Christ Triumphant (CTr) -- 1999
Be Like Jesus (BLJ) -- 2004

There are probably newer ones, but I have the 2008 CD, so it wouldn't have anything past that date. Here's a table borrowed from www.womenordination.com as an example of some of the changes made:



The White Estate certainly did not keep their revisionary work a secret, however. They included statements about it in the foreword for each book. For example, skipping the first two (and longest) paragraphs, what follows is the remainder of the foreword for Christ Triumphant. (Please pardon the all-caps--this is how it appears on the CD-ROM.)



Naturally, all of this has provided additional impetus to the women's liberation movement and the push for ordaining women.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It seems "gender inclusive" would be a better term of what was done rather than "gender neutral".


My own personal journey in this ---

When the "anti WO" arguments were raging, I fell into a spiritual depression.
Yes, I protested against antiWO arguments, yet, I was not campaigning for women's ordination -- .
it was the arguments themselves that I often found offensive and rather degrading.

Whether those zealous against WO realized it or not, the arguments went far deeper than addressing who was to be pastor in a church. They affected how we are to look at our relationship with God.

In the years before all these heated discussions, when I read my Bible and the language spoke of God's love and care for men. I naturally understood it to mean HUMANS, (as being gender inclusive, not excluding women) I didn't question that, so the language didn't bother me at that earlier time.

But as the arguments raged, and it was hammered in, in strident and harsh tones that when the Bible said, MEN it MEANT MEN. Suddenly reading the Bible no longer brought the peace and joy. It was all about, and for men. men, men --- and seemed very "gender EXCLUSIVE".
Oh, yes, I tried to reassure myself it meant HUMANS, God loved and valued women just as much as men.
But the voices kept sounding -- Men means MEN, not women. When it says MEN, that excludes women.

I knew my inner response was not logical, I knew God loved and valued women just as much as men -- but it took awhile to start enjoying reading scripture again --- I started translating my own reading of scripture to include women.
When the Bible spoke of Christ dying so we could be the "sons of God" I added "sons and daughters" of God.
And--
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men (and women) through him might believe.
12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men (and women) unto me.

There were so many texts like that --
But I also noticed that often the word "men" was supplied.
Yes, the KJV often supplies the word "men" in it's verses, where it is not to be found in the original.
Both the verses above have the word "men" supplied.
They should actually read"
", that all through him might believe. "
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me. "

That was encouraging! It was actually the translators that emphasized males as the receivers of God's grace. The original said simply -- ALL --- (it was not exclusive)
It's also evident that EGW adopted the male oriented language of the KJV. But I highly doubt she meant it to be exclusive of women.


In Christ there is neither male nor female. (A great text, that reassures us God's grace is for males and females alike)

To make it gender inclusive is not about "ordination" but rather -- to allow women to experience the grace and love of God in reading inspired writings that Christ meant for them to receive. To feel God is fully including them, when they read His Word.


And yes, I do believe women are placed in positions of responsibility and they should be God-fearing
They are to bring glory to God by their ministering to others. There is nothing about "ordination" in that quote in the post above. Responsible leaders can mean Sabbath School teachers, Bible workers, and many other responsible positions of leadership.
The church needs God-fearing women in responsible positions. The quote applies to women in leadership roles just as to men in leadership.
To exclude women in that quote is just one example how those arguments excluded women from the gifts of God.

And yes, I am absolutely positive EGW meant both men and women when she wrote:
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GOOD MAN AND A WICKED MAN IS NOT ALWAYS CAUSED BY NATURAL GOODNESS OF DISPOSITION.
A woman is just as responsible herself to abide in Christ for righteousness, as is a man. She does not enter heaven on the shirt tails of her man, but only through her own connection with the Savior.

These gender inclusive compilations were written to meet a need for the greater number of it's members (women).
And the fact these editions are very frank in admitting they have changed the wording so both men and women feel the message is speaking to them -- is a good thing.
The compilers included statements about what they did in the foreword for each book. There is no effort to deceive.
The book "Daughters of God" is another book, written with the express purpose to help women sense that the messages are for women, not just for men.

You may disagree, and yes, if there is question if the meaning has changed, go to the original, but for many women those more inclusive gender compilations can be more meaningful, personal and inclusive.

Well, whatever term one uses might be found disagreeable or even offensive to some. The White Estate used both. I'll try to post a screenshot, along with the following image.

