Conservatives re-translating the Bible to remove the Liberal slant

[eastkygal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/ns/us_news-faith/

At a time when I am redefining my beliefs, asking questions, and wondering about religious Christianity, I see this article.

What ever happened to resting assured that God preserved His word?

They are looking to remove Luke 23:34 where Jesus says from the cross.... "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Why? What is liberal about that? Is not Christianity about a fallen world and the Savior that brings about our ability to be forgiven. Is not everyone equal in the eyes of God and able to be forgiven?

I don't know theologically what I am anymore. Politically I'm probably a moderate swinging more liberal. Where I am from the most conservative Christians read only the KJV. This verse is directly from there. What can we believe but our own hearts if we can't rest assured that God protects His word. This opens the door for varied interpretations being correct, etc...

What do you think?

[Thao]

OMG, I thought it was a joke until I read the article.

As a translator myself, I can say that the only way to hope to get a decent translation is to approach it with as few preconceptions as possible and simply try to stay true to the text. Schlafly's group is not doing this, so I would not trust their translation.

As for your question about what to believe if you can't trust that God protects his Word... well, what they are doing is nothing new. The Bible has been translated and re-translated numerous times, and stuff has been added and deleted. For example, the story of Jesus saving the prostitute who is about to be stoned, It is considered by most scholars to be a later addition because it isn't there in the oldest manuscripts, but Bibles leave it in because it is such a beloved story (some footnote it).

I think the best one can do is to believe that God protects the essential message of his Word.

[eastkygal]

Thao - Thanks for the comment. It is so weird to me. I know there are/have been so many translations... the whole canonizing thing. A lot of human involvement with the original texts (well and those were written by humans, but I believe Divinely inspired). This motivation is wack though! Wrong! Biased. Could change the Christian religion, if their translation catches on, to something it was not intended to be. I'm beginning to wonder if it hasn't already been changed somehow. I can understand translating for clarity, or modern language, but to take out whole verses because they sound liberal, so they must not have been in the original text...

I found a verse the other day and I don't have it on hand, but saw two different translations.

and those who believe in His name...
and even those who believe in His name...

or something along those lines. The word "even" can completely alter the meaning... give the idea that there are some who don't believe in His name that are saved under His blood. Then, what??

I have to believe the overall message to be preserved, but there are technicalities... so many.

[lilyka]

i don't think you have to worry about this changing the REAL Bible. uThere are sorts of groups who use the Bible as a jumping off point for their agenda, adding, subtracting and changing things. I doubt any serious people will be fooled by this imposter of a translation. But if they are taken in this is what Church tradtion is for and one of the weaknesses of sola scriptura.

I mean omitions are not new. think about the apochrypha. it used to be in there, now it is not for many people. ....

[hopefulfaith]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I doubt any serious people will be fooled by this imposter of a translation. But if they are taken in this is what Church tradtion is for and one of the weaknesses of sola scriptura.

Eastkygal, I've been thinking about this all day since I saw your post this morning. It really, really bothered me on a visceral level - your question feeling secure that God preserves His word - really resonated with me.

I'm kind of feeling the way Lilyka said above, right now. My initial reaction was purely political: What are they going to do? Take out the parts telling us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and welcome the stranger...as part of a conservative anti-immigration stance??!?! Now that I've kind of calmed down, I would like to think that most rational people are going to see right through this agenda, particularly given that the guy behind it is the guy behind Conservapedia ((another phenomenon I didn't believe until I clicked on it)).

[cappuccinosmom]

I am a conservative and I think what they're doing is just foolish.

I am a social/political conservative, having read from-the-original translations. I don't need or want a conservative translation and I think changing the Bible to fit one's agenda as a conservative is just as wrong as changing it to fit one's agenda as a liberal. It is unnecessary.

btw, "Christian conservative" is not a monolithic label. I, for instance, married an immigrant. I am certainly not anti-immigrant. Likewise, you won't catch me marching with that icky Phelps guy, ever.

[Bluegoat]

The idea that "liberals" inserted the "Father forgive them" passage is so bizarre and ridiculous that it is hard to believe. I can't but help think the political polarization in the US is becoming a very dangerous thing in many ways.

[pants]

Oh brother...

[Juvysen]

[eastkygal]

Originally Posted by lilyka

i don't think you have to worry about this changing the REAL Bible. uThere are sorts of groups who use the Bible as a jumping off point for their agenda, adding, subtracting and changing things. I doubt any serious people will be fooled by this imposter of a translation. But if they are taken in this is what Church tradtion is for and one of the weaknesses of sola scriptura.

I mean omitions are not new. think about the apochrypha. it used to be in there, now it is not for many people. ....

