Posted on 10/07/2005 8:38:02 AM PDT by Caleb1411
As evangelicals debate the inclusive-language Today's New International Version (TNIV), many liberal mainline churches have slipped far down the slippery slope in what they have done to the Bible.
In 1990, the National Council of Churches published the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), an inclusive-language rendition of the well-accepted Revised Standard Version (RSV). This translation keeps masculine references to God and to Jesus, but changes them for human beings, getting rid of the generic "man," putting "brothers and sisters" where the original just has "brothers," and using awkward plurals and repetitions to avoid the generic "he." Never mind that the messianic title "Son of Man" is now "a human being." What the NRSV did to the RSV is pretty much what the TNIV did to the NIV.
But that much inclusive language was not enough for many mainline churches. An Inclusive Language Lectionary, a rendition of Scripture texts read during the worship service, takes the next step of changing the gendered language for God. Today, the congregations who use this lectionary in Sunday worship pray to "our Father-Mother." Jesus is not the Son of God, but the "child of God." The pronoun "he" is not even used for the man Jesus, replaced with ungrammatical constructions: "Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us" becomes "Jesus Christ, who gave self for us" (Titus 2:13-14).
But that much tinkering proved not to be enough either. In 1995, Oxford University Press published the New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. This revision of the NRSV not only uses gender-inclusive language for God and Jesus ("God our father-mother"), it also eliminates, in the words of the introduction, "all pejorative references to race, color, or religion, and all identifications of persons by their physical disability." In avoiding all "offensive language," "darkness" is changed to "night," lest it offend black people, and "the right hand of God" is changed to "the mighty hand of God," lest it offend left-handed people.
But that does not go far enough. The liberal Catholic group Priests for Equality published in 2004 the Inclusive Bible. "Kingdom" is both sexist and authoritarian, so the priests made up a new word, "kindom." Adam is not a "man," he is an "earth creature." And to avoid offending homosexuals or others in nontraditional relationships, the words "husband" and "wife" are changed to "partner."
But since radical theology depends on demonizing the "patriarchy" of the Bible, the Inclusive Bible includes footnotes admitting that "the actual Hebrew is even more brutal" and chastising the apostle Paul for his retrograde attitudes. Then the translators just change the text to something more suitable.
But the Inclusive Bible does not go far enough either. The Bible version Good as New: A Radical Retelling of the Scriptures uses what its introduction calls "cultural translation." Not only is it inclusive, it translates ancient terms into their modern-day equivalent. Thus, "demon possession" becomes "mental illness." Even names are changed: Peter, Nicodemus, and Bethsaida become "Rocky," "Ray," and "Fishtown." Religious terminology is eliminated, as not being in accord with our culture: "Baptize" is changed to "dip"; "salvation" is changed to "completeness."
The translation describes itself as "women, gay and sinner friendly." Thus, when Paul says that it is better to marry than to burn, the Inclusive Bible says, "If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated." The Inclusive Bible follows the higher critics in leaving out the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation, and it follows The Da Vinci Code in including instead the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. This translation is endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the evangelical leader Tony Campolo.
But does any of this matter, as long as people are exposed to the Bible? Yes, it does. The bisexual deity "Father-Mother" is not the true God, nor is this made-up religion Christianity. These translations are not the Word of God. Just the Word of Man.
Where do you get this dribble? What do you think the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are if not accounts of a real live human being born of a woman, with real human ancestors. Those accounts are in King James. It is collaborated by the incarnation in Philipians 2, and the passage in Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 15, and many many others. Then, there are the secular sources such as Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus.
Where do you get this dribble? What do you think the geneologies in Matthew and Luke are if not accounts of a real live human being born of a woman, with real human ancestors. Those accounts are in King James. It is collaborated by the incarnation in Philipians 2, and the passage in Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 15, and many many others. Then, there are the secular sources such as Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus.
That's what I meant- the PCA church. It seems people were bashing PCA. I know all about PCUSA.
