Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 10/6/83; site ihuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1
From: rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (Ray)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: You gotta be kidding.....
Message-ID: <574@ihuxi.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Oct-83 18:56:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.574
Posted: Sun Oct 16 18:56:07 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Oct-83 23:38:05 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 38



	Starting Nov. 27, many congregations (which ones I don't
	know) will be using revised versions of the Revised Standard
	Version of the Bible. Why? Because, and get this, of a
	desire to use "non-sexist, inclusive" language.
	If this don't beat anything I've ever heard of!!

	I can't believe that some people will turn even the Bible
	into a thing of "discrimination" against the sexes...

	Explaining the changes, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Prof.
	of English at William Paterson College of New Jersey in
	Wayne, said:
	   "The language currently used in most churches transmits
	a patriarchal, male-dominance model."

	One of the changes would be in Genesis 2, changing "man" as in
	"It is not good that man be alone.", to "It is not good that
	the *HUMAN BEING* should be alone; I will make a companion
	corresponding to the creature [ not'I will make him a helper
	fit for him']."

	Another change is Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane
	and saying "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass
	from me" would change to "God, my Father and my Mother, if 
	it be possible..."

	Another and probably the most absurd would change: "This is
	my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" to read "This
	is my beloved *CHILD*, with whom I am well pleased."

	It is my opinion that these people are in grave error by
	these actions and only tend to weaken the basic theme
	of the Scriptures.....

	Ray,
	ihuxi!rcj1