No, I didn’t find you making the sort of arguments I was taking direct issue with in my comment. What I want to do is point out the errors on the extreme side, and then work our way back. We agree a lot more with each other than either one of us would with Fiorenza for instance. Perhaps it would be one thing to translate Scripture in a way to make it more explicit when women are included, but wouldn’t we start down a slipper slope by admitting even this much? While it might not cause direct harm to the text, if you will, doesn’t it still further erroneous thinking? If there is a necessity to make the text more explicit here, shouldn’t we likewise make other texts more explicit as well? If we do not, aren’t we stopping short somehow? Instead of causing further harm to the English language by adding more confusion, why not correct the errors being held today. While I might agree that there might not be any direct harm in the new mode of translation to which you refer would be acceptable, I do believe that there is harm being done nonetheless.

First of all, congrats on baby #3! That is more than exciting, and I rejoice with you. I’ll pray that baby and mother come through everything just fine. Glory to God!

Second, the problems that you associate with feminists and their sympathizers, do you see those plaguing my position? You’ve pointed out some generalities, but I don’t see those within my presentation. In fact, I’ve tried to take lengths to ensure that theology and ancient culture and not disrupted by such translations, but emphasizing that where both men and women are included, there is no harm in making that explicit.

One of the best realities of a dead language is that it will be more likely to be understood in the exact same way across time and place. A living language already suffers from being overly subject to differing interpretations and changes.

I believe that the sensitivities of mostly feminists and those who are sympathetic to their concerns with the use of language are misguided. Instead of changing the way we speak by modernizing the text to include gender inclusive language, why not take greater care at instructing *man* to read the text in a more educated way? Otherwise, we are going to progressively cause greater harm than good in modernizing every important text written prior to this newfound great modernist sensitivity. Are we not inadvertently impugning the characters of our *forefathers* as a bunch of misogynists to our children and later generations because today we find such language insensitive to women? Isn’t it a real possibility that no matter what our intentions are, future generations might perceive us as righting a wrong where no true injury had been made?

Are there particulars where you disagree with me? I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Thanks for dropping by!

i asked myself do unbelievers have love? yes. but only human love.

Human love is difficult to compare to God’s love, who in human form can truely know the dimensions of God’s love?

We can only know God’s love through the Holy Spirit in us as Christians. Basically, God’s love in us.

…makes me smile….