I know it is ridiculous and it really bothers me. But, then what is the REAL Bible? At this point I am satisfied with the canonized Bible, but... About sola sciptura... I have to believe that it is necessary that we each have a private relationship with God and His Word. I think of things like the RCC making it illegal for anyone not clergy to own a Bible in the time surrounding the 1500s, selling indulgences, and things such as that. Deep down I cannot trust a human being to make my religious decisions for me. I want to make them for myself and then come together with those that agree with me on the things most important, which are most Christian denominations. Salvation through Christ Jesus. Period. Faith. Otherwise, I believe the Lord will answer our prayers regarding the understanding of Scripture. His Word is not for a privileged few to understand and dictate IMHO.
My problem with people like these re-translating the Bible is that they want to take away from text that has been part of the Bible for ____ years. For what reason? Read the words, come to an understanding of what it means, but please don't tamper with them. It is sickening and shameful to the religion IMO. Foolish. What is there is there.
BTW, I have become okay with different interpretations of some scripture among people. I believe in the end God will help us find the right path through His Word.

[lilyka]

ah but I am sure these people believe the holy spirit is leading them to this revelation of truth.

[hrsmom]

Originally Posted by lilyka

i don't think you have to worry about this changing the REAL Bible. uThere are sorts of groups who use the Bible as a jumping off point for their agenda, adding, subtracting and changing things. I doubt any serious people will be fooled by this imposter of a translation. But if they are taken in this is what Church tradtion is for and one of the weaknesses of sola scriptura.

I mean omitions are not new. think about the apochrypha. it used to be in there, now it is not for many people. ....

Oh, WOW! And I totally agree with this. Don't even let these people worry you for a single second!

[Kidzaplenty]

[eastkygal]

Originally Posted by lilyka

ah but I am sure these people believe the holy spirit is leading them to this revelation of truth.

They probably do, unfortunately. That is the problem with Christianity in a "me"society. People want what works for them and makes them feel righteous instead of looking at the example of Christ.

The Bible is a complete picture from beginning to end. Complete. I don't believe that the Holy Spirit will led anyone to changes of this sort at this period in time. I think we have to be very careful of what we call the Holy Spirit. Someone posted something beautiful on a thread in this forum before about how to know the difference, and I can't find it.

I believe in some ways difference of interpretation is to be expected as long as the salvation issue is clear, that is fine.

[hrsmom]

Hi eastkygal- I've been thinking about this thread. What else is there to think about at 3 in the morning? I had cut my previous response to you pretty short because my little one woke up while I was typing! I think what I meant to say was that this particular project is (in my opinion) no more or less of a threat than any other project of this kind. Lots of different groups work on Bible translations. I never thought the Bible itself had a "liberal slant" though, which made that article a bit surprising! And taking out the phrase "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" definitely doesn't seem right! Now that I think of it, Jesus and his early followers could not be considered "conservative"- that was part of the point! God is outside of all these labels anyway, of course.

I had an experience a few years ago that I'd forgotten about until this morning. I was reading the NKJV Bible and I saw, for the first time, a footnote explaining that the story about the woman caught in adultery does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. I collapsed, crying, in frustration and confusion! And of course there are other footnotes about other portions that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts. That moment is now just part of my faith journey, but at the time it was pretty unsettling. So maybe I know how you're feeling?

[eastkygal]

hrsmom - You are exactly right. God is outside of all those labels. He is what is perfect and right. No liberal or conservative can say that they are that all the time.

I just get angry when politics mess with spirituality. I am more and more believing in separation of church and state. Sure politics raises moral questions, but when changing ancient texts/beliefs to fit your personal moral code - that's ludicrous and I know it is foolish, but I just get mad. It hits too close to home for me. Because of the coal issue around here and mountaintop removal, I am too much hearing sentiments like "tree hugging devil worshiper" from some Christians for coal. It's ridiculous because that is strictly politics. Just because the Bible says something will come to pass, if it is a bad thing, it doesn't mean we should be a part of making that happen.

Does anyone know if there is a translation that is strictly from the earliest texts? I'd love to read that.

It makes me want to explore the apocrypha too. However, I do believe the essential truth is whole in the canonized Bible.

[Smokering]

But if they are taken in this is what Church tradtion is for and one of the weaknesses of sola scriptura.

Er, sola Scriptura refers to the Scriptures, not a translation that leaves out various sentences. If anyone uses a demonstrably and deliberately inaccurate translation of the Scriptures, they are not working from the principle of sola Scriptura.. they are working from the principle of... something else... in this case, conservatism. A really weird conservatism.

Fortunately all the good conservative Biblical scholars - anyone with a shred of reputability - will laugh this out the window. Disagreeing on the meaning of a text is one thing; opting to chuck it because it's deemed liable to be mistranslated is a totally different kettle of fish.

