Posted on 06/24/2004 7:21:03 AM PDT by take
What's wrong with reading the original Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts and making an honest interpretation as we would talk? Not that this is it, because it clearly isn't.
Still, this has got to be a spoof. I was prepared to believe that the Anglicans had mistranslated the passages concerning sexual morality in the way indicated in the article, but those translations of the other passages are just too ridiculous to believe anyone would actually have seriously produced them.
Not as scripture, of course, but as pure stupid goofiness this can't be beat.
I like "John the Dipper".
I'm prepared to believe the Biblical authors are frank. If the Bible were translated completely into modern idiom, some people would consider it unfit to be read to children. All those "begats" and "knew" passages begin to acquire a whole new meaning.
That's just silly.
My Latin is awfully rusty and I never learned Ancient Greek or Aramaic. My high school Latin teacher DID learn all three languages (in addition to the four modern ones he spoke) so he could read the original Scriptures. Unfortunately, most of us do not have the time or linguistic talent my teacher did, so we must depend on translators. When a new translation sharply contradicts the previous ones, that raises serious questions about the motives and/or agenda of the translator.
That's why there will never be a universal translation as long as different religions and different denominations within Christianity exist. Their canons are different as well as what they leave in and leave out and the way they approach the Scriptures.
Is WorldNetDaily looking to take on the Onion as the worlds "finest new source?"
"As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God's spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, 'That's my boy! You're doing fine!'"
is, well, just plain silly. And funny!
"That's my boy! You're doing fine!"
Sounds like an old Anglican cleric, waiting on his slippers, encouraging his new puppy.
On the other hand, I like the term "begat." It conveys a meaning that no modern word can. I wish the modern transaltions would continue using this term, but unfortunately they don't. Instead you get the very bland phrases like "_____ was the father of _____." "Begat" is just so much more concise and direct.
You know, I was outraged by this travesty until I read that verse!
That's a great translation! ;^)
From what I've seen and for the most part, I don't think it's that bad of a translation and I expected worse from the headline. There's some good, modern phrases in this translation and we need translations that speak today's language. But if they're going to start calling "partner" any sex partner, then they've gone too far in that verse, rendering the entire translation something I could never recommend because it's a poor translation from what the manuscripts actually say.
LOL!
Narrowly avoided coffee through the nose on the keyboard again.
The language used to explain the purpose of this re-write sounds suspiciously just like all other gay advocacy garb. They are determined to re-write the Bible and God for themselves.
Is this from the onion or have the mind sciences people gone over a cliff finally?
London Times on July 19, 2002:
As the sun rises over a circle of Pembrokeshire bluestones, the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Rev Dr Rowan Williams, will don a long white cloak while druids chant a prayer to the ancient god and goddess of the land. After a trumpet fanfare and the thrice partial sheathing and unsheathing of a 6ft 6in sword, a citation will be read. Dr Williams will close his hands in prayer while the archdruid, wearing a crown and shield over his bardic robes, will enfold them in his own and utter words of welcome. That will be the moment that Dr Williams, who will adopt a new, bardic name, is accepted into the white druidic order, the highest of three orders of the Gorsedd of Bards, the Welsh body of poets, musicians, writers and artists. The Mistress of the Robes, Sian Aman, will then clothe him in a druidic white headdress, and a steward will lead him to join the other assembled druids inside a sacred circle. The ceremony will take place 'in the face of the sun, in the eye of the light' at the start of the Welsh National Eisteddfod at St David's, Pembrokeshire, in early August
This is the result of letting philosophy rule the roost. People mess around editing God thinking themselves more clever or more wise and then you end up with doctrines that are proclaimed, having nothing to do with scripture, because it seems ok to someone. The funny thing is you still call them "Christian". I would ask on what basis.
The "dipping" translation was only part of why I called it Baptist. He has an interpretive translation for "baptizm for the remission of sins" that suggests baptism is symbolic only. That's not exclusively Baptist, but combined with the dipping it lines up squarely with the Baptist tradition.
I'm not commenting on the theology of baptism one way or another, but I think the translation is too interpretive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.