And the virgin shall conceive and bear a... daughter?

From the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible.

And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 1:21 - 23

C.F. the LBI Institute translation (corrected for gender):

"And she shall bring forth a daughter: and thou shalt call her name JUDITH. But her friends will call her Judy for short. Friends like Petrina, Jamie, and Joan. And the DiVinci Code will never seem so easy to debunk as when people accept this lunacy, unless it's rewritten with a notion of adoption." And all this was done despite what the propher had said; because everyone knows, of course, that Isaiah drank alot, and didn't know very good Hebrew, anyway. Besides, that's in the Old Testament, which was very oppressive to women and thus lacks credibility.

Still not tempted to buy the latter version? Well, everyone knows that a good bible translation can gain great selling power based on the quality of its included commentary, so lets take a look at one of those:

From the introduction to the Letter of Pauline to the Rowomans:

In this letter, Pauline deals with several important theological issues, including equality in the early chapters, and a great bit about accepting different views and beliefs towards the end. Of course, there's a tricky bit in the middle about justification. There's also something about the unity of the body, that, for lack of mention of any parts of the female anatomy in most translations, might be seen as rather misogynistic; however, this translation has omitted the justification chapters and expanded those on the body to correct the gender-exclusive problems. Such redactions and editing need not be defended here, as that has been done in the general introduction to the New Testament, where the deletion of the entire Old Testament was likewise explained. Suffice to say that most things in Scripture are open to very loose interpretation so long as you adopt a pragmatic theory of truth and find the given intepretation useful for the promotion of your personal agenda. We can also repeat here that it is perfectly rational to be upset when other people do not accept your particular interpretation of the truth and that you may be totally justified morally in attacking that person with vituperations and, if necessary, physical abuse. As the letter to the Rowomans will show, it is important to accept the beliefs of others and to give total equality to all sorts of various and opposing positions on the same issue, excepting of course the Catholic position. And such flexibility should not be seen as an undermining of credibility when desperately clinging with fundamental fervor to select phrases taken out of context such as "love thy neighbor" and "do not judge lest ye be judged" in order to excuse your otherwise relativistic views.

Still not sold? Well, for once the mainstream view and the truth coincide, because apparently neither are most people, if the Amazon.com readers reviews are any indication. As for the people at the LBI Institute, they're probably waking up to their mistake given all the negative press and angry mail storming their mailboxes. I'm sure they're praying to the Holy Spirit and asking Her to help them out of this public relations mess. I wonder what kind of answer they'll get... seems bankrupcy is both just and effective.