[cagnew]

This is kind of off-topic, although it concerns something mentioned in a post by the OP. I have come across the whole "Catholic Church banned the bible" statement a few times in the past few weeks. I finally decided to look into this, knowing that I would not be disappointed (I am a Catholic).

So, here is the truth behind this claim that Protestants like to spread around. I am copy/pasting from catholicanswers.com because the poster said it better than I could in the time I have. I did look up the info and the facts are correct.

"The Council of Toulouse did ban the possession of vernacular Bibles for the laity without a license; not because the Church wished to discourage the authentic study of Scripture, but because the Bible was used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. In the Middle Ages, Bibles contained glosses, either in between verses or in the margins. These glosses served to guide the reader's interpretation of the text. A decently translated Bible could contain glosses which might lead the reader to reject the Church. Or the translation of the Bible could be perverted to support a heretical doctrine. For these reasons, some very poor and incorrectly translated bibles were burned.

The uncritical anti-Catholic also assumes that because there were relatively few bibles, knowledge of Scripture was limited. That was hardly the case. Catholics transmitted biblical knowledge in other forms. There were books which paraphrased stories in the Bible as is done today in children's books. The visual arts abounded in Scriptural themes. Stained-glass windows were the poor man's Bible. There were Miracle plays, which were the forerunners of modern Western theatre, as well as poems recounting Bible stories. Even the illiterate had access to the Bible through their families. Only a minority of people were literate during the Middle Ages, but sometimes one person in the family could read (often a woman) and the Bible, being the most widely-owned book in the Middle Ages, was read aloud.

The assumption driving this myth of bible-banning is that the Church, during the Middle Ages, was a big bad oppressor who wanted her flock to be ignorant so that it wouldn't challenge her power and her doctrines.

So the charge that the Church was against knowledge of Scripture is entirely unfounded. It's true that in some periods and some places vernacular versions of the Bible were rare or non-existent, but that's not the same thing as saying that the Church did not want the laity to read the Bible."

[cagnew]

As for the subject of the original post, I wouldn't worry about it. This little group doing this "translating" is inconsequencial (sp). It won't catch on, as most protestants believe (rightly so) that adding or taking away from the bible is equal to blasphemy. How they can believe that and still use the KJV bible is beyond me, since it was changed... but that is for another discussion.

At any rate, I venture to say that the only reason this story even got coverage is because it comes from a "liberal" news source. They thrive on taking little stories about conservatives and blowing them up to support the image they are trying to paint of conservatives as a whole. The conservatives in this "story" do not represent most conservatives. They are not even qualified to be called far-right because their actions are so bizarre....

[eastkygal]

Originally Posted by cagnew

This is kind of off-topic, although it concerns something mentioned in a post by the OP. I have come across the whole "Catholic Church banned the bible" statement a few times in the past few weeks. I finally decided to look into this, knowing that I would not be disappointed (I am a Catholic).

So, here is the truth behind this claim that Protestants like to spread around. I am copy/pasting from catholicanswers.com because the poster said it better than I could in the time I have. I did look up the info and the facts are correct.

"The Council of Toulouse did ban the possession of vernacular Bibles for the laity without a license; not because the Church wished to discourage the authentic study of Scripture, but because the Bible was used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. In the Middle Ages, Bibles contained glosses, either in between verses or in the margins. These glosses served to guide the reader's interpretation of the text. A decently translated Bible could contain glosses which might lead the reader to reject the Church. Or the translation of the Bible could be perverted to support a heretical doctrine. For these reasons, some very poor and incorrectly translated bibles were burned.

The uncritical anti-Catholic also assumes that because there were relatively few bibles, knowledge of Scripture was limited. That was hardly the case. Catholics transmitted biblical knowledge in other forms. There were books which paraphrased stories in the Bible as is done today in children's books. The visual arts abounded in Scriptural themes. Stained-glass windows were the poor man's Bible. There were Miracle plays, which were the forerunners of modern Western theatre, as well as poems recounting Bible stories. Even the illiterate had access to the Bible through their families. Only a minority of people were literate during the Middle Ages, but sometimes one person in the family could read (often a woman) and the Bible, being the most widely-owned book in the Middle Ages, was read aloud.

The assumption driving this myth of bible-banning is that the Church, during the Middle Ages, was a big bad oppressor who wanted her flock to be ignorant so that it wouldn't challenge her power and her doctrines.

So the charge that the Church was against knowledge of Scripture is entirely unfounded. It's true that in some periods and some places vernacular versions of the Bible were rare or non-existent, but that's not the same thing as saying that the Church did not want the laity to read the Bible."

I have to admit that I learned about this from a PBS documentary on Michelangelo and a group that wanted to have reformation within the church to try to keep the Protestant movement at bay and to also help the corruption within the church. They were called The Spirituality.

I'm not really worried about the translation. I believe God will protect His Word. However, I am on a searching for truth myself, so this applied there.