Don't mess with the Bible PITA

I'd hate to see what a "Animal Friendly" Bible would look like

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/23/peta-dont-call-animals-it-in-the-bible/?hpt=C2

LOL... "speciesist language." More proof that these people have totally lost touch with reality.

I'm going to throw something out here:

In ancient Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, there is no such thing as a neuter word. (i.e. "it"). All nouns and pronouns are either 'he' or 'she'. There is no 'it'.

For example in Jonah 1:17 the "great fish" is masculine. (i.e. "great male fish"). Then, after it has swallowed the prophet, the fish humorously becomes a female fish in 2:1 (i.e. "female fish") because it is metaphorically "pregnant" with the prophet. The fish, however, reverts back to a male fish in 2:10 when it vomits Jonah onto dry land, because it's no longer carrying him.

So does this mean that we should call the fish a "he" or "she" instead of an it? By no means! Ancient Hebrew had no neuter word, but it did have a clear distinction between animal and human life. Humans, not animals, were created in the image of God. Hebrew pronouns did not implicitly bestow personhood on an object. English words do.

From a theological and English grammatical perspective animals cannot be "he" or "she" because they are not persons. They should be cared for and treated humanely, but by no means placed on the same level as people.

Well said, Nathan. I think this part of the article spoke volumes as well:

Jeffery said he sympathizes and agrees with PETA's position that God calls for humans to care for animals, but he said, "When you get to the point when you say, 'Don’t say it, say he or she' when the text doesn’t, you’re both screwing up the text and missing the main point you addressed."

I get the impression that PETA's motives for the translation are based on values exterior to Biblical truth. By contrast, our translations should be motivated by a desire to bring the true meaning out of the text, rather than insert meaning into it.

On a related note, does anyone have any thoughts about the TV commercials to save and feed hungry animals and their strong parallels to commercials for humanitarian organizations, like Compassion International?

Paeter wrote:On a related note, does anyone have any thoughts about the TV commercials to save and feed hungry animals and their strong parallels to commercials for humanitarian organizations, like Compassion International?

Or for that matter, how I can watch a movie where hundreds of people get blown away . . . but cringe in movies when a dog gets hit by a car?

Nathan James Norman wrote:

Paeter wrote:On a related note, does anyone have any thoughts about the TV commercials to save and feed hungry animals and their strong parallels to commercials for humanitarian organizations, like Compassion International?

Or for that matter, how I can watch a movie where hundreds of people get blown away . . . but cringe in movies when a dog gets hit by a car?

Great point! For this very reason my knee-jerk reaction is a twisted sense of gratification whenever a house pet gets killed in movies. But that's a bit of a rabbit trail...

Paeter wrote:

Or for that matter, how I can watch a movie where hundreds of people get blown away . . . but cringe in movies when a dog gets hit by a car?

[/quote]

The reason that pets, kids and Grandmas don't usually get killed in fiction is likely because we view them as "innocents". One could argue that animals are morally innocent or at least not responsible for their corruption. But should an "innocent" animal be preserved with more dedication than a corrupt businessman?

I'm just afraid that after this PITA might want to make other animal friendly changes to the the Bible.