp the Bible’s beauty, contradictions, and horrors.

  64. Nina -  March 31, 2011 - 9:47 am

    Words – those in the bible – are merely signposts pointing to a deep truth that cannot be expressed by language. The ‘truth that passes all understanding’. The signposts that make up bible were drawn a long time ago and for a much simpler society, a society with different mores (unwritten rules). For example, we don’t wash each other’s feet in this society, so when Jesus washes feet, we follow the meaning of that, but it doesn’t speak as directly to us as it would’ve to the people of the day. As we all know, signposts must be updated regularly or they become meaningless. The bible merely points towards truth, and this is why it is generally not a good idea to take it literally.

  65. Egads -  March 31, 2011 - 8:41 am

    HoleyMoses & JesusChrist (same person?) – do you have a blog? I’d be interested in reading it if so. Great discussion you had going on! ;)

  66. JLynn -  March 31, 2011 - 8:12 am

    YHWH – precisely my thoughts! All you Bible thumpers out there need to realize that the Bible has been translated probably several hundred times over the centuries, and many of the translations have skewed the true original meaning of the messages. Seriously read the Bible…it’s ridiculous. Wait a minute, no, don’t. No one should.

  67. Bible -  March 31, 2011 - 7:44 am

    Have u ever read in the book of Revelation “They who Add, Delete or Alter any word from the BiBLE, his name will also be deleted from the “LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE”

  68. Prestoyo -  March 31, 2011 - 7:40 am

    Even in modern times the jaw bone of an ass is a deadly weapon… don’t change what shouldn’t change.

  69. Prestoyo -  March 31, 2011 - 7:39 am

    The bibke is not sexist people just take it the wrong way because they just want to serve as idiotic instigators.

  70. All of this -  March 31, 2011 - 6:54 am

    Let us pray….

  71. Laura -  March 31, 2011 - 6:32 am

    I find it interesting that it is believed the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God, only when the writer agrees with the views written to reflect their own views.
    The Bible has been re-written to suit an individuals particular point of view since the very beginning.
    We put God in a box, by believing that we can decide what the message is that God is trying to get through to us.
    Jesus did not write anything down. He wanted us to talk, share, become one.
    The ten commandments were suppose to be written in our hearts- no where does the bible say post them in your court rooms. This is another case of people thinking they know the mind of God.

  72. sluggo -  March 31, 2011 - 6:02 am

    The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven when you die? Here’s a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. God, who the Bible says is “rich in mercy,” sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for guilty sinners. We broke God’s Law, but Jesus paid our fine. That means He can legally dismiss our case. He can commute our death sentence: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (turn from sin) today and God will grant everlasting life to all who trust in Jesus. Then read your Bible daily and obey it.

  73. Wacky Jabber -  March 31, 2011 - 5:45 am

    The meaning of words change or some words may fall into disuse. It then becomes tempting to “update” the Bible by using the words currently in vogue. The problem is, even the new words will become old and the Bible will “need” revision again. When will it end? The archaic words in the KJV are not that numerous that a special thesaurus at the end would be sufficient.

    When Michael Jackson sang “I’m Bad”, he meant “I’m good”; when Harry Potter and company say “wicked”, they mean “great” or “wonderful”. Imagine the confusion if St. Paul exhorts the churches to “be bad” or people singing “How Wicked You Are” instead of “How Great Thou Art” and you will see what I mean.

    It is people who need to change; not the Bible. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil…” Isaiah 5:20

  74. フィル -  March 31, 2011 - 4:19 am

    i think the bible should be left as it was originally written to understand our lord with the most direct translation

  75. OWL -  March 31, 2011 - 1:33 am

    Of course “Man cannot live by bread alone”…He/She/It needs also pizza , sushi souvlaki etc

  76. AuthorPsych -  March 30, 2011 - 11:11 pm

    Keep in mind, God did not write the bible, or anything else, for that matter. To know what God actually wants, you’d actually have to be God, which none of us can be. The bible is a series of stories written by inspired men, then rewritten over and over again in many languages and at various times, to convey reverred parables which teach us about spiritual and even practical values. It is reasonable that any way the bible is retranaslated that continues in that purpose will find it to be equally valuable as such. It is truly pointless to become bothered by small differences in lauguage translations, even when they cannot accurately convey the precise original point. If the origianl lesson is conserved, the writing has worth.

  77. Mike McKelvy -  March 30, 2011 - 9:35 pm

    Not a single word in Scripture was originally written in English. With each translation into a new language, the effort was to spread the word and preserve the meaning. Now new interpretations are changing the message itself based purely on social mores and PC speech patterns. This is NOT translation, this is manipulation. Where are the 87% of Americans that believe we should keep “God” in our constitution and on our money? (ABC poll)

  78. Christian -  March 30, 2011 - 9:34 pm

    Wow this argument was longer than the article by like….alot. Can anyone tell me whether or not I’m gonna be saved or not…nope I didn’t think so. It’s not our place to speculate on the ways of the divine and metaphysical. We just have to go with it or at least agree to disagree. It’ll all be okay (I should know my name being Christian and all).

  79. DaPhammer -  March 30, 2011 - 9:17 pm

    I’m cool with it as long as it doesn’t end up changing the meaning. Kind of like Shakespeare, the meaning is the same but the words are changed a little to be easier to understand

  80. Bryan -  March 30, 2011 - 8:32 pm

    The Bible is being translated into new languages all the time. As long as the original meaning isn’t altered I have no problem with it. Case in point: the original translation of Jesus’ words “I am the bread of life” did not convey the proper meaning when translated in Latin America where the word they originally chose was more like a sweet bread or dessert (something that is nice to have). As the story was relayed to me by a missionary to the region, once they changed the wording to say the Jesus was the “tortilla of life”, then the true meaning (of Jesus being the very staple of life) came through and lives were changed.

  81. Daren -  March 30, 2011 - 8:30 pm

    Just a couple things. First, the gender specificity in the Bible is fairly important as there is a lot of imagery related to the church being the “bride of Christ.” So at times these gender-specific terms are important for upholding the meaning of the text. In the example, “Man cannot live on bread alone.” That’s fine if they want to change it to something like “humanity” or “people” or some other gender neutral term – even though I’m not sure it makes a great deal of difference as the common understanding of “man” is humankind. However, no matter what they need to make sure that meaning is not lost by their changes.

    On another note, Gal. 3:28 saying, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female…” is trying to say that those that believe in Jesus Christ are no longer defined by the distinguishing characteristics that humanity designates, but rather their identity will be found in their belief in Jesus Christ and what his death represents to them. So I’m not exactly sure that it’s point is to say that God strives for gender neutrality.

    @Chris: Please try to have an open mind Chris. 99.9% of dictionary.com’s articles are not spiritually focused so it seems like it would be OK for them to make one article discussing how language influences one’s ability to describe their beliefs (whatever beliefs those may be). Language actually changes how you understand and describe your beliefs as well and so it is interesting fodder for discussion.

  82. an anonymous girl who likes smiley faces :) :) :) :) :D -  March 30, 2011 - 7:45 pm

    I totally agree with CC and Cheryl :) you guys rock and More people should think like you

    I think the most important part though isn’t argueing about the bible, it’s about understanding it. People should use the version they understand and think is best and choose the one that really speaks to them. But still, they should never EVER get rid of KJV bibles. There the closest to the real translation I think.

    if you don’t have a bible you can use biblegateway.com that’s what i do :-P but what would i know about stuff i’m just a twelve year old.

    anyways have a nice day everybody :) god bless you he loves you so much. :) there’s one thing in the bible that through all the translations will remain the same: The message.
    The message is that He loves you SO so much and just wants a relationship with you and wants to be with you FOREVER. in his eyes you are perfect. :D God’s word remains forever, the bible says. so through every translation, at least the message is still the same :) anyways have a nice day everybody god bless :)

  83. LucyMarie -  March 30, 2011 - 6:51 pm

    GOD will point you in the right direction. Your faith in Him will allow you to interpret the Word in the way He means you to interpret them. Don’t ever think more than you pray. (THINKING<PRAYING)
    but then again. what do i know.
    i'm fifteen.

  84. Nicole -  March 30, 2011 - 6:16 pm

    @Alex Madjarov, do you not live in today’s world? Mankind has been suffering and being mislead since the beginning, and I hate to break it to you, but to day’s world ain’t any better than the world the Bible was written in. Throughout the Bible (which is capitalized, JSYK) God warned man of the dangers of falling for sin. At Genesis 4:6-7, God warned Cain with regard to his hatred of his brother Abel; “Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? If you turn to doing good, will there not be exultation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you it is craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?” (NWT) It is not now, nor has it ever been God’s fault that things are miserable. Many religious leaders around the world mislead people by allowing them to believe that bad things that happen are “God’s will” or that we are simply not meant to understand why God purposes certain catastrophes to happen, but according to Bible account this is not true. Don’t blame God or religion for the world because people have allowed themselves to sin. In fact, the Bible admonishes “When under trial let no one say: ‘I am being tried by God.’ For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” The Bible is a historical and accurate account of the happenings in previous times; it’s not just some whimsical or allegorical fairytale trying to idealize world conditions, rather it outlines the crudeness and imperfection of mankind and the constant struggle against sin the way it is in REALITY. (BTW, there are no “unicorns” or “zombies” in the Bible, as these concepts originated from pagan beliefs and so would not have been accepted by true Christians. As for the “snake” you are referring to, it was not talking of its own accord, but was being used as a mouthpiece by Satan.)

  85. lk -  March 30, 2011 - 6:06 pm

    They should not change th bible, you can’s just go and change the words of any modern books that means you can’t change the words of the holy bible.
    whoever changes it will get punished

  86. Peter Bradshaw -  March 30, 2011 - 5:38 pm

    I’ve done a bit of studying in ancient Hebrew, and I know that nouns have genders. Thus the rabbis that compiled the Old Testament intentionally chose words with genders to express the ideas that they wished to convey. Thus trying to undo this would be contrary to the original literary efforts.

  87. Marissa -  March 30, 2011 - 4:16 pm

    I love the bible and all that it stands for. I think it’s stupid though how we want to change it multiple times to fit our standards and preferences. Thats just selfish. If you dont understand that Man, is mankind, then you arent thinking right. God meant for the bible to be the way it was written.

    Also i think that if it changes constantly then we are losing what people have said and meant. We lose all meaning. Call me old fashioned or whatever you want, but i dont think it is right to change it all the time. And with the gender neutral thing, thats just being selfish and oppinionated. God loves us all. He isn’t loving any one gender more. He is too loving and gracious for that.

  88. muffins -  March 30, 2011 - 3:43 pm

    All of you quoting aboutnot changing the Bible, i am sorry but you dont get the point of that quote. He is saying that if you were to discredit the word of God then you will be in a bit of trouble. It doesnt mean that if you change the words that you will automatically be condemned to Hell. Translating it to english isnt wrong either because Jesus wants His word spread, not kept only to: Hebrews, Arimaic and Sumerian. By the way i am against changing myself.

  89. Why not -  March 30, 2011 - 3:42 pm

    keep booty in the bible

  90. ;ajfqlkaj; -  March 30, 2011 - 3:20 pm

    Interesting fact: the K.J.V. is also the preferred version for religious studies, even at secular schools and even for non-christian professors.

  91. CC -  March 30, 2011 - 3:15 pm

    Personally, I think these political correctness changes aren’t necessary. Like the example with stewardess, how is that really offensive…? They’re just examples of how the English language does stuff, really…

    I suppose I can understand the “booty” thing (Lord only knows how many little 5 year olds and 15 year olds alike are going to giggle. Ugh.)

    But gender-neutralizing everything? Isn’t it kind of the point to point out, say, oh hey Adam is a man and Eve is a woman. In the exchanges, it helps clarify whether Mr./Mrs. Name-that-is-weird-in-English is actually a Mr. or a Mrs. This may be an effort to appeal to gender equality or whatever, but there’s a point where it gets ridiculous; this is that point. In society, as well as literature, I suppose, acknowledging differences and still having equal treatment would be awesome! I don’t see it happening in the near future though. But by just ignoring everything and trying to act like shoving it under the rug… doesn’t solve any problems. You just look lazy, uncaring, and/or stupid for taking that sort of action.

    I am short of being outraged, but am certainly unamused by the actions to be taken in changing the Bible.

  92. Cheryl -  March 30, 2011 - 2:55 pm

    I agree with DallasWriter, regarding the revision of the ” N Word with “slave” in Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”. Imagine rewriting Shakespeare and using modern day language, which I’m sure would be to the delight of some students, but what a loss to the world! Spoken English Language is changing. I heard Katie Couric say “ta” instead of “to” several times while she was interviewing someone, and she is certainly not alone – check yourself! How often do you hear someone say something like “I was talking to my friend and she goes ….” Rather than say “she says”, so if that is the norm, do you want to read for example, that when Jesus spoke “He goes “let all the little ones come to me.” In a world of just 194 countries, it is calculated there are over 6,800 languages. That linguistic heterogeneity is fast disappearing. By one estimate, a language dies every two weeks. I realize I strayed somewhat from the topic, but I think so “much is ado about nothing.”

  93. anonymous dude that says, "Hi." -  March 30, 2011 - 2:48 pm

    I think if people CAN’T understand all those “thee’s” and “thou’s” of the KJV version, temporarily get a version called The Message which is simple language, but eventually, get a good study Bible that is maybe in KJV. But if you just can’t understand the Thee’s and Ye’s, go to NKJV. But just do whichever version speaks to you the most is what I think.

  94. charles -  March 30, 2011 - 2:33 pm


    Re: Seriously, i feel sorry for you that you don’t believe in God. It’s hard to see why you couldn’t believe there is God there.. the fact that your breathing right now and your lungs haven’t stopped working is that he is there and has a plan for your life Jerimiah 29:11
    i will pray for you.

    You shouldn’t feel sorry for me, I find it extremely patronizing. I am very happy and I am a good person. I have tangible evidence and logic to base my moral values and beliefs on. I have read the bible and it did not satisfy my sense of fulfillment, morality, or logical consistency – especially given contradictory nature of the old vs the new testament. I did enjoy the poetry, however.

    I believe that every person has the right to choose what he/she believes. However, until one exhausts every possible outcome, I feel that it is very hard to make an informed decision.

    Why should I feel inadequate because I choose to not believe something I cannot test or put into practice? Every luxury that you appreciate and take advantage of (cars, planes, computers, heating, sanitation, medicine, roller-coasters, etc) exist because of science and the dialectic process. They were tested over and over again (by human beings) and continue to be tested. Science is not a democracy or a belief. If a more efficient, safe, or cost effective way of engineering something is discovered, it will implemented immediately because it is the most beneficial to the human race. It is the best possible outcome that has been discovered thus far.

    The same can not be said for a fundamental belief system based on out-dated dogma and thousands upon thousands of contradicting interpretations, mistranslations, and human errors (not too mention motives).

    Jesus had a very good message. The golden rule is something that anyone can benefit from, regardless of race, religion or culture. Unfortunately, it seems that many Christians have concentrated so hard on being Christian that they have forgotten what it is like to be Christ-like. Regardless of whether I believe that Jesus was a real person, I admire some of his messages because they do contain a certain undeniable truth.

