Featured Words with baggage

We see several places in scripture where people are made "whiter than snow," or "white as snow." I wonder how non-caucasian looking people, might react to the idea that white is good or pure, but darker tones are blemished?

Should we translate such "outdated cultural depictions" as "pristine as snow?

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, and let us debate your case,”
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are as scarlet,
They shall become as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be like wool.

Here the translation could read "as pristine as snow" and avoid what might be seen as Eurocentric?

Matthew 28:3
And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.

Here the translation could read "as pristine as fresh snow."

The real question is whether this alteration is going too far to become all things to all people so that we may win some?

 

Many believers have seen wisdom in being inclusive in our language. With the history of light skinned people enslaving darker skinned people, and with all the tribalism advocates claiming "we" are in the right and "they" are in the wrong, inclusiveness seems necessary. On the other hand, putting our best foot forward might be taking our first step down the road of misrepresentation.

Clearly using gender inclusive language, when both genders were intended, is valid. Using pristine when white is used figuratively for purity also seems valid.

Is anyone aware of other terms that miss the mark of conveying inclusivity when intended?

 

White as snow or whiter than snow is used to present the idea of purity not whiteness. Thus translating the intended message seems important. Ditto for when masculine words are used to convey people of either gender. Using words with baggage that might be misconstrued seems unnecessary. Snow in its fresh or just fallen state is white, but we have all seen a pile of plowed snow beside a road that is brown as mud. Thus as pristine as fresh snow conveys purity.

I guess it comes back to the idea of translating the word's meaning as determined from context, or being aware of the danger of falling into root fallacy translation. Certainly sound arguments on both sides.

 

If a word is used figuratively rather than literally, which meaning should the translators use to translate "accurately?" When fields are said to be "white" does it not mean like a cotton field with lots of white balls of cotton, or does it refer to the change to a lighter tone when the grain is ripe for harvest. Should the verse be more accurately translated to reflect the actual intended meaning, the fields are ripe for harvest?

When I was growing up, at the back of our Pastor's podium was the baptistry, and above that a stain class window of Jesus with blue eyes, looking very much a white man. Later in life I came across a book explaining that the mark of Cain was black skin. It has apparently been written to defend slavery in the south by "Baptists." People use ambiguity to pour false doctrine into God's pristine word.

On the other hand I like the term whitewashed which conveys covering over sin with the appearance of purity, by hypocrites.

 

The idea is to translate the intended message. Thus if white is used figuratively to present purity, then "as pristine as fresh snow" conveys the idea with less ambiguity. The problem you are attempting to attribute to me is changing the intended message by redefining the meaning of the word or phrase according to today's usage. However, many believe the inspired writers used "white" to convey unsoiled purity, like our souls rendered as pristine as fresh snow.

Do you understand why many famous black athletes reject Christianity and embrace Islam? Could the implication that white is good and black is bad play a part in hindering Christ's ministry? How should we address it?

 

Once again you falsely claim translation according to intended meaning is "changing the words." Nuff said

 

Snippet from Internet:

Why did people like Muhammed Ali and Malcolm X convert to Islam?
Christianity in much of Black America was - and sometimes still is - seen as a White man's religion. Muhammad Ali and Malcolm were at the peak of their fame during the civil rights era, in the 60s, when African Americans were trying to force the American public to see their struggles and support the fight for ending racial segregation, with its degrading second class status for African Americans. ​

 

So ;you believe misrepresenting others advances the cause of Christ?

Is the intended message to say Christ's hair is pristine as wool? Why present such absurdities?

Your posts are nonsense, as usual, and I hope you stop trying to derail biblical discussion.

 

Notice the ploy of charging me with a false charge?

Next using words that have less baggage is never addressed as a means of improving Christ's ministry.

People rejecting Christianity is said to be a non-problem and we should not attempt to fix it. Such a view is unbiblical. We are to strive to become more effective witnesses for Christ.

 

How would you know what is in the minds of those who see Christianity as a white man's religion. You have no clue, yet you posted as if you had specific knowledge. You do know what God thinks of those who fabricate.

Did I say the passage was about race? Nope. Why not address what I said?

Do you ever ask yourself why you attribute ulterior motives to others, rather than address their actual views?