You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: I see you are not up on the use of the ancient Greek language: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-04-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I see you are not up on the use of the ancient Greek language:
Edited on Thu Jun-04-09 11:36 AM by rateyes
The phrase "son of" or "sons of" is often used (and is used in Matthew 5) to denote moral characteristics: For example, "son of thunder," "sons of light," "sons of disobedience," "sons of perdition," and "sons of God."

It refers to the quality of a person. For example, "a son of disobedience," is a "disobedient" person. A "son of God" is a "Godlike" person.

The transliteration of the word "son" from Greek to English is "HUIOS." It is often used to denote descendants without reference to sex. When speaking of "descendants" (both male and female), in ancient Greek the word "HUIOS" is often used.

The "Bible," you say, uses the word "sons" to the exclusion of "daughters." It is true that the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible (an English translation, BTW, from the LATIN version of the New Testatment--thus making it a translation of a translation) uses the word "sons." However, many other English versions of the Bible correctly translate HUIOS from the Greek, not as "sons," but as "children."

THE Bible, of which you speak (the original text) uses "HUIOS," not "SONS."

Obama, today, quoted the King James ENGLISH Version of the text and said "sons." IMO, it would have been better for him to have used the inclusive langue of other versions. However, I do not believe that he was purposely excluding women. He did, after all, speak to a very patriarchal religion about the need to treat women as equals.

While I think you have a legitimate complaint about Obama not using inclusive language, I do not believe you have a legitimate reason to call his intentions "sexist."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC