I prefer the Old SRV.
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.
Have you tried a PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) or Orthdox Presbyterian church? You won't find any of that nonsense in either one of them.
If your Pastor is using the Father-Mother term - RUN AWAY!
I have not been back to church since the "Father-Mother" incident. I e-mailed the pastor about it, and he said that he was using "a new book of prayers that seeks use more inclusive language. We...are...attempting to be more balanced than the steady drone of He, Him, Father, Mankind and seek language that causes us to think of God in ways that are "outside the box" and thereby, hopefully, enlarge our vision of who our God is".
It is hard to leave a church after many years. It was in the adult Bible study class there that I learned much of the scriptures, and went from being a quasi-believer to one who totally believes the scriptures (the real ones, anyway). I think the first clue something was wrong was when our Bible study class watched a tape with a "new exciting minister"-Tony Campolo! We had jsut studied all of Paul's letters, and this guys (in the tape) was going on about how we in the Church place too much emphasis on "belief", and not enough on "works". He said stuff like "How can Gandhi not have been a Christian?", and so on.
I need to find us a new church, but it is going to be tought to pry my wife away, as she has been active in the choir for a number of years (we were married there in 1987). Our church has swung this way before, but it swung back. However, in the "progressive" times we live in, I doubt it will this time.
BTW, the pew Bibles are still NSRV, but I usually have a NASB with me.
My father-mother would slap me upside the head with his-her "mighty hand" if I randomly started changing the words to The Lord's prayer.
Really? I thought "House of Fish" was the Japanese restaurant down the street from here ...
:'}
The best solution to this nonsense is to study text the way Jews do. Learn the original language and read and study that way. While these are extreme examples, every translator is, in effect, a liar (good intentions to the text or not).
It's:
If you're a protestant get a King James and get yourself into a Presbyterian Church of America, Missouri Synod Lutheran, or (non-American Baptist Convention) Baptist church. If you're a Catholic become Catholic, then along with the other Catholics get a Douay or King James + Apocrypha and find a parish that's not corrupted by the left.
and you are still a member, sans?
No. Just out of curiosity, where'd you get that idea? I've never even seen that argued before.
ROTFL! Nice post!
May God have mercy on us all...
I prefer the Old SRV.
Where do you get your information? No. It was written at least 150 years or more after Christ, and indeed, after all of the other gospels were written. It's a heresy, and it has NEVER been included in the canon of scripture, at any time, ever. It was recognized as "pseudepigrapha" from the get-go, as are about 20 other books from the same time frame. The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic view (Gnosticism is pure heresy) of the alleged miracles of the childhood of Jesus. It is given credence only by heretics such as the Jesus Seminar and other non-Christian pretender groups. It was not ever given credence by any of the church fathers.
Revelation 23:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Oh good grief! If you REALLY want to "enlarge your vision" of who God is, tell the pastor to take a long months long meditative stroll through all of the Psalms and the last few chapters in Job. Most likely you will do as Job did - put his hand over his mouth (in a posture of repentance - "oh - what did I do!) When I started attending my church, they were finishing up a years long sermon series on every single Psalm. I wanted them to start all over because I missed most of it. ;)
It is hard to leave a church after many years.
Yes, it is. It is very hard. I too had to leave the church where the adublt Bible study class (and the sermons) is where I really learned to love the Word and trust in them and not man's words. But nonsense crept in, little by little. Finally, many many people left (and are still leaving - after about 7 yrs) - some who had spent their entire married life there, raised kids and their grandkids in the church. Or were retired pastors serving as visitations pastors, all sorts of people who had been there for years. It had once been one of the most solid biblical churches around of its type. But the bottom line is - whom do you choose to serve today - God, or man? It may be that your leaving would cause others to see that something is wrong. And, you are the spiritual head of the household - you will be held accountable more than your wife.
Both the PCA and OP broke off from the PC-USA for the same basic reasons. A dear friend of mine who is 86 left the PCUSA for the PCA when her son did his research and showed her exactly what the PCUSA really believes. And it ain't pretty.
What makes me cringe is the bisexual word "Godself" as in "God reveals Godself through the scriptures..."
What version is are you refering to? My KJV has this in Rev 22:18-19
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.