    If more Christians followed Christs messages, I believe there would be less segregation, bigotry and discrimination. Prejudice would be diluted because less people would be judged for being different. Jesus doesn’t teach hatred, people do. Unfortunately, many of whom that say they are followers of Jesus Christ still manage to cause and promote hatred on more-or-less a global level.

    I am very serious when I say that if you really do care about my well-being, than you would NOT pray for me. Instead, you would respect my decision to be “different” from you, like a true “Christian” should.

    To be Christian it means that you are a follower of Christ.
    According to Wikipedia, “the term “Christian” is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense “all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like.”

    You may think your actions are good or noble, and I believe you do. Most people have the best intentions.

    However, by praying for me, in your mind, you are making me someone I am not. You are making me more like you. I am not like you. I don’t want to be like you. I consider it very disrespectful, not to mention insulting, to be looked down upon by anyone who gathers a false sense gratification from preying on other peoples differences.

    How can anyone say they are Christ-like when their actions contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ?

  95. lahtida -  March 30, 2011 - 1:21 pm

    WAIT! I have an idea, lets rewrite the all of shakespears plays too. His writing is outdated.

  96. lahtida -  March 30, 2011 - 1:18 pm

    instead of rewriting the bible, why don’t we just take all the morals out of this book of morals, all the lessons of living with one another in harmony in this book of “How To Create A Functional Society” called the bible and put them into our own words so that we can understand them as a society and live by them. OH WAIT, WE CALL THOSE LAWS!!!! and where did we get these morals and laws from, THE BIBLE!

  97. Beth -  March 30, 2011 - 1:10 pm

    Some people seem to say that even though some words are changing in the Holy Bible the meaning of God’s words will stay the same. I think that will depend on each person. Remember that each scripture in the Bible can be interpreted differently by each person depending on who is reading it. For some people it’s as plain as the nose on your face, for others is so obscure that multiple meanings and ideas can come from one sentence.

    Making the Holy Bible (in my opinion) gender neutral is dangerous because some people won’t see anything wrong with it since they will feel the book had finally reached the 21st century. Others will feel “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. When a group is tampering with anything of a religious nature, especially a holy book, of course people is going to have a reaction both positive and negative in nature. That’s part of being human.

    And my reaction is negative because I’m a firm believe in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights and I believe that it’s being stepped upon by making changes to the Holy Bible by making it politically correct.

  98. lahtida -  March 30, 2011 - 1:07 pm

    SO, who are all these people that were around when the bible was written, and know exactly how to translate what the original writer was conveying.
    Since the first translation from hebrew the bible has slowly been losing its meaning and taken way to literally. All you bible bangers need to realize that the good book was designed to get our backwards heathen culture to a point that mankind can live in harmony with each other. It was not designed as the end all of all arguments or a way to get our damned souls to some mythical eden in the sky. It was basically a set of laws when the land was lawless, a way to scare people into being social,(without which our society would be nowhere near what it is today) a collection of morals, if you will, a set of rules to live by. Not to mention what our modern laws are based from but now are much more involved, because our society is much more in depth than it was a thousands of years ago. It’s no more than nursery rhymes for adults with a underlying theme of scare tactics. example: thou shalt not kill! but religion has been waging war and killing over who is the right god for centuries. I don’t know, who am I to say? I do know one thing though I’m not the writer of the book, and niether is anyone else who lives today, nor did they have as versitile of a language as we do in todays world.

  99. JesusFreak -  March 30, 2011 - 12:12 pm

    @ Svenjamin,

    God didn’t physically take a pencil and paper (or stylus and papyrus, chisel and stone) and write the Bible. He only physically engraved the 10 Commandments into stone and gave them to Moses for us to follow. God inspired people who loved Him, who followed Him and gave their lives to Him, to write the Bible for us. Obviously you do not know your Bible because it is impossible for it to have NOT been written before 300AD because Jesus Himself read from the scrolls of the Old Testament (the New Testament was not yet written because it was being lived out). Also, the apostles were eye-witnesses of Jesus, His miracles, His death and His resurrection. They were taught by Him, and therefore would not lie to other potential ‘little Christs’ (that’s what Christian means). Having said that, do you really think the apostles could actually forget the miracles they had seen, the death and resurrection of the Son of God and the Son of man only to write down a diluted lie? I think that is highly improbable, especially considering that every apostle was a martyr for Christ.

    In no way was Jesus’ message to “fight battle after battle, killing in [H]is name”. I disagree with that statement fully! If anything, Jesus’ message was the EXACT OPPOSITE! The Bible clearly teaches that we are to love our enemies. Consider the following:

    Exodus 23:4 – If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him.

    Matthew 5:43-44 – “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’But I [Jesus] say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”

    Proverbs 25:21-22 – If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
    And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
    For you will heap burning coals on his head,
    And the LORD will reward you.

    These clearly teach that killing innocent people in Jesus’ name is wrong. God hates it when innocent blood is shed and punishes those who cause it to fall to the ground.

    Lastly, why on earth would the Romans sell Christianity?!?!?! They were “full-blooded” pagans (as are all who refuse to acknowledge God as God) who worshiped “gods” such as Mars, Jupiter, Juno, and Venus. They persecuted the Christians terribly! You read the history of Rome during the Christian era, and the Emperors banned Christianity from Rome, and those who believed in it were tortured beyond imagination. I have read the history of Rome and the church during that time. The Emperor Diocletian would use Christians as living torches, he would have them covered in tar, hang them in his gardens and light them on fire. Why would the Romans sell the very thing they were trying to destroy? I have read the accounts of martyrs, men and women being slain in various inhumane ways. They would burn herd men and women into a “corral” of wooden planks and set it on fire, men, women, and children. They would place Christians in the iron chair, which is like a gridiron. The Christian would sit on that chair over an open flame, and be roasted alive. Christians today are tortured and beaten in closed and hostile countries because of their faith. Beaten to death, torn apart, all of these things happened to the Christians of the early church in Rome! It’s not even like the Christians were murdering and stealing, trying to undermine the government and crazy stuff like that, they were tortured and martyred because of the righteousness of Christ shining through them. The Romans and other unbelievers couldn’t bear the Light of Christ shining into their dark and sinful lives. Anyway, this shows that Rome did not sell Christianity.

    Speaking of martyrs, how many other religions have people standing up for their “faith”, no matter the cost, bearing un-bearable torture, persecution, and death? Having peace when family are murdered, when your life is targeted, when you’re being beaten to a pulp? Yes, Islam is a religion in which Muslims may become “martyrs”, but they not only “die for their religion” they take other innocent people with them. (I have nothing against Muslims or any other race of people because God created all men and races equally and of one blood, I just disagree with their religion.) I have heard of no other religion that equals Christianity in martyrs for their faith. I have heard of no other religion that has documents of people being tortured for their faith (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Wurmbrand’s Tortured for Christ, the Voice of the Martyrs, etc.). If these other religions are true, then why are there no martyrs?

    I do not want it to seem as if I am trying to “beat you over the head with a Bible” or force my opinions on you. I can do nothing to save you, and neither can you. Only God can save you. I can just pray for you. I also don’t want this comment to seem as if I am yelling at you in an un-Christlike manner or that I am racist, because I truly am not. I am just proclaiming what I know to be true without shame.

    Romans 1:16 :)


  100. Xxxx Xxxx -  March 30, 2011 - 12:12 pm

    You do all realize that ‘the bible’ you all think is so pure had been doctored and censored hundreds of times over hundreds of year, PEOPLE decided what would go into the ‘pure word of God’ and those people only allowed the books that they deemed worthy. The bible was a collection of stories and accounts written by many many PEOPLE, it is not a divine entity’s transcribed word, it is not a handbook to be taken literally, the rules are not concrete laws, it is a collection of thinkings, stories, observations and accounts written by people who had something to share and wanted people to think about how to live their lives FOR THEMSELVES. I am not slating the Bible, Christianity, or any religion, merely the fact that too many people take it too literally and lose the meaning behind the words, WHICH WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR ALL WHO READ THEM.

  101. Esteban the Tortilla guy -  March 30, 2011 - 11:59 am

    Wow!! y’all all have some interesting comments.

  102. E to the Ray and S -  March 30, 2011 - 11:29 am

    I would like to point out the fact that this Political Correctness is absurd. It is starting to go too far. The Bible is something that P.C. should not interfere with. And we like the comment from Noah on March 27. :)

  103. Svenjamin -  March 30, 2011 - 11:04 am

    For anyone who thinks that a God or even Jesus “wrote” the Bible, I have go some beachfront property in Arizona to sell to you. You can pretty quickly deduce that the bible wasn’t even written down until somewhere along 300AD. Even if the apostles really said what they “said” oral history tends to be diluted and lose much of its original meaning. If you think that Jesus’ message was to fight battle after battle, killing in his name then you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Also, if you think that Christmas was anything other than a way for the Romans to sell Christianity you should learn about the feast of Saturnalis and its strikingly close proximity to X-mas.

  104. naptown -  March 30, 2011 - 10:53 am

    quote: “making language that was gender neutral in the hebrew/greek/aramaic gender neutral now is not “being PC.” it’s being accurate.”
    this is absurd! if we believe the alleged Hebrew scholar who claims that gender neutrality was impossible to represent in Hebrew, then choosing gender neutral language is just as inaccurate as choosing gendered language, since you could not, originally, tell the two apart. The change is a PC change, plain and simple, not an accuracy issue.

  105. Ann -  March 30, 2011 - 10:50 am

    Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
    The Bible was meant to be understood by man, the easier it is to comprehend, more people can learn of God’s truth.

    But I do prefer KJV, and I have no issue using the word “man” for it stands for both men and women.
    It is important to study all translations.

    Please consider:
    “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” Isaiah 40:8

  106. Daniel Sanford -  March 30, 2011 - 10:08 am

    Concerning the interpretation of the Bible, it should not be left to groups or individuals who have an “ax to grind” or are not serious and learned individuals who respect the purity of a language, any language. Linguistics is a science, not an opinion poll.

    The interpretation of the Bible, like any other manuscript, must be trusted to individuals who respect linguistics as a science. It is not to be left in the hands of individuals who wish to promote liberation theologies or make “politically correct” statements. The truth and accuracy of the rendition is of most importance, ensuring the proper respect for every nuance, every shadow and meaning of each and every word. Consider the scholars’ intent who translated The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: “The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.” The N.W.T. is translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern day English. It is an accurate, largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful. If you are a serious student of the Bible and wish to know the truth of God’s Word, study this translation.

  107. JB -  March 30, 2011 - 9:57 am

    Learn Greek
    Learn Hebrew
    That’s really, REALLY close to the God’s spirit in those who penned scripture.

    Or invite the Holy Spirit into your composition and truely learn…

    Replaceing it makes us all gods… Too much of that already.

  108. True Believer -  March 30, 2011 - 9:24 am

    Those quoting the ‘don’t change the words’ verses are right. Even the King James version was an affront to Almighty God. Only the original languages will do. Making the Bible accessible to the lumpen masses has only brought trouble.

  109. H.H. -  March 30, 2011 - 9:23 am

    1) The Bible is only pertinent to Christians
    2) Truth in the Bible is found in 4 books = the Gospels
    3) The Gospels were written down within 30 years, NOT 300 years Lisa
    4) If you are really serious about your faith, the Bible has to be read with concordances, Hebrew and Greek dictionaries, as well as with the writings of hundreds of believing and NON-believing commentators (josephus, anyone?)
    5) The examples the editors present are completely mundane. Now, if Zondervan decided to replace the word death with sleep, it would discredit the resurrection and then NO CHRISTIAN would buy the Bible.
    6) That being said, little changes add up to big changes, and that is why Christians, and only Christians have an interest in preserving the Bible’s integrity.

    So, should we edit the Bible? No, but we have been since the beginning. As long as the Hebrew and Greek texts still survive, along with the KJV, we will always be able to compare.

    There is DEFINITELY something to be said for making the Bible EASIER to read. But we should NOT try to make it politically correct for then it will confuse new Believers.

    Truth remains truth or it is not Truth.

  110. JesusFreak -  March 30, 2011 - 9:08 am


    First of all, there is no such thing as creation mythology. Creation is real. There is NO evidence for evolution, but people believe it because they do not like the fact that they are accountable to the all-powerful, holy, righteous God for their actions, so they stick to being their own “god” by forging absolutely ridiculous and impossible “theories” to “fix” their situation.

    Second, God is the Trinity God, three-in-One. I disagree with the new translation because of their “putting God in a box”. If God says “We” and “Us”, then believe Him! He’s God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. I was in Genesis 1 this morning in my quiet time and in the second verse it says “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” (NASB). Jesus is God and man at the same time. Clearly showing a “three-in-One” picture. God said “We” and “Us”, so that’s the way it should be translated.

    @Chris, even if you will not allow yourself to be subjected to God now and refuse His opportunity for eternal life, you will be subjected to Him on the Judgment Day of Christ. The Bible says that “at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:10-11, NASB).

    @Raymond Kenneth Petry

    Um, Noah’s flood could not have been the one “predicted” in Egypt because Noah’s flood covered the ENTIRE earth, not just Egypt!

    This world is quickly spiraling downward toward the pit of Hell. The nations will soon drink the cup of the Lord’s wrath! Are you prepared for the coming of Christ?

    Did you ever notice that God created light without first creating the sun? That’s how powerful my God is!
    My God, is an AWESOME God He reigns! From Heaven above with wisdom, power and love my God is an awesome God!

  111. Adam -  March 30, 2011 - 9:00 am

    I can kind of see changing booty and holocaust, but don’t remove genders. Many ‘man’ or ‘men’ are universally understood to mean humans or mankind. In addition chairman, fireman and policeman are gender neutral already. They are NOT Chair-Man, Fire-Man or Police-Man. Those words come from the fusion of an occupation to the word ‘human’ or possibly ‘mankind’. They are pronounced exactly as human is. Fire-muhn or Fire-mehn. The exception is Mailman which actually does refer to a particular gender and is pronounce Mail-man, not mail-muhn.

  112. Librarius -  March 30, 2011 - 8:51 am

    Find a King James Bible with “The Epistle Dedicatory” from the translators to King James. It’s enlightening. An excerpt:
    “Since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented persons… maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…”

    Want to try the translation game yourself? Go to the website for the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest known complete Christian Bible, about 400 AD. You may see all the original pages (in Greek, of course)and choose the language in which you want a translation to appear.

  113. Sherry -  March 30, 2011 - 8:35 am

    I believe you are the one that clicked on, no one forced you to read nor make a comment!

  114. Isa -  March 30, 2011 - 8:33 am

    The bible should just stay the same!!

  115. Jess -  March 30, 2011 - 8:31 am

    People need to stop getting so worked up about being “politically correct”. The Bible was written the way it was for a reason. Do I know that reason? No. Does anyone know that reason? To my knowledge, no. Let’s not mess around with something so old and sacred because feminists are getting upset that God created men and mankind. Can we be mature about it and just accept that men and mankind is a generalization? Let’s stop trying to make the Bible politically correct so we don’t offend anyone and just take it for what it is. Jesus was not politically correct. He didn’t tell people things they wanted to hear, he told them the truth. That’s what the Bible should be about-the truth. Not whether or not spoils of war vs. booty was taken after a battle.

  116. Sherry -  March 30, 2011 - 8:30 am

    Political correctness is going to be the ruination of society. The Bible should be left alone. Look up the words as they used in the Bible. Yes, this takes time and yes it may offend someone, but as a Christian we are called to read God’s word, not man’s interpretation that suits his or her needs.

