Updating the Bible's Speciesist Language?

This is what you get when you treat the Bible as a book by men that is available for updating versus what it claims for itself - a revelation from God about Himself so we can know Him - therefore, not open to updating.  Note that the justification starts with the updates Christian themselves have made with the Bible.

This is hilarious and tragic all at once:

PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is calling for a more animal-friendly update to the Bible. The group is asking translators of the New International Version (NIV) to remove what it calls ‘speciesist’ language and refer to animals as ‘he’ or ‘she’ instead of ‘it....

PETA is hoping the move toward greater gender inclusiveness will continue toward animals as well.

“When the Bible moves toward inclusively in one area ... it wasn’t much of a stretch to suggest they move toward inclusively in this area," Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vice president for policy, told CNN.

(HT: Challies)

Comments

[James]

Seems like this request came a few days early... April 1st isn't until Friday.

[Joe Matos]

I read about this. So God can't be referred to as "he" because technically God does not have gender. But masculine/feminine pronouns must be used for animals mentioned in the Bible, the genders of which we rarely (do we really ever?) know. Interesting that to use he/she regarding humans is not inclusive, but with animals it is.

[Steve]

What a joke. Lets rid ourselves of common sense because its offensive. By the way, didn't PEATA have to eat crow (haaa haa) because they were caught on camera putting a bunch of animales down?

[Cooper]

That is hilariously sad. I almost choked on a slice of lunchtime canadian bacon pizza as I read it.

Although in seriousness I always try to be respectful to those who choose not to eat animals when I'm in their company, this item from PETA is certainly disturbing.

But it's an excellent point being made in the post that it was Christians who started this business of making the words of the Bible more friendly to PC trendiness. So we should really be blaming ourselves for treating sacred scripture more like an ordinary book when those outside the Church do the same. We obviously shouldn't expect groups like PETA to be carrying water for biblical reliability or inerrancy, so as a general matter one can't be upset with them over this.

However, there are plenty of other reasons to be upset with PETA. And interestingly enough, this item plays into that. PETA has mission to anthropomorphize animals through educational indoctrination, advertising, entertainment and other cultural mediums. They have waged a heavy propaganda campaign in this regard toward children. PETA is trying to destroy the West's understanding of the ontological, moral, and other differences between humans and sub-human animals. In this regard, I recommend Wesley J. Smith's book, "A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy."

[Bill P]

The GLBT movement at the United Nations is fiercely lobbying for international recognition of five distinct genders. PETA needs to catch up -- assuming that animals are limited to male and female is animo-genderist, or something.

[Damian]

No group on the planet is more "Speciesist" than PETA. They only hold one species responsible to treat animals ethically and that is homo sapiens.Even though a Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy, the Boy seems to getting all the blame. Until they hold other animals equally accountable PETA is the worst perpetrater of Speciesism. For instance how about protesting a killer whale pod the next time they kill a seal?

[Sam]

The NIV translators should also say that Jonah was swallowed by a sea kitten instead of by a fish. And Jesus fed the crowd with bread and sea kittens, not bread and fish.

[Randy]

I would find this merely absurd if I didn't know about the likes of Peter Singer and how far his ilk carry specieism. Downright frightening.

[Patrick]

Hey PETA, how about you stop exploiting women in your sexist ads, promoting veganism with perverse sexuality. What have breasts and buttocks to do with your message. Let me know when you bump into Nebuchadnezzar out there in the pasture, and may your sense return to you!

[Curt Parton]

Melinda, I'm curious about your statement: Note that the justification starts with the updates Christians themselves have made with the Bible. Are you somehow equating the absurdity of PETA's statement with the translational choices of the NIV team?

[Janney]

And why is gender vs. neuter pronouns in the Bible an issue at all? Mr. Koukle just posted a video nullifying the entirety of Leviticus and nobody batted an eye.

[Austin]

His video didn't nullify leviticus, the new covenant did.

[Janney]

Well, that's explained.

[Eric]

Well, that's rebutted. Maybe you've heard of the New Covenant? You know, Jesus. Try reading all of Hebrews and Galatians 3. Christians are no longer slaves to the Law.

[Janney]

I stand confirmed that nobody here is batting an eye at Mr. Koukl's dismissal of Leviticus.

Melinda wishes to make the point that the Bible is not "available for updating." Mr. Koukl tells us, meanwhile, that there's at least one whole book in the Bible which is entirely irrelevant to modern Christians.

So updating is clearly taboo, but at least one update--removing the book of Leviticus--not only makes complete sense, but would correct the issue Mr. Koukl's video addresses. In fact, for all practical purposes the update has already occurred--since it sounds like no Christian pays Leviticus any mind--and actually publishing the Bible without it would be a mere formality--albeit one which isn't allowed.

I'm not trying to drag anyone into some long technical discussion; I'm just trying to repent my previous flip comment by showing that my brain was actually engaged, in its way.

[Newbietu]

Janney,
It is slightly misleading to say you are not trying to drag anyone into a long technical discussion immediately after asking a question that requires a long technical discussion :)

Be that as it may, Leviticus (and most of the Old Testament) contain commands, promises and prophesies that do not apply to us. (Offhand they would include the command to be circumcised, the promise of earthly prosperity if you follow God's commands, and the prophesy that the people will forget God once they arrive in the Promised Land, respectively.) Does that mean we should cut them out of the Bible and ignore them? The response of most believers throughout history has been a resounding "no." These items may not apply to us, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. These passages show how God interacted with His chosen people and give us insights into his nature that we wouldn't have if we ignored them.
A similar argument could be made for cutting out every part of the New Testament that doesn't give direct commands (say the portions where Paul is greeting his friends, or the Genealogies). While these do not give us commands that show how we should live the Christian life, they provide evidence for the historicity of Jesus and the accuracy of Paul's letters (for example, several of the names at the end of Romans have been found inscribed at places in Rome that date very close to the time of Paul's writing).
I agree with Paul (2 Tim 3:16) that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Many passages in both the Old and New Testament may not have direct application for our lives, but they are still useful and at the very least give us insights into God's nature.
Hope that helps,
Newbietu

[Janney]

Well thank you.