Words like these, though many have repeated them, show a superficial understanding of the scriptures with respect to the message of Galatians 3:28. The text doesn't exactly say it that way. Of course there is both male and female "in Christ." Our Creator made both, designed it to be this way, and distinguishes between them. In fact, the very fact that both are mentioned explicitly in this verse acknowledges that both exist. They do have different roles, both in the Bible and as addressed in the writings of Ellen White. We are not merely genderless creatures. That verse has to do, not with genders, not with roles of any kind, but with eligibility to receive Christ and His salvation. Note the two preceding verses for important context:



Your second paragraph implies that God's Word is flawed--and needs improvement in order to make it appeal to women.

But what does the Bible say about those who change God's Word?



And what did Mrs. White say to her future revisionists?



Mrs. White spoke plainly enough on the matter that even the desire to change her words should be recognized immediately for what it is--a temptation of Satan. Satan wants the truth distorted in one way or another, and he hardly cares in which direction, for any direction suits his purpose, defacing the truth as Christ gave it.

Consider well these things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

NO -- THE BIBLE IS NOT FLAWED --- BUT PEOPLE'S INTERPRETATION IS FLAWED.
The Bible is not Exclusive, but people have made it to sound exclusive.


TWO MAIN WAYS:

1. Adding words to the Bible to make it exclusive?
Is that OK? You say, no don't add to the Bible, but seem to have no problem when that addition makes the text sound exclusive for males.

NOW --

Look at all these texts where the word "men" has been ADDED by the translators.
It was NOT in the originals.

John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
The original writer wrote: "..to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. "


John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
The original writer wrote:
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me. "

Mark 5:20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
The original writer wrote:
And he departed and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him and all did marvel.


There were many texts like that --
the word "men" was supplied by the translators.
Yes, the KJV often supplies the word "men" in verses, where it is not to be found in the original.
That is ADDING to God's Word.


PROBLEM TWO:
By changing the meaning of words, which in turn changes the meaning of God's Word, even though the literal words remain the same.
The CHANGING of the meaning of words so as to make it sound EXCLUSIVE (males only), when the original words were NOT exclusive.

The word --anthropos--
means -- a human being, whether male or female
generically it includes all human individuals.
It is almost always translated as "man".
Translating it as "human being" or "person" would be perfectly consistent with it's meaning.
Translating it as "person" is NOT changing God's Word.

But when people start insisting --anthropos-- is "man" and means "male" only -- what have they done?
They have altered the word of God!

Thus who is changing God's Word?
Those who say, --anthropos-- is INCLUSIVE of men and women,
or those who say it is EXCLUSIVE, men only?

It is written, Man G444 shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Clearly the inclusive meaning -- It is written a human being shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that preceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Probably "a created human being" shall not live by bread alone but by every word that preceedeth out of the mouth of God" would be even more on target as to the original intended meaning.

To insist God's Word in it's many uses of the word -- anthropos-- must mean (male) man, alone, is actually the one who is altering the MEANING of God's Word and destroying it. --anthropos-- means -- a human being, whether male or female, generically it includes all human individuals

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him male and female created he them. Phrases were added to make the sentence flow.
elohiym bara adam tselem tselem elohiym bara zakar neqebah bara .






Do you believe it is God's will to include women as those who are to read His Word, live by it, and believe it is speaking to them in a personal manner.

Remember -- it's not the Bible that is flawed, it is men.
Now interpret that last sentence according to how you interpret it's use of the words in the Bible.

Dedication,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. That Greek word "anthropos" is a bit of difficulty, because people don't throw around the word "human" much in ordinary speech or even writing--yet that is technically what the word means. The translators must have felt that word wouldn't convey the sense of the text as well as the more common word "man" would. Now, it's true that definitions have changed--and a big part of that was a result of the feminist movement that has created the problem we now seem to have with the usage of "man" in place of "mankind", "human", or "humankind." It used to be that no one, not even a woman, would have had any issue at all with the use of "man," knowing that it could mean mankind generally. Today's women are particular--they must have the text acknowledge them.

I've done advanced studies where I was required to read many peer-reviewed academic papers and do research based on them. The American Psychological Association, the same organization promoting the use of terminology that is gender-neutral, pleasing to the LGBTIQXXX community, and so forth, promotes the concept of using "he" and "she" (or "him" and "her) alternately in any text referring to someone in general. In Ellen White's day, everyone said simply "he." About two-three decades ago, folk were being taught to use "he or she" and "him or her", etc. Because the added verbiage became choresome, especially when writing on certain subjects where persons must be continually referenced, the APA adopted this alternation scheme and promulgated it as the new politically correct way to write/speak.

Well, in my advanced studies coursework, I discovered that the majority of the papers were not using "he" or "him" alternatingly with "she" or "her." They were using ONLY "she" and "her."