  117. JMarkH -  March 30, 2011 - 8:21 am

    Discussions about Bible translation almost always generate more heat than light. There are some very complicated issues involved; most people get too caught up in emotion to come to a reasonable (and biblical) view. So this is a really crummy venue to discuss the subject.

    I do have to tweak you a little on the example that you cited from Gal 3:28. If you check, the new NIV doesn’t mess with the gender in that verse. (Nor do any of the other “gender-neutral” translations.) That would pretty much make the passage meaningless.

    I’m not crazy about the whole gender-inclusive thing, but I understand the motivation. They are trying to handle those terms that may be neutral or general in the original language in a language (English) that doesn’t have good (good) non-gender specific options.

    A better illustration of how those changes play out would be Genesis 1:27.
    Original NIV:
    So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

    New NIV:
    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

  118. humphrey -  March 30, 2011 - 8:16 am

    I am not convinced that changing the wording of the bible will make people understand and get interested much more. This is classic modernity trying to change the word of GOD.
    Pray for guidance and do not depend on your own understanding the bible is divine and it should remain as such.

  119. Roxanne -  March 30, 2011 - 7:44 am

    “Burnt offering” is a standard phrase for ‘holocaust’ so that seems like a reasonable translation to make.

    The issue that a lot of people have here is with the idea that changing any jot and tittle of the KJV is tantamount to blasphemy, in that it changes God’s word. The text that God inspired, however, was not written in English. I recommend the study of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and New Testament Greek to anyone who wants to understand the word of God as it was transmitted in Old and New Testament times. Also, if you think that God’s New Testament word was communicated in English, then that means that the gospel-writers were not writing the legit word of God, since they were not writing in English. Just saying. I’ve taught New Testament Greek to people who formerly thought of the Bible’s English as the “real thing” and they found it pretty interesting to grapple with the issue of translation and transmission.

  120. Richard -  March 30, 2011 - 7:42 am

    Ummm how about just including a glossary at the end of the Bible so if people don’t quite understand something, or if they find a particular word awkwardly used they can just look it up in the back of the book?
    The editors at Bridge Publications did this exact thing when they re-released L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology books back in 2007. In fact they even went one step further and defined the words as they were used in the context in which they were given for the particular time period. In other words, if a book by LRH contains a coined word in 1951 and gave a definition of it, but then the definition was modified later on (say around 1965) the 1951 book would contain the definition from 1951 and not the 1965 version. Really helps with the comprehension.

  121. Melanie -  March 30, 2011 - 7:35 am

    I know, how about people learn the good, old-fashioned words and stop changing the language? Another change is “young lady” instead of “virgin.” Don’t you find it sad that people can’t deal with that?

  122. Harvey Wachtel -  March 30, 2011 - 7:24 am

    Colbey: Re “just imagine what a different world this would be, if that one word had been translated differently/correctly.” I think you’re attributing too much influence to the Bible, which conveys the social attitudes of groups influential in their times. God tells people what they want to hear, and the KJV is part of that. If they couldn’t get God to tell them it’s OK to enslave other humans or pillage the land for profit or treat women as inferiors they would have gotten another God. At least the civilized world (I regard a country as civilized if it doesn’t allow capital punishment ) seems finally to be outgrowing this stuff.

    To everybody: The KJV certainly should be considered in light of its political motivation, but the prose is still gorgeous. By comparison, the modern PC translations seem to clunk along. For those of us who regard the Bible as literature, the KJV has no equal.

  123. Annette -  March 30, 2011 - 7:20 am

    After serious and relentless years of studying the Bible, I have read many different editions including Tyndale’s’1526 Edition, 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1611 original KJV and many others.
    Changing the words most certainly change the meaning. Having said that, I believe it is important for people to realize that the “Word” is spirit. To read His Holy Word and understand it, we must be in the spirit. As few people actually achieve this, they are then reading this wonderful Holy Word with their man’s reasoning and their interpretations. God knows this. So, in His incredible mercy, when we read His Word, we must pray that God shows us the spirit of the word. In this case the actual wording will be irrelevant. With Christ we can do nothing, this especially means understanding His Word.

    Satan would like nothing better then to see God’s children running around trying to find God’s Word when they actually already have it and are rejecting it.
    May God’s grace be upon us all.

  124. Moffball -  March 30, 2011 - 7:16 am

    Hmm, missing the point:
    God created man/woman/us/it/humankind etc
    We didn’t like not being the boss
    We continued to get it wrong
    God did the hard part and opened up the reconciliation
    We only need to respond
    God forgives our stupidity and welcomes us back

    the rest is examples of 1. how stupid we really are and 2. how loving God is.

  125. sluggo -  March 30, 2011 - 6:45 am

    The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven when you die? Here’s a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. God, who the Bible says is “rich in mercy,” sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for guilty sinners. We broke God’s Law, but Jesus paid our fine. That means He can legally dismiss our case. He can commute our death sentence: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (turn from sin) today and God will grant everlasting life to all who trust in Jesus. Then read your Bible daily and obey it.

  126. Tom -  March 30, 2011 - 6:35 am

    If we can change the Bible why don’t we just change all of that silly Shakespear stuff into modern language? And why don’t we just change all of our classical literature into modern language? The reason that we do not is because much of the beauty and meaning that was originally conveyed by the author would be lost. For us Christians the bible is the
    perfect word of God. As Christians we do not have the right to change God’s words in order to serve our lifestyles or philosophies. Only people who are not truly God’s children would want to change his word. His words were perfect the first time. The word and commandments of God are meant for our good. He loves us enough to say both good and loving things and the things that are hard for us to digest. Any loving parent would do the same for thier children. God loves us.

  127. C -  March 30, 2011 - 6:13 am

    The Bible was written the way it was for a reason. They need to just
    leave it alone before it starts to sound really ridiculous. If people in the past have been able to understand it without changes in words then I’m sure everyone else in this more knowledgeable era can do it.

  128. JOJ -  March 30, 2011 - 6:01 am

    that’ll be fine.

  129. Jenna -  March 30, 2011 - 5:45 am

    how about replacing man with humankind? And what’s so positive about burnt offerings?

  130. Mike -  March 30, 2011 - 5:08 am

    Actually Hebrew does have separate words for male and female. The transliteration of each respectively is ish and isha. I am not opposed to utilizing modern words when the contextual meaning is not affected. Changing booty to spoils of war is a good example of words or phrases saying the same thing with not change to the meaning or intent of the passage. Gender neutral changes are ridiculous as the context of most verses that refer to man are indeed understood as referring to all of humanity. Perhaps these are the types of changes that result in a misunderstanding of the commandment, Thou shall not kill as mistakenly reflecting support against the death penalty. The actual meaning of the word translated by some translations as kill actually refers to murder.

    And by the way, the KJV is hardly the most accurate version on the market today. While we obviously need translations in our own language for ease of reading, those who truly desire to exegete the Scriptures need to dive in to the original languages in order to comprehend the author’s intended meaning.

  131. David -  March 30, 2011 - 4:55 am

    I am not Christian, but I find this really stupid. Now, many people are not able to study their holy scriptures because it was censored people find some of the words “offending”. So what if some kids laughed at the word “booty”. If someone said “booty” to me when I was ten, I would have been on the floor in a second and laughing my ass off. They are just kids, let them laugh a bit!

  132. NOT RELIGOUS -  March 30, 2011 - 4:38 am

    not religous but think about it this way….has anyone ever played the game telephone???

  133. John from Wales -  March 30, 2011 - 3:49 am

    @ Chris
    I REALLY don’t want to be subjected to SECULAR stuff on Dictionary.com. PLEASE!!! Make it go away!

    Chris… see how it sounds… ? live and let live, the world is a diverse place and religion and the bible are part of the fabric of society whether any of us like it or not. Don’t be part of the new liberal tyranny that is trying to neutralise everything. Best wishes.

  134. Louis Martin -  March 30, 2011 - 3:44 am

    The best way is to keep a the already written version of the bible. At the end of the bible to include a dictionary of all words that in the actual current language can be falsely understood.

  135. David -  March 30, 2011 - 3:07 am

    Let every man bare their own consequence; and let every man (that’s woman too) realize, repent, and hope in the mercy and grace of God… in Jesus name.


  136. Anonymous -  March 30, 2011 - 2:54 am

    aldorr on March 29, 2011 at 2:46 am

    What some people don’t realize, is that in the creation mythology of Genesis, God is actually a “we”. Our “modern” translation turns the we into a single male entity. Hence the bearded man mythology.

    Technically, saying God is a “we” isn’t entirely correct. In the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, there is actually a subject -verb disagreement, however I forget which way it goes: singular noun, plural verb (e.g. He are) or plural noun, singular verb (e.g They is). This is normally interpreted as evidence for the Trinity/Three-in-one Nature of God.

  137. Alvaro R -  March 30, 2011 - 2:14 am

    I don’t think it should ever be changed, There should be an alternate bible that gives more meaning as to what the bible is saying to the readers and to give more understanding to new readers.

    There are many parts of the bible that confuses me and believe me i turn to a dictionary because some words actually makes me very confused. I also believe that there should be a new bible that gives difinitions of words new readers can finally understand.

  138. Anon -  March 30, 2011 - 1:18 am

    Yet another proof that thinking in English is a leading cause in butthurt.

  139. me -  March 30, 2011 - 1:09 am

    ohhhhhhhh and @charles.
    Seriously, i feel sorry for you that you don’t believe in God. It’s hard to see why you couldn’t believe there is God there.. the fact that your breathing right now and your lungs haven’t stopped working is that he is there and has a plan for your life Jerimiah 29:11
    i will pray for you.

  140. me -  March 30, 2011 - 1:01 am

    jesus is AMAZING! stop talking about Christianity like its a religion and a subject, its not… its a relationship! i read NKJV, and God speaks to me through that, but ive read NIV before and i believe God has spoken to me through that version aswell… because, at the end of the day its Gods words, and as longs as (as some versions tend to do occasionally) they don’t change the meanings of the amazing, life changing words and sentences in the bible, i dont really mind.
    @noah, that is pretty much the best sum up. and it wasnt mans words, but Gods! ;)

  141. Why -  March 30, 2011 - 12:28 am

    @Chris. If you don’t like it, don’t click on it. No one is forcing you to read it. Freedom or press.

    I do however question Dictionary.com’s discretion in publishing blog entries like this. I hate how the headlines are shoved in my face first thing on the home page. It’s distracting and brings out the worst people: from arrogant atheists to hot headed Christians (or hot headed any religion). This is mainly a dictionary site – what do these entries add? I liked this site before it tried to be more than a dictionary/thesaurus.

  142. Steve Foster -  March 30, 2011 - 12:23 am

    Yikes, a book-burner… Drop the willful ignorance, Chris. Nobody has “subjected” you to anything, except possibly enlightenment, by discussing a book that is one of the foundational pillars of your country, your civilisation, and your language, as well as your beloved dictionary.com. You’d feel even less impinged on if you let yourself learn something once in a while.

  143. JoeMama -  March 30, 2011 - 12:01 am

    Why can’t they just leave it alone, pardon my french, for God’s sake!This has caused no problems in the past has it?Ok, it has, but I’m still going to ramble on these things!

  144. Bovine hero -  March 29, 2011 - 11:41 pm

    Everyone has a right to write what they think here. I believe the bible to be the Word of God, and over the years the translations have changed, usually actually to try to get closer to the original meaning. As nobody has the final answer to whether the bible is a literal step-by-step narration or a more metaphorical piece, then I leave it to everyone else to make up their own minds. What matters is your personal relationship with the Father and that relationship is different to every single being, translated by our very own selves from what what we see in the passages of the books.

  145. Robert -  March 29, 2011 - 11:27 pm

    Though written in Modern English, the Authorized Version (also known as the KJV) is hardly written in an idiom that’s easily understood by many today. It is certainly beautiful English that the translators employed but it can be quite opaque. For instance, Isaiah 63:15 in the AV reads: ‘Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where [is] thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?’ To suggest that the phrase, ‘the sounding of thy bowels’ means the same as it did in 1711 is just foolish. That’s why we need modern translations of the Scriptures.

  146. Lisa -  March 29, 2011 - 10:34 pm

    The bible was written long after Jesus died and in a very nebulous language. It was subject to interpretation and politics from the get go so why get all up in arms over a few changes to make it more readable now?

  147. STEPHANIE -  March 29, 2011 - 9:52 pm

    All things work together for good to them that love GOD.(Romans 8:28)

  148. Piggip -  March 29, 2011 - 9:47 pm

    The whole Book is God’s way of helping us know Him. Jesus was tested not only by His knowledge, but by His power, character and wisdom. Miracles still happen today at the name of Jesus. It would do us all well to remember that the God of the Bible is more important than the text itself.

  149. Holy Bananas -  March 29, 2011 - 9:23 pm

    You King James freaks – it is like the bible never existed for 16 centuries before that!! Get a life, and read your history. You also act like english is the only language – it is on fact notthe best language to translate from hebrew and greek -this is why there are so many interpretations. King James was just your average gay tyrant who wanted to manipulate the church. If you existed at the time it is likley you would be all snarly at the engish version and prefer the latin. The original New Testament was written in very everyday langage it was not even similar to religious documents of the time – so dont it make sense to update it to “retain” the original intent of the text?? Makes me wonder, do these arguments exist when they are updating the german or russian, or spanish, or chinese, or indian, or narnian version of the Bible.

  150. 4Real -  March 29, 2011 - 9:19 pm

    Just 4 the record, the New World Translation is the Watchtower Society’s translation – that’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The JWs did their mis-translation toward the end of supporting their historically unsupportable theology.

    As to the content of the Bible, the most offensive part is this God Who sees Himself as the greatest good, the highest beauty, and completely worthy of all the praise of all He has created. All the PC modifications you can contemplate will not erase that reality – the offense is the pure holiness of God, the fact that the cross was necessary in order to make us acceptable in His presence, and the notion that the cross was so effective in reconciling man to God that we can become the children of God – co-heirs of the riches of His Majesty, the King forever loving, holy, and true.

    Translate with great care, but I agree with the comment made pages before: especially with translations like the NIV, NAS, and the NLT, the Bible doesn’t need to be rewritten as much as reread!

  151. Db -  March 29, 2011 - 7:37 pm

    Hi, I haven’t read all the other comments, but I was just wondering whether you (author) actually read that passage in the new version. I haven’t, myself, I was just wondering whether you did. I know that ‘man’ in Genesis would be turned into ‘humans’ – I believe – or something, denoting mankind. But whenever something in the Bible is referred to as separate ideas, like men and women, I know that a lot of new translations keep that, not necessarily the two new ones you mentioned. As J. Howard mentioned, men and women are *complementary, if anything.. I’d say rather that each has its role. But I do not think anyone thinks it’s offensive.

  152. Hannah -  March 29, 2011 - 6:42 pm

    I was so surprised when I started reading the NIV 2011 version. I’d been reading the same NIV for so long, that when I started reading it, I was like, woah. It almost didn’t feel like I was reading the Bible; it was more worded like the books I read!

