I certainly approve of inclusive language when it comes to people. "Mankind" and "sons" may be literal translations of the Greek or Hebrew, but to modern ears they don't reflect the original meaning, which included people of both sexes.
Where I reject such language is when the translators try to write gender out of language for God. However repellent the idea of God as "He" may be to some modern sensibilities, to try to eliminate it completely is inaccurate, distorts the sense and cadence of beloved passages of Scripture, and is hideous English ("Godself" being only the most conspicuous sin).
-- Grace Burson, New Haven, Conn.
The idea of rewriting the Bible, or any text, with gender-neutral language is deplorable. We should be proud of the progress of our civilization, but falsifying history is a foolish and futile effort to make the past compliant with modern standards.
Not only would this cheapen the efforts of those who worked hard to combat centuries-old discrimination, but it would also require editing of the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and countless other historically significant, gender-insensitive documents. Ultimately, such alterations would never change history, only vandalize its foundations. Even from under a gilded exterior, the attitudes of old would shine through.
-- Karen Sosa, Burke
The Bible is not just a religious work. It is also a work of literature. Would we have "Leaves of Grass" by Walt Whitman or "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe neutered to make the works politically correct? That's absurd.
-- James E. Davis, Manassas
While I believe the Bible to be God's message to us, I do not believe that its words are to be taken literally. People confuse our language constructions with the message. God's message is love to all people, not just to men, not just to Christians. . . .
Making our translation of the Bible more inclusive strengthens its message. We should change excluding language that prevents others from coming to God. Being a Christian is not a right of birth [or] gender or an inherited characteristic; it is a choice made freely to believe in the mysteries of Christ as Messiah.
-- Douglas Taylor, Springfield
Bible translations that use gender do not offend me. In fact, I prefer the ones that are true to the original texts and that use the gender forms as originally written. To be called a "son" of God implied much more in its day than simply being a "child" of God. In that culture, men and sons were, rightly or wrongly, ascribed greater value, so retaining that language and knowing that it applies to all believers actually makes me, as a woman, feel extra special.
-- Linda O. Stoutenburgh, Purcellville
I highly approve of the gender-inclusive language. . . . For centuries, people have used Scripture to endorse their bigotry (even slavery) and hatred. Perhaps centuries from now, society will have endorsed these gender-neutral Bibles and the world will be a better place. We will have realized that God's love is inclusive; that we may see God as both Father and Mother, or as neither but simply Spirit; that the male-dominant society from which Scripture was written is no longer; and that we are indeed all equal in God's eyes.
-- Shawn M. Henderson, Alexandria
Next month's question: What kind of medical treatment do you believe is appropriate to sustain your life, and how are your attitudes on this affected by your religion? E-mail your answer (100 words or less) to voices@washpost.com. Include a daytime phone number. For more answers to today's question, go to www.washingtonpost.com/religion.
