New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language

Oh my goodness!!!

Why don’t these mental retards just grab a stick from their back yard, sit on a stump, and begin to dig a hole (with the little stick). Then, once the hole is fairly large, they can take that same little stick (or a new one if the old one breaks) and begin filling the hole back up. They can then repeat this exercise until the day they die; taking only food and bathroom breaks… If they do this, they will have accomplished something; which is a whole lot more than what they’re currently accomplishing . And – they may just end up in heaven for their efforts!

Are you freaking kidding me??? Are Americans really this stupid??? TGO

Refer to story below. Source: Associated Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – In the old translation of the world’s most popular Bible, John the Evangelist declares: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar.” Make that “brother or sister” in a new translation that includes more gender-neutral language and is drawing criticism from some conservatives who argue the changes can alter the theological message.

The 2011 translation of the New International Version Bible, or NIV, does not change pronouns referring to God, who remains “He” and “the Father.” But it does aim to avoid using “he” or “him” as the default reference to an unspecified person.

The NIV Bible is used by many of the largest Protestant faiths. The translation comes from an independent group of biblical scholars that has been meeting yearly since 1965 to discuss advances in biblical scholarship and changes in English usage.

Before the new translation even hit stores, it drew opposition from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.

The council decided it would not endorse the new version because the changes alter “the theological direction and meaning of the text,” according to a statement. Similar concerns led the Southern Baptist Convention to reject the NIV’s previous translation in 2005.

At issue is how to translate pronouns that apply to both genders in the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts but have traditionally been translated using masculine forms in English.

An example from the translator’s notes for Mark 4:25 to show how the NIV’s translation of these words has evolved over the past quarter-century.

The widely distributed 1984 version of the NIV quotes Jesus: “Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.”

The more recent incarnation of the NIV from 2005, called Today’s New International Version, changed that to: “Those who have will be given more; as for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

The CBMW had complained in 2005 that making the subject of a verse plural to convey that it could refer equally to a man or a woman “potentially obscured an important aspect of biblical thought — that of the personal relationship between an individual and God.”

The NIV 2011 seems to have taken that criticism into account and come up with a compromise: “Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

While the translators’ former grammar teachers may not like it, the translators offer a strong justification for their choice of “they” (instead of the clunky “he or she”) and “them” (instead of “him or her”) to refer back to the singular “whoever.”

They commissioned an extensive study of the way modern English writers and speakers convey gender inclusiveness. According to the translators’ notes on the Committee on Bible Translation’s website, “The gender-neutral pronoun ‘they’ (‘them’/'their’) is by far the most common way that English-language speakers and writers today refer back to singular antecedents such as ‘whoever,’ ‘anyone,’ ‘somebody,’ ‘a person,’ ‘no one,’ and the like.”

Randy Stinson, president of the CBMW and dean of the School of Church Ministries at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the changes are especially important to evangelicals.

“Evangelicals believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture. We believe every word is inspired by God, not just the broad thought,” he said.

So if the original text reads “brothers” — even if that word in the original language is known to mean “brothers and sisters” (such as the Hebrew “achim” or Spanish word “hermanos”) — many evangelicals believe the English translation should read “brothers.”

Stinson said a notes section would be the best place to point out that the original word could be read to include men and women.

It’s not yet known if the Southern Baptist Convention will reject the new translation the way it did the 2005 version. The nation’s largest Protestant denomination still sells the 1984 translation in its stores. If it chooses to condemn the new version, that would happen at its national convention in June.

The publisher says the NIV 2011 will replace both the 1984 and 2005 versions.

Even while panning the new translation, the CBMW thanked the Committee on Bible Translation for being open about the process they used to develop it. That included taking comments from all sides of the gender debate.

And the new version doesn’t always use gender neutral language. It takes reader sensibility into account by not using inclusive terms for some of the most familiar verses where that might sound jarring. For instance, Matthew 4:4 is rendered, “‘Man shall not live on bread alone.”

That’s a change from the TNIV, where the same phase read, “People do not live on bread alone.”

“I think that clause has entered into standard English,” translator Douglas Moo explained of the move back to the more traditional “man.” “People know it who don’t know the Bible.”