  153. Val Lee -  March 29, 2011 - 5:51 pm

    The Bible is a book of hope—eternal hope. It offers salvation to anyone who desires eternal life. It is a book of inerrant truth rightly translated from the Hebrew and Greek. You can research any Bible word for correct translation through Strong’s Concordance on the internet. You can simply place Strong’s Concordance in the search box.
    You then can type in a Biblical word in the first box and hit “search.” You then click onto the small number in blue to the right of any word and you can locate the exact meaning.

    This is a useful tool because our English language lacks greatly when it comes to translating. Our language may own one word for something; whereby the Hebrew and Greek can have many words or our one. I use Strong’s a great deal, especially for writing my Bible commentaries. The New American Standard Bible (not revised), the King James, New King James, are adequate translations, but not perfect in every sense that is why research is valuable.

    Both men and women must understand Jesus Christ, God the Son, died on the cross, shedding His blood for your wrong conduct and mine (John 3:16 and Roman 3:23-26), and came back to life—being raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-7). Jesus Christ now lives eternally in heaven, as true Christians will one day. In heaven, Christians will be set free from all sin, pain and sorrow—this resulting in unending joy. Christians still sin here on the earth and need to ask forgiveness when they act wrongly (1 John 1:9). However, obedient Christians are no longer held in sin’s slavery (Romans 6:5-6).

    Anyone can come to God and ask Him to save them from their sin through Jesus Christ; understanding it can mean rejection. However, any rejection suffered will eventually be forgotten as one experiences heaven’s glory.

  154. Josh -  March 29, 2011 - 5:49 pm

    This is so dumb why do we have to keep changing it.

  155. George (ENG - 112 @ PCC) -  March 29, 2011 - 5:38 pm

    Don’t forget the fact that the King James Version of the Bible REMOVED BOOKS THAT KING JAMES DIDN’T LIKE! Have any of you ever read the books of Mary, Enoch, or Judas? They were books that were removed from the KJV. The book of Mary was removed because “Jesus’ favorite apostle can’t be a woman.” The book of Judas was removed because “the sheeple (I mean stupid people) need someone to blame for Jesus’ death.” I still haven’t figured out why the book of Enoch was removed, though.

  156. Chris -  March 29, 2011 - 5:03 pm

    I REALLY don’t want to be subjected to biblical stuff on Dictionary.com. PLEASE!!! Make it go away!

  157. Esther -  March 29, 2011 - 4:46 pm

    But the Bible is written in a high culture context, meaning that every word carries a significance. To change those words would be to lose some of the original message. It really can’t be helped, since the very act of translating the Bible over from Greek/Hebrew/Armaic loses some of the meaning that comes with the words.

  158. Garrett -  March 29, 2011 - 4:37 pm

    It is interesting to me that this discussion is framed in terms of political correctness. Is that what it is? I think some people want a better translation. Michael John writes, “I honestly don’t think the original is all that difficult to read.” Well, I have read portions of the original, and I find all those breathings, declensions, and iota subscripts a little challenging. The KJV is not a poor translation, but it is not the best. The Word of God may be perfect, but human languages are imperfect, and translation is definitely imperfect.
    #1 Skillet Fan mentions I Timothy 4:12a, which in the KJV reads, “Let no man despise thy youth.” I looked it up in Nestle’s (Greek original), and the original reads, literally, “No one your the-youth despise [directed at "no one"]“. This is a grammar construction we do not have in English called a third-person command. I am talking to you and suddenly I issue a command to someone or something that is not in the room, and I expect you to make it happen. How could we say this in English? The problem is that there are many ways. The standard neutral way is, “Let no one despise your youth.” But the meaning could be better rendered, “Make sure no one despises you your youth.” Or “Make certain no one despises your youth.” “Do not allow anyone to despise your youth.” “Do not allow anyone to think less of you just because you happen to be young.” The questions are, “How much do we know about the word kataphroneo?”, “How would the third-person command be understood here?”, and “How would we render the sentence into English?” There are no good answers. Addressing people who think there are simple answers here, I encourage you to read the Christian Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21

  159. Telula -  March 29, 2011 - 4:25 pm

    @ Summer

    Re: Because there is no gender neutral word to show that an entity such as God could be neutral gendered, they had to use either He or She– obviously a male dominated society would choose he. Or Maybe the He is referring to an actual He God, but we really can’t know.

    Jesus called God “Abba” which is a very intimate name for someone’s Father or “Daddy”. Because Jesus called God this, I believe that God was Male. Also, when Christ taught us to pray, He taught us, “Our Father”, and not “Our Parent.”

    I found the following definition on this website:

    Bible Dictionary

    Abba definition

    This Syriac or Chaldee word is found three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), and in each case is followed by its Greek equivalent, which is translated “father.” It is a term expressing warm affection and filial confidence. It has no perfect equivalent in our language. It has passed into European languages as an ecclesiastical term, “abbot.”

  160. Telula -  March 29, 2011 - 4:14 pm

    @ Summer

    Re: Because there is no gender neutral word to show that an entity such as God could be neutral gendered, they had to use either He or She– obviously a male dominated society would choose he. Or Maybe the He is referring to an actual He God, but we really can’t know.

    Jesus called God, “Abba”, which means Father, or Daddy. Because JC refered to God as His Father, and taught us to pray “Our Father”, and not “Our Parent” I believe that God is male.

    Bible Dictionary

    Abba definition

    This Syriac or Chaldee word is found three times in the New Testament (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), and in each case is followed by its Greek equivalent, which is translated “father.” It is a term expressing warm affection and filial confidence. It has no perfect equivalent in our language. It has passed into European languages as an ecclesiastical term, “abbot.”


    the Bible forbids any changes to it, so all this new revising and changing is against God

  162. FellatioAbuser -  March 29, 2011 - 4:13 pm

    @scott I suppose you meant “prophet”

  163. Pete -  March 29, 2011 - 4:12 pm

    Uh, hello? Hebrew has never been a “dead” language. Jews have used it consistently since biblical times. While modern Hebrew spoken is in Israel differs slightly, that doesn’t mean that “biblical” Hebrew has ever, even for one minute, not been spoken and understood by the Jewish people. It may not have been used in everyday spoken conversation at points when Aramaic, English, Yiddish etc. became the conversational forms for everyday life, but it has always been used. So it really isn’t that difficult to understand the surface meaning of the original Hebrew words are.

    These arguments about what is and what is not “gender neutral” are applicable only to translations. Hebrew used both the feminine and male to refer to G-d because, lacking any corporeal aspects whatsoever, G-d is neither male or female according to Jewish tradition. So if you really want to understand the words, learn Hebrew, and then learn Aramaic to understand the centuries of commentary explaining in Bible.

  164. rock star -  March 29, 2011 - 4:10 pm

    I used to read every single bible edition.Now I will get messed up.

  165. Raymond Kenneth Petry -  March 29, 2011 - 4:08 pm


    The Namby-Pamby Bible…?

    Why change what mankind does not yet understand, and that would need no change if it did–? It would need total revision–!

    E.g. Moses’ record of Noah’s flood was not the flood of Sumer but of Egypt 300 years later: King Surid predicted the great flood of Egypt, 300 years before that flood happened– He PRE-DICT-ed: He talked-about the one before the other…

    E.g. Jesus’ reference to a father who was a murderer from the beginning: who lusted and set that bad example for millennia of generations… You don’t know Jack! Satan was no King! Satan was one of the angels second-sons of Enos: He delivered messages on horseback– his carpet saddle flapping like wings: Satan was not a first-father like Jehovah, Adam, Seth, Enos… He sired a few!

    The Holy Bible is a very-very-old record that spoke in the very-very-old tongue.

    Do you learn the archaic Sumerian and Egyptian languages, in high school…?

    Are you old-enough to read their thoughts, Or just echo like Homer’s Sirens…?

    The King James Version of the Bible made the record available to billions of English readers– That was a responsible act of faith… What’s in your wallet?

    In the beginning, the _gods_ created the Earth and eastern-heaven-mountain (the Persian range overlooking Edin) … Not the “Spirits” but the “Sons” of the gods … Adam hadn’t done much, Cain and Seth went to Egypt, but Enos and his two, first,-sons, Cainan and Mahaleel, stayed in Sumer, and their younger brothers and sons were set as workers of the lands … until the revolt: wherein Jehovah -the original first- was murdered for laughing about a bad joke– then Marduk murdered the supra-great-mother, and many were cut-off from family-lineage… But like most codefendants they exonerated themselves upon Cain.

    How-about getting the plurality, correct…! And the literality, correct…!

    Changing gender-tags won’t fix the understanding of plurality, and literality–! And– won’t cause anyone-else to believe the truth any sooner–!

    To-whom do you address your namby-pamby changes of theo-genderology?

    Man, like min, can mean seed– So now you think to degender seeds–? ‘Wew!’

    You think that dipping yourself in the degendering sea of psychobabble-brain-farters will put you significantly closer to the opposite golden shore of Truth–!?

    You don’t even understand Plato’s, explanation, of Atlantis (See flood above)–!

    How can you retranslate without understanding the original documentations of Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, archaic Hebrew (not ancient diacriticals)…?!


  166. Raymond Kenneth Petry -  March 29, 2011 - 4:07 pm

    So– What is the degenderized moderne for, “Yes, Sir–!”

    “Yes, Your Highness–!?” (No gender there, Just leave out the Royal, bit.)

    “Yes, Camrade–!?” (You don’t even pronounce it correctly.)

  167. MBR -  March 29, 2011 - 4:03 pm

    Political correctness does not belong in the Bible, in my opinion. It should be translated directly, keeping the gender of pronouns appropriate. Anybody who believes that when the Bible says, “Man shall not live by bread alone,” it disregards women is truly limp-wristed. The obvious connotation is to say “humankind”.

    I do, however, feel that the Bible needs an update. It was intended for the vernacular language from the beginning of time, and the early modern English of the KJV is no longer the vernacular. Even the NIV can be tricky to wade through at times. I don’t feel that updating the language to make the Bible more understandable is going to invite the wrath of God, but dressing it up to be more politically correct is.

  168. Ben -  March 29, 2011 - 4:03 pm

    Sxephil (A.K.A. Philipd De Franco) did something on this.

  169. Abby -  March 29, 2011 - 3:59 pm

    Amen to J.Howard appreciating gender differences. I am a woman proud to be totally different and complementary to the men of the world. I think people who get upset about gender differences need to understand that is how it was written in the original language for a variety of reasons, and I doubt God has a gender bias. (P.S. LOVED the KJV joke. ha. )

  170. Carrie -  March 29, 2011 - 3:54 pm

    I shouldn’t be surprised that this turned into a theological discussion.
    I like my NIV (circa 1985, I think.) It’s all marked up with pencil, so I’m not going to buy a new one yet. Before that, I liked my New American Standard. It’s hard to get used to new things, but I’ll manage somehow.

    If you’re picky, get a parallel Bible. There are many available.
    If that’s not good enough, you can look up the original language. In fact, you can do it online, word-by-word! If you want, you can even go to school and learn the original language.

    (If KJV is the REAL Bible, then translators around the world need to translate from the KJV, not the Hebrew or Greek.)

  171. Anna -  March 29, 2011 - 3:52 pm

    Luck in W: I doubt that many people–except for more intellectual types or people like me who study languages–will still remember the original meaning a few years from now, like “gay.”

    They will if they watch the Flinstones.

    We’ll have a yabba-dabba-doo time, a yabba-doo time. We’ll have a gay old time.

  172. steel potatoes -  March 29, 2011 - 3:52 pm

    i dont believe mary wasnt a virgin man, if she was though she would have to be a shemale with both genitals fully functional and SCIENCE proves, not only that thats impossible but also that even if she was a virgin, his dad never got any and what was the point including him? immaculate concempiton is fraud and you know it . also people arent made from dust or ribs i think god could have come up with a better discription than what he did i he was in fact real dont you. so just support evolution and everything will be fine, okay?

  173. James Gordon -  March 29, 2011 - 3:46 pm

    I’ve always felt that the need to update a bible into more modern vernacular is just like saying Shakespeare needs to be likewise updated. Sure it’s fine to update it if all you want is a sort of Shakespeare-for-Dummies style, or a Bible-for-Dummies, but having read several Bible versions over the years, I have found that there is nothing like the original English translation. The KJV is by far my favorite, just as original Shakespeare is. Sure you need to learn a few words and colloquial phrases, but it’s way more concise and descriptive.

  174. Raymond Kenneth Petry -  March 29, 2011 - 3:42 pm

    The Namby-Pamby Bible…?

    Why change what mankind does not yet understand, and that would need no change if it did–? It would need total revision–!

    E.g. Moses’ record of Noah’s flood was not the flood of Sumer but of Egypt 300 years later: King Surid predicted the great flood of Egypt, 300 years before that flood happened– He PRE-DICT-ed: He talked-about the one before the other…

    E.g. Jesus’ reference to a father who was a murderer from the beginning: who lusted and set that bad example for millennia of generations… You don’t know Jack! Satan was no King! Satan was one of the angels second-sons of Enos: He delivered messages on horseback– his carpet saddle flapping like wings: Satan was not a first-father like Jehovah, Adam, Seth, Enos… He sired a few!

    The Holy Bible is a very-very-old record that spoke in the very-very-old tongue.

    Do you learn the archaic Sumerian and Egyptian languages, in high school…?

    Are you old-enough to read their thoughts, Or just echo like Homer’s Sirens…?

    The King James Version of the Bible made the record available to billions of English readers– That was a responsible act of faith… What’s in your wallet?

    In the beginning, the _gods_ created the Earth and eastern-heaven-mountain (the Persian range overlooking Edin) … Not the “Spirits” but the “Sons” of the gods … Adam hadn’t done much, Cain and Seth went to Egypt, but Enos and his two, first,-sons, Cainan and Mahaleel, stayed in Sumer, and their younger brothers and sons were set as workers of the lands … until the revolt: wherein Jehovah -the original first- was murdered for laughing about a bad joke– then Marduk murdered the supra-great-mother, and many were cut-off from family-lineage… But like most codefendants they exonerated themselves upon Cain.

    How-about getting the plurality, correct…! And the literality, correct…!

    Changing gender-tags won’t fix the understanding of plurality, and literality–! And– won’t cause anyone-else to believe the truth any sooner–!

    To-whom do you address your namby-pamby changes of theo-genderology?

    Man, like min, can mean seed– So now you think to degender seeds–? ‘Wew!’

    You think that dipping yourself in the degendering sea of psychobabble-brain-farters will put you significantly closer to the opposite golden shore of Truth–!?

    You don’t even understand Plato’s, explanation, of Atlantis (See flood above)–!

    How can you retranslate without understanding the original documentations of Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, archaic Hebrew (not ancient diacriticals)…?!


  175. Lisa -  March 29, 2011 - 3:36 pm

    Really though, the gender neutrality thing just seems paranoid, like “politically” correctness. If George Washington mentions God, he is not forcing any of his beliefs onto another, so why should anyone panic over it? How many people are seriously offended by seeing the word God in a historical document? Secondly, if the majority is not offended, then why make such a fuss over it? The same applies to gender neutrality.

  176. Julie -  March 29, 2011 - 3:34 pm

    The parts of speech that are being translated are NOT gender-neutral. Masculine nouns need to be translated as masculine; feminine as feminine. It is not, however, surprising that the NIV (aka “the pacifist’s Bible”) has chosen once again to blaspheme G_d.

