Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Worldly word:New Bible texts translate the Bible away
WORLD ^ | October 15, 2005 | Gene Edward Veith

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: apostate; bible; christianity; heresy; heretic; moralabsolutes; purge; religiousleft; screwballs; screwytranslations; tniv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-250 next last
To: Sans-Culotte

It appears that you are right. Christians who KNOW the Truth in the person of Christ Jesus hear the voice of their Shepherd. I was hoping that he was perhaps seeking the truth, but it appears that he is really trolling his deceptions. I ain't biting.


161 posted on 10/07/2005 1:08:09 PM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I'll stick with a Douay myself. Or a Navarre Series for that matter.


162 posted on 10/07/2005 1:10:24 PM PDT by Romish_Papist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Free Baptist
Amen, brother! Christians have a lot more in common than differences. The central thing is Christ Jesus, and him crucified - be we Baptist, Presby, or Catholic.

My ggg grandfather the Baptist deacon would have a fit if he knew his ggg granddaughter was a Papist. . . but I think he'd calm down if we soothed him a bit.

163 posted on 10/07/2005 1:21:06 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: aBootes
Dictated by Jesus from the cross is what I've heard on the matter

Lol!
Get ready for the flames!
.
164 posted on 10/07/2005 1:46:32 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Go and read Josephus

To which version are you referring...the Hebrew or the Fraud?
.
165 posted on 10/07/2005 1:50:10 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte
Time to tune the radioman out, IMO.

ROTFLMAO!!!
You want the right to tax me, but will "tune me out" when I question your moral authority to do so. How Christian of you!
.
166 posted on 10/07/2005 1:54:48 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: radioman

The SECULAR government taxes you, not Christians. Blame it on Woodrow Wilson.


167 posted on 10/07/2005 2:01:50 PM PDT by SmartCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: radioman
Nah, you just got boring. Reminded me of my college days in the 70's, when the guy in dorm room below mine played the record "Car Wash" on repeat, about 20 or more times, and it made its way up the air vent to my room. "Car Wash" was not only a repetitious song, but an annoying one with little substance.

Your posts were giving me a flash-back to 1977.

168 posted on 10/07/2005 2:02:32 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Meadows Place, TX- "Tom DeLay Country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Buggman; Revelation 911; Corin Stormhands; The Grammarian; jude24; blue-duncan
They're not serious, are they? Is this satire? Does anyone know if this is true?

Whatever Campolo might be, stupid is not on that list. i have serious doubts about the accuracy of the article, and for good reason: These "endoursements" are something i have seen before.

In other circles, diverse people of influence are often sent articles, papers, and books for their input. The reasoning is that even bad publicity is still publicity. More readers can be obtained by virtue of the controversy if nothing else. It is often true that The 'reviewer' has not even read what it is he/she is supposedly reviewing, and the 'review' doesn't even bear the name on close inspection.

You will notice in mny cases the 'reviewer' does not endourse the conclusions of the book/paper/article, and does not speak of the position at all. It doesn't mean that Williams, Campolo, et. al. agree with the book, the scholarship, the conclusions, or even the need for such a book/paper. In many cases, the 'reviewer' isn't even qualified to discuss the subject matter. Some of you may recall Dave Hunt's citation of Dr. Richard Feinman, a NASA Physicist, concerning the subject of psychology in one of his books. Hunt took a lot of heat for that (and rightfully so). One must carefull read the comments, and not draw conclusions not warrented by the comment.

It is a common trick of cultists, and aborrant theologians, and creates a veneer of legitimacy for an otherwise shoddy work.

169 posted on 10/07/2005 2:12:37 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: radioman
You're about 20 years behind the historical times, friend. Unless your idea of "scholarship" is the Jesus Project, in which case you are off in left field somewhere.

As I said, go get educated, and then come back and talk.

170 posted on 10/07/2005 2:12:47 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . Ministrix of ye Chace (recess appointment), TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: SmartCitizen
So you are a anti-Christian troll.

No, I am anti fringe kook.
Mainstream Christians are great friends and neighbors. If that makes me a troll, then I am:
A troll who is forced to pay taxes to your church in a country that is supposed to have separation of church and state!
A troll who is less of an American now that America is a Christian Nation!
A troll who demands that you prove your moral superiority justifies America is a Christian Nation!
A troll who responded to a thread that is posted News/Activism!
If you can't take the heat, post in Religion. I never go there!
. .
171 posted on 10/07/2005 2:13:20 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: SmartCitizen
I'll paste you to the wall

So do I...Give it your best shot!
.
172 posted on 10/07/2005 2:16:24 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
Yep. Liberals are stuck on stupid - including getting rid of the Bible cause they don't approve of its Divine Authorship. Tinkering with sexist language is so beneath them - why not go for what they've always been really after? Get rid of God and substitute Him with the modern Liberal Trinity. Finally you have a politically correct Good Book.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
173 posted on 10/07/2005 2:20:04 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Oh, what's all the fuss about, mates?

In Australia they just came out with a 'Strine version that has the angel telling the Virgin Mary she's "one special Sheila".

Surely THAT'S not offensive...


174 posted on 10/07/2005 2:20:24 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord

I've heard of the arguments regarding the pastorals & of revelation, but to excise them from the text and to add in the Gospel of Thomas is orthodox suicide.


175 posted on 10/07/2005 2:26:09 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I've heard of the arguments regarding the pastorals & of revelation, but to excise them from the text and to add in the Gospel of Thomas is orthodox suicide.

"Immanuel Swedenborg, call your office".

176 posted on 10/07/2005 2:29:49 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: radioman

Radioman,

Sir Francis Bacon didn't "leave out" the Gospel of Thomas from the Authorized Version (the "King James Version").

It wasn't in the Vulgate, which was the primary template for the KJV, in the first place. It isn't in the Catholic Canon (and never was). It isn't in the Orthodox Canon (and never was). It isn't in Martin Luther's Canon (and never was).

It wasn't even considered for the Authorized Version.

The original King James Bible was a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate, and it included the deuterocanonical works of the OLD Testament, later downgraded to the status of "apocrypha" and banished from the Protestant canon. Nobody in the English Church seriously suggested bringing in the Gospel of Thomas.
It wasn't in the Bible that then existed everywhere in England (the Catholic, Latin one). It wasn't in Tyndale's translation of the Catholic, Latin one. It wasn't in Luther's German bible. And it wasn't on the table to be included "by Sir Francis Bacon" (who was not an English Bishop, and did not, therefore, have the ecclesial authority to determine the content of the English Bible.

In short, Bacon's a red herring when it comes to the KJV and so's the Gospel of Thomas.


177 posted on 10/07/2005 2:57:35 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SmartCitizen

When you say, "America was founded as a Christian nation", what exactly do you mean? Surely you do not think that America was founded as a Christian nation in the same way as Saudi Arabia is an Islamic nation?


178 posted on 10/07/2005 2:59:19 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

Comment #179 Removed by Moderator

To: radioman

No.
None of the Gospels were written while Jesus was alive and preaching.

There is one fragmentary letter which is said by some to have been written by Jesus to some followers. The Catholic Church never accepted it as canonical, and even if they had it would have been of no spiritual use, because about all it says is "Greetings, Jonias..." or something about as banal. Jesus was a carpenter by trade, so presumably there were a bunch of tables and stools wandering about Nazareth that he made. Maybe he framed some houses too. None of those things were preserved as holy relics either.

But let's assume, for a moment, that Thomas' Gospel was written during Jesus' lifetime (it wasn't). So what?


180 posted on 10/07/2005 3:09:35 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-250 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson