Cleaning up Scripture's patriarchy, anti-Semitism, homophobia, speciesism...

I had the exact same question. I could see "effeminate" as being removed from ESV, and can only conclude that by doing so, they are making a case against "homophobia", as in (excuse my simplicity), if a man acts like a woman, don't freak out and think he's homosexual. Am I on the right track, or am I missing a bigger point?

Also, as a bit of a sidenote questions, a friend of ours pointed out that 1 John 1:4 ESV translated "your joy" as "our joy", though his look-up in the Greek showed it could only be "your". He says he keeps running across, as he puts it, "all these dumb little word changes...it could be full of them". So how big of a deal is all of this? I've tried to read through all the ESV stuff and understand the history of it, but I'm getting lost in what I don't know. Oh, well. The search for a proper translation continues...

>>Am I on the right track, or am I missing a bigger point?

You're not on the right track. You're right on the money. Where the Word of God uses two words to refer to two different sexual perversions and we, in the midst of the largest sodomy-legitimizing movement in history, truncate the two into one, I blush to point out the obvious: this truncating is not innocent, nor is it an effort to be more clear than the original Greek the Holy Spirit inspired.

The motivation is obfuscation--not clarity--and the footnote is salving bad consciences.

Love,

Here are the words pertaining to homosexuality (and corresponding footnotes) from the three Bible versions that referred to:

NLT - practice homosexuality

NIV - men who have sex with men
(and corresponding footnote -- The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.)

ESV - nor men who practice homosexuality
(and corresponding footnote -- The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts)

Tim, is the issue you have with the terms used above is that they seem to infer that homosexual behavior is sinful but homosexual orientation is not necessarily so?

Thanks,

Sue

>>Tim, is the issue you have with the terms used above is that they seem to infer that homosexual behavior is sinful but homosexual orientation is not necessarily so?

Sure, that would be one criticism that's valid. But my basic criticism is that translators are removing a word with a specific meaning from God's Word--a word God Himself inspired. This is precisely what God forbids. If He says it, translate it. Period.

If we find the expression offensive today, try to imagine how offensive it was when the Apostle Paul first used it. And I do hope no one is so clueless as to try to tell me that translators pulling it from their Bible products had nothing to do with it being offensive. Wake up, people! We can't even say "sodomy" or "sodomite" any more, and you think these translators yanked God's word from God's Word because they wanted to do a better job of communicating what God inspired, there?

Get real.

So, Sue, I hope that gives you more understanding of my concern with the patronization of the people of God by today's Bible scholars. They can't trust us with what God actually said.

Love,

Check out the appendix at the bottom of the page:

http://www.robgagnon.net/HeidelbergCatechismRetranslation.htm

Love,

David, Tim, and the Rev. Jones:

Thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant about the translation issues. I haven't read a KJV or RSV Bible since I was confirmed, and only know a little about the NASB because it was the Bible used at a Bible study I attended in college.

That's why the NLT, NIV, and ESV translations (in addition to the NRSV) didn't seem unusual to me.

>>Recheck the NLT in 1 Cor 6:9. It does not render the two Greek words as one. There are two phrases, one for each word.

The ESV is the one that truncates it to one--not the NLT.

>>The NLT translates "effeminate" as "are male prostitutes". Seems a lot stronger--and somewhat redundant since it also says "who practice homosexuality".

But even considering the NLT, the translation is terrible. "Male prostitutes" does not indicate sodomy. It could as easily be a gigolo. The translation removes the meaning of softness and being on the receiving end of the equation, replacing affect and identity with something entirely different: a man who gives sex for money.

Love,