  177. Griffin -  March 29, 2011 - 3:29 pm

    This is only causing conflict to Christians (and other religions of course, I don’t mean to be rude, I just don’t want to name them all) This is what’s happening, you can’t do anything about it so, why argue with this article. (don’t blame dictionary.com for this, they’re just giving news, they didn’t do this)

  178. Lisa -  March 29, 2011 - 3:25 pm

    Well, the Bible is derived from tradition. The King James Bible did not just fall out of the sky. The New Testament stories were passed down via oral tradition and were not written into the Bible until roughly three centuries after Jesus’ death. The Bible deals with spiritual truths. Even if one does not believe the Bible, the Bible is, in a sense, a work of art with many different literary styles such as poetry (like in Psalms,) myth (Eden, Noah…,) parables, some history (Maccabees). The gender neutrality seems rather unnecessary and cumbersome.
    Also, for the people posting hate comments, what is the point? If one is an atheist, a believer cannot force said atheist to believe and likewise if one is a believer, an atheist cannot force said believer to disbelieve. If both sides are respectful to one another, then insightful conversations may result and at the very least, no one will have to suffer through seeing so much derogatory comments.
    The Bible has been translated countless times into various languages and the Bible used to be hand copied, so there is much room for human error text-wise. The ancient Hebrews did not need to know about evolution and the Big Bang to know that God loves them enough to make them. The early Christians did not have to follow the Jewish Law to follow Jesus. The early Christians called themselves Jews until Antioch, but that did not mean they were not followers of the Way. Likewise, people of modern times do not need to panic over gender neutrality, besides, it does not seem like it would add any depth or understanding to the Word anyhow.

  179. Benjamin Rodriguez -  March 29, 2011 - 3:18 pm

    Alex Madjarov I am sorry you have an ignorant knowledge of the bible I think if you actually knew what the bible was it would help your comments

  180. Kim Phillips | Lucid Marketing -  March 29, 2011 - 3:15 pm

    Every translation is a commentary, so unless you read Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic, you don’t know what it says anyhow … @ cb

  181. iSingBass -  March 29, 2011 - 3:03 pm

    Typical blog entry: seizes on a line or two of incomplete information and digests it along with a bunch of assumptions for people to argue about in the comments.

    I’ll point out just one false assumption: ALL gender references were neutralized. As the author points out, that would be just silly. His example, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female…” (Gal. 3:28, NIV 1984) has actually changed to “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female…” (NIV 2011). Just a language update, not really anything to see here.

    As to insistance on KJV, here is a first-hand anecdote: Youth group at my church, reading a passage of scripture verse-by-verse around the room. Somehow a KJV got in the mix and the unfortunate, un-church-cultured youth starts trying to read and gives up in disgust after stumbling over the difficult syntax and archaic word choices.

    It is important to keep things refreshed and refined so that they can be understood in this language and time as clearly and closely as possible to those in the original language and time. I have seen that the same scholarly rigor that is applied to translation of other ancient texts is multiplied in these efforts.

  182. Benjamin Rodriguez -  March 29, 2011 - 2:40 pm

    The bible has many symbols and very deep meanings in every word changing it will destroy as we know it the biggest symbol in religeon, the bible

  183. Rational Gal -  March 29, 2011 - 2:25 pm

    2nd Post, by Noah: “I feel sorry for the person who screws around with the purity of God’s word.”

    I love how you used “screws” and “Purity of God’s word” in the same sentence. That made me LOL.

  184. scott -  March 29, 2011 - 2:11 pm

    For all of those who think the Bible is fictional.

    There is more proof that Jesus liked than ceaser, so there is no arguing that he is a real person. Lets say Jesus was a profit. No profit in the Jewish or Christian religion would pronounce themselves as being the son of God. Jesus had to be what he said he was, meaning he IS the Son of God. Also showing the bible (Influenced by God) is truth.

  185. cransonspackle -  March 29, 2011 - 2:02 pm

    @ Alex Madjarov. Great post. There is much to be learned from the bible -much of it is, as someone here said, to be understood as an others-centered way of life- and much, much more to be dismissed.

  186. Steve Foster -  March 29, 2011 - 2:00 pm

    Much like “simplifying” Chinese characters, every time you update the Bible in any language, you effectually multiply the amount of Biblical terminology an education person needs to know, not decrease it. Some people will use this new translation; many won’t. I sure won’t. Word of God aside, the KJV was an anchor of the English language for about three centuries (until churches and Bible societies decided to start updating it), slowing and halting the “language change” many linguists wrongly consider absolute. It’s a treasure of English culture, and I prefer to do my part to preserve it, and deepen my own historical awareness, by taking the time to learn a bit of vocabulary and usage, instead of stupidly demanding a new translation to suit my ignorance. In sum, while I appreciate the need of reaching down to the level of understanding of a learner, I don’t think that goal is properly pursued by permanently collapsing the higher level of understanding of the teacher or messenger.

  187. Timo -  March 29, 2011 - 1:54 pm

    I’m a translator. And guess what? The Bible is a translation. If one wishes to read the manuscripts without any translation, one must read three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic (both Old Testament), and Greek (New Testament). Even then, there would be some variation from copy to copy because the manuscripts are just that — copies, written by hand. There are no original manuscripts that anyone has found, if they exist at all. The oldest manuscripts anyone has found actually exhibit some differences from the newer ones.

    We must face the facts. The Bible is a bit of a social phenomenon because of all the people that have been involved in preserving and translating it. There is no factual way to prove that the Bible is “the purity of God’s word” due to the simple human factor: humans are inconsistent. The fact that St. John warned against manipulation in Revelation 22:19 is proof that Revelation and the rest of the Bible can be manipulated.

    To answer the questions at the end of this article, there are millions of translation faux pas and subtleties that affect us daily. Poetry, which makes up a large portion of the Bible, serves to demonstrate this point rather well. Here’s a simple example, given in the original Spanish and with two English translations (one of them is great for KJV lovers):
    Yo soy ardiente, yo soy morena
    De Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer

    –Yo soy ardiente, yo soy morena,
    Yo soy el símbolo de la pasión;
    De ansia de goces mi alma está llena.
    ¿A mí me buscas? – No es a ti; no.

    –Mi frente es pálida; mis trenzas de oro;
    Puedo brindarte dichas sin fin;
    Yo de ternura guardo un tesoro.
    ¿A mí me llamas? –No; no es a ti.

    –Yo soy un sueño, un imposible,
    Vano fantasma de niebla y luz;
    Soy incorporal, soy intangible;
    No puedo amarte.–¡Oh, ven; ven tú!

    By Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer

    I am ardent, I am brown,
    Me the fiery passions crown;
    I am eager to decoy
    Thee into realms of joy,
    Do I please thy fancy? – Speak!
    - Nay; it is not thee I seek.

    Delicate my brow and fair,
    Wreathed with coils of golden hair;
    And I guard a limitless
    Treasure-trove of tenderness.
    Do I please thy fancy? – Speak!
    - Nay; it is not thee I seek.

    Like a lightning-flash I gleam
    or a wild, phantastic dream;
    Bodiless, impossible
    Fleeting and intangible;
    No one could my feelings move!
    - O, then come! – Be thou my love!

    Translated by Jules Renard

    I am Ardent, I am Dark
    By Gustavo Adolfo Bécquer

    “I am ardent, I am dark,
    I am the symbol of passion;
    Of yearning for pleasure my soul is full.
    Do you look for me?” Not for you; no.

    “My brow is fair; my braids golden;
    I can offer you unending joy;
    With tenderness I guard a treasure.
    Do you call to me?” No; not to you.

    “I am a dream, an impossible,
    Vain ghost of fog and light;
    I am unincarnate, I am intangible;
    I cannot love you.” Oh, come; you, come!

    Translated by Timothy Javins

  188. Larry -  March 29, 2011 - 1:50 pm

    I am sensing a lot of ignorance by some of the comments here. Just goes to show we either like our own interpretation based on our own whims or we are suckered into believing what someone with letters behind their name says. I would rather believe in the One who was behind the letters than those with letters behind their nemes!

    We need to think here about context, historical background, proper
    interpretation when compared with like passages, etc. Too much of the
    Bible is take literally when it was not meant to be. Be careful!!!

  189. Matthew -  March 29, 2011 - 1:47 pm

    @Alex Madjarov:

    Then it would be so boring! Not to mention alternative history.

  190. Rampaw -  March 29, 2011 - 1:40 pm

    The words in the Bible are not changing. While we continue to struggle with the textual variants in the original Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic), for the most part the words in the Bible don’t change. What changes is English, into which most of us need the words of the Bible translated. As long as language remains in flux (which will probably be forever) there will be the need to retranslate the Bible.

  191. Karen -  March 29, 2011 - 1:33 pm

    It is pretty tough to try and translate something that holds so much value in how you interpret the text…

  192. Yvette -  March 29, 2011 - 1:17 pm

    How about the word “discipline?”

    My understanding is that it came from the root “to teach.” Which means that “disciples” (coming from discipline) would mean “students who learn.”

    That would make the “rod of discipline” a “rod of teaching/learning.” In other words, I’m not sure I can envision Jesus spanking little children.

    Yet, it today’s language the word discipline tends to get equated with physical punishment.

    There is a big difference between teaching and hitting. Needs clarification, and the word should be changed to reflect the word use at the time the book was written. Otherwise some people use scripture to condone hitting.

    Still don’t see Jesus hitting little children. Think the bible describes him as sitting and talking with them. Again – teaching. It the words are not updated, the original meaning becomes twisted.

  193. Anne -  March 29, 2011 - 1:14 pm

    I’m not really liking this whole change in the words. Eventually, we’ll be changing so many words to ‘adapt to modern vocabulary’ that a lot of the original meaning might get lost. There’s a reason why the words are the way they are, and like someone else said, someone will have to be a bit stupid not to know that ‘man’ in ‘Man cannot live by bread alone’ actually means ‘mankind.’

  194. Nicole -  March 29, 2011 - 1:02 pm

    Truthfully, the original text of the Bible was Hebrew and Aramaic. When it was re-translated into Greek and then English, meanings of certain words, phrases, and idioms were lost because words in Hebrew can mean several different things. It’s a fairly complex language, so translating it into Greek and English made (I believe) inconsistencies in the Bible, especially between the Old and New Testaments.
    Hebrew is the best language to read the Bible in, because that was the original text.
    Re-translating it yet again for a modern audience will just serve more purpose to take it further away from its Hebrew intended roots.

  195. FellatioAbuser -  March 29, 2011 - 12:55 pm

    How about we stop putting so much of our time and effort into a fairy tale?

  196. Cyberquill -  March 29, 2011 - 12:54 pm

    Man cannot live on bread alone, and woman cannot live on shoes alone.

  197. Mahazzy -  March 29, 2011 - 12:52 pm

    I’m just sayin that Jesus called God “Father.” That makes God masculine, and the “we” in Genesis refers to the “Trinity.”

  198. Mahazzy -  March 29, 2011 - 12:45 pm

    Actually Latin was not an original language of the scriptures. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek were. The KJV was translated from Latin; therefore, it is not the most accurate rendition. There are no original manuscripts. The oldest ones we have are the ones from which the NASB came. Since the majority of us no longer use the words “thee,” “thou,” and “thine,” they should be updated. “Man” deals with mankind and should be understood as “you” is understood in “Stop.”

  199. [Clever Pseudonym] -  March 29, 2011 - 12:43 pm

    [Speculation by someone who has never studied and will never study textual editing or translation.] [Vague statement, taken to be self-evident, either in support of Christianity or against it!] [Smug conclusion.]

  200. Says who?? -  March 29, 2011 - 12:41 pm

    To Alex Madjarov: Shut up, man…….Why are you acting like a dumb??

  201. J Z -  March 29, 2011 - 12:35 pm

    @Apostolic, You say it’s wrong to change the Bible/God’s word. You’re going to burn for quoting in English. Why did you change what was originially spoken and written in ancient Hebrew and Greek? As far as your complaint towards others not understanding a 400-year-old dialect, why did the spoken words and manuscripts take over 1500 years to become a KJV? That’s an awful lot of changing! Why couldn’t God get it right the first time? I’d really like to see some evidence of salvation coming to people who never knew English in their life (Africans, South Americans, Asians, etc) spontaneously understanding every word in the KJV by the revelation of God.

    “For I am the Lord, I change not….” (Malachi 3:6)
    “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever.” (Heb 13:8)
    “Forever, O Lord, they word is settled in heaven.” (Ps. 119:89)
    [Somehow being translated by Apostolic to include humans, language, and literature.]

    If God doesn’t change, and His word is forever settled in heaven, then it seems to me that mankind should leave it alone! (So why aren’t you using the original language?) But that’s the very reason they DON’T leave it alone, because they’re mankind….humans….ever-changing to adapt to the society of their day. Doesn’t make it right…..but it does make it the fruit of human fallibleness.

    I’ve heard so many say they just don’t get the KJV because of the “thees” and “thous”, but I say to those people, it is God himself who opens our eyes with revelation and understanding, which removes the language barriers, so we can fully grasp His word. [Thank God you came along to give us the truth. Dozens of Christians think changing their life is all God wants.] All you truly need is to hunger and thirst after righteousness, and ye SHALL be filled! [In my experience, "hungering and thirsting after righteousness" resulted in being filled with rocks and snakes.] You don’t need man to translate what he THINKS God is trying to say in chapter in verse. [Oh, no, not at all - we have Apostolic! Thanks for telling us what you THINK God says!]

  202. Jon -  March 29, 2011 - 12:12 pm

    The gender neutral idea can become ridiculous. In the example above, “Chairman” is changed to “Chairperson” – in order to be gender neutral.
    But notice the “son” on the end of “Chairperson”? Maybe is should be “perdaughter” instead of “person.” Chairperdaughter.

  203. S. Gray -  March 29, 2011 - 12:09 pm

    Replace the collective nouns ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ with humankind.

  204. Nova -  March 29, 2011 - 12:06 pm

    @Noah ”And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”-Revelation 22:19(KJV) This is referring to the Book of Revelation. Rev was wrote before the New Testament was composed so it is impossible for the verse to be referring to the entire bible. Also, they are not changing the meaning of the words, if anything they are restoring the meaning. Old versions of bible, (ex: KJV) are out dated for the english language. Nobody speaks old English anymore and most people do not even understand it. It would be pointless to read a book about how to live your life if you cannot understand it.

    Also, the verse says “, if any man shall take away from the words of this book”. I think taking the meaning away by refusing to use contemporary language is taking away from the words much more than changing it from old English.

    Btw, the original text was wrote in Greek. By translating it into English at all, we have changed the words of the prophecy if you wish to use your own interpretation.

    “I feel sorry for the person who screws around with the purity of God’s word.” I do as well, but I feel more sorry for the person who is against people understanding the message in those words by clinging to the KJV.

  205. sexyy -  March 29, 2011 - 12:00 pm

    whatszz up pplszz what yall up to

  206. josaya -  March 29, 2011 - 11:58 am

    hello pplsz write backk

  207. MOOT -  March 29, 2011 - 11:43 am

    My thanks to Richard for explaining the “KJV being good enough for Jesus” joke to John and CarrenG. I hate doing that.

