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.
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.
I'll stick with a Douay myself. Or a Navarre Series for that matter.
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.
The SECULAR government taxes you, not Christians. Blame it on Woodrow Wilson.
Your posts were giving me a flash-back to 1977.
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.
As I said, go get educated, and then come back and talk.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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...
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".
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.
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?
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?
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.