Changing God's word because we are too stupid to understand

[brent]

From the press:

A new controversial Bible translation is being supported by rock band the Newsboys.

IN A SURPRISE move, Christian rock band the Newsboys have thrown their support behind a new translation of the Bible which is receiving particular criticism from some evangelical quarters. As retailers begin to stock Today�s New International Version (TNIV) published in the USA by Zondervan, some Christians claim the new translation dilutes Scriptural meaning by revising gender references. Critics have said that changes to male and female references made it �gender neutral� and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), the Southern Baptist and the Presbyterian Church in America have urged it not be used for personal study or church services.

Against this background the new translation is being endorsed for publishers Zondervan by rock band Newsboys. Lead singer Peter Furler said that there had been a time in his life when although he believed the truth, �I didn�t have much (truth) in me,� because he knew little of what God had said. �The only foundation that will prevail is the one built on God�s Word. That�s why I�m proud to stand with Zondervan bringing the Word to today�s generation. That�s why I believe so strongly in Today�s New International Version, the TNIV, a new translation that speaks the timeless truth of God�s Word in the language of today.�

TNIV translator Douglas Moo, said he and the Committee On Bible Translation had carried out their job to analyze the original text and had decided how best to �say it� in modern English. He said, in a letter to Christian Retailer magazine, that they had analyzed every word of Scripture and then sought to �say� what those words say in modern English. �Our decision to use �inclusive language� is a direct result of this commitment. We use inclusive language - just as all modern translations have done to one degree or another.�

Thursday 10 February 2005

OK, so at what point does someone draw the line and say enough is enough? At what point do we dumb down and change God's Word to the point where Jesus isn't Jesus? The WORD became FLESH. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word WAS GOD and the WORD WAS WITH GOD. Who is man to change GOD? Who is man to decide that the eighth grade reading level of the King James is too high? Why not just go for ebonics while we are at it?

By dumbing things down, we are not getting smarter. We are causing people to study less. People are not forced to search the Word for the treasure like the one that searches for her lost pearl. We are not studying to show ourselves approved unto God. We are buying the notes and a committee's opinion in these changed bibles (which is the only way a person can copyright the bible, only the KJV is uncopyrightable) and resting on that. What if those people are wrong? The whole Catholic church before the reformation was wrong. Jim Jones was wrong. Mormons are wrong. But we have a greater wrong happening in the church, and the Newsboys are on-board. Fine. I am through with them. I hope that they tank. When God gave the Word to man to write down, God was God enough to make sure that they got it right. If God was God enough to flood the world, take Sodom and Gamora for rejecting His Word and Him, then He is more than capable of taking out the people that jacked with the translation, and also ensuring that others would be available.

One change here, one change there. Pretty soon we are all a bunch of cooked frogs floating at the top of the boiling water pot.

[Shell]

Well, we'd all be in pretty sad shape if the Lord had decided He was through with us rather than sending His Son...

What's the criteria for deciding what translation of the Bible is the most accurate anyway? I don't believe it says anywhere in the Bible King James is the most accurate translation.

[brent]

I don't know what you guys believe, and history about the truth has been re-written so many times. But let's look at the publisher in question, Zondervan. Even Zondervan states on the back of their Comparative Study Bible that: King James Version: The classic, word-for-word translation... Most all publishers will have a statement like this.

The newer versions are not translations. There is a difference. All versions make changes for a predetermined purpose. This newest version gets more vague about gender. There are versions out there that make God a female. There are versions out there that just plain contradict each other by removing whole chapters and verses, because they are not politically correct. The do not like the references to homosexual sins, so out they came.

Yes, the English language is vague in some cases. That is man's doing not Gods. Everytime we move down a notch socially, by changing the meaning of words, dropping in literacy and comprehension, etc, WE have to change GODs Word.

How do they go back to those documents? The fact is that the 99% of of all of the original documents used to make the first translations for the KJV are all gone. The KJV agreed with 95% of those found around the world. God made sure that there were copies to validate copies. So they all include the KJV in their committees as the building block, along with other recent versions.

