Today's New International Version

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Whether you believe, disbelieve or are uncertain about the subject matter, one thing is for sure, the dumbing down process is starting to look dumbed down.

For readers of the Bible confused by its archaic language, such as its use of the term "stoned" for a form of execution rather than the effects of smoking dope, help is at hand.

One of the world's most widely read Bibles, the New International Version, has been modernised by a team of 15 American and British scholars and is published today.

Gone is the word "aliens", which the academics thought was invariably associated in the minds of the younger generation with extra-terrestrials. It is replaced with "foreigners".

Even the term "saints" is deemed to be too "ecclesiastical" and has been banished, to be replaced with "God's chosen people". The Virgin Mary is no longer "with child"; she is "pregnant".

And, to the dismay of traditionalists, who will suspect a feminist agenda, "inclusive" language has been introduced throughout.

Where the original read: "When God created Man, he made him in the likeness of God"; the new version says: "When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God."

For those unfamiliar with the punishments meted out in Biblical times to blasphemers and adulterers, the new version is also helpful, changing "Naboth has been stoned and is dead" to "Naboth has been stoned to death".

More than 45,000 changes - about seven per cent of the text - have been made. Even the title has been changed to Today's New International Version.

The new version has already caused a stir in the United States, however. Paige Patterson, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that the translators had gone beyond trying to clarify meaning.

"They have an agenda - to attempt to force egalitarian and even feminist perspectives on readers in the name of translation," he said.

But the scholars who worked on the book rejected the charges, saying that their changes were a fair reflection of the original Greek or Hebrew texts or updated colloquial English words.
Click to expand...
 
Well its been translated and interpreted so much over the past 2000+ years that its inconcievable that much if any of the original meaning and intent is there anyway.
 
Where the original read: "When God created Man, he made him in the likeness of God"; the new version says: "When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God."
Click to expand...

But you see, that isn't how it happened.

God created man. He named him Adam. Adam was alone for awhile, and God decided that he needed a "helpmate" as it was worded. Adam was caused to fall into a deep sleep, a rib was taken from him and from that rib God created woman, Eve.

Like it or not, PC enough for you or not...that matters not at all. That is the way it occurred, and any translation of the Bible which does not reflect thusly is false. Game, set, and match.
 
A.B.Normal said:
Well its been translated and interpreted so much over the past 2000+ years that its inconcievable that much if any of the original meaning and intent is there anyway.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

It has been translated and wording has been updated. However, the primary and unchangable word of God still survives to this day, unaltered by the hand of God's creation, man.

I think that some translations are more accurate than others, and that some are truly laughable. Your opinions may vary, and that is fine. I'd rather see a person read a translation of the Bible I don't care for than to read none at all. I do not read the NIV of the Bible. I read the King James Version and only that one. Once in a blue moon I will cross reference another version, generally the RSV, but those times are rare indeed. If an educated adult in the 21st Century has trouble translating the KJV, they have problems that go beyond literacy. Some of the Hebrew and Greek language is beyond my grasp, I admit, but generally those are names of people or places, and with this thing we call the internet the reader is mere seconds away from even those mysteries being unlocked.

Naturally, each is free to choose for themselves which version if any they prefer to read. So long as the fundamental message remains intact, it's not a huge deal. More a matter of preference than anything else. But the "original meaning" is every bit as alive today as it was the moment it was first imparted. Never doubt that.
 
Jesus healing the sick. He walks up to a man who doesn't appear outwardly sick. Jesus goes to place his hand on the man, when like a shot the man recoils. Concerned Jesus asks him whats wrong, the man looks at Jesus and says "Don't heal me i'm on incapacity benefit" ( Insert scouse accent if you like)
 
SnP and I have had this discussion before...but allow me a word in here.

There are numerous versions of the Bible out there, several of them are further from the original text than the KJV...many of them have modified the exact terminology in order to make it more available to the layman.
Frankly, the 'thees' and 'thou's drove me a bit nuts and certainly made it more difficult to read the Bible in any depth. The issue is whether the meaning or the truth was lost in each subsequent translation.

Churches today are suffering from the loss of parishioners. Few young adults attend, few young families attend as well. Churches try very hard to increase their parish list with youths because they know that their core members are getting old and that there are fewer weddings and baptisms and more funerals yearly.

Any attempt to make the Bible more readable to a new audience should be applauded...the more that read it, the more will find the truth in it.
Wether it says that God created man in His image or it says that God created 'humans' in His image...it's the same message. God created 'us' in His image. Creationism.

Is the message truly lost or is it reaching more ears? I think that the latter is more true.
It's a matter of opinion as to whether God will allow His word to be corrupted. :shrug:
 
Henceforth, Black Holes shall be referred to as Non-Discriminatory Vaccums of no distinguishable hue.
 
Says the guy looking for a gift for a gay wedding. You'll pardon me if your opinions on the christian religion don't inspire me, Bish.
 
The NASB for real Bible study, the NKJV for most every other need. The KJV is a great Bible and has set it footprint in history but it was written in a time long gone. The wording is poetic, but it is a hard read for most people.

I've read from the NIV but I think it is to off the path. For me, most of the paraphrase based Bibles, that is, the Bibles that bring the meaning out, tend to be more liberal. A true word for word translation, such as the NASB, is my kind of Bible.


Bible Translation Comparison
 
MrBishop said:
SnP and I have had this discussion before...It's a matter of opinion as to whether God will allow His word to be corrupted. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes we have. And no He will not. And that is a matter of fact.
 
2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Buy 'em a Bible. Looks like they need one.
Click to expand...

He bought my daughter one, and he works in a church. I wonder how they'd see his attending a gay marriage?
 
Prof said:
He bought my daughter one, and he works in a church. I wonder how they'd see his attending a gay marriage?
Click to expand...
I bought her a kick-ass Bible...she is my Goddaughter :D

I work for a church and a Diocesan Office of Anglican faith. This does not, nor should it in any way, stop me from attending the nuptials of people from other religions. I have attended Jewish weddings (twice) and worn the kipa (sp?) twice, out of respect. I have attended Roman Catholic Weddings as well, and one Pagan wedding (in which I was a participant). I didn't do this to prove my faith, but to help celebrate the marraige of my friends.

If the Anglican faith looked at these things critically or conservativly, I wouldn't have been allowed to attend even the RC weddings, much less the Jewish ones. :shrug:

Attending the wedding of two people from another faith is NOT against Anglican doctrine, canons or beliefs...sorry Prof.

The two individuals in question are marrying outside their church in order to have their wedding blessed. They are both Anglicans though and one, for a while, was on his way to becoming an Anglican priest. Several of the guests will be Anglican priests or lay-clergy. Their home was blessed by an Anglican Priest. I'm sure that not only do they attend church more often that you or I, but also own more Bibles than you or I.

This is not the argument at hand. If you want to argue the other topic, post a thread and we'll hash it out there.

This is about the translation of the Bible using a different and more modern dictionary...in order to appeal to a larger audience.
 
"When God created Man, he made him in the likeness of God"; the new version says: "When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God."
Click to expand...

I knew that were coming. :rolleyes:

Next version, God won't be a he, nor a she, he will be neutral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top