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 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-250 last
To: Caleb1411
Also see:

New Testament translation: Thou shalt have sex

241 posted on 10/08/2005 6:17:55 PM PDT by NoCmpromiz (What part of John 14:6 don't you get?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13; NoCmpromiz; Verginius Rufus
If you are arguing that the Catholic Church was not really "catholic" (because there were many sects,

Many sects proves there were no Catholics. This has been fun, but it's time to point out the obvious. There were many Christian creeds. Nicaea gave one catholic creed for all. The word catholic means universal.
.
242 posted on 10/08/2005 6:35:44 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: radioman

"Many sects proves there were no Catholics."

No it doesn't.
There are many sects today...about 6000 and growing.
That hardly means that there are no Catholics.
About 85% of Christians are Catholics, and another 5-6% are Orthodox who are all but Catholic. That still leaves 8-10% of Christianity to the other 5998 sects.
You can have Catholics and plenty of other Christian sects, some of them quite vibrant and growing, like the Mormons.

There's no particular reason to think that the same was not the case in 150 AD either.

Obviously all of the major Protestant sects today are the descendants of the Catholic church of Nicaea. Certainly Luther and his progeny, and the Church of England and her progeny, are quite Nicene Catholic in their creeds and beliefs. There are only a handful of Christian sects that philosphically resemble those early multiplicity of sects, and none in the Western world that actually descend from any of them.


243 posted on 10/08/2005 9:32:15 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
It sounds like 4kids got a hold of the bible.

Good grief, you're right. Renaming characters, mistranslating - they probably cut out the whole "Resurrection Arc", too.

244 posted on 10/08/2005 9:39:38 PM PDT by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
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."

What the hell kind of "Catholics" are they?

245 posted on 10/08/2005 9:41:45 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("My Gov'nor don't got the answer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
There are many sects today...about 6000 and growing
I followed your lead when I used the word "sect." I should have said "creed"...My mistake.

About 85% of Christians are Catholics

Then we can assume that the King James Bible is the creed of the majority of Christians.
That being the case, all of those who are of the King James creed are catholics...Followers of the universal creed.
Catholics then, would be divided into sects. Roman, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.
Since there is now only one universal creed, King James, all Christians are catholics. Anyone following another creed is a heretic.

Before Nicaea there were many creeds. That's what Nicaea was all about. They decided on one catholic creed. There were no catholics before Nicaea because there was no universal creed before Nicaea.
.
246 posted on 10/08/2005 10:45:18 PM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
The latest figures in The World Almanac are:

2,069,883,000 Christians, of which

1,092,853,000 are Catholics,
364,530,000 are Protestants,
217,030,000 are Orthodox,
79,988,000 are Anglican, and
406,074,000 are "independents" (whatever that means).

The totals don't add up (and Anglicans are generally considered Protestants), but at any rate Catholics appear to be just slightly over one-half of the total, with Orthodox a little over 10%.

247 posted on 10/09/2005 3:05:28 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Interesting.

I got my numbers off of some religious data website (can't remember which).

Interesting that there would be such a tremendous variance.
What that tells me is that nobody knows, and that these numbers are a guess.

I suppose an "independent" is someone who says he's a Christian but says he doesn't belong to or believe in any particular sect. I wonder if they include Mormons and Christian Scientists as Protestants?


248 posted on 10/09/2005 3:22:54 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
They don't explain who is included as "independent" but cite the 2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year as the source of their figures. Besides Mormons and Christian Scientists there are other groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses which may be kept out of the "Protestant" category. There are some Eastern churches which have theological differences with the Orthodox Church, such as the Coptic Church, but I'm guessing they are counting the Copts in the Orthodox category (they have almost 37 million Orthodox in Africa, which would roughly approximate the total of Ethiopian Christians plus Egyptian Copts).
249 posted on 10/09/2005 3:37:13 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Dear Vic: What you are saying is true. However, you still have to translate any text as faithfully and as free from one's own personal, ideological, or theological biases as possible. That task is done by making proper use of lexicons and ancient sources. A "translation" that overtly reflects these biases is not a translation, but a periphrastic work of propaganda.
250 posted on 10/15/2005 10:39:37 AM PDT by attiladhun2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-250 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