Originally posted by TerrierJack
Every reader is an editor.

Not me.

Originally posted by FMF
Doesn't using 'Her' now, at the very least, compensate for the rather presumptuous use of 'His' by people since centuries ago whose thinking was limited in certain ways. Surely 'It' would be the best compromise to avoid misleading gender specific language when talking about God?

God Is Male

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
They specifically talk about changing words just to fit their own political agenda.

Translations aren't perfect, but they aren't trying to do a more accurate translation - they are specifically going through and saying anything that is translated as being "liberal".

They also talk about changing the translation to push "free market principles"... is ...[text shortened]... he inerrant word of god yet they are changing the bible to fit modern political beliefs.

I am not sure you have actually read the page. They are not questioning the Bible, rather they are questioning its translation. Possibly they have a point about 'government'. The word used is 'boule' which can also mean a council or a senate (literally, the one who plans or deliberates). Perhaps these conservatives do not think this word exactly corresponds to the modern word 'government' and consequently would prefer a different word. I don't how you could misconstrue this 'identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes'.

And, as I said earlier, there have been attempts at a more liberal bible translation, replacing 'him' with 'her', 'father' with 'mother'. These too are very drastic modifications to the text, why no fuss about that from you?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am not sure you have actually read the page. They are not questioning the Bible, rather they are questioning its translation. Possibly they have a point about 'government'. The word used is 'boule' which can also mean a council or a senate (literally, the one who plans or deliberates). Perhaps these conservatives do not think this word exactly corr ...[text shortened]... are very drastic modifications to the text, why no fuss about that from you?

They are not questioning the Bible, rather they are questioning its [i]translation. [/i]

I KNOW. ... but there is subjectivity in translation and when you specifically go about translating something intentionally to bend it to your political bias then you can be essentially changing the meaning.

And, as I said earlier, there have been attempts at a more liberal bible translation, replacing 'him' with 'her', 'father' with 'mother'. These too are very drastic modifications to the text, why no fuss about that from you?

As I said earlier, I don't really care myself if they do change the bible or write their own. After all, L Ron Hubbard wrote his own religious text and the only difference is that it was written in modern times as far as I'm concerned.

If there have been people who translate things into more liberal ways to fit their agenda then the same question applies of course. Just because I've posted a thread on this and not those doesn't mean that I don't think the question isn't valid there too.

They didn't say they want to find an objectively more accurate translation, they specifically specified that they wanted to root out any "liberal" translations. They defined accurate as conservative.

I have no problem with changing the bible to be more inclusive because it's a book that has an insane amount of influence on people and if changing it to be another fairy tale like snow white makes people more rational and nice to eachother then great!

The question I had was to the people who believed that it is the inerrant word of god. If it's the inerrant word of god and the translations are flawed due to political bias and otherwise then how do you know what parts are truly accurately representing the word of god?

Originally posted by Conrau K
It does not seem to me that they are actually editing the Bible, but the translation. I do not see any issues there. Most biblical translators will make some modifications in their translation, such as to try to be more gender-inclusive. So when Jesus says 'brothers', the translator writes 'brothers and sisters'. Or when the Bible talks about 'mankind', the ...[text shortened]... to God as 'her'. I wonder why you have not criticised this more obvious corruption.

C'mon, this is clearly more than just about "translation".

http://conservapedia.com/Adulteress_story

Originally posted by daniel58
God Is Male

Why must you limit It in this way? How earthbound of you.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
They are not questioning the Bible, rather they are questioning its [i]translation. [/i]

I KNOW. ... but there is subjectivity in translation and when you specifically go about translating something intentionally to bend it to your political bias then you can be essentially changing the meaning.

And, as I said earlier, there have been at how do you know what parts are truly accurately representing the word of god?

I KNOW. ... but there is subjectivity in translation and when you specifically go about translating something intentionally to bend it to your political bias then you can be essentially changing the meaning.

As far as I can see, the authors did not state that their intention is to root out anything with a possible liberal meaning. Rather, they have only stated that their objective is to correct translations from a liberal bias. Again, no where do I see that they are changing the meaning. From the quote I used earlier, it seems that their intention is to produce a more 'accurate' translation. Possibly 'government' really is a bad translation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon, this is clearly more than just about "translation".

http://conservapedia.com/Adulteress_story

I don't see what the problem is. Sure, this is not what mainstream Christians would think. However, they have put forward a scholarly argument that the passage is stylistically different from other passages. I cannot judge the merits of this argument, but it does seem better than 'this is too liberal, let's get rid of it',

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't see what the problem is. Sure, this is not what mainstream Christians would think. However, they have put forward a scholarly argument that the passage is stylistically different from other passages. I cannot judge the merits of this argument, but it does seem better than 'this is too liberal, let's get rid of it',

From your post:
"It does not seem to me that they are actually editing the Bible, but the translation."