Moo said the translators hope that the phrasing of the new NIV is so natural that the average reader won’t be aware of any of the gender language concerns that are debated by biblical scholars and linguists.

The group’s website says its goal is “to articulate God’s unchanging Word in the way the original authors might have said it if they had been speaking in English to the global English-speaking audience today.”

While the change to the generic “man” in verses like Matthew 4:4 is applauded by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, linguist Joel M. Hoffman, author of “And God Said — How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning,” said it is simply incorrect.

“‘Anthropos’ (the Greek word in the original text) means ‘person,’ plain and simple,” he said. “It’s as much a mistake as translating ‘parent’ as ‘father.’”

He doesn’t buy the argument that “man” is understood in English to refer to men and women.

“If you walk into a church on Sunday morning and say, ‘Will every man stand up?’ I would be shocked if the women stood up, too.”

___

Online:

Biblica NIV official site: http://www.biblica.com/niv/

Committee on Bible Translation: http://www.niv-cbt.org/

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: http://www.cbmw.org/

Gaddafi orders storm of Benghazi; U.N. meets

What a bunch of deadbeat losers these members of the United Nations are! All they do is meet and talk, meet and talk; much talk but no action – typical of politicians. Meanwhile, that scummy buffoon Gaddafi continues to have has way.

It’s no wonder this world is all f*cked up. The good guys are too worried about public perception and political correctness while the bad guys play without rules. And naturally, it’s those caught in the middle (the insignificant masses) who are getting screwed. It’s all rather sickening! TGO

Refer to story below. Source: Reuters

By Maria Golovnina and Patrick Worsnip Maria Golovnina And Patrick Worsnip

TRIPOLI/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi warned the rebel stronghold of Benghazi he would storm the city in the night showing no mercy, while the United Nations moved toward a resolution allowing air strikes to stop him.

“We will come zenga, zenga. House by house, room by room,” he said in a radio address to the eastern city.

Thousands of residents of Benghazi gathered in a central square, waving anti-Gaddafi tricolour flags and chanting defiance of the man who has ruled the country for four decades.

“It’s over. The issue has been decided,” Gaddafi said, offering pardon to those who lay down their arms. “We are coming tonight…We will have no mercy and no pity with them.”

Gaddafi’s troops, far better armed than the rebels, appeared to be still at least 100 km (60 miles) from Benghazi and it was unclear if his threat to seize and purge the city in the night was anything more than bluster. But Thursday saw three air raids on the city, residents and a rebel spokesman said.

The threats, at the very least, raise the sense that a decisive moment had come in an month-old uprising inspired by rebellions against autocratic rule elsewhere in the Arab world.

The United Nations Security Council was preparing to vote on Thursday night on a resolution, backed by Western and Arab powers, that could open the way for air strikes to protect civilians from retribution by the man who has ruled Libya for four decades.

The draft, obtained by Reuters, submitted by France, Britain and Lebanon, would authorize a no-fly zone and ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians under threat.

NO OCCUPATION

It ruled out any “occupation force”; a nod both to Arab sensitivities and to Western capitals such as London and Washington already chastened by involvement in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“We are very concerned about the situation in Libya and the violence that is being perpetrated by the Gaddafi regime against its people,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

“We are acting with a great sense of urgency together with our international partners to take the kinds of actions that we believe will protect Libyan citizens and move toward a situation where Gaddafi is no longer in power,” he said.

Paris believes there is enough support to pass the resolution, scheduled for 2200 GMT. Military intervention could follow within hours, a senior French diplomatic source said.

Gaddafi’s Defense Ministry warned of swift retaliation if the United Nations Security Council, meeting in emergency session Thursday evening, triggered military action proposed by Arab states and Western powers.

“Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military (facilities) will become targets of Libya’s counter-attack,” the ministry said in a statement.

Any action could include France, Britain, possibly the United States, the source said. Diplomats told Reuters between two and five Arab countries may join the military action.

TIDE IN MIDDLE EAST

Gaddafi, famously labeled the ‘mad dog of the Middle East’ by U.S. president Ronald Reagan in 1986, has described the rebels as dogs, rats and foreign agents.

