A year ago Time magazine's David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed "green references" in "a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus." But wait, there's more, The Green Bible also includes "supplementary writings" several of which "cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity 'dominion' over the earth" and "Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus' call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains."
Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom "agreed that 'stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'" might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.
Yet the same reverent treatment was spared the online "Conservative Bible Project" spearheaded by some folks at Conservapedia. Time's Amy Sullivan slammed the project as "insane" in her October 5 Swampland blog post:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓This is insane. The guys at Conservapedia (aka, "the trustworthy encyclopedia") have decided to retranslate the Bible in what they're calling the Conservative Bible Project, because "liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations."
And you thought liberal bias was limited to the evil mainstream media. Apparently the early Church fathers had their own problems, because the Conservapediacs are particularly intent on scrubbing the Bible of "liberal" passages they say were inserted into the original canon and therefore shouldn't be considered sacred. Passages like the story of the adulteress whom Jesus saved from being stoned with the famous line: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Conservapedia complains that liberals have used this story to argue against the death penalty. Plus, this Jesus character sounds like a radical moral relativist.
Also among the goals of the project: replace liberal words like "labor" with preferred conservative terms; use concise language instead of "liberal wordiness"; and--my favorite--"explain the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning." Jesus talks about economics more than any other secular subject in the Bible, so they've got their work cut out for them. I look forward to learning the free-market meaning of "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."
While this writer personally disagrees with and finds huge dangers in an explicitly "conservative" interpretation of holy writ, Sullivan goes beyond issuing a warning about tampering with holy writ by suggesting the effort is no more than an attempt to pen a Bible that both the Church Lady and Gordon Gecko would love.
In doing so, she fails to consider some of more legitimate theologically conservative concerns that the project managers point to, such as "gender neutral" phrasing in some translations and language in other translations that glosses over the stark biblical teachings on Hell and eternal punishment.
Both the Green Bible and the nascent Conservative Bible project have room for both scorn and thoughtful criticism. It would be helpful for Sullivan to admit as much to escape the charge of being a hypocrite who should first remove the log from her magazine's eye before picking the speck out of those of conservative online activists.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
To be honest I think this is
October 5, 2009 - 15:19 ET by notonmywatchTo be honest I think this is completely unnecessary.
5. "Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census"
That largely doesn't make sense. Stick to conservapedia, conservapedia. It's fine as it is. There is already a perfectly good Bible in English, the KJV.
6. "Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil."
This is all misguided. Jesus teaches us more about hell than anywhere else in the Bible, and it's all right there in the KJV. It's not the place of a translation to "accept the logic" of the Bible. Just to translate, from the Hebrew and GReek, to English. There is not as much room for different translations as the copyright moneymaking NIV publishers would have you believe. The text IS WHAT IT IS. We don't need new translations every 5 minutes. There are also some modern public domain projects going on to just change the archaic words (there are only a few anyway, and are really easy to understand if you try)
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Frankly this revisionism...
October 5, 2009 - 15:38 ET by stage9is not limited to these two "versions". There are many other versions that are so watered down or exclusive of certain portions of the original text that they would fall under the same heretical category as the "Green Bible" or the "Conservative Bible".
My question is: why? Why do publishers keep finding the need to produce yet another "new" version every couple of years? There are only a few worthy of reading anyway! The King James Version, the American Standard and the English Standard Versions. All others take too much license with the text.
The warning I'd give to the publishers of ANY Bible is that they had better be very careful with what they're doing. Those in the early Church who brought these books together did so with much prayer and reverence and were led by the Holy Spirit of the Living God. It was not something taken lightly. When the Canon was closed, it was closed forever, and God has kept it guarded and untainted for over 2000 years.
I seriously doubt that publishers today are using the same reverence and prayerful consideration when they throw together yet another "version" of the Bible. I have every reason to beleive they are motivated by something else: MONEY.