The remark about the Greek and Hebrew is pretty cocky. You missed the point. Sure, every tongue should have it's own copy of the Word because we no longer have those original documents, and those languages are a hard study. That is a given. But, some dialects cannot get a 100% complete transferal from Hebrew and Greek to their language. Talk to a Wycliff worker, becuase that's what they do for missionaries. The desire should be of God, to reach a tongue. We have more English versions than any other tongue. There have been over 1800. Some have none. Meanwhile, we are changing the message of the scripture, to be hipper, cooler, less offensive, and politically correct.

Shell, if you study the what many of these versions do, like interchange a title for the Son of God with Satan, have Jesus contradicting himself, removing hell, Removing Jesus Christ in name and replacing that with a lower case "son", and removing the virgin birth of that "son", then you would see how the Anti-Christ will be able to come in and say "See there? I meet all of the criteria. I am the one, the son", and he will have a book to back him up. Then there are versions like the RSV that in two places that I am away make baptism the act of salvation.

It is a study of mine. There has to be a document that we can go to and say, yes and yes! Otherwise, God is a failure, a liar and the author of confusion. We know that is not true.

[Shell]

Okay, I agree that deliberately changing information by removing chapters they decide they don't like and so on isn't cool. Do you know of a web site that I might find out what versions do this? I should probably study that for myself.

[epdc]

we have the Reina-Valera version and I`m happy with it, I don`t like all those new versions that have came out today.

why? because like it or not, reality is that somehow you can change the sense of a verse and God says on Revelations that people who do that will be curse.

why I`m agree about is that you can add notes of the verses in the Bible, notes that might explain some things but making a whole new version? no thanks. when i hear about new versions I feel like if people were trying to make money with the Bible.

[Jonathan]

Boo to the TNIV.

[Michael]

I've actually just recently been looking into the different modern translations. By the way, a pretty good starting place for information would be:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/

Click on "The English Versions of Scripture" and then scroll down to English 20th Century and 21st Century versions for most of the ones you'll recognize (except Elo... sorry, senorita, I don't think there's a Spanish section!)

I'd say there are some good reasons for new translations. And there are good reasons for some of the things that have been "removed" since the KJV... mind you, I'm talking about VERY isolated cases. Scholarship and textual criticism of the ancient texts has come a long way since 1611. Basically, those passages do not always exist in the oldest/best manuscripts. (Remember, they didn't have "the originals" in 1611, either!) Most English translations preserve those "questionable" passages anyway... I think the woman caught in adultery is one, for example... in footnotes or otherwise in the text. Brent is right, though... you don't want to read just ANY translation. The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both have their own "translations" which totally fabricate stuff into the text. And I wouldn't really trust the very loose paraphrases... The Message, The Living Bible, even the New Living Translation... as much more than recreational reading, like a book I'm reading called Joshua that is kind of a "what if Jesus came today?" story.

And to be honest, to read most of the gender-neutral verses... you know, it doesn't REALLY change the meaning that much. Not any more than it would if I was trying to explain it to my 4-year-old. But I still shy away from those translations, not because I think the translation is inaccurate, but because it is unnecessary to say "brothers and sisters," for example, when the real text says "brothers." Anybody who is uninformed enough to misunderstand that women are believers as well as men... needs to get in a Sunday School and get taught. Most everyone can figure that out, and the translaters KNOW that people aren't that dumb. The reason the gender-neutral stuff bothers me is that it shows that the creators of the translations employing that translation strategy have an agenda of political correctness that trumps their commitment to an accurate translation. They are willing to sacrifice a little bit of accuracy, not for clarity, but for PC. It's the attitude that bothers me, not the text.

