Posted on 10/06/2009 4:41:06 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
A year ago Time magazine's David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed "green references" in "a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus." But wait, there's more, The Green Bible also includes "supplementary writings" several of which "cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity 'dominion' over the earth" and "Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus' call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains."
Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom "agreed that 'stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'" might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.
Yet the same reverent treatment was spared the online "Conservative Bible Project" spearheaded by some folks at Conservapedia. Time's Amy Sullivan slammed the project as "insane" in her October 5 Swampland blog post:
This is insane. The guys at Conservapedia (aka, "the trustworthy encyclopedia") have decided to retranslate the Bible in what they're calling the Conservative Bible Project, because "liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations."
And you thought liberal bias was limited to the evil mainstream media. Apparently the early Church fathers had their own problems, because the Conservapediacs are particularly intent on scrubbing the Bible of "liberal" passages they say were inserted into the original canon and therefore shouldn't be considered sacred. Passages like the story of the adulteress whom Jesus saved from being stoned with the famous line: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Conservapedia complains that liberals have used this story to argue against the death penalty. Plus, this Jesus character sounds like a radical moral relativist.
Also among the goals of the project: replace liberal words like "labor" with preferred conservative terms; use concise language instead of "liberal wordiness"; and--my favorite--"explain the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning." Jesus talks about economics more than any other secular subject in the Bible, so they've got their work cut out for them. I look forward to learning the free-market meaning of "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
While this writer personally disagrees with and finds huge dangers in an explicitly "conservative" interpretation of holy writ, Sullivan goes beyond issuing a warning about tampering with holy writ by suggesting the effort is no more than an attempt to pen a Bible that both the Church Lady and Gordon Gecko would love.
In doing so, she fails to consider some of more legitimate theologically conservative concerns that the project managers point to, such as "gender neutral" phrasing in some translations and language in other translations that glosses over the stark biblical teachings on Hell and eternal punishment.
Both the Green Bible and the nascent Conservative Bible project have room for both scorn and thoughtful criticism. It would be helpful for Sullivan to admit as much to escape the charge of being a hypocrite who should first remove the log from her magazine's eye before picking the speck out of those of conservative online activists.
I agree. I would really like to see an example of a part they have a problem with and how they would change it.
Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
You are 100% correct.
Now if I re-wrote the Bible I might leave out all my foibles and proclivities then, of course, I would be perfect and I could look down on everyone who wasn’t the same as me - wouldn’t that be just dandy!
Of course I would go to hell under those circumstances!
Mel
First Example - Liberal Falsehood
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34829_Conservapedias_New_and_Improved_Non-Commie_Bible
Of course, the "Green Bible" is just as ridiculous and blasphemous.
The truth of the Bible can make every one of us uncomfortable. It is up to us to change our lives to conform to it, not to change it to conform to our lives.
Well just in case the reader of the WORD does not make it to Revelation 22:18-19 they can find the same warning in Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your GOD which I command you.
And Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
But as Solomon pens in Ecclesiastes 1: 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, 'See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
Gee I wonder if there will ever be a politically correct translation of the Koran?
First Example - Liberal Falsehood
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
The scholarly justification for including Luke 23:34 is that the weight of numbers of early manuscripts overwhelm the fact that the oldest manuscript omits the verse. While there can be scholarly arguments made for either method, ( I favor the weight of numbers and thus inclusion) picking and choosing on the basis of what verses you think are being used by your opponents is not rightly respecting the Word.
And I take issue with their asserting that some of the people that Jesus was forgiving knew what they were doing. If we look at the immediate context, "they" was referring to the soldiers who physically performed the act and who were casting lots for his clothes.
Thank you. I couldn't get any of their own websites to come up.
I'm pretty good with taking Jesus at His word. If He says they didn't know what they were doing, then I'm going to assume they really didn't know.
Liberals have a big problem with that, "Thou shall not kill" thing.
Four simple words and yet they think it's alright to kill babies.
Yes, there is. The English translation given out by pro-Islamic groups as part of their PR efforts are just that - watered down "PC" version.
The LORD said; “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:..........”(Isaiah 1:18a)
And god said: “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)
The Lord Jesus said; “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.) (John 1:14)
Let us read; Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Peter wrote; “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incoruptible, by the word of god, which liveth and abideth forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)
Acts
4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
4:33
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
4:34
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
4:35
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need
Where have I heard the 4:35 before? hmmmm,
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Jesus was talking to the soldiers and they did not know who they were crucifying. As bad as it may seem they were obeying legal orders given by the legal authority against a person who had been tried by the legally prescribed judge.
Jesus practiced His own preaching to the very last second of His life.
IF liberals have deliberately corrupted the Bible in provable, public, examinable ways, why not have an ...
1) annotated
2) public
3) corrected
... Bible? I trust only the King James translators to have done a non “Spin Zone” edition. Every translation to English since I suspect has had deliberate tamperings.
I don’t agree or disagree with the “NetBible”, but check out Psalms 22:16 http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=22&verse=16. It provides many translations, AND if I am not mistaken, they even had forums where everyone could opine on verses, and I was led to http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/Handbook.pdf where I learned a lot about attempts to corrupt the Bible.
In short, maybe we could ...
1) use the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, and the best reasoning for what other sources to use for the Old Testament
2) use the best reasoning for what New Testament sources to use
3) use the best reasoning for what verses to include or leave out
4) justify every decision PUBLICLY, and what competing reasons were left out, for all the world to see
5) use modern, accurate language
Liberals have no qualms with corrupting the Word of God, because they think of it as a football by which to lead Christians. Shameful.
That’s absolutely correct.
The best translation would try to get the writer’s thoughts as closely as possible to what they origianlly were.
My bet is that such a Bible translation would still be conservative enough to suit all but the terminally crazy.
Oh??
NIV Matthew 7:21-28
21. "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23. Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
24. "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
26. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
27. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
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.