God help them! Jesus drove out the money changers from the temple, they are seriously in danger of Him driving them out too.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
"Why do publishers keep
October 5, 2009 - 15:40 ET by notonmywatch"Why do publishers keep finding the need to produce yet another "new" version every couple of years?"
1) copyright runs out after so many years. There is a huge cash flow associated with something like the NIV to Zondervan, which also publishes much worse things
2) after much research, I genuinely believe to attempt to obfuscate the word of God. Slight change apon slight change until there's sodomite Bibles & who knows what, then if they can't say it already, they can say in 20/30 years "what is the Bible anyway?".
Stick with the KJV, take the time to learn the 5-10 archaic words, is the best way IMO
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Why not read the original hebrew?
October 5, 2009 - 21:44 ET by mbuelI understand the concern over biblical revisionism, but honestly the best way to avoid a misinterpretation is to read the original hebrew.
The Jehovah Witnesses read the KJV, and came up with the holy name of God being "Jehovah", (Never mind that it's an incorrect transliteration). Part of the problem is that the English language doesn't have as many names/words for God as does the hebrew language.
This is but one example. If you don't understand Hebrew the next best thing is to compare multiple versions to try and dig down to the root words.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
"came up with the holy name
October 6, 2009 - 04:55 ET by notonmywatch"came up with the holy name of God being "Jehovah""
That's not important. That's not a major doctinal error like the NIV, for example, introduces.
The four Hebrew letters are YHWH. The W is a "sheen", and is pronounced "Sh". We don't know what the vowels were, but we can make educated guesses.
"Jehovah" refers to that. "Yahweh" refers to that. Just like Spanish say "heyzus", and we say "Jesus". It refers to the same thing.
Don't get caught up on details. There are real meaningful errors that the new revisions bring in.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
what's in a name?
October 7, 2009 - 00:48 ET by konoNot vowels, if you're using the Hebrew text: Out of sensitivity for using God's name, the vowels were removed, leaving YHWH. The Masoretic text 'pointed' vowels back in, using vowels from the words for 'Lord'. For years Catholics have used 'Yahweh' wherever it says YHWH, partly because saying "the Sacred Tetragrammaton" tends to suck all the life out of the Name of the Most High. (This past year, the Church has reversed itself on this policy, choosing to respect the Jewish sensitivity to uttering God's Name, and is forbidding the use of "Yahweh" in subsequent pressings of the liturgical hymns and readings from scripture. But that's another matter.)
The problem with the name, 'Jehovah,' stems from misinterpreting a German translation, which used 'JHVH' instead of 'YHWH'. I can't recall all the details of that; but it does seem important with regard to Jehovah's Witnesses, if their very name stems from an erroneous interpretation of the scriptures.
right
October 7, 2009 - 21:16 ET by mbuelIt was an incorrect transliteration from Greek to German.
From what I understand of Hebrew (which admittedly isn't ALOT), none of the words have vowels. When reading the "holy" name of God, YHVH, YHWH, you would replace it with one of the other names of God. Adonai, El Shaddai, Elohim, etc.
And I agree with you, the entire FOUNDING of the JW church is erroneous. But the great thing about America is that people can believe in whatever they want. If they want to worship the flying spaghetti monster, more power to them.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
I see your point
October 7, 2009 - 21:41 ET by mbuelI agree, but also think you're missing my point. The Jehovah Witness doctrine is based upon the mistransliteration of ONE word from the Hebrew/Greek documents.
Frankly, the NIV isn't a perfect modern translation but it's a whole helluva lot more doctrinally correct than the "Conservative" translation the post above refers to.
Let's take a fundamental christian passage from several translations to prove my point:
John 3:16 NIV
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 KJV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Fundamentally these verses in the two versions are saying the exact same thing with different language.
Just for something completely random, here's another "doctrinal" one for me from a completely different book:
Isaiah 5:20 NIV
Isaiah 5:20 KJV
The fundamental difference is how the verse addresses the reader, and the formatting to make it easier to read. Is it really a problem if the NIV makes the word of God easier to read and comprehend?
I would say ANY interpretation that softens the words "good and evil" would be a bad thing.