  208. Jim Litterick -  March 29, 2011 - 11:33 am

    I’ll add, that was directed at everyone….including G smith. if you think ‘it’ is watching us to amuse ‘itself’ while ‘it’ smokes pot, ‘its’ mind must be so feeble i actually am just a dream of ‘its’, or youre on something your personal doctor doesnt know about and whatever treatment your on for that inflammation in your brain decreasing blood flow to our critical temporal lobes is just NOT working! SEEK HELP!! and leave the joints for people who can handle them…..like ‘it’

  209. Ensomniak -  March 29, 2011 - 11:32 am

    It’s a work of fiction, so not that big of a deal. The changing of words in Twain’s book have at least the same amount of importance… Twain was a better writer though…

  210. KJS -  March 29, 2011 - 11:28 am

    So many issues here.

    1) “Man” is the native English word for any “human person.” It didn’t gain specific reference to the male sex until around A.D. 1000 (up till then, a male human was a “wer” and a female was a “wif” – “wer” eventually faded out of usage in 14th C. replaced by “man”), & from then on “man” maintained dual generic and masculine senses, until the generic usage was challenged as “sexist” in the 20th C. The idea that “man” is a sexist word when used in a generic sense is purely politically-motivated.

    2) That said, politics HAS caused a shift in how the word “man” is used. It is not inappropriate to recognize this shift in translating biblical words that have a generic sense: Greek “anthropos,” for example, can reasonably be rendered “person” in some places, or in other places “mankind/humanity,” rather than “man.” (Although arguably such a translation is less aesthetically appealing – “fishers of men” vs. “fishers of persons.”) A word like Greek “aner,” on the other hand, should never be given a “gender-neutral” translation since it is never a generic term.

    3) Certain words, like Greek “huios” for “son,” should NOT be given a “gender-neutral” translation in some cases (particularly in Paul’s Epistles) even though the referent may be either male or female. This is because of the theological import of “son,” which is tied up with adoption & inheritance through Jesus the “firstborn Son.”

    4) Anyone who describes the KJV as the “original” should take a look at some earlier English versions of the Bible which were in widespread use before the KJV – especially the Geneva Bible, which is in many ways a superior translation (alas, it had some marginal notes that made English royalty uncomfortable). Language changes. This needs to be acknowledged. While it is arguably useful to be familiar with the elevated but antiquated language of the KJV, is there anyone who would argue that we should translate the Bible into the 400-year-old idioms of other languages, like Mandarin or Swahili? Surely not. A good translation of the Bible should render it in contemporary language, but without slang or vulgarity, and as far as possible without interpretation beyond the bare words. Interpretation is the job of those who read, teach, or preach the Bible, not of the translators who are providing the text in comprehensible language.

  211. Jim Litterick -  March 29, 2011 - 11:21 am

    I hope everyone realizes they are arguing over a book written over generations, which beforehand was many books, the lot of which was picked, poked and prodded to find just what some one, thing, group, or … god, wanted. Choosing the right words at the right time, using the proper vernacular as some may say, CAN cause our edges of perception to shift a complete 180 degrees on up to six dimensions; those of space in its three dimensions, and of time; past, present, and future. Any one moment can explain why something was valued. A ‘Rule Book’ comes in handy when players cant agree upon the rules, especially when it’s come to a turning point…like when playing ‘Monopoly’. I mean, who ever has the time to finish a full game WITHOUT using modern rules; even chess has more defined rules, and the game of ‘Risk’ is probably not the best game to model after.

    The “Holy Book”, whichever you may prefer, will always need to be rewritten. Not one person could ever say ‘This is EXACTLY what they meant when they said “click pop click” Versatility is a must in any situation. I agree if a book must be rewritten this late in the game, then let it be rewritten and not edited like a printed document covered in multiple layers of whiteout.

    As for who the author could or couldnt be, should or shouldnt be, or who will or wont be : no one could predict. I wouldnt be surprised if some publishers are starting to look for the ‘new 10 commandments’ or ‘holy bible’ or ‘quuran’ or whatever. it is the future which will choose which memories are to lead. Maybe one day people will realize his story, history, is really our story. then we may be able to get past someone selling his own autobiography which has been rewritten by distinctively different parties….only to sell it as a self-written autobiography

  212. me -  March 29, 2011 - 11:08 am

    To all of the Religion-nuts on here, please stop. Why on earth would Jesus Christ be fighting with Moses, although, the last Muhhamed reference was funny. Jesus followed Moses’ teachings the same way we follow his. The Bible was not made by God, it was made by man in the name of God, so was the Torah, Quaran and who knows what else.Religion is man-made while Faith is God-made. With the matter of the article, I dont htink they should need to revise the Bible but if they do, so be it. The point about sexism in the Bible is so idiotic that i cant even explain it. Only an illiterate would take man as man rather than inn the way it was supposed to mean: Humankind. I would have though that was implied, i undersood that the first time i read the Bible, at the age of four. I myself do not think that the Bible should be changed but if it so be it. The Bible is not even supposed to be taken at face value anyway, it is so full of abstractions that one would need a very good babelfish to decode it all. To whoever brought up unicorns and zombies, there is not one mention of zombies in the Bible, if you are refering to the resurrection of Jesus Christ then all i can say is, you are an idiot.
    P.S I do not see any sexual connotations in the word booty

  213. apostolic preacher -  March 29, 2011 - 10:59 am

    let me tell who ever says “It’s getting better yeah right there just changeing god’s word and who ever messes the word up there messed up repent i say repent… any other “translateion” is wrong it ain’t a translation other people understand things differant

  214. Persona -  March 29, 2011 - 10:50 am

    I feel the same, but the language is in Hebrew and can be translated many different ways.
    there are a lot of different translations, but if you have to write an article about the words they choose in the newer versions… wel… it is best if they didn’t make a new one at all.

  215. JumpSuit -  March 29, 2011 - 10:48 am

    Let us all remember that there is a huge difference between taking words away and replacing them with more commonly used words so people can actually understand what the scriptures are telling them.

  216. H.H. -  March 29, 2011 - 10:34 am

    To those of you who despise the Jewish and Christian faith: Why are you posting here? You revel in your critiques with your fellow naysayers to what end? The people who actually care about God’s word and how it is handled have the only opinions that matter here. Just as a woman won’t ask a man’s opinion on the effectiveness of a tampon, Christians have not and will not give credibility to an unbelievers opinion of our Bible. The ad on the main page of this website caught my attention because I care – why did it catch yours? You can reject God in online forums, in college classrooms, and with your non-believing friends…nobody is going to stop you. In fact, whether you believe it or not, we Christians actually pray for you. And not because we want you to lead restricted lives, filled with “Bible Thumping” hug sessions. It’s because we know your value. Whether we like it or not, the unbeliever is just as valuable in the eyes of God as any believer. Even when you spit in God’s face, He keeps his arms wide open. How many people on earth will do that for you? You can end the defensive tactic of coming into a forum and spouting off hate to people who just want to defend their Bible. Life is a 50/50. Either there is a God or there isn’t. (The religion of Science vs. God.) Here’s a thought: don’t choose any religion. Choose a relationship with God. The God of the Hebrew and Christian Bible is Truth. That is why it is so important we try our best to preserve and NOT pervert the word of God. Words in the Bible have been changing since the first translation. The message remains the same. 1) God is our Creator 2) God is beyond human comprehension 3) God Loves Us 4) God had to illustrate that we need Him, he wants us to use free will to choose Him, but he will never force us 5) Jesus is the part of God that came to Earth to experience humanity and compensate for our collective sins 6) We can only come closer to God by accepting the Truth of Jesus 7) There is a consequence for our rejection of God: eternal separation, and torment (NOT TORTURE, TORMENT). 8) Life is a wonderful experience, and can be full of peace if you put God in the driver’s seat 9) Accepting God does not mean you will never experience human pain; it’s all part of the experience; accepting God brings peace 10) People will fail. Its expected. Don’t assume Christianity has anything to do with perfection.

    If you are on the fence or just want another book to criticize – READ “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
    Once you have decided that God is or could be Real, Try the Bible again.

  217. C B -  March 29, 2011 - 9:46 am

    I think the New World Translation is a very accurate version of the scriptures. It’s a version that’s based on today’s English, understandable and includes God’s name where men have taken it out or simply replaced it with “Lord” or “God”. YJWH has even been told to NOT be mentioned by a Catholic decree and it has been done in the Bible in more modern versions.

    and to #1 Skillet Fan, I agree with the reading of the KJV. It was written to the audience of it’s day which is why so many passages are hard to understand. Who understands what shambles are unless you are familiar with the language at that time? It was common then, but not today, hence my mention of the New World Translation. It’s written so EVERY man, woman and child can understand the scriptures clearly.

    I have many translations of the bible, from KJV to CDV to RV to NWT to Septuagint…and the basis of the scriptures are all the same.

    The difference?

    God’s name is taken out of modern versions: Jehovah.

  218. dhcrystal -  March 29, 2011 - 9:44 am

    Seems lots of people are still arguing over how to legitimize Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Fairy Tales. The Bible is a historical document tracking the Jewish people’s wanderings and life. It provides principles for civil behavior and guidelines for appropriate living in a culture or society. They decided for themselves that they were the Chosen ones (of course) and subsequently, the Catholic church used religion as a forum for building power. If you didn’t believe in evolution before, just start back with Abraham and follow the trail. I’m amazed that so many intelligent people have bought into the notion that they must believe in something of this sort. Religion is nothing but a salve, an excuse to shuck off responsibility for one’s own behavior and feelings. In so many religions, we are taught that we are evil in order to convince us of sin, to create a sense of guilt. Then once we all feel fear and guilt, the religion delivers the solution to make us feel better. It’s self-serving and spiraling mind control.

    Ah… yes. And, it also makes us feel so much better after we’ve killed others who don’t believe the way we do.

    Incredibly sad!

  219. Nathan -  March 29, 2011 - 9:29 am

    I think this idea is ridiculous and does speak to what I believe is the level of P.C. that has taken over our society as it is today. As to some of the comments I have read here describe it speaks about a gender neutral god or a gender neutral anything in the bible and the language used is something you would expect to hear in feminine studies course on a college campus, and how women are the “true” dominate gender and men “hijacked” this since of entitlement in order to take power and reap the “booty” that comes along with such a position. People will relate any entity with the gender they are I believe because if you as any little girl if they think god is a man or woman they will most likely believe god is a woman. Even early feminist became divided over who was more “superior” in many women believing they were “morally superior” to men while others did not, given no woman is incapable of not sinning. If this is going to be done to the bible how about they do this to other things like let’s take out the word “mother” from mother-nature and stop talking about vessels like they are females. I dont know the bible like most of you do, I am getting help right now in learning the word of god but I do feel this is an example of P.C.

  220. cpt toasty -  March 29, 2011 - 9:18 am

    This is just something else completely retarded that people are trying to change for the worse. the bible itself is a loose translation from the original, so there is no reason to loose even more of the meaning by trying to “re-translate” it. in the end it will end up just being another book that has absolutely no meaning.

  221. Karen -  March 29, 2011 - 9:08 am

    The politically correct have gone too far – as Noah stated above ;

    ” And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”-Revelation 22:19(KJV) I feel sorry for the person who screws around with the purity of God’s word.

  222. #1 Skillet Fan -  March 29, 2011 - 8:51 am

    Reading the KJV to me is like reading Shakespear. Honestly, I have a hard time understanding it, and as a high school student I choose to read accurate, more modern translations- such as the NIV or NLT. With those tranlations, the vocabulary caters to people my age while portraying the same message as the KJV. Which version do you think is easier to understand?

    1 Timothy 4:12 (King James Version)
    Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.


    1 Timothy 4:12 (New Living Translation)
    Don’t let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you say, in the way you live, in your love, your faith, and your purity.

    ~Chick Drummer~

  223. Gary Oaks -  March 29, 2011 - 8:48 am


    I think you can know if the original Hebrew assigned “He” to God as a male or just a non gender-specified entity.
    Look at the context, in many of the old testament books, God refers to himself as a “father” (male parent); a husband and referring to the Israelites themselves as the bride.
    Jesus himself, who is male, is the spitting image of the invisible God.

    Im not a biblical scholar, so this is only my sincerest opinion

  224. G. Smith -  March 29, 2011 - 8:44 am

    Wow, great. Now all the religious nuts are going to keep trying to prove something that can’t be proved. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in a creator (of some sort), but there is nothing like that active in our daily lives. Let’s put it like this: Your idea of God is busy trying to help billions of people day to day for eternity; my idea of God made an entire universe to trip out on while he smokes an endless joint and watches.

  225. Scott -  March 29, 2011 - 8:41 am

    @Alex Madjarov

    …really? I’m curious as to how much of the Bible you’ve actually read. While there are stories of supernatural events and miracles, I haven’t found anything about ‘unicorns’ or ‘zombies’ in the Bible. It’s easy to make something sound ridiculous and childish when you throw in those kind of words with your argument.
    2 Tim. 3:16-17 give a good glimpse of what the Bible is for, and there are plenty of other references I could throw in here, too, but I’ll spare you for now.
    If you’re going to make a claim about something you seem to know little about, try to back up your argument and keep out the parts that are completely irrelevant.

  226. sally -  March 29, 2011 - 8:31 am

    So, this is the version for illiterate dummies, or what?

    Are we are SUCH illiterate people that we can no longer understand the difference between “man” as in mankind and “man” as in man, and so simpleminded that we don’t know the original meaning of the word booty, or figure it out if we don’t know?? Fortunately for the simpleminded or those who weren’t raised with “big” words, there are still dictionaries around, and concordances that can help one figure out the meanings of words.

    Shame on “us” for thinking the only way to make the Bible read-able (in a iterate society) is to dumb it down. I can understand making “bread of life” the “rice of life” in transalting unwritten languages, but to assume everyone who needs to read the English Bible can’t figure out the words in it is really sad.

  227. Dave Martinez -  March 29, 2011 - 8:30 am

    The Apostle Paul said that “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for correction, for reproof and for instruction in righteousness”. He was referring to the original texts (written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). Though there are many translations (some better than others), the original texts should never under any circumstances be changed. To have better understanding of the bible we need to do what the Apostle Paul urged his readers to do, “study to show ourselves approved as workmen that need not be ashamed handling accurately the Word of Truth”. Because the bible is also a spiritual book, much of its understanding can only be revealed by spiritual revelation. Trying to grasp all its truths without the help of the Great Revealer can only lead to futility and false assumptions. Ask God for greater revelation as you approach his timelss truths.

  228. J Z -  March 29, 2011 - 8:13 am

    Karen: Your “belief” really needs a good, strong dose of truth. If God was really honest with people, he would not have directed the KJV transcribers to use “flowers” for a woman’s monthly vaginal discharge of blood. The original Hebrew that was translated into “flowers” in blueletterbible.org is niddah and means filthiness and impurity. “Flowers” is really a far cry from calling things what they are. THE KJV is MAN’S ATTEMPT AT CHANGING WORDS THAT SHOULDN’T BE CHANGED. And those are YOUR OWN WORDS. (Sorry for caps – there’s no “bold” function)

    Noah: The verse that you quoted was originally penned in first century Greek. You just wrote it in English from a 17th century English text and took away the original Greek in St John’s prophecy. Therefore, you are just as damned as every Bible translator and publisher that has lived for the past 2000 years. By your own words, you’re no prophet of God.

    Bible-thumpers are hypocrites.

  229. sumac -  March 29, 2011 - 8:05 am

    The bible doesn’t need to be rewritten. It needs to be reread.