You don't consider dropping an entire passage as "editing"? That's interesting.

It is certainly contrary to the idea of the Bible being the "inerrant word of God".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From your post:
"It does not seem to me that they are actually editing the Bible, but the translation."

You don't consider dropping an entire passage as "editing"? That's interesting.

It is certainly contrary to the idea of the Bible being the "inerrant word of God".

You don't consider dropping an entire passage as "editing"? That's interesting.

When I wrote that, I had not yet read that page. I agree that it goes beyond ordinary translation, yet it still a perfectly valid form of textual criticism. There are whole books and verses that Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants disagree about whether to include.

It is certainly contrary to the idea of the Bible being the "inerrant word of God".

No; I think you should read it again. The authors did not say that the Bible was wrong; what they said was that there are inauthentic passages which are not part of the inerrant word of God. That is not really an heretical position. If you read through the Gospels, you will find several verses, sometimes passages, which are bracketed because they do not appear in all the extant codexes or because of some other reason that their veracity cannot be certain. So while a Christian might claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, they may disagree about what is the word of God and what books, passages and verses should be included. Christian scripture scholars are not averse to textual criticism.

Originally posted by Conrau K

No; I think you should read it again. The authors did not say that the Bible was wrong; what they said was that there are inauthentic passages which are not part of the inerrant word of God.

How does one discern objectively the word of god?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I KNOW. ... but there is subjectivity in translation and when you specifically go about translating something intentionally to bend it to your political bias then you can be essentially changing the meaning.

As far as I can see, the authors did not state that their intention is to root out anything with a possible liberal meaning. Rather, they ha ...[text shortened]... to produce a more 'accurate' translation. Possibly 'government' really is a bad translation.[/b]

As far as I can see that's essentially what they are doing. You're right they don't come out and specifically say that, but I think you'd have to be naive to not be able to see that implied in most of it.

They specifically say they want to identify "pro-liberal" terms. They consistently label any of the supposed inaccuracies as being liberal.

Why don't they just say "we want to find inaccuracies" period - without concern for political implication?

Possible government is exactly the proper translation?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You don't consider dropping an entire passage as "editing"? That's interesting.

When I wrote that, I had not yet read that page. I agree that it goes beyond ordinary translation, yet it still a perfectly valid form of textual criticism. There are whole books and verses that Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants disagree about whether to i ...[text shortened]... rses should be included. Christian scripture scholars are not averse to textual criticism.[/b]

The authors did not say that the Bible was wrong; what they said was that there are inauthentic passages which are not part of the inerrant word of God...So while a Christian might claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, they may disagree about what is the word of God and what books, passages and verses should be included.

This doesn't seem to make much sense. If the authors believe that there are inauthentic passages, then they believe the Bible is wrong. If the Bible contains passages that are not inerrant, then the Bible cannot be inerrant.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]The authors did not say that the Bible was wrong; what they said was that there are inauthentic passages which are not part of the inerrant word of God...So while a Christian might claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, they may disagree about what is the word of God and what books, passages and verses should be included.

This doesn't ...[text shortened]... wrong. If the Bible contains passages that are not inerrant, then the Bible cannot be inerrant.[/b]

Absolutely right. It's a illogical contradiction. It makes no sense. If the Bible contains errors it cannot be inerrant. The two concepts are mutally exclusive. Why would anyone cling to such a concept?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]The authors did not say that the Bible was wrong; what they said was that there are inauthentic passages which are not part of the inerrant word of God...So while a Christian might claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, they may disagree about what is the word of God and what books, passages and verses should be included.

This doesn't ...[text shortened]... wrong. If the Bible contains passages that are not inerrant, then the Bible cannot be inerrant.[/b]

This doesn't seem to make much sense. If the authors believe that there are inauthentic passages, then they believe the Bible is wrong. If the Bible contains passages that are not inerrant, then the Bible cannot be inerrant.

No; it means that the authors disagree about what the Bible is. There is nothing wrong with that. Orthodox Christians have a few additional books, does that mean that other Christians believe the Bible is inerrant? Catholics have a few additional books, does that mean that all Protestants believe that the Bible is inerrant? Obviously not. It just means that they disagree about what to call the Bible, what should be included and what books should be excluded. So while Christians might profess that the Bible is inerrant, they might not all be in agreement about what constitutes the Bible.

I suggest you read the NRSV translation. You will find several passages have been bracketed or will have footnotes saying 'not found in other codexes' or 'some codexes say...'. This acknowledges that there are a plurality of biblical texts, that they have been modified over times (sometimes consciously, sometimes accidentally in the process of copying out.) The solution, at least for Catholics, is to say that while the Bible is inerrant, the surviving manuscripts are not. It is therefore the responsibility of the textual critic to look at the extant maniscripts and to discern what verses are authentic and restore the Bible. For the most part, this has been done.