But if a version makes the language harsher like the "message", I would say it's actually more correct for Isaiah's message for this verse:
Moral relativism is much worse than a "woeful" thing, it is something that causes DOOM. Frankly I agree after witnessing a society drenched in moral relativism.
According to Rashi, Woe used in this context means:
So the English word "woe" is completely inadequete to describe what Isaiah is trying to convey.
Anyways, I'm just spinning the threads now.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
The Douay-Rheims is the only authentic English Bible
October 5, 2009 - 17:47 ET by Avus"The warning I'd give to the publishers of ANY Bible is that they had better be very careful with what they're doing. Those in the early Church who brought these books together did so with much prayer and reverence and were led by the Holy Spirit of the Living God. It was not something taken lightly. When the Canon was closed, it was closed forever, and God has kept it guarded and untainted for over 2000 years."
I find it ironic to read these comments in the same breath as holding up the KJV as the standard. It isn't. The Douay-Rheims Bible is the official English translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which was meticulously translated from the original Hebrew and Greek by St. Jerome (A.D. 340-420). The Church declared at the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Latin Vulgate Bible is the only authentic version. The D-R was published about 30 years before the intentionally distorted Protestant KJV came out in 1611. In fact, the KJV is based on the D-R. So if you are truly serious about sticking to the Bible inspired and guarded by the Holy Spirit, then you should be using the Douay-Rheims.
A few things, Avus.
October 6, 2009 - 08:52 ET by Mike BrattonThough I thank you for trying harder...
1) The D-R is, as you have noted, a translation of a translation. While I'm a fan of the D-R, it doesn't preclude the veracity of Bible translations that come directly from the original languages.
2) Again, you noted that Trent approved the D-R in the mid 1500s, before the existence of the KJV. Kinda hard to approve something that hasn't been produced yet.
3) You veer into denominationalism when you start talking about the "intentionally distorted Protestant KJV," and erroneously suggest that it's "based on the D-R." Factionalism within Christendom helps no one, and hurts many.
4) As you champion the D-R against supposed revisionist translations, keep in mind that he D-R you elevate is a translation that was itself (gasp!) revised, initially in the mid 1800s.
5) There is, of course, one glaring problem with the D-R, that being the mistranslation ("intentionally distorted"?) of Genesis 3:15, where Mary is given victory over Satan, rather than the victory being Christ's, as the original Hebrew states. Other than that, as I said previously, it's a good translation.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
I read the manifesto and
October 5, 2009 - 16:26 ET by Dan The Man 2I read the manifesto and sme of it worried me greatly. The different names of God is very important to see the rest of the verses and each has its purposes. As do the different words used that mean similar like their volunteer and comrade examples.
From what I have learned abou the Bible the translations should be taken from the "original" scriptures and be contrasted with the culture of the time when written. That way the words used are more indicative of the meaning that was to be conveyed.
This one "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" is realitively easy when you compare it to Jesus confronting the rich man saying to him to divulge himself of his riches and follow Jesus. Of course the rich man cannot do this because he wants his wealth and supposed debauchery; so the camel and the rich man makes sense.
So to really get a flavor of what the Bible speaks of you need to get some background info first.
Know how to keep a Troll in suspense? Ill tell ya in the morning.
muddled agnostics
October 5, 2009 - 17:51 ET by cajun2I read this wonderful quote recently:
"Muddled agnostics, in the thrall of reason(fools gold for the bright)"
The Life of Pi by Yann Martel
Evangelicals raised a stink
October 5, 2009 - 17:55 ET by Jinx McHueEvangelicals raised a stink about the "green Bible," but were ignored at best and laughed at at worst. Ah, but someone comes along and wants to make a conservative-based Bible translation and the outrage spreads far and wide. The double-standard is obvious, but not the least bit surprising.
Anyone who uses the Bible for politics...
October 6, 2009 - 08:56 ET by Mike Bratton...regardless of the motivation, is courting disaster.
