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.. reporters didn't get things right then either, did they? Peter didn't exactly get it right most of the time then either. Have you ever played the game where you have an "event" happen and then immediately have everyone write down what they heard and saw? There are never any that say the same thing and you gets all sorts of goofy things that people swear they heard or saw. Nothing new under the sun! :) As for me, I will take the word of God, inspired by God over anyone anyday - even if they claimed they walked with Christ.
If you stop and think about it for a minute, that doesn't make much sense if he wrote down the words as Jesus spoke them. Jesus spoke a lot of words. He and his disciples carried with them a minimum of supplies - they didn't and couldn't carry around all the things to write down all his words. Scripture must agree with scripture.
John gave a "test" in the sixth chapter of his book of 1 John. The gospel of Thomas just doesn't cut that test. But people, being people, will always want to believe man over God. Just like Eve, they keeping falling for that line - oh, God didn't really mean that, did He? The gospel of Thomas - so very different and gnostic from the rest of scriptures is just another way for satan to say - Oh, come on, God didn't really mean what He said all the rest of scriptures - those people didn't write it down like I say that Thomas did...
Apparently, these young ne'er do wells haven't read the last few paragraphs of Revelations.
They need to do so.
Second, the manuscript in Egypt is a 4th century copy found at Nag Hammadi Egypt. Most scholars say that Thomas is a late 2nd century gnostic document. More importantly, it is not part of the canon of scripture, so why do you treat it as if it is? Do you know what gnosticism is? Paul the Apostle battled it himself. Only the Jesus Seminar and other fringe lunatics give it early dating. And you are wrong about it aligning with teh synoptic gospels. Thomas gives no account of Jesus' birth, miracles, death or resurrection. Second, Thomas contains only sayings - there is no historical context, which is evidence of its late writing and unreliability. Thomas contains no prophetic (eschatological) sayings.
Excerpt from "The Conspiracy to Silence the Son of God" by Tal Brooke: "NT scholar Craig Blomberg notes that roughly one-third of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are clearly Gnostic in nature; between one third and one half are paralleled closely in Matheww, Mark, Luke, or John; the remaining sayings are not demonstrably unorthodox but could lend themselves to gnostic interpretations. As an example, here is a "saying" from Thomas, apparently a corruption of Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah (see Mt 16:13-20) in which the apostle Thomas receives a secret revelation:
"Jesus says to his disciples: Compare me, and tell me whom I am like.": Simon Peter says to him: "Thou are like a just angel." Mathew says to him: "Thou are like a wise man and a philosopher." Thomas says to him: "Master, my tongue cannot find words to say whom thou art like." Jesus says: "I am no longer thy master; for thou has drunk,, thou are inebriated from the bubbling spring which is mine and which I sent forth." Then he took him aside; he said three words to him. And when Thomas came ack to his companions, they asked him: "What did Jesus say to thee?" And Thomas answered them: "If I tell you (a single) one of the words he said to me, you will take up stones and throw them at me, and fire will come out of the stones and consume you!" (G. of Thomas, 14).
Thomas, alone among the disciples, discerned correctly that the master is beyond description (beyond comprehension). For this he was rewarded with recognition of his equal footing with Jesus, and with a secret word, for which the other disciples were not yet ready, or perhaps not capable of hearing. The elitism of gnosticism, and its "secret" nature, are evident.
If you believe Thomas is scripture, then you go against the church fathers who gave us the canon of scripture, and against the mainstream of Christian scholarship, and you align yourself with Jesus Seminar lunatics.
I could provide more information from other sources if you like.
My prayers are with you in your search. Remember that the Lord knows where He wants you to be. :)
Tell your wife that if she follows God, God will take care of her.
I illustrate:
I started choir singing in the Cathedral of St. Philip (Atlanta) at age 6 and never stopped. Toured with high school chamber ensemble, sang in college, sang in parish choir after I got married. My parents were members of the choir there for 45 years. My grandmother sang at the Met and was the soloist for St. Peter's Rome (that's Georgia < g > - the Piskies got to town first and snagged the name.) That's just to explain that I consider myself a pretty serious musician of the amateur sort.
My big, big objection to the Catholic parish we now attend was the music program (such as it was). The choir director really liked praise music, there were maybe 14 people in the choir and they were not what I would call serious musicians - maybe 2 or 3 could actually read a little music. The repertoire was about what you would expect - a lot of unison anthems of a mealy mouthed sort, "contemporary" praise music, etc. etc.
Well, everything else was just ducky (and we had a couple of strong spiritual clues of the leading kind that this was the right place), so I gritted my teeth and we joined. I was singing in the choir and putting the best possible face on things, when . . .
The choir director suddenly got a job offer from another parish across town to be their music director and jumped at it. Search committee for replacement formed - deacon put me on it - we started looking around and lo and behold the accompanist, a very quiet and self-effacing man, turns out to have a doctorate from Juilliard and a passion for Ancient Music, chant, and Renaissance polyphony. We basically BEGGED the rector to hire him. He did, and the rest is history. We are singing magnificent music (Palestrina, chant, Viadana, Bach, Purcell, Tallis, Byrd - he likes the English composers and thinks that Byrd marries English text to tune better than anyone living or dead), we have four new staff singers, the choir is growing by leaps and bounds . . . we're going to have to get a new choir room . . .
I'm telling you, God will take care of the music!
What is your motive for defending a book that is not part of scripture? Are you wiser than all Christians before you? Who taught you this stuff you are spouting? Where did you learn it? I would like to know. Is your purpose to discredit Christianity and the gospels?
I wonder if someday we're going to find out that Sinead O'Connor was assaulted by a priest when she was younger.
It's not the pastor that is the issue, but the (PC) PC USA. He is merely following their guidlines. It's the PC USA that is going down the tubes, not just our church. We will need to leave not only this church, but the USA branch of Presbyterianism.
On a more positive note, there is a women's Bible Study my wife attends on Tuesdays. The woman who teaches it (not from our church) is very good, and her teachings always assume the inerrancy of the scriptures. So, at least some good things do happen in the building.
By whom? Provide a source for this statement that we can check.
The Oxyrhynchus Thomas fragments are dated to 130-250 B.C., not to the time of Christ. As I said, I've never heard anyone argue that Thomas was written while Christ was still alive - my understanding is that the American guys who date it to 40 put it the earliest of anybody. And even they trace it to a pre-existing oral tradition (although some believe part of it came from Q1 and Q2).
King James is also the king that gave the charter to the pilgrims to come to America.
The only people I have seen give early date to Thomas are Crossan and the Jesus Seminar lunatics.
Not all of them, so be careful here. Dr. D. James Kennedy in Ft. Lauderdale seems rather right on to me.
You might want to check out your local Orthodox parishes. Depending on where you live, some may heavily ethnic, but others may not.
Yeppers. I think it's a second century forgery, myself. Although if you want to get technical, gnostics back then wouldn't define forgery as I do...
A Catholic parish that sings Palestrina and Tallis? Where is this?
His church is a PCA church - not a PC-USA church. Here is an excerpt from their website:
Coral Ridge became affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on May 16, 1978. Its first worship service was televised on September 17, 1978. The $13.8 million expansion was completed in December 1989. The church mortgage burning ceremony was held November 3, 1996.
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.