How can you be 100% certain that is was his brother who wrote that nonsense? And there are other historical proofs that Jesus did exist. I believe Josephus is one - so it is just the "heretics" that have the evidence. But I do believe that there is more evidence that He did walk the earth than that He didn't. I haven't done research in that area, perhaps someone else here has.
Oh, sorry. My mistake.
ping for your input
You are correct, must have been a satan induced typo!
ME:"Was he amoung the 54 translators that the King appointed."
YOU: "He was the man in charge. The King ordered him to produce a religious book that favored the King. Do you really think that any of those men would do anything that displeased the King?"
It is clear you are either un-educated on these matters or you are playing some sort of game, reason unknown. Perhaps you had found some rubish on the Internet.
If you are serious show me proof that Bacon was on the committe, let alone the man in charged. But before you do that, in case you are taking for granted of someone trying to spread misinformatin in the Internet for example, and have no background on the histories of the KVJ, do yourself a favor and learn a bit more. I venture to say you don't even know how many commitees where formed, their names and which college they where affiliated with.
Last Sunday we sang Palestrina's Alma Redemptoris Mater (preceded by the Gregorian chant transposed to the same key) and Mozart's Jubilate Deo
Next Sunday, Victoria's "Ave Maria" and Gluck's "O Saviour Hear Me". On tap: Tallis's "If Ye Love Me", Purcell's Bell Anthem, Hassler's "Dixit Maria" and the "Cantique de Jean Racine".
The choirmaster really wants us to do the William Matthias "A Babe Is Born" for Christmas - I've got no problem with it, my previous choirmaster was a demon for sightreading and I will take a stab at anything. But it IS tough . . . the sopranos are freaking out.
Dictated by Jesus from the cross is what I've heard on the matter.
This is goofy. Go and read Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus and get back with us.
I see, so in your view, the only reliable text is a rejected gnostic gospel from the 2nd century, while the accepted CANONICAL gospels are unreliable even though they correspond internally with the Old Testament and Paul's epistles, are reliably dated to within one generation of the crucifixion, and were accepted by the church fathers.
Believe whatever you want, just don't try to pass it off as orthodoxy - it's heresy.
You're wasting time on this guy. I've heard all his stuff before. I guess the inclusion of heretical texts in the new Bibles was done in order to please avowed non-believers like him. Time to tune the radioman out, IMO.
So you are a anti-Christian troll. Evidently you are not very familiar with Christian history or the New Testament. Your position has been weighed in the balance on this thread and found WANTING. YOu can't even get your basic facts straight. Did you thing you were going to out-debate people who know more about the NT history than you do? Why don't you just get lost and go spout your dribble in a thread where more gullible people might just believe your tripe.
***Fiction. Who were Matthew and Luke?***
If you are going to play that game consider this.
Years ago naysayers said there was no such thing as Hittites as none of the ancients spoke of them. That is until Champolion translated the Egyptian language and found a complete history of them.
Naysayers said Pontius Pilate was fiction for the same reason, that is until a dedication plaque was found in Csesarea with his name on it.
Can you prove Herodotus lived? Maybe someone else wrote his histories,er, that is fictions as no one can "prove " them.
Can you show me the birth Certificate of Josephus? Can you prove it was He that wrote his histories of the Jews and not someone else?
Maybe Tacitus and Suetonius' histories were really fiction!Can you prove to me that a a Gladitorial Stadium collapsed killing thousands of people?
Can you even prove that most of the people Tacitus and Suetonius wrote about lived?
Maybe Julius Caeser was a fictional character written by someone else. We have statues and stories of him, but we also have statues and stories of Paul Bunyon and Pecos Bill.
So, what standard do you hold to prove someone lived in the past. You can call it "fiction" but that doesn't mean the historical people did not exist.
Again I ask my question...
In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus said he would preach to Mary and she would become a man. Did she?
if not, why do you keep bringing up this piece of drivel?
Good idea. He's a troll.
America was founded as a Christian nation. It is only recentlly that anti-Christian bigots like you are trying to erase God from the public square and classsroom, and teach a FALSE history based on revisionist lies. Dont' even go there pal - I have a degree in U.S. History. I'll paste you to the wall.
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.