Don't whip up a "green Bible," thanks. And don't crank out a "conservative-based Bible," either. If your agenda is anything political--anything other than being a faithful, accurate scribe--then you're asking for it.
Literally.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Everyone deserves a crack at it!
October 5, 2009 - 21:07 ET by bulletproofIf only I'd the time to embark upon my own translation. I could replace old names and terms with more modern and familiar names and terms like "Mainstream Media" for "Beelzebub", "Barak Hussein Obama" for "King Ahab", "Michelle" for "Jezebel", "The United Nations" for "The Tower of Babel" and so on. For this very reason I recommend we split up the work among ourselves. I, personally, have a real heart for the book of Daniel, but I've been known to become quite animated over the Gospel of John.
And even though this is my idea, in the spirit of the endeavor, I declare to willingly concede to any other volunteer the translation of either of the aforementioned inspired works of God without contest from yours truly.
If we work hard and someone commits to picking up my slack I believe that we could have a first draft by May 2010 and at least a workable edit by Christmas of 2012, just in time for the Winter Solstice and the end of the world!!!
I'm psyched!! Who's with me?
The Most High rules in the kingdom of men, giving it to whomever He will, and setting over it the lowest of men
Bibles
October 5, 2009 - 21:36 ET by Bull Moose ProgressiveTotally lost me with this part "Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial
standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of
the real heart of Christian doctrine"
I'm sorry, but they're not making their own translation they're highlighting subject matter green but keeping the NSRV translation. If you've got a problem with what it says, then you've got a problem with the Word of G-d. The commentary is fair game, but the rest of it is the same as objecting (As Thomas Jefferson effectively did) to the Red letter edition of the KJV because the red letters supposedly change the meaning.
With the education available these days we should be doing away with translations anyways. If you really want to understand the Truth in its purest form you should be learning Greek and Hebrew.
They're not making a new
October 5, 2009 - 22:44 ET by Ken ShepherdThey're not making a new translation, but the editorial decisions for the accompanying material and the focus on the "green" passages forms a functional idolatry, as it were, around "creation care" as THE message of the Bible, rather than on Christ and Him crucified.
There are valid concerns that a "conservative" Bible also dethrones Christ and enthrones a political point of view by manipulating Scripture.
Simply put, religion reporters should be skeptical of folks who seek to insert their biases into sacred writ instead of objectively exegeting them from Scripture.
Yep
October 5, 2009 - 23:09 ET by mbuelI was reading the summaries of their translations, and this stuff is just as bad if not a little worse than the green/feminist/relativist translations being promoted.
1) Most evangelicals will outright reject the false translations (green/feminist/relativist) as being lies.
2) Said evangelicals will seek some sort of counter-point, and find this site which is ALSO promoting bad translation, but under the so called banner of conservatism.
My question to both sides, is why not give us the LITERAL translation, and provide your opinion in the side notes, the same way the jews do with the various talmudic writings.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
youmasaywhat?
October 5, 2009 - 23:38 ET by bulletproofPlease post your comments so that I may more effectively solicit replies to my sarcasm. =)
Religion is just that, religion. It means nothing. I say rewrite the whole flippin thing if you want to because just as you owe your next breath to the Maker of all Creation, the rise of any configuration of His Word stands or falls at His will. The idea that Man poses threat to His Word is as laughable as the idea that Man will annihilate the Human race (or that that judgement is within his grasp)
The Most High rules in the kingdom of men, giving it to whomever He will, and setting over it the lowest of men
disagree
October 6, 2009 - 22:34 ET by mbuel1) Words are important, ESPECIALLY concerning faith and God.
2) Word's have power, especially when connected to religion. Like I stated above, a mis-transliteration of YahVehHeyWeh, lead to the Jehovah Witness religion. Never mind that Hebrew has COUNTLESS words for God. This is as bad as the modern belief that you can only belief in God by saying or stating his name a certain way. YahWeh (like Bono), or Yeshua. I think the belief is more important than how we state the proper name.
