Would it be possible to get the Inclusive Bible in Logos?

A friend sent me a link to an article briefly discussing the Inclusive Bible - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580512135/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1580512135&linkCode=as2&tag=liturgy0b-20&linkId=Z5AQCNM3F2GKZCYY

The premise behind it looks interesting. From the little I have seen it raises some interesting questions but may go further than I think is appropriate to achieve what they are trying to do.

But to really explore it, it would be good to have it in Logos.

(There have been one or two mentions of this on the forums in the past but not for some time).

Thanks, Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Whyndell Grizzard

Faithlife can surely produce and sell what ever they wish- but I would not be a customer for this Jezebel item (Rev. 2.20).

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980586#Comment_980586

but I would not be a customer

I'm genuinely interested in this response - what are your issues with it?

As I mentioned in my original post, from what I have seen there are things I'm not happy with, but I do think it has some interesting insights and raises some helpful questions.

Robert M. Warren

but may go further than I think is appropriate to achieve what they are trying to do.

I'm guessing that since it was published 10 years ago and I see no Kindle version, there's not much demand for it in the e-book world. Many readers will see the phrase "re-imagining of the scriptures" in a marketing blurb as a bit of a red flag.

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980587#Comment_980587

but I would not be a customer

I'm genuinely interested in this response - what are your issues with it?

As I mentioned in my original post, from what I have seen there are things I'm not happy with, but I do think it has some interesting insights and raises some helpful questions.

To me this is one of those items that fall into the category of "you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig" of what I read its has no legitimate use- but again mho

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980640#Comment_980640

I don't know what Whyndell's issues with it are, but I suspect there are many of us who are uncomfortable with a version that claims not just to be a translation, but "a re-imagining of the scriptures." It feels fundamentally incompatible with the principle of sola scriptura. If I believe that I should place my life under the judgment of Scripture, how can I believe that it's my role to "re-imagine" those same Scriptures? How can I "re-imagine" Scripture without at least implicitly putting myself in the place of a judge over it?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980643#Comment_980643

but I suspect there are many of us who are uncomfortable with a version that claims not just to be a translation, but "a re-imagining of the scriptures." It feels fundamentally incompatible with the principle of sola scriptura. If I believe that I should place my life under the judgment of Scripture, how can I believe that it's my role to "re-imagine" those same Scriptures? How can I "re-imagine" Scripture without at least implicitly putting myself in the place of a judge over it?

Thank you - that is very helpful

Another extract from the information at Amazon is:

" the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers. Seeking to be faithful to the original languages, they have sought new and non-sexist ways to express the same ancient truths"

The first sentence I find particularly interesting - in that there is an assumption that the language that has been used has built barriers. One of the example I have seen is the story at the beginning of Mark 3 where Jesus heals a man with a shriveled hand. The point they make is that the word translated "man" doesn't specify a gender and they translate it as "someone who had a withered hand".

BDAG has this word in this passage being "someone, one, a person" which suggests that from a translation point of view either is possible - but it is accepted by all translations I am aware of that a man is involved. Having a translation that would highlight that possibility is, in my opinion, interesting.

And as I stated above I think - from what little I have seen - there are things I would struggle with but hopefully that provides a bit of context for my interest and curiousity!

The second sentence I quoted from Amazon is more concerning to me as it does speak of a particular agenda in translation - but that may be true in other translations as well! (says he with no knowledge of what goes on in the translation process)

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980646#Comment_980646

but I suspect there are many of us who are uncomfortable with a version that claims not just to be a translation, but "a re-imagining of the scriptures." It feels fundamentally incompatible with the principle of sola scriptura. If I believe that I should place my life under the judgment of Scripture, how can I believe that it's my role to "re-imagine" those same Scriptures? How can I "re-imagine" Scripture without at least implicitly putting myself in the place of a judge over it?

Thank you - that is very helpful

Another extract from the information at Amazon is:

" the translators have rethought what kind of language has built barriers between the text and its readers. Seeking to be faithful to the original languages, they have sought new and non-sexist ways to express the same ancient truths"

The first sentence I find particularly interesting - in that there is an assumption that the language that has been used has built barriers. One of the example I have seen is the story at the beginning of Mark 3 where Jesus heals a man with a shriveled hand. The point they make is that the word translated "man" doesn't specify a gender and they translate it as "someone who had a withered hand".

BDAG has this word in this passage being "someone, one, a person" which suggests that from a translation point of view either is possible - but it is accepted by all translations I am aware of that a man is involved. Having a translation that would highlight that possibility is, in my opinion, interesting.

And as I stated above I think - from what little I have seen - there are things I would struggle with but hopefully that provides a bit of context for my interest and curiousity!

The second sentence I quoted from Amazon is more concerning to me as it does speak of a particular agenda in translation - but that may be true in other translations as well! (says he with no knowledge of what goes on in the translation process)

Graham,

I saw that too, and I'm not sure what to make of it. There are legitimate lexical debates about how words such as "anthropos" should be translated in specific contexts. But the description explicitly says that this version goes beyond merely replacing male pronouns. I have to wonder what "rethinking" the "kind of language" includes. Does it include changing metaphors? Changing the nature of parables and illustrations? I don't know, but the suggestion that they are "re-imagining" scripture would seem to suggest a fairly expansive approach.

