• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Gender-neutral Versions

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
Actually, for males pretending to be females, the eunuch is an appropriate analogy. A eunuch is castrated. A male transitioning to fake female is also castrated. Similar to how females trying to become male.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
involving the non-medical removal or injury of external female genitalia, is frequently cited as the female equivalent of castration due to the severe, permanent damage caused.

Androgyne is a non-binary gender identity in which one is simultaneously a man/masculine and a woman/feminine, or in between the two.
But the discussion is not able to be included in the text given.
who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Instead I would say that this passage describes them better.

Romans 1:24-27
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
What concerns me is that would also exclude children :eek:
Understood properly, it excludes animals, angels, plants and other dust that may not be classified or called what God created when He made man as male and female.

This is like saying that protecting women’s sports doesn’t include schools where children attend. Not only is it not intended to be that way, it makes me wonder what the motivation is for people who play with the language to make it what it is not.
It is possible that some people don’t understand that man is a name for mankind and humanity.

a
(1): an individual human
especially : an adult male human
(2): a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation)

—usually used in combination
councilman


b
: the human race : HUMANKIND

Merriam Webster’s dictionary.


The same inclusive definition made it into the dictionary twice in the first two definitions in a modern dictionary.
Why do we ignore them?
Are children not gendered or people until they are adults??

I think to be stumbling over gender inclusion is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
 

Ben1445

Well-Known Member
KEY WORD - Intended !
Surely you don’t think that the so called “non-inclusive” translations intended to leave out women and children?

I don’t think we disagree here but you are not giving me much to go on.

This is another reason I prefer in person discussions. Voice inflections, facial expressions, and body language do so much for conversation that text alone doesn’t.

To summarize, I think the translators intended the inclusion of all people in the word man or men in the examples given.
I don’t see a need to change that given that it is still a very widespread and acceptable definition of man.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Surely you don’t think that the so called “non-inclusive” translations intended to leave out women and children?

I don’t think we disagree here but you are not giving me much to go on.

This is another reason I prefer in person discussions. Voice inflections, facial expressions, and body language do so much for conversation that text alone doesn’t.

To summarize, I think the translators intended the inclusion of all people in the word man or men in the examples given.
I don’t see a need to change that given that it is still a very widespread and acceptable definition of man.
2 main reasons for the translation such as NRSv and new Niv would be that they wanted to try to get men and women as having same roles and positions, and to try to undercut alleged male Parochialism of the OT
 
Top