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.
Well, actually you've both got it a little wrong.
If you're going to really go for the ancient translation, source of KJV, etc., learn Latin and get a copy of the Vulgate.
And then spend the next 20 years in university to learn Latin well enough to be able to confidently read it.
The original KJV translation was from the Vulgate, with comparisons to the (few) Greek texts that were around to compare it to.
That last was an error.
The earlier English Bible translations, were Vulgate translations. The KJV used Erasmus' version of the textus receptus.
Not that it really makes a difference, frankly, because there's no substantive difference between them.
But when we've got folks claiming that the Gospel of Thomas was in the Bible, etc., it's important to get the history at least a little bit right. Apologies for the error.
Why would I learn Latin when the original books and letters were penned in Hebrew and Greek?
Uh, what did they do with "man lying with man is an abomination"? Was it changed to "earth creatures who lie with other earth creatures are life partners"?
I assume you are refering to the Itala, and not the Latin Vulgate produced by St. Jerome. I don't agree. But I give leeway in that a number of manuscripts such as the ones Erasmus and Stephes used where must probably along the same lines, e.g. very close word for word, as the original greek manuscripts that where used to create the Itala. Some books I own go as far as saying the greek manuscripts that where used for this version date back to 150AD. And we know the third century Waldensian used this version, before it was basically outlawed and a certain church attempted to exterminate these peoples living in those valleys. But lets face it, most references indicate the 1611 KJV was based on already good translations mixed with GK manuscripts Erasmus had on hand that closely followed the Stephen,Beza, the Elzevirs translations and GK manuscripts.
Incidently I have a great English/Greek Transliteral Bible based on the Stephens text. But that is beside the point. You are probaby very well aware there are so many sources on who transcribed/translated what and by whom, that often paint a somewhat confusing picture. So I will close by saying that my studies in the past would lead me to no other believe that the Itala represented fairly well what the autographs may have contained. But I have not found proof where the committee used the Italaas a key source.
***The original King James Bible was a translation into English of the Latin Vulgate,***
Strange, I thought it was Eurasmus' Greek text and Beza's texts, then compared with the Latin texts.
*** When you say, "America was founded as a Christian nation", what exactly do you mean? ***
Go read the Mayflower Compact signed by the Pilgrims as they took ship for the Americas.
I mean a Christian nation not a Christian government. What I mean is that the founding principles of America - self government, God-given rights, etc. as well as our system of government are judeo-Christian in origin. In addition, the first people who settled here were Christian people - pilgrims, puritans. In addition, 95% of the founding fathers were Christians, the majority of which were calvinist, and 99%of the people were professing Christians at the time of the Revolution. In a very small nutshell, that is what I mean.
Interesting that the article is in "World". Veith is usually a credible source of material. Beltz would not risk the reputation of the magazine on a possible slander, even of Campolo.
Campolo has lost his mind if he is truly supporting something that slices out the pastorals & revelation and replaces them with the Gospel of Thomas.
Essentially, he's saying he has a better take on what should be canonical than the earliest churches.
Man that boy could rock. Too bad he and double trouble went down the way they did.
>> I wonder if someday we're going to find out that Sinead O'Connor was assaulted by a priest when she was younger. <<
And then maybe some day we'll find out Bill Clinton had loose morals!
The sarcasm is just silliness not grumpiness, but yeah, it's quite well known that Sinead is a "survivor." I'm not sure if she ever stated it was a priest, though.
Hmmm. go figure... It turns out the exact translation is "Shad Shack." Not to be confused with "Pere's Pike Place, down the street.
Ah, now I see - you don't know what a Christian is!
That does make a debate about Christianity difficult. But then, someone who believes the 'Gospel of Thomas' is part of the Bible isn't interested in honest debate.
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.