So, the way this version is described doesn't have any appeal for me. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't find something interesting or useful in it. But what the person who wrote this advertising copy seems to think is the main selling point strikes me - at least as described - as potentially problematic rather than useful.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980650#Comment_980650

But what the person who wrote this advertising copy seems to think is the main selling point strikes me - at least as described - as potentially problematic rather than useful.

That's a very fair comment - thanks.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980659#Comment_980659

The nature of translation is such that every version is a re-imaging. Further, I would posit that every reading of the Bible is also a re-imaging. The phrase simply reflects how this particular set of translators are positioning themselves in a world that's pretty crowded with available English translations.

Bill Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980664#Comment_980664

Lew, your comment is very insightful. When I learn a new insight from the Scriptures that I hadn't seen before, I often wonder why I didn't understand it earlier in my life and conclude that one possible reason why is that I filtered the passage through the grid I imposed on the Scriptures.

DMB

The premise behind it looks interesting. From the little I have seen it raises some interesting questions but may go further than I think is appropriate to achieve what they are trying to do.

Mr Graham, I'm curious what possessed you to knowingly get shot at?? 'Inclusive' means people you don't like. Lip-stickers and such. The early jewish guys weren't shy at all and Jez was the go-to gal.

But more seriously, I've always valued Bob's curated concept. I hate to admit but much of my post-college schooling is Bob's curated library. And best I can see, 'they' kind of stick within a world of 'has some discussable merit' even if it's discussing exactly when YHWH was created.

You must see more than your telling? For the record, I got the Paul and Gender book just shipped, and good heavens, it's hard re-thinking translations.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980664#Comment_980664

The nature of translation is such that every version is a re-imaging. ...

Maybe. There's a sense is which that is true - we do recast the original in a new language, and that is not a mechanical process. We should all recognize this. But there's also the kind of inventive/creative re-imagining that you see, for instance, when Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is re-imagined as occurring in pre-revolution Cuba. (I happened to see a staging that was done that way, and it was quite enjoyable. But fidelity to Shakespeare's original conception was clearly not at the top of the director's mind.)

For those of us for whom sola scriptura is a foundational commitment, there's a limit to how much of our creative imagination we can inject into Scripture and still be faithful to it as the authoritative Word of God. That's not to say that re-imagining Scripture might not be an interesting and compelling literary experiment. But as we recreate it in our own image, at some point it's no longer just a translation, but a new work. (Just as West Side Story isn't simply a translation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, but a new work in its own right.)

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980589#Comment_980589

I see no Kindle version, there's not much demand for it in the e-book world.

I own it in Hardcover and ebook as a PDF and EPUB although the ePub has had a number of conversion errors a friend helped me put it into a module for Accordance. I cannot say I always use it but I do like consulting it. Here is a sample from where my Bible program was open at this moment.

“Better a crust of bread in peace than a great feast with friction.

When the child of the boss is worthless, the canny employee gets the job instead— and inherits the company just like a family member.

The crucible for silver, the furnace for gold, and YHWH for testing hearts.

Evildoers listen to wicked lips, and liars rely on slanderous tongues.

Mockers of the poor insult the Creator; those who celebrate calamity will see unpunishment.

Grandchildren are the laurels of the elderly; children are the glory of their parents.

Eloquence from a fool? Absurd! Lies from a ruler? Obscene.

Bribes work like magic— they bring the giver success at every turn.

Forgive a friend’s offence, and you foster love; but bring it up again, and you ruin the friendship.”

(Proverbs 17:1–9 ) The_Inclusive_Bible

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980715#Comment_980715

Dan: Thanks for the info.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980715#Comment_980715

I own it in Hardcover and ebook as a PDF and EPUB although the ePub has had a number of conversion errors a friend helped me put it into a module for Accordance. I cannot say I always use it but I do like consulting it. Here is a sample from where my Bible program was open at this moment.

Hi Dan - many thanks for this appreciated, really helpful.

From that sample there are similarities with the NLT - so in a roughly similar place in terms of "equivalence".

But I am sure that is an over-simplification.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980736#Comment_980736

Equivalence is fair but while not coming to mind now I do remember a time or two coming across a translation that seemed very strange only to go back to the original language and find it was faithful to a logical valid lexical choice rather than a traditional rendering. I have noticed a few times referring to commentaries it has been pointed out english translations sometimes have a very traditional interpretation that is not followed in non-english translations. The priests who translated this version did want a faithful version that they could feel comfortable using in the church giving the message but removing imposed bias of gender. I have seen a few different Inclusive versions and this by far my favourite one. Its not going to be a favourite of many but I think it would be a valuable addition to the Logos ecosystem and I will be one of the first to add it to my prepub orders if they ever offer it.

-dan

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/980815#Comment_980815

Thanks Dan

Very helpful, Graham

Rosie Perera

It is available in Kindle now, and I've bought it. But it's hard to navigate in. You can jump to the beginning of a book, but then you have to page down or drag the scroll bar and guess to get to the chapter/verse you are looking up, which is a pain.

I would really like to have this in Logos.

I've created a suggestion for it on the Logos feedback site. Please go vote for it:

https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-book-requests/posts/the-inclusive-bible-the-first-egalitarian-translation