Why "pregnant" doesn't cut it...

> the "uglification" of language.

Fetus -- now there's another ugly word for you.

This level of linguistic decay cannot be attributed merely to the malignancy of modernity. To refer to the Blessed Virgin as pregnant constitutes sacraliege.

Tim,

I agree with you here. But, isn't this a "dynamic equivalence" problem --in short, a problem with the whole translation theory behind the NIV itself? Thus, we can substitute equivalent terms and phrases if it makes it more understandable, etc.

I hate dynamic equivalence. True, every translation adds words --a necessary thing in getting from Greek to English. The KJV and NAS indicate added words --I wish the ESV did! The NIV adds and completely changes words and phrases, which is a problem with the whole translation.

It seems to me the updates just continue in this Scripture-distorting tradition.

>Of course she was pregnant.

Dogs are often pregnant. They are never with child.

Two comments.

First, as a matter of fact, "with child" is a more accurate rendering of the Greek than "pregnant." Unless, of course, we are not seeking to bring the meaning of the words in the original into the receptor language. We can slice and dice the meaning of the Greek original to such a point that it doesn't matter if the mother possessing a man in her guts isn't something we want to communicate, despite the fact that the Holy Spirit chose to communicate it, but then we're not seeking dynamic equivalence, even; but rather, reduction of meaning. More on this later, I hope, from Joshua Congrove.

Second, I said to a Bible publisher two days ago that it would be a wooden dynamic equivalence that, in principle, forswore ever rendering Hebrew and Greek words into English with the goal of instruction by words as well as by concepts. Even if I were sold on dynamic equivalence, I see no reason those of us who still hold to the plenary inspiration of Scripture would seek to communicate concepts and doctrines entirely foreign to our receptor group, but would renounce the use of archaic or entirely new words, themselves, helping our cause.

If we expect our readers to learn new concepts (like Original Sin, for example) through a patching together of common words being used to compose phrases and sentences, there's no reason those new concepts can't be learned, also, by new words which better communicate those concepts (like Original Sin).

If they're going to be introduced to new concepts, why not use new words, also? Can't the learning of new words be part of the learning of new concepts? Propitiation, anyone?

And, of course, that's what the Hebrew 'adam' always used for mankind in the Old Testament actually does. It communicates itself--the word 'adam' being used for the race--that in that one man, Adam, we all died. All of us. Young and old. Man and woman. The human race. Adam. Man.

Every male inclusive inspired by the Holy Spirit (and there are thousands of them in Scripture) teaches the federal headship of Adam. Not Eve, though she sinned first. And not AdamEve, though they both sinned.

Adam. Man. Brother.

See, the problem isn't that archaic or unknown words can't be used to teach archaic or unknown doctrines. It's that we refuse to allow it. And it's my own opinion that we refuse to allow it because all of us have turned away from the evangelical doctrine of Scripture to Neo-Orthodoxy. We not longer believe it's the words and not simply the concepts behind the words that the Holy Spirit inspired. Instead, we believe we know better how to communicate the Holy Spirit's concepts than He does Himself. He needs some help because He couldn't have anticipated how offensive "Jews" rather than "Jewish leaders" would have been in our post-Shoah world. He couln't have foreseen how objectionable--how unhelpful, really--it would be to name the race 'man' would be in our post-feminist world.

So we'll keep the concepts intact (largely), but change the words.

But of course, anyone else noticed how intact we've kept the headship of Adam over Eve? In our churches? In the anchors of our networks' news shows? In our courts? In our squad cars? In our homes? Marriages? Pulpits? Session meetings?

The men who are doing this are wicked. They are destroying the words because they want, or are willing to be complicit in, the destruction of the doctrines.

Truth is, what we're doing with the words themselves gives the lie to our claims of faithfulness to the doctrines behind the words. Today, we don't believe in or teach or preach Adam's federal headship or Original Sin or the imputation of Adam's sin to the race or Eve's deception and weakness.

So who's going to object to the words bearing those doctrines being altered?

We've gotten rid of the doctrines, so now it's time to rid ourselves of the words, also.