  230. Brent Schroeder -  March 29, 2011 - 7:57 am

    Contemporary biblical scholars have recognized that gender exclusive language (such as using “man” for “mankind”) has lead to oppressive interpretations of the biblical text in which men use a term like “man” referring to all humankind to assert their dominance as a superior sex. The Bible reflects the patriarchal society in which it was written, which we recognize is completely and utterly false today.

    As far as the texts that clearly connote women as the “weaker vessel” (what’s up 1 Peter 3:7?), it’s important to 1) read them in context and see if the intention was to be clearly patriarchal (which is sometimes the case) and 2) recognize when our interpretations of Scripture are patriarchal or whether we should dismiss certain Scriptures that are clearly patriarchal.

    Also, changing “man” to “mankind” is still not inclusive. Humankind would be gender inclusive.

  231. Ron -  March 29, 2011 - 7:56 am

    A translation needs to be accurate; if a word has meaning, then that meaning ought to be brought into the translated word of a different language. I would suggest that a translation is NOT to be interpretive, for the problems are obvious. For instance, you offered an interpretive remark on Paul’s words.
    “‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female…’ – this passage from Galatians 3:28 makes a statement about gender roles by using the specific masculine and feminine pronouns.”

    Paul does not deal with gender roles in the context, but acceptance by God regardless of gender, ethnicity, and social status. Gender roles are dealt with elsewhere.

  232. Greg -  March 29, 2011 - 7:50 am

    I think it is an unnecessary effort, BUT if it means more people will read it…I say, go for it.

    “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” (Rom 1:16)

  233. Michael John -  March 29, 2011 - 7:49 am

    I honestly don’t believe the original is all that difficult to read. Doesn’t He say He will give you understanding anyways? Are our eyes so blind that we don’t see? Keep the original. In my opinion, all these translations will just lead people astray. Just read the KJV please.

  234. Mary -  March 29, 2011 - 7:42 am

    I don’t like what they’re doing God’s Word!

  235. Andy -  March 29, 2011 - 7:38 am

    I am an NIV user myself and fully support the updating of the language. I have very close friends that are hardcore King James users who feel the KJV is the only true Bible. Fortunately we can agree to disagree on that matter.

    My argument is this: If I am trying to talk to an unbeliever about Jesus and I spout some KJV and they look at with a blank expression because it doesn’t make sense to them, what good am I doing. In that situation I would resort to “translating” the verses into today’s language myself so they can understand it. Doesn’t it make more sense to start out with scripture already translated in today’s language? If one wants to declare the KJV is the only true Bible and any other translations are false, they must refrain from making any translations of their own, leaving the above mentioned unbeliever to possibly walk away with little to no idea of what the scripture meant that was quoted to them.

    Think about it, the next time you quote a scripture to someone and then follow it up by “that means….”

  236. Dennis -  March 29, 2011 - 7:24 am

    Looks like I am going to have to learn ancient Hebrew, Aramiac and Greek in order to really understand it now.

  237. Adjo en Ahnk -  March 29, 2011 - 7:22 am

    Being gender Neutral for the sake of political correctness is always a mistake. When translating from the original Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic or Latin, it is always best to convey the passage as it was meant to be conveyed at the time. If we are trying to make a god gender neutral when the original texts had it female or male specific, we are making the same grave mistakes the KJV and others have for centuries.

    The approach of the NAB and the NABRE are better translations for the time (I am not Catholic but the noations as to why things were translated are excellent, get the annotated version). For those espousing the purity of the KJV, it was a bad translation then and full of King James’ fears of witches and daemons. Men did the translation to please the King, not the God or the faithful.

    Basically I say stay true to the spirit of the original text, allow it to be understood, and let readers know why you made the translation choices you did. KJV was a political statement (other English translations were outlawed before and after that one.)

    To the NABRE I say Bravo! To the politically correct and KJV etc. i say Fie unto you who huddle with superstition and magic…..

  238. CarrenG -  March 29, 2011 - 7:11 am

    It’s interesting that some feel that the KJV “was good enough for Jesus” or that the KJV “is the most accurate” by God’s standards. Do you feel this way because, with all its thee’s and thou’s, the KJV just sounds more religious? Does that make you feel safer and closer to God? Perhaps you are unaware that King James, who authorized this translation of the Bible, was a great fan and sponsor of William Shakespeare. WS effectively added literally THOUSANDS of words to the English language, and–sorry to burst your bubble–many of these words probably found their way into the translation of the Bible that you say is most holy. In other words, the KJV was simply the product of the time–the language of the day, which was actually quite urbanized and new in many respects. The KJV was powerful in that it made the Bible accessible to the COMMON MAN (oops–women, too, assuming they could read). The COMMON MAN today does not speak in KJ English, so it makes sense to revise the Bible to make it approachable to the everyday person. God is near, and God is real. Why remove him from the everyday by isolating his word in a language that simply sounds pious but really doesn’t reach the common person? King James wanted people to be able to read the Bible even if they were not educated in Latin; it seems appropriate that people today shouldn’t have to be schooled in Elizabethan/Jamesean dialect to be able to understand God’s word.

  239. Minister Teacher R Woods -  March 29, 2011 - 7:07 am

    I see no problem with identifying individual genders because God has no respect of persons.However,the issue is not the particulars but the whole picture.The original text of scripture was written in Hebrew for old testament and greek for the new testament,maybe some latin.None the less God said that heaven and earth will pass away but His word would not fail.Even if God failed none of us will live to no about it.God knows how to preserve His word,and He has done just that.One translation is good enough,in order to speak to people in that language.We can get into the particulars of nouns,verbs,first person,sencond person,and on and on.It really doesn’t matter.God’s word will maintain the meaning of original text,for the most part,proving the translators or scholars in the profession.I prefer the King James Version.The problem is that unqulified translators are transliterating scripture.When this happens,you can lose the entire meaning of text.And beside all that,to christians the carnal minded man or woman can not understand the things of God anyway because they are spiritually decerned.Therfore,if any man or women lacked wisdom,let him or her ask it of God who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not.GOD BLESS YOU ALL. Minister Teacher R Woods

  240. Xion the Zombie -  March 29, 2011 - 7:02 am

    read Zecariah 14:12-14 it talks about how Jesus is gonna send an Apocalypse of zombies but the Apocalypse of 2012 is now a Zombie Apocalypse are yall ready cause i am ive been training for years so hahahaha

  241. Kim Phillips | Lucid Marketing -  March 29, 2011 - 6:57 am

    Talking about religious always brings crazies out. If you are referring to the Hebrew bible (known as the Old Testament among non-Jews), anything but the Hebrew is just a translation, anyway. And the Hebrew bible makes no attempt to describe God as anything other than masculine.

  242. Apostolic -  March 29, 2011 - 6:32 am

    “For I am the Lord, I change not….” (Malachi 3:6)
    “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever.” (Heb 13:8)
    “Forever, O Lord, they word is settled in heaven.” (Ps. 119:89)

    If God doesn’t change, and His word is forever settled in heaven, then it seems to me that mankind should leave it alone! But that’s the very reason they DON’T leave it alone, because they’re mankind….humans….ever-changing to adapt to the society of their day. Doesn’t make it right…..but it does make it the fruit of human fallibleness.

    I’ve heard so many say they just don’t get the KJV because of the “thees” and “thous”, but I say to those people, it is God himself who opens our eyes with revelation and understanding, which removes the language barriers, so we can fully grasp His word. All you truly need is to hunger and thirst after righteousness, and ye SHALL be filled! You don’t need man to translate what he THINKS God is trying to say in chapter in verse.

  243. Kristina -  March 29, 2011 - 6:16 am

    I think the Bible is the Bible, and NOAH they’re not changing anything. They’re just changing some words to make it easier to understand. Some people have a hard time understanding the older language. It’s not like they’re removing the part where Moses splits the Red Sea.

  244. realist -  March 29, 2011 - 6:13 am

    it’s a work of fiction, who cares?

  245. Christin -  March 29, 2011 - 6:12 am

    Correction: PETA WANTS the NIV to change animal references…don’t know if they will…but with the history they have, I wouldn’t doubt it. Yes, let us continue to allow people who don’t even LIKE our beliefs or our GOD have a voice in how the Bible is translated!!!!

  246. Carlos -  March 29, 2011 - 6:06 am

    Oh, and good job Noah, use the Bible as your sword…

  247. Carlos -  March 29, 2011 - 6:05 am

    Well, I see a lot of warriors for God here, good for you keep on fighting for Jesus… I also see a bunch of weekly founded people too, never be satisfied with the junk that they are TRYING to make the Bible to be…

  248. sluggo -  March 29, 2011 - 6:03 am

    There are lots of Bibles out there but NKJV is my fav.

    (go there)

    have a good day!

  249. Ahmed -  March 29, 2011 - 5:45 am

    If u guys believe in God and believe that bible was sent down by God then why do u anyways think about changing it …….. Is there anybody that thinks they’re smarter than the Owner of the Universe absolutely no so why not leave it the way it was sent….. and by the way I am not christian I am muslim I respect what others believe in too. I strongly believe in the Quran and not even a word has been change since it was revealed 14 hundreds and something ago. Reason is as a muslim we know none of us can build a better word than the One who created us……..

  250. Tom -  March 29, 2011 - 5:43 am

    To Noah: Begin feeling sorry for King James. The KJV is NOT authorized by God. It was authorized by the King in an attempt to promote the Protestant beliefs and strengthen his political position. The translation wasn’t even in the common language, but rather the court language. Getting the Message right is the key, not your preferred version.

  251. Jacob -  March 29, 2011 - 5:35 am

    I would base any literal translations on the original text. Replace a Hebrew “He” with an English “He.” The Hebrews may or may have not thought of God as male. English speakers who use the word “He” as a pronoun for God also may or may not think of God as masculine.

    Many Americans are only exposed to the word “Holocaust” in reference to the specific World War II event. “Burnt offering” provides a literal translation that is no less authentic.

    The real error of translating the bible is that people are told that it was written by God, but are unaware of the translation process and the differences in languages. There is this idea that translating an ancient language is as simple as replacing a word with another one that has the same meaning.

    When people adamantly insist that the King James Version is the perfect English translation and cannot be changed, they often cite that that the Bible cannot be added or subtracted to. The fallacy here is that the creation of the KJV, like every other translation, did just that. Translators chose what they thought was the best way to convey the information in English. Any attribution of infallibility of the KJV comes from humans.

    People who say the KJV is the only true translation provide an example of why we should question if the Bible was written by God at all. Was the Bible actually written by God or was it written by humans who in turn *said* it was written by God? Lying isn’t very hard and trust appeals to pity.

  252. Roxanne -  March 29, 2011 - 5:21 am

    humankind, mankind is just as bad a man, i agree with putting genderless in some parts but it would be ridiculous to do it in the aforementioned verse…

  253. Bob Evenson -  March 29, 2011 - 5:04 am

    The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions.

  254. MegaMuhammed -  March 29, 2011 - 4:57 am

    did i miss something?

  255. Nikolai -  March 29, 2011 - 4:55 am

    All translation is subjective to a degree as there are not always directly corresponding words between all languages. Also, even if there are words that translate directly, the meaning of the original writer may not be conveyed accurately by simple word substitution. Some translators of Scripture use words that convey a completely different meaning than others. So really, in my opinion, it comes down to who you trust and what you can see for yourself to be contradictions in translation or congruency of the whole work. I mean, really, if the Bible is truly inspired of God, as it itself claims to be, it should all be in agreement, right?

  256. JesusChrist -  March 29, 2011 - 4:54 am

    yeah, I guess he’s right, sorry moses… Amen

  257. HoleyMoses -  March 29, 2011 - 4:53 am

    Amen to that Abe!

  258. AlmightyAbraham -  March 29, 2011 - 4:48 am

    Actually I am bothered, JC, you meant good I know, but you took it a little too far. Now there’s a bunch of people who aren’t jewish spitting out our holy text like it’s gospel, and a buch of jewish people biting it and ryhming with your apostles’ lines. This ain’t cool man, all this battling’s gotta end, we gotta drop this and get along!

  259. Spencer L. -  March 29, 2011 - 4:46 am

    I find it funny that they are removing booty out because they dont like how it has some sexual meaning. In numbers 31, the israelites commit mass rape before sacrificing some virgins, I wonder if they edited that part : )

  260. JesusChrist -  March 29, 2011 - 4:45 am

    Woah Woah, chill out man, Abraham’s not bothered I’m sure. And no, it was instant… you know as instant as how fake your magic is! שקרן

  261. HoleyMoses -  March 29, 2011 - 4:43 am

    So what, how long did it take you to turn water into wine? maybe a year or two to let it age properly? And what about all the jewish people you’ve converted? I’m sure Abraham is very please that you’ve thinned out his flock right? כופר

  262. HoleyMoses -  March 29, 2011 - 4:40 am

    Well we lived in Egypt, what do you expect? She was still more jewish than you, כופר

  263. eama -  March 29, 2011 - 4:35 am

    what really matter is how you will live the Words of God. What is the use of making the Bible being revised in several times if the people don’t even read it and live by it… What makes sense is how will we encourage the people to glance on the Words of God and make it as food of our soul!

  264. HoleyMoses -  March 29, 2011 - 4:32 am

    Damn straight I did, I thought it was going to be a good read, I had it on preoder! Instead I found out that it’s just a bunch of stories about a jumped up jewish guy who thinks he’s the son of God… If you’re so jewish, why are your minions called Christians? I swear they worship you more than God. And it’s not just that, you did plenty of nasty things in Palestine, killing fig trees left right and centre, decieving the masses into believing they can split mountains with their minds… Opening the first branch of Subway on a Friday… oh and one more thing; אמא שלך זונה

  265. JesusChrist -  March 29, 2011 - 4:25 am

    did you even read the Bible?

  266. Sheila Mosteller -  March 29, 2011 - 4:24 am

    I wish they would stop changing the words of the Bible. I have purchased a dictionary that explains the English, Hebrew and Greek meanings, but if we are truly changed because the Holy Spirit dwells within our hearts no watered down Bible can take that away. Jesus will lead us to know the true meaning and He will lead us to make right choices. If we are not paying attention He will do something to get our attention. Pray that no one will be lead astray. Even so Lord thy will be done. In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

  267. HoleyMoses -  March 29, 2011 - 4:23 am

    Hey, you’re the one who lost a popularity contest to Mr. T… anyone dumb enough to go in for that is gonna get what’s coming to him.

  268. JesusChrist -  March 29, 2011 - 4:20 am

    Woah, I leave to get a falaffel and not only is my comment gone but Moses is getting all jealous about my whole ‘saving humanity’ jig? Do you really think it was fun to stick around on that log?!

  269. me -  March 29, 2011 - 4:14 am

    @ Noah.. amen! so true. Seriously, regardless of the ‘changing words’, if God speaks to you through that version , then go for it, its his living word after all! Although, i do prefer NKJV most of the time. By the way, they didn’t finish that verse from Galatians, and the endings the most important part.. and they’ve used it out of context.. its supposed to go “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    They kind of defeating the meaning of this amazing verse….?

