Harper Collins Study Bible vs New Oxford Annotated Bible

>>8211305
>I am very racist and sexist
Aren't we all?

Shit I got the new oxford. Now im pissed

>>8211305
You should hardly take note of attempts to make the Bible gender neutral. I have the Oxford one and I enjoy it. The annotations are more scholarly/academic than theologically elucidating though

>making the bible gender neutral and inclusive to people of color

i'm not an expert on the bible, but how do they go about doing that?

Are you asking about the notes or the actual translation? the ones that aren't gender neutral and whatnot are the more literal translations. So you can look for an NASB, RSV, ESV...
Since you're looking for an academic one this shouldn't be an issue. The "PC" translations are NLT, NIV(if my memory serves), ones like that.

I guess go with the HC if you hear that stuff about the Oxford.

>>8211370
by having people of color characters in it

File: inclusive.png (81KB, 836x383px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 836x383px

>>8211364
>>8211375
This pic comes from here.
http://www.cts.edu/library/documents/ChoosingABible-Vertical.pdf

Also, from http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DobrasOxfordBible.php?/articles/DobrasOxfordBible.htm I get things like:

>"The new Annotated Bible -- edited in part by pro-"gay" and feminist scholars -- adopts "gay" revisionist interpretations of Holy Scripture such as that God allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of inhospitality -- not homosexual sin."