Joseph Smith claiming he is a prophet and writing an entirely new bible, lead to a new religion.
One could make the claim, without the filters of moral relativism, that these two religions are incorrectly following the will of God, because they are believing the wrong words.
Words have power, precisely because without that power, they are meaningless.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
Perhaps...but
October 7, 2009 - 00:33 ET by bulletproofQuite frankly, you can't protect people from themselves. That's why seat-belt laws are so oxymoronic. We live in a nation that promotes Darwinism (in its various forms) and yet we want to protect idiots from self-destruction? Good grief, stand aside and let the fools (and their children) be naturally selected, whether via the force of a 60mph head-on or at the hands of other fools passing out poison kool-aid.
If one is inclined to gullibility then that person will only gain wisdom through experience. So be it if that wisdom comes on one's deathbed; but you will never hide all the lies out there to their benefit. Like stink on your grandma's keister, fools will be found with the foolish every time.
Furthermore, the emphasis placed on this life is for the dying and the damned (who, by the way run most of the world). So sure it's a tragedy when some child dies from the foolishness of grown-ups, but all of this passes away to the mercy of a God that can judge between the helpless and the fools, and has a special judgment set aside for the ones who placed a greater emphasis on breathing to their own fulfillment rather than any sincere reverence for the "Breath-Giver".
And that said, no one comes to God except he is led by the Holy Spirit, whom I can't imagine sitting around miffed at all the lies He has to contend with. Wasn't it the Son of God who said "woe unto the man" that changes the meaning of the Holy Scripture? I think He's got it covered (which, granted, may be through the outcry of people like us; though we can't possibly be His only plan)
The Most High rules in the kingdom of men, giving it to whomever He will, and setting over it the lowest of men
Only one problem
October 6, 2009 - 10:27 ET by ChattychitoNo one knows the exact type and style of Greek and Hebrew forms the original text were written in. that is because their are no original manuscripts any where to be found. all manuscripts are copies.
But God promised to preserve his word to each generation accurately despite the lack of originals and he has. English is the language of the Last Days. I chose to look for an English version which is the written word of God that was as despised and ridiculed as the Living word of God, Jesus Christ, was and is.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
What language does God "speak"?
October 7, 2009 - 16:41 ET by QueenMum"English is the language of the Last Days."
??? Please explain, Chatty.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
Michael Moore is gonna do a
October 5, 2009 - 22:21 ET by Mitchell BlattMichael Moore is gonna do a Bible project, too. In his movie, he made lots of references to how Jesus supports communism and how it's the greedy Jews who have been ruing the economy with their banking scams.
If Edison were to invent the light bulb today, the head- lines would read, '200,000 candle makers lose their jobs.'
Mithell,
October 6, 2009 - 00:01 ET by R D HelmPerhaps we will see, in said project, Michael Moore consume the one kosher dog that permanently seperates him from this Earth.
LOL-I mean, how many more will it take?
-Dave
The election of 2010 will be our last chance to save our republic. -Neal Boortz
Christian Marxism
October 7, 2009 - 01:35 ET by konoTrue, Acts does include a line that's practically identical to Marx's infamous "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." And many a Marxist tries to use that to 'prove' that Communism is the right form of government.
But Acts refers to the ethic of the Christian community, in which each person is called to the voluntary outpouring of self to the extent of giving all that he has for those in need. In no way does it sanction the governmental confiscation of personal wealth to fund handouts or welfare programs. It's about individual compassion, not institutional relief. For government to take that role away from people undermines their spiritual growth by taking over their individual duty to respond with compassion. And when the poor never see the people who give for their relief, it robs them of the gift of gratitude that comes when another person's direct giving tells them that they matter enough to bother to give.
'Christian Socialism' is a misnomer for Socialism with Jesus as its mascot, substituting visions of an earthly utopia for the promise of eternal union with God.
(And churches who advocate for Socialistic government seem oblivious to the damage it would do to their community and their own people's spiritual growth.)
"Religion is..."