You may have noticed that I frequently (probably almost always) use "he or she" or "himself or herself"--this type of language when posting here. I have tried to be fair with both sides. But it is clear that the agenda has been moving with a decided bias against men. It is my understanding, from what I heard rumored at church yesterday, that the American congress has just passed a new law that outlaws the use of all of these gender-specific terms. One cannot say mother, father, he, she, or any such gender-identifying term anymore from a public/governmental position--as I understand; e.g. these terms would be unacceptable in a public school.

The whole gender debate, begun by the feminists, continued by the academics, furthered by the modern Bible revisions--and even the White Estate in making modern revisions of Ellen White, is now taking power in government and politics, and we who wish to recognize that there IS a God-made distinction between male and female will soon find ourselves in difficult straits.

As Ellen White has said, "error is never harmless."

Which brings me to one particular item of error that I found in your post and would like to correct. I do not like to see the Scriptures misrepresented, yet you seem to have done so.

The Hebrew word "אֹת֑וֹ" (?ō?ṯōw) which is translated as "him" in the text is the Hebrew direct object marker. It is usually not translated in English, but in this case it is not in the typical form, either, for it has a third-person masculine suffix (וֹ), indicating the gender and number of the object--unlike, for example, the simple "אֵ֥ת" from Genesis 1:1 to indicate that "heavens" and "earth" are the direct object of the verb "bara" (he created). In other words, when you strike out the words "he him", you are doing so erroneously. You also err to strike out the "he them."



Those are not egregious additions at all. God Himself is always represented by masculine nouns throughout the Bible, both in Hebrew and in Greek, and, like in Spanish, pronouns are built into the verbs. With only the verb, and without a noun, we actually should already know the gender (and number) of the one performing the action (there are some possible ambiguities related to the second-person "you"--but that's too advanced for this mini-lesson). In the text you quoted, the "וַיִּבְרָ֨א" (so he created) already tells us the gender of the Creator, even before the noun comes (nouns usually follow their verbs in Hebrew, as in this case it does). So we have, if translated very literally, "he created (God) [direct object marker] man in His image . . ." The direct object marker, when present, ALWAYS indicates a definite object, i.e. the definite article is implied. So, if we conform this to English grammar, reordering a little so that it actually makes correct sense in English, we might have something like: "So he, God, created the man in his image . . .]. Now, that is just the first part of the verse. Notice that in the second part of the verse, the direct object marker includes what looks like a carot underneath of it. As I understand, this indicates the "midpoint" of the sentence (in quotes, because it's not at all the middle of the sentence, but the center point in terms of its thought). This indicates a significant word, which tells us that the Masoretes, who added these notations, considered this an integral part of the expression. I don't recall ever noticing this mark under a normal direct object marker, so the additional suffix to this one must indeed be the direct object "him" which completes the thought and marks the clause break between the two parts of the verse. In this case, the suffix is not the word "he", it is simply a suffix used to make the word to which it is attached have a third-person singular, masculine application. That does, correctly, translate to the objective case third-person masculine singular pronoun "him" in English.

I'm going to attach a screenshot of the text in my interlinear that shows what I'm trying to say. You will notice that there are three direct object markers in the text, all numbered by Strong's number 853. However, please look at the Hebrew. You will notice that the first one is normal, with no suffix. The second one has the third-person masculine singular (3ms) suffix attached (remember to look on the LEFT side of the word for the suffix in Hebrew), and the third occurrence (bottom left) has the third-person masculine plural (3mp).



Now, I personally believe it very likely that Hebrew was the original language on this planet--because the faithful followers of God were not the ones who would have been at the tower of Babel. So a good case could be made for the fact that God Himself designed this language, and . . . . well, I leave that for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thanks for the detailed study.
I fully agree " It used to be that no one would have had any issue at all with the use of the word "man," knowing that it could mean mankind generally."

I'm also aware the word is no longer assumed to mean human beings generally.

Thus I don't see a problem in translating the word "man" into a word that does mean human beings generally, where that is the meaning intended by original writer.

I do not agree with "gender neutrality" in which people don't know if they are male or female anymore. That's gender confusion.
God did create the human race, as male and female. Males are "he" "him". and Females are "she" and "her" etc. It is a sad state of affairs when fathers can't be called fathers any more, and mother's can't be called mothers any more. Men should be able to identify themselves as men, and women as women. Boys as boys, and girls as girls.

I guess it does get difficult when one is writing a general paper addressing both men and women when it comes to pronouns. Seems they would have to move to the plural "they" "them".

I think that is plain to see.