International diplomacy has moved slowly as Gaddafi’s troops have cracked down hard on an uprising inspired by the overthrow of authoritarian leaders in Tunis and Cairo as well as mass protests in Bahrain.

Libyan state television said government troops had taken Zueitina, an oil port on the coastal highway 130 km (80 miles) from Benghazi, but the rebels said they had surrounded the pro-Gaddafi units on the approaches to the town.

Residential areas of Ajdabiyah, a strategic town on the coast road to Benghazi, was the scene of heavy fighting on Thursday and around 30 people were killed, Al Arabiya reported.

On the approaches to Ajdabiyah, burned-out cars lay by the roadside while Libyan government forces showed the foreign media artillery, tanks and mobile rocket launchers — much heavier weapons than those used by the rebels.

In Libya’s third city, Misrata, about 200 km (130 miles) east of Tripoli, rebels and residents said they were preparing for a new attack by Libyan troops, who had shelled the coastal city overnight. A government spokesman said Gaddafi’s forces expected to be in control of Misrata by Friday morning.

Russia, China, Germany, India and other council members have voiced doubts about the proposal for a no-fly zone, but comment from Paris suggest they might abstain rather than vote against. Italy, a potential base for military action, ruled out military intervention in the oil-exporting country.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid out the case for removing Gaddafi in a televised question and answer program with Tunisians.

“Tunisia knows very well that if Gaddafi does not go, he will most likely cause trouble for you, for Egypt and for everybody else. That is just his nature. You know, there are some creatures that are like that,” she said.

(Additional reporting by a Reuters reporter in Benghazi, Michael Georgy in Tripoli, Mariam Karouny and Tarek Amara in Tunisia, Louis Charbonneau and Patrick Worsnip at the United Nations; Writing by Ralph Boulton; Editing by Louise Ireland)

The Palin Implosion

How anyone considered Sarah Palin to be a serious contender for the presidency in 2012 is beyond me. She has little experience, is way too far to the right and just doesn’t project being a “heavy hitter.” To make an analogy, it’s like Pee-Wee Herman playing the role of leading man in a major Hollywood production.

Although I must admit, she is a doll. I certainly wouldn’t mind watching her on television for 4 years. TGO

Refer to story below. Source: The Daily Beast

John Avlon John Avlon Thu Mar 17, 8:00 am ET

Image via Wikipedia

NEW YORK – Sarah Palin has gone from the most divisive figure in politics to the most polarizing within the GOP. John Avlon on the polls that show her path to the nomination keeps getting steeper.

Call off the coronation—the media’s caught on to the slow motion implosion of Sarah Palin’s popularity, and with it her prospective presidential campaign.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that Palin’s approval ratings among Republicans had declined by double digits since October, while her “strongly unfavorable” rating reached 17 percent among the GOP and 28 percent among Republican-leaning independents. This shift in the conservative populist tide provoked a series of memorable (and frankly enviable) headlines like “The Incredible Shrinking Sarah Palin” from Politico and other outlets.

But the real story is the continued erosion of support for Sarah Palin. By the end of her three-month stint as John McCain’s VP nominee, 59 percent of American voters believed that Sarah Palin was not ready for the job, and 47 percent of self-described centrists said they were actually less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin’s presence on the ticket.

There was no doubt that she was beloved by the conservative base, but one year after the election, with Palin acting as voice of the opposition, 63 percent of Americans already said that they would “not seriously consider” her for president.

By April 2010, even 47 percent of Tea Party supporters said that Sarah Palin would not “have the ability to be an effective president”—while only 40 percent believed she would. At the height of Tea Party enthusiasm, Palin’s conservative populist base was saying “thanks, but no thanks” to a prospective presidential campaign. It was a judgment call by the people who knew her best.

Sarah Palin runs the risk of being little more than the thinking man’s Michele Bachmann.

But media fascination with Palin helped prop her up by keeping her in the public eye and in the 2012 consideration set. Her Tweets and Facebook posts made news, aiding her promotions for books and a reality TV show. Her undeserved omnipresence prompted comedian, Sirius radio host and fellow CNN contributor Pete Dominick to propose the “Sarah Palin Sneeze Rule”—a protest against shoe-horning her into political segments virtually every time she sneezed.