October 6, 2009 - 03:15 ET by beauxdog"Religion is the Word of God filtered through man"... Beauxdog
"Listening to you, I get the music. Gazing at you, I get the heat. Following you, I climb the mountains. I get excitement at your feet." Tommy - The Who (or is it the MSM?)
Not filtered but direct inspiration
October 6, 2009 - 10:17 ET by Chattychito2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You see man was not a filter but the instrument God used to pen his word correctly without error through inspiration. And God promised to preserve it to every generation. which means there is only one English Bible available in our generation that is actually preserved by Gods sovereignty and Power so that His word would be true.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
only one English Bible?
October 6, 2009 - 14:59 ET by konoThere's an English Bible preserved? Awesome! I thought the oldest surviving manuscripts were written in Hebrew and Greek...
Which of the authors wrote in English?
the oldest are just copies
October 6, 2009 - 19:16 ET by Chattychitonot necessarily accurate becaue we have no original to compare it with.
So only one person can preserve it to each generation and get it right. our generation is English speaking.so there by there is a Bible today in English preserved but only one not 235 versions. that is how many English Bible Versions have been published since 1890
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effect of folly is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer's "State Tamperings with Money Banks"
situational reasoning?
October 6, 2009 - 20:00 ET by konoYep, and "you haven't experienced Shakespeare until you've seen it performed in the original Klingon."
(one of the few decent efforts at humor on Star Trek...)
If other translations aren't trustworthy because there's no original to compare with them, then the same limitation applies to all translations -- unless you're suggesting that the originals were in English.
Wrong
October 6, 2009 - 22:25 ET by mbuelThe hebrew bible is WORD FOR WORD the same today as it was then. We know this because of recent archaelogical finds in the middle east, like the essene documents found in 1947 that were recently released by the Catholic church for study.
The process of copying the hebrew bible has been handed down for millenia. They copy it EXACTLY character for character.
That is why I said above, if you are truly interested in studying god's LITERAL word, the best way to do it is to learn Hebrew.
If you are too impatient for that or don't have the time for that, invest in a parallel bible of several reputable english translations.
http://clearthehaze.blogspot.com
My Dear Chatty...
October 7, 2009 - 16:35 ET by beauxdogWith all due respect...
"Religion" does not equal "Bible".
The Bible is God's Perfect Word. Religion is man's imperfect interpretation and application of it.
The Holy Spirit helps man interpret the Bible, but that doesn't mean that man is smart enough to completely understand, isn't corruptable, or isn't prone to making mistakes.
I also don't necessarily believe that man's translations are perfect, but have no evidence to support that belief. However, you assert there is but one "perfect" english translation, but I didn't quite catch which one that is. And who determined that it was the "perfect" one?
Also, the term "filtered" is neutral. The quality of the filtered information depends on its source.
Faith, IMHO, comes from a one on one relationship with God. Religion is man getting together to decide what everyone in their group should believe.
I am not saying that people should not get together to fellowship and discuss God. I am saying that discussion is filtered through man.
Beauxdog
"Listening to you, I get the music. Gazing at you, I get the heat. Following you, I climb the mountains. I get excitement at your feet." Tommy - The Who (or is it the MSM?)
Bible babble
October 7, 2009 - 16:38 ET by QueenMumbeaux: If you're really interested in Chatty's perspective, I invite you to visit the Forum and the topic authored by Chatty in "Off-Topic" discussion.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
interpretive lenses are backwards
October 6, 2009 - 10:40 ET by konoGreen bible, conservative bible, liberation bible, good news bible, feminist bible, gay bible....
They all begin with the translators' convictions about reality and seek to conform the Word to those viewpoints, rather than beginning with the Word and conforming our earthly views to it. The authentic Word of God makes both Liberals and Conservatives uneasy inside, because it challenges both of us to set aside some of our dearest pre-conceived notions about life and God.
All of these revisions are bogus from the get-go, because they all put the proverbial cart before the horse. And if any of us sees the Bible as an affirmation of our political inclinations, it means we're reading it in the mirror...