Cathy reads an NIV. I've recently gotten interested in the ESV, which is one of the most literal word-for-word translations around; I like it because I can see connections based on individual words, and they generally exist in the G/H also. We're reading to Mikey out of the NIrV, which is more or less the NIV with the sentences sliced up and simplified to a 3rd grade reading level. I think you have to research the translation you're interested in... read the translators' notes that are usually right there before Genesis, and read pros and cons on the Internet and elsewhere... and make sure you know EXACTLY what you're getting. None of our English translations are the exact Word of God... THAT was written in another language. (I guess it could be argued that NO language can fully express the Word of God, even Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic!) But God can speak His word into your heart through the English translations (or Spanish, or whatever!) that you are able to read. I consider every translation basically a commentary on the original texts; for serious study I do a LOT of comparison between translations. If you're using a Windows machine, I recommend that you visit http://www.e-sword.net/ and get yourself a copy of the 100% FREE Bible software there. I use it all the time and love it (and I was a long-time QuickVerse user!) Others (or Windows users too, for that matter) might check out The SWORD Project, which is ported to many operating systems.

I think it's a shame that Peter and the Newsboys have stood up for a controversial translation that sacrifices accuracy for PC. When it was announced that the TNIV was to be the permanent replacement for the NIV we all know already, there was such outrage that Zondervan agreed to keep them both in print. But they're really out to replace the NIV with the TNIV if they can. I hope they can't, because the NIV is one of the best out there for readability.

More about problems with gender-neutralizing the Word: http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html

[Shell]

I've had a class in early English history. King James wasn't a saint; kings in the 15th and 16th centuries didn't survive by being "nice guys," they had to constantly worry about being killed by someone or other. Maybe it would be a good research project to find out what exactly was going on in history at the time the KJV was translated and printed.

[epdc]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA the picture is too funny and Michael`s post was too long (i`m not luaghing of michael but the pic, by a coincidence i mentioned that michael`s post was too long hehehe).

so men do talk after all!!! (as long we discuss topics they are interested about lol). ya know shell, we should make an analysis of what makes men write the most here, as literature students, we can analyze topics and the way they express their thoughts :lol :lol

OK, let`s go back to the subject, so michael was saying that it was a shame the newsboys stood up for that translation, any more comments?

[brent]

King James was not involved with the translation process. Don't bite off on the history being rewritten. Satan wants you to doubt authenticity. If you study the men and the writtings of those that actually did the work, you would get a sense of why they all were happy to die as martyrs.

I can show you many scriptures where evil men did the work of the Lord and did not know it. I can show you many scriptures where God died for those evil men. I can also show you that what man has meant for bad, God can use for his good.

Don't put God in a box. He used murders (Paul), scumbag tax collectors, stupid fishermen, all the people a church would not put in charge today, to establish his work.

[Shell]

My comment about King James wasn't totally serious; I know King James wasn't directly involved in translating the KJV. We didn't get into the King James Bible very deeply in that class, and the teacher didn't try to tell us King James was involved in translating. She was actually pretty good about not saying stuff that you couldn't check out for yourself, and if something happened to be her opinion or was open to interpretation she would usually say so. It was an interesting class; if you ask me about "Beowulf" or "Canterbury Tales" though I may run screaming for the nearest exit, LOL.

Elo, I get enough of that analysis stuff at school.

[Michael]

so men do talk after all!!!

Oh holy smokes... if I didn't ever want to type anything into the computer, would I have written about a zillion gigabytes of my own opinions about Petra's CDs?

(But don't ask me to call anybody. 'Cause I probably won't do it. 'Cause I hate to place phone calls. So they'll have to call me. But I hate to answer the phone, so Cat'll have to answer it and give it to me. After that I'm pretty much OK.)

[executioner]

I know how you feel Michael. I hate talking on the phone also. We moved into our first house about 3 years ago and for the first month we didn't get a phone because of we were very tight on money, needless to say it was the best month of my life. My wife carries a cell, but I won't have anything to do with them.

[Michael]

Cool... someone else from the "there are too many ways to get into contact with me already why would I want a cell phone" crowd!

Cat will probably need one when she starts driving, if only for her own peace of mind. I, however, can be reached at any of about six email accounts (and countless aliases to those), via PM at several boards like this one, via telephone or voice mail at home and at work, not to mention good ol' snail mail. There is not much that is urgent enough for me to risk carrying around a phone with me all day long! I would just turn the ringer off anyway. hehe

[Shell]

For a lady, having a phone to talk on is like a vital form of life support, LOL.

My cell phone has been a life saver a few times when my car has broken down. And the lady I work for does have to be able to get hold of me.