Beneath the enabled self-promotion was a startling lack of preparation for a serious presidential campaign. Quitting her job as the governor of Alaska after 32-months, certainly gave Palin the opportunity to cash in on her notoriety but it also gave her the opportunity to begin studying for the presidency. But she has so far declined to build the defined outlines of a campaign apparatus or participate in the usual conservative cattle calls like CPAC. One year’s absence could be seen as strategic, three years starts to look like a snub.

A revealing Des Moines Register poll from late last month found that likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers who had a “very favorable” opinion of Palin declined from 27 percent to 18 percent since November ‘09—while her “very unfavorable” numbers doubled from 5 to 10 percent. This trend is not her friend.

In the next primary stop, New Hampshire, Palin fares even less well. Fully 50 percent of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters view her unfavorably, according to a Granite State poll this February while only 33 percent view her favorably.

Any hope of avoiding a negative narrative tidal wave at this stage would have to come from a victory in conservative South Carolina or delegate-rich Florida. But Palin’s overall numbers are upside down in both states, with disapproval ratings in the high-fifties and approval ratings in the mid-thirties.

Even in John McCain’s home state of Arizona, Sarah Palin is trailing President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 general election match-up, 49 percent to 41 percent.

The clear portrait that emerges is of a conservative populist icon who has chosen celebrity over statesmanship, and is being judged accordingly. Palin has gone from being the most polarizing figure in American politics to an increasingly polarizing figure within the Republican Party. She was never likely to win a general election, but now there are statistical reasons to seriously doubt her ability to win the presidential nomination.

“She went from being a political figure to being a celebrity—all of which kept her popular. But in the course of those two years she added no substance,” says Ed Rollins, the legendary Republican campaign manager who traces his career from Reagan ‘84 to Huckabee ‘08. “People now judge her against other players in the next campaign—they might like her personally but think that she’s less serious, less ready to be president. Is that irreversible? Maybe not. But her books aren’t selling—the last one bombed.”

“Sarah Palin’s numbers may be falling due to overexposure,” concurred nationally syndicated columnist and National Review Contributing Editor Deroy Murdock. “Also, and more important, she unfortunately seems to spend more time in the great outdoors with cable-TV cameras than in the great indoors with books and research papers on the serious issues that face this country and our world. Rather than well-reasoned policy addresses, she gives us breathless ‘tweets.’ Palin is charismatic and easily draws a crowd. She would have a lot more to offer, however, if it were not for her unbearable lightness of being.”

It’s tempting to say that if Sarah Palin planned to side-step a 2012 presidential campaign all along, she has played her hand well. But the truth is that she has emerged from the past two and a half years considerably diminished. Palin is not taken seriously as presidential material, even by her fellow populist conservatives. In part, her support seems to have been eaten up by a more seasoned social conservative, Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa last time around. Palin’s schtick has spawned a legion of imitators who now compete to claim her mantle as the person most likely to inflame the base with calculated irresponsibility. Some of these pretenders may even be considering a run for president themselves. It’s a sobering prospect when you consider the full Republican field. Sarah Palin runs the risk of being little more than the thinking man’s Michele Bachmann.

John Avlon’s new book Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America is available now by Beast Books both on the Web and in paperback. He is also the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics and a CNN contributor. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Palestinian man attacked in Israeli settlement

These are crazy people; nothing but crazy people, made crazy by religion and their respective hatred toward one another. TGO

Refer to brief story below. Source: Associated Press

JERUSALEM – A Palestinian man says he was attacked by masked men inside a Jewish West Bank settlement.

Palestinian laborer Sami Snobar says at least eight Hebrew-speaking men approached him at a construction site where he was working Thursday and asked him what he was doing there.

He says he was hit on the head and body with a construction tool and a cinder block, and also sprayed. Snobar spoke from a Palestinian hospital. The incident took place in the Shiloh settlement.

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld says two Palestinian laborers and a Jewish man were attacked on Thursday with a screwdriver and pepper spray before fleeing. He says the motive was unclear.

There have been multiple cases of violence against Palestinians since five members of a settler family were killed over the weekend.

Picture of the Day

Those big brown eyes… TGO