Politcally correct Bible

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556

Here is an article about how a group of 52 biblical "specialists" have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and "political correctness" have replaced some "divisive" teachings of Chrisitanity in order to persent a "more just languauge" for groups such as feminists and homosexuals.

According to the AFP news agency, the new version of the Sacred Scriptures was presented at a book fair in Frankfurt, Entitiled, "The Bible in a More Just Language", the translation has Jesus no longer referring to God as "Father", but as "our Mother and Father who are in heaven." Likewise, Jesus is no longer referred to as the "Son" but rather as the "child" of God. The title "Lord" is replaced with "God" or "the Eternal One." The devil, however, is still referred to with masculine pronouns. "One of the great ideas of the Bible is justice. We have made a translation that does justice to women, Jews, and those who are disregarded," said Pastor Hanne Koehler, who led the team of translators.

Last December, Martin Dreyer, pastor and founder of the sect, "Jesus Freaks," published the Volkshbibel (The People's Bible), In a supposed attempt to make the message of Christianity more "accessible." Jesus "returns" instead of resurrects, and multiplies "hamburgers" instead of the fish loaves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son squanders his inheritance at dance clubs and ends up "cleaning bathrooms at McDonald's".

And what did you want to say by that?

Oh good Lord. This is really too much. Already I dislike the translation readily used at Mass in my country as it replaces the beautiful and established language that we all know.

🙁

I'm Catholic, but if we're reading English, it has to be the King James. It's how the Bible should sound, to me, anyway.

Already you get illiterate stuff like, instead of:

'Again I tell you, 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';

'Sure, I'll tell you people, women and some men, that it might even be a bit easier for a camel to go through the hole in one of those things some people, not necessarily women, use for sewing, than for a rich PERSON, maybe a man, but probably, and why not?, a woman, of no particular sexual orientation, or "gender", I say again, to go up there to heaven and that, you know?'

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556

Here is an article about how a group of 52 biblical "specialists" have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and "political correctness" have replaced some "divisive" teachings of Chrisitanity in order to persent a "more just languauge" for groups such as feminists and homosexu ...[text shortened]... ance clubs and ends up "cleaning bathrooms at McDonald's".

thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. does the meaning of the bible change at all?

Originally posted by louisXIV
And what did you want to say by that?

I find it appalling. I just wondered how much support was out there for such rubbish.

Originally posted by whodey
I find it appalling. I just wondered how much support was out there for such rubbish.

I don't have a problem with it. I encourage people to read many different translations. One of my favorite is the Cotton Patch version of the gospels by Clarence Jordan, a brilliant Greek scholar and Baptist preacher.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I don't have a problem with it. I encourage people to read many different translations. One of my favorite is the Cotton Patch version of the gospels by Clarence Jordan, a brilliant Greek scholar and Baptist preacher.

In my opinion, these are not translations, rather, they are attempting to rewrite certain passages of scripture based on their individual agenda's. For example, when you add or subtract words that define who and what God is you are adding of subtracting from from who God says he is. Do you not find this troubling? I think that masculine pronouns that are used to describe God have significance in the meaning of the text.

I also see this troubling in another way. I see this as "dumbing down" scripture by omitting words that are deemed "unfamiliar" to the masses. It reminds me of Ebonics taught in schools. I find this appalling as well. Why must we conceede defeat in educating the masses by not teaching the the correct way to read and write and talk? I think it a slap in the face of those who are taught in such a way. It is almost as if we have given up on them and deemed them to be to ignorant to learn.

And just for the sake of arguement, could you imagine us doing this to the Quran? Even though I am not Muslim I would not stoop to such a level as doing this to the Quran because it would be seen as offensive to ALL Muslims. Yet with the Bible, it appears to be not seen as offensive with many Christians. I guess it is because Islam sees the need to protect the Quran because they see it as the literal words from God. I just wish Christians felt the same about the Bible.

Originally posted by whodey
I find it appalling.

Why?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Why?

he just said why.

Originally posted by whodey
In my opinion, these are not translations, rather, they are attempting to rewrite certain passages of scripture based on their individual agenda's. For example, when you add or subtract words that define who and what God is you are adding of subtracting from from who God says he is. Do you not find this troubling? I think that masculine pronouns that are u ...[text shortened]... ee it as the literal words from God. I just wish Christians felt the same about the Bible.

To me the biggest "dumbing down" of Scripture is the literal interpretation of it.

Originally posted by kirksey957
To me the biggest "dumbing down" of Scripture is the literal interpretation of it.

Word.

Originally posted by kirksey957
To me the biggest "dumbing down" of Scripture is the literal interpretation of it.

And you are welcome to your opinion but there are those of us who do not agree. Call those who interpret the scriptures literally dumb if you prefer. However, even if you do not take what is written as literal, you are free to interpret what is being said based on what is said. Therefore, if you change the wording around, you would then be more likely to interpret it differently than what was said originally. Why am I the only one that seems to understand this?

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556

Here is an article about how a group of 52 biblical "specialists" have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and "political correctness" have replaced some "divisive" teachings of Chrisitanity in order to persent a "more just languauge" for groups such as feminists and homosexu ...[text shortened]... ance clubs and ends up "cleaning bathrooms at McDonald's".

Thing is Whodey...it is evident in your posts that you take a lot of what is written in the bible literally; thus it is understandable that you would be affronted by the possibility that those words might be transposed into something that makes this book less accurate(?) in your eyes...The reality is though, that subsequent generations will not be attuned to this loss of accuracy(?) in much the same way you are not attuned to the distinct possibility that much of what you take without a handful of salt is a storyteller's exaggeration and mis-representation of someone-elses words.

Originally posted by Agerg
Thing is Whodey...it is evident in your posts that you take a lot of what is written in the bible literally; thus it is understandable that you would be affronted by the possibility that those words might be transposed into something that makes this book less accurate(?) in your eyes...The reality is though, that subsequent generations will not be attuned to t ...[text shortened]... handful of salt is a storyteller's exaggeration and mis-representation of someone-elses words.

If the Bible is the inspired word of God then who is man that he should tamper with these words. Do you not agree? However, if it is indeed not the inspired word of God then I agree, who really cares. It just seems odd to me that those who are tampering with the Bible claim to believe it is the inspiried word of God. Why then tamper with the words if it is what God wanted us to hear? It also seems odd to me that Muslims hold their holy book which is the Quran in more reverance than what Chrisitians hold thier holy book which is the Bible. As I have said, any Muslim found tampering with the Quran would not be long for this world, however, any Chrisitian found doing so with the Bible seems to have wide acceptance.

Originally posted by whodey
If the Bible is the inspired word of God then who is man that he should tamper with these words. Do you not agree? However, if it is indeed not the inspired word of God then I agree, who really cares. It just seems odd to me that those who are tampering with the Bible claim to believe it is the inspiried word of God. Why then tamper with the words if it i ...[text shortened]... this world, however, any Chrisitian found doing so with the Bible seems to have wide acceptance.

If the Bible is the inspired word of God then who is man that he should tamper with these words. Do you not agree?

Sorry but my answer there would be no...such a man is one who didn't hear such words and believes that more people would subscribe to his way of thinking given that the words were changed to something more contemporary...and one who is in a position to bring about these changes