  270. Garrett -  March 29, 2011 - 3:05 am

    First, let me write that the Christian Bible was written in Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), and Aramaic (small portion of Daniel). I have given much thought to translation, especially of the Bible. There seem to be two mutually exclusive principles a translator may adopt when performing a translation. One principle is to render the text just as faithfully to the original words as possible. If the original did not specify a gender, then neither should the translation. For example, John 1:4 (King James) reads, “In him was life; and the life was the life of men.” The word for “men”, however, is “anthropon”, which refers to men and women. The word “andron” would have been used for “men”. Thus “people” would have been a better choice to reflect the actual Greek word. The translation need not be literal, but as close to literal as possible and still be readable. This method has a problem. The language and structure and stories are in a context and culture so different from ours that we, reading the same words as the original hearers, are likely to miss the meaning that they would find easy to understand. Have you ever listened to comedy with a teenager? They don’t get the jokes because they don’t remember Watergate. When we read the Bible, we don’t get the jokes because we don’t know the politics of the time. An alternative principle of translation is to try to fold out the text so that the effect of reading the translation on the present reader is similar to the effect of the original on the original hearer. Only the best translators even approach this.

  271. Richard -  March 29, 2011 - 2:51 am

    @ Noah: the irony is that the quote that you posted is, of course, a translation from the Greek the text was originally written in. if you were to argue that the verse means that absolutley nothing can be changed, then there is no point worrying about which English translation to use, because they would all be wrong. thankfully, this has never been the doctrine taken by the mainstream Christian church and there has never been significant issue with translating the words into suitable vernacular (though on occassion it has got caught up in itself and forgotten to do so).

    and this is all quite aside from the questions that could be raised as to whether God had intended John’s words to apply to the whole collection of works we call the Bible, rather than just his own, and if so, which collection he had meant (the Roman Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox and Protestant churchs, for example, all have a slightly different selection of books in their Bibles).

    @ Coldbear: new versions and translations of the Bible are translated almost every year! i’m frankly surprised this article talks about the NIV, seeing as it wa superceeded by Today’s New International Version several years ago. language is massive and sprawling and hugely connected to culture. it is constantly evolving and the age of electronic media and easy international travel only serve to make that evolution occur even quicker. the language of a Bible from 50 years ago will seem as out of date as any other book published at the same time.

    @ John: Moot is quoting a popular urban legend about ignorance and stubbornness in the face of change (hence the speech marks). i believe the earliest versions of the saying (from the 1880s) were ‘if the King James was good enough for St Paul, its good enough for me’, though more recent legends tend to rephrase it as ‘if English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me’ (usually attributed to some southern politician.

  272. aldorr -  March 29, 2011 - 2:46 am

    What some people don’t realize, is that in the creation mythology of Genesis, God is actually a “we”. Our “modern” translation turns the we into a single male entity. Hence the bearded man mythology.
    Translating the bible puts power into the hands of the translators. A stylistic and interpretive power, but also an ability to change words in such a way that allow manipulation of societies. IF the statement were true @Noah (and didn’t just refer to the prophecy in Revelations) then just the act of translation would be a transgression.
    There’s nothing “original” about any translated version of the bible. Saying you like the “original” better, implies that you can read an ancient language and can comprehend the societal implications of that language thousands of years later.
    We are such silly humans. :-)

  273. colbey -  March 29, 2011 - 1:53 am

    it makes me laugh so hard at those who believe the KJV is the “original.” “Jesus used the KJV” — what a hoot!!

    Jesus didn’t use any “Bible.”

    the KJV is a poor translation. it was, of course, politically driven. in that sense, i guess it was “PC” back then. making language that was gender neutral in the hebrew/greek/aramaic gender neutral now is not “being PC.” it’s being accurate.

    apparently,. most people commenting have no idea what these ancient languages were like. or how extremely difficult it is to translate them into english (or any modern language). heck, it’s hard to translate spanish into english without losing the meaning and nuances of the original. how much more difficult is it to translate an ancient, DEAD language?

    for dallasWriter — if the revisionist “hooey” of the KJV hadn’t occurred, you might very well be making as much as the men around right now. the elevation of the masculine gender in the KJV has resulted in our culture’s/society’s diminishment of anything female or feminine. these word choices absolutely have profound consequences.

    but as to the specific question — here’s a translation “error.” in Genesis, it is usually written that god gave “man” “dominion” over the earth. the word translated as “dominion” (way back when) could mean many things in english. (i don’t know ancient hebrew, but i do know ancient greek. ancient greek had about 3000 words total. english has, what….250,000 words?? so how many words in english could that one greek word possibly mean? see the problem?)

    so, back to “dominion.” a careful reading would more accurately translate it as “stewardship.” god wasn’t telling “man” that he could do whatever he wanted with god’s creation….he was telling “man” to take care of it. god put adam and eve in a garden paradise, and, essentially, asked them to be its gardeners. that is a WHOLE lot different than thinking you could just do whatever you wanted with the stuff around you.

    just imagine what a different world this would be, if that one word had been translated differently/correctly.

  274. HoleyMoses -  March 29, 2011 - 1:52 am

    Well, I kinda agree with JC here… but the point is null, really you should all just learn Hebrew and read the Torah like we had to… I mean, I didn’t scorn my brother, channel heavanly plagues to Egypt and cut seas in half, just for some halo-bearing carpenter to abduct the jewish faith… you ain’t cool JC… not cool at all.

  275. JesusChrist -  March 29, 2011 - 1:49 am

    Guys, guys, be cool, of course replacing Man with Mankind would clear up a bunch of political nitpicking amongst people arguing using the bible, but that’s not what it was written for right? My apostles didn’t push their styluses day in and out for some political correctness group to try and retranslate it into a language god only knows how far from hebrew… I think it’s truly important to, given the right situation, have a discrepancy between male and female. I mean, we have marriage and seperate toilets for a reason right?

  276. Mike McKelvy -  March 29, 2011 - 1:20 am

    Just what is the difference between “humanity” and “mankind”? Think about it.

  277. John Norbert -  March 28, 2011 - 9:32 pm

    Has anyone considered replacing “mankind” with a more inclusive and gender-neutral “humankind” ?

  278. charles -  March 28, 2011 - 8:58 pm

    @ Noah
    Re: I feel sorry for the person who screws around with the purity of God’s word.

    I feel sorry for any person who believes in the purity of God’s word…

    Censoring the fundamental foundation of one’s own entire belief system just shows that this book is no less a book of fiction than Harry Potter.

    God’s word shouldn’t change just because a “man or woman” put a pen to it. If it did than God wouldn’t be omniscient.

    If the meaning does still stay the same, but the word themselves are changed, at what point do the two contradict each other? At what point does the meaning itself get lost in translation? Furthermore, if God wanted man to change the bible, he would’ve made it gender neutral to begin with. It makes me wonder who is responsible for creating who?

    @Small Potatoes
    Re: No one is changing the bible….

    You may think that changing a few words (in this case many more) might not change much, but after a short while it will be the meaning of those words that is lost in translation. I think we are long past that point.
    No where in the definition of neutralize is it implied that “nothing changes”.

    Taking a word to mean something its not is exactly why people have a hard time agreeing on anything.

  279. Robert Koch -  March 28, 2011 - 7:15 pm

    Who want to read words and phrases as they are written in the KJV that has not been used sense the 17th century? Do we still ride horses? All that said, I’m not a fan of gender neutral.

  280. Luck in W -  March 28, 2011 - 6:37 pm


    Yes, the English language is changing more rapidly than ever now. I can understand less than half of what is posted on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Mind you, I haven’t made any particular efforts into trying to learn this new language. I’ve got too many other things to do.

  281. Luck in W -  March 28, 2011 - 6:12 pm

    Noah on March 27, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    ” And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”-Revelation 22:19(KJV) I feel sorry for the person who screws around with the purity of God’s word.

    What you have to remember that changing a word or words in an English or any other translation/transcription of God’s word. The original Hebrew and Greek in which the testaments were written cannot be “translated.” word for word. No two languages work that way. I know. I know 3 languages very well, and two others less so.

    Therefore, insisting on the exact translation of a word or insisting on never changing a word once it is translated, only to have the meaning change in that language, is not changing God’s word, only the one that translators found most appropriate at the time of translation.

    One sad thing in English that we can no longer use the word “gay” with impunity. It now and for the near future will mean homosexual, and no longer “carefree and happy.” I see that “booty” is now “vulgar” and I doubt that many people–except for more intellectual types or people like me who study languages–will still remember the original meaning a few years from now, like “gay.”

  282. YHWH -  March 28, 2011 - 4:40 pm

    ” If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”….now THAT’S funny!!

    Re-transcribing the text of the last re-transcribed version of the Bible, which was re-transcribed from the last re-transcribed version of the re-transcribed version before it, in order to either reflect society’s current norms or the current regimes agenda, whatever that may be, does nothing but continue the process of perverting / distorting the work from it’s original form even more.

    Between the translations from language to language; to the selective omission of certain words, phrases, or even entire books; to the changing meanings of words used throughout, will render a work that is as far from it’s original content in another two thousand years as IT is from the work as it existed two thousand years ago…

  283. dhcrystal -  March 28, 2011 - 4:02 pm

    Redefining or rephrasing mythology in terms of contemporary language usage should be a requirement. Words’ use and meanings change over time. To get fixated on the KJV is to bury one’s head in the sand. If the argument is that that was the “true” meaning of God… why is the Bible in English, German, Italian, etc., at all? Maybe it should be in Latin or Aramaic. Adapting to contectually contemporary language makes more sense to me, though, than obsessing over forcing gender neutrality into a historical record that most certainly evolved in a time when gender distinction was a cultural reality.

    The Bible is a historical account of a very small population of people who were educated, had scribes to record their anecdotal histories and decided for themselves that they were the chosen people. How else do you think they would have determined their own self-importance. Today’s Bible is the continued record of the history of those people.

    Imagine the Jews (of that time) writing that the Chosen People were actually the Mongolians (who they knew nothing about). This exclusivity-in-belief-system persists even today with EVERY religion, sect, and denomination believing that they have exclusive entitlement to eternal bliss. I’ve got a Catholic mother-in-law who has never set foot inside of a Protestant church for fear that “they’ll try to convert me.” This same exclusivity mentality is at the heart of billions of deaths through history, a sad commentary on any religion or people who have used their own belief system as an excuse to kill and subjugate other people.

  284. mark v -  March 28, 2011 - 3:44 pm

    The 14th Century Bible is the only REAL bible, just like the only real version of Dungeons and Dragons is 3.5 Pathfinder. 4TH edition ruined it like Henry the 8th.

    ^That is sarcasm to serve the comparasin that if you have a preference toward any specific version, that makes you a Religious Fanboy.

  285. Norm -  March 28, 2011 - 3:31 pm

    @John…you have absolutely no sense of humor.

  286. Reason -  March 28, 2011 - 3:10 pm

    There is no original bible, merely copies of copies of copies of scrolls and papyrus, which is what we use to translate the Word into English. Just because the KJV has been in print for the longest amount of time does not make it the final authority. Not only that, but the bible is meant to be the guide to how to live your life. It matters not what it says so long as the deeper message remains the same.

  287. Summer -  March 28, 2011 - 2:03 pm

    Sorry, the last line is just sort of tagged on there…

    Neutralizing the gender makes sense because it is ambiguous as to whether or not the original Hebrew was referring to an actual “he” when referring to God. Because there is no gender neutral word to show that an entity such as God could be neutral gendered, they had to use either He or She– obviously a male dominated society would choose he. Or Maybe the He is referring to an actual He God, but we really can’t know. So neutralizing gender is no worse than choosing to use masculine gender in the Bible.

  288. Summer -  March 28, 2011 - 2:00 pm

    Sorry, that last line is kind of tagged on there:
    Neutralizing the gender makes sense when the gender in the original text is ambiguous– In Hebrew there is no “it” there is no word to imply gender neutrality, if in the Hebrew language it says “he” that doesn’t mean that the entity it refers to is necessarily a he–the entity could be gender neutral, they just didn’t have a word for that.

  289. Summer -  March 28, 2011 - 1:44 pm

    Re-translating the Bible is important. Not only has our language changed, but the King James Version was not as carefully translated as it will be today. The King James Version is not the “original.” The original is in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew–trying to find the meaning of those original words now does not mean changing the original. The King James Version was a bad translation. Neutralizing the gender makes sense.

  290. Karen -  March 28, 2011 - 1:35 pm

    The KJV is the ONLY version that I believe is the closest to the way God wanted us to read his word. Changing “words” is man’s attempt to change what shouldn’t be changed. God knew a long time ago what today’s language would be like and He chose to have it HIS way.

  291. John -  March 28, 2011 - 1:29 pm

    The KJV Bible was translated in 1611, therefore Jesus wouldn’t have used it…@MOOT

  292. coldbear -  March 28, 2011 - 1:28 pm

    Has the English language changed that much that we need to revise the Bible every twenty to fifty years?

  293. MOOT -  March 28, 2011 - 12:23 pm

    ” If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.”

  294. DallasWriter -  March 28, 2011 - 12:15 pm

    It’s unfortunate that the greater spiritual lessons are lost in the nonsense of a pointless exercise in political correctness. This is even more sadly wrongheaded than replacing The N Word with “slave” in Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which will render much of that book into complete nonsense (I read a suggestion somewhere to instead just slap a “parental advisory” sticker on it; works for rap music).

    All of this revisionist hooey shows that neither of these “movements” toward equality have made much real progress. I’d be much happier if the effort toward gender-neutrality were applied instead to my salary. As a woman, according to studies, I’d get quite a raise!

    And while I initially thought of “mankind” to replace “man” as well, it doesn’t take much more than a cursory look at the word to see that those who find “man” offensive won’t be happier with “kind” tacked onto it.

  295. Small Potatoes -  March 28, 2011 - 11:55 am

    @ Noah-
    No one is changing the bible. The bible stays the same. It is our language that is always changing and evolving. Making a substitution like “spoils of war” for “booty” is just a way to adapt to our modern vocabulary. Translation is never exact and these changes are simply attempts at finding the best and most accurate translation for our modern language.
    I’m unsure about the gender neutral changes, however. These seem unnecessary…

  296. JJ Rousseau -  March 28, 2011 - 10:12 am

    What is or ain’t in the BIBLE — matters not who may be sued for libel. — As JC might have said what was once still is read — But there’s always a buck in Revival. JJ

  297. MOOT -  March 28, 2011 - 9:59 am

    Man cannot live by bread alone….obvisouly means all mankind. Anyone who dosen’t get that should get a life. PC is such a time waster.

  298. AmateurCommenter-924 -  March 28, 2011 - 9:07 am

    Isn’t the word “connation” in paragraph six supposed to be “connotation”? Anyway, they should still keep selling the original Bible even if they change the words in some. I like the original better.

  299. Trisha -  March 28, 2011 - 7:34 am

    It’s getting better. Now how about replacing man with mankind?

  300. J. Howard -  March 28, 2011 - 6:19 am

    Why is it so offensive to recognize the differences between men and women? Men and women are very complimentary to eachother. :/

  301. Alex Madjarov -  March 27, 2011 - 10:41 pm

    The best way to modernize the bible is to get rid of the whole thing and start all over. If you remove the genocide, slavery, unicorns, zombies, talking snakes, misogyny, lies, infanticide, deceit and other less-than-nice elements, you’d barely have anything left.

  302. Noah -  March 27, 2011 - 10:26 pm

    ” And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”-Revelation 22:19(KJV) I feel sorry for the person who screws around with the purity of God’s word.

  303. Gringgo -  March 27, 2011 - 10:13 pm

    thank you..


Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required):

Related articles

Back to Top