Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I look at religion and the bible and government with a few things in mind.
1. If you believe your religion is the word of GOD I run the other way.
2. If you promote force via governments, taxes and wish to have governments force your word and or those laws I run the other way.
3. If you support governments taking from one group to give to another group via force I run the other way even if you sell it as the COMMON GOOD or GODS will.
4. If my liberty and responsible are my own and with those I love, I treat others with respect and only kill in my defense of liberty or my life and do not steal from others. I find governments and religions service only themselves and when they are limited religion and government serve their purpose not burden mankind..
5. Big governments and Big religions use power and words so that you may give up your liberty and common sense for the chains of slavery.
I look at religion and the bible and government with a few things in mind.
1. If you believe your religion is the word of GOD I run the other way.
2. If you promote force via governments, taxes and wish to have governments force your word and or those laws I run the other way.
3. If you support governments taking from one group to give to another group via force I run the other way even if you sell it as the COMMON GOOD or GODS will.
4. If my liberty and responsible are my own and with those I love, I treat others with respect and only kill in my defense of liberty or my life and do not steal from others. I find governments and religions service only themselves and when they are limited religion and government serve their purpose not burden mankind..
5. Big governments and Big religions use power and words so that you may give up your liberty and common sense for the chains of slavery.
God was most likely an Asteroid, so those concerns would be moot.
From the duplicate thread that will no doubt soon be consolidated into this one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
The Bible in its current form has been re-written multiple times
The New Testament itself is a reboot, and as such legitimizes ongoing revelation. The Jefferson Bible has as much legitimacy as the New Testament itself, in any of its versions, including the revision being discussed here - in other words, the legitimacy of being a foundation for an individual to decide for themselves for it to serve as the framework of that individual's own personal belief system. My own religion is syncretic and is as legitimate as any of the dozens of religions that shaped its principles (if not more so than some, since it doesn't seek to rail against the foundation of its own legitimacy, i.e., ongoing revelation, like Christianity does).
No religious texts have legitimacy as some overriding statement of the way for everyone. Indeed, the only standards that have legitimacy of that sort are those standards that are actually clearly consistent with practically all belief systems. There is a relatively small list of such standards, many of which boil down to the ethic of reciprocity.
If this article is correct, we are about to have a very new translation of the Christian Bible. It won't be the first time it has been rewritten to suit a political view, and it probably won't be the last.
Unfortunately.
There have been (reportedly) PC versions of the Bible written, though I have never seen any, and I don't know by what name they are called.
I do doubt the accuracy of this story, however. I have not heard of this. And the link is mormon.org??? What's that all about? I have heard the Mormon's have their own version of the Bible.
The only versions that are widely used today are still the KJV, the NKJV (New King James - more modern language), the NIV (New International version - reported to be the most accurately translated at the time it came out) and the NAS (New American Standard Version) and ESV (English Standard Version).
What you don't seem to understand is that these are different translations (into modern language for easier reading). They do not present different interpretations. They have not been "rewritten" in any sense that they do not accurately render the meaning of the original scripture.
The King James, for example, used "thee and thou," whereas more modern translations dispensed with the old (archaic) English, to make reading and understanding easier.
This is vastly different from changing the meaning of the text, which you critics seem to believe is taking place. If one would compare one version to another, using correct exegesis, the meaning or interpretation of the text is not changed. It is just easier to read in our everyday language. We don't speak like they did in the Shakespearian era. Why would we want to struggle through a book written in the language of that era?
You critics use your misinformation as an excuse to: a) Not read the Bible for yourself. b) Criticize it as being untrustworthy. c) Use it as a cudgel to discredit the Christian faith.
Ignorance is bliss. Besides, it allows you to continue in your sin, and it releases you from any moral code, I suppose.
It's not really about whether it gains widespread acceptance or not. it isn't difficult to go through the posts on this board and find literally thousands of statements by fundamentalists that "The Bible says so-and-so and it is infallible and the inspired word of God and yadayadayada...".
Count me in on that!
When you read something (a newspaper story, for example), does it mean something different to you than what your neighbor would say it means? Or, would you both agree on what it says?
What is written in the bible is like what is written in any other book. It has only one meaning. It's that simple. It does not mean one thing to Jim, and something else to Jane. If it does, one (or both) of them is wrong. We have to study to understand it. What was going on at the time? What were the traditions? What was the culture, etc., etc. Who said it? To whom? What were the circumstances? There is only one correct interpretation. It cannot have more than one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Since Francis became Pope there has been a lot of hemming and hawing in some corners about some of the things he has said about Christianity and money, and a lot of conservatives are none too happy with him. Rush Limbaugh called him a Marxist, and Sarah Palin said he didn't know much about Jesus and His teachings.
Rush Limbaugh called him no such thing. You are parroting the MSM, which keeps accusing him. What Rush said was his views of economics were Marxist, and he is correct. The Pope was spouting common progressive (Marxist/socialist) redistributionist views, and talking about "income inequality." He sounded like any of our Marxist/socialist (Obama) politicians. So, what's up with that? That isn't what Christianity teaches (and I'm clad you have - apparently - read my posts on that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The translation that Conservapedia has undertaken is merely one of hundreds of different ones that have been done over a long period of time to reflect the particular beliefs of the patron underwriting the bill. It makes no pretense at accuracy or of reexamining the documents in their "original" languages;
Wrong. All translations are from the original languages. You are assuming. You are uniformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
All that is being done is a hack job to make it suit a particular set of prejudices. It would not surprise me a bit if a lot of text was changed and/or ended up on the cutting room floor at the Council of Nicea. It is a fact that a lot of books proposed for the compilation didn't make the cut.
I was really hoping to hear from some of the conservatives on the board and get their opinions as to the new translation.
As I said, I have not heard of this "new translation." Besides, if you are not a believer, why do you even care? You simply want to use it to bash Christianity, as you always do (Yes, I have seen many of your posts).
Actually, it was Francis Bacon who was responsible for the King James Bible. Few know of Bacon’s connection with the King James version, which was a revision of William Tyndale’s translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts (viz., the Geneva Bible and Bishop’s Bible) by committees of scholars (the "good pens") appointed by Bacon, and revised by him while serving as Solicitor General to the royal court. Bacon was the greatest intellect of his time. Besides his contribution to the revision of the English Bible stands his works on science, philosophy, history, law and literature. There is even considerable scholarship that would attribute the works of Shakespeare to his hand. The language of these works is a form of literary expression that Francis Bacon invented and perfected in his Essays that were written (and revised) contemporaneous in time, and which express his ideas in his unmistakable writing style throughout. While the authorship of Shakespeare is subject to dispute, one can say with confidence that the King James Version of the Bible is one of the great works of English literature because Francis Bacon made it so.
It was the Catholic Church that put together the scriptures and decided what's in and what's out. If you want to know what the Pope believes about homosexuality and such, he made it very plain, in language even a liberal can understand, about three years ago. Now protestant sects are over the place and who knows what they will come up with. Having said that. Phil, of Duck Dyasty fame, gave a pretty close rendition of what the bible said. Now the liberal's don't like any of it and like to frame it all in the most negative way. For instance, they say he equated hosexual behavior to beastiality. Well he also equated beastiality to something like gossiping. Point being that all sin against God is a sin, period. In answer to your hope of hearing from a conservative re: new translation of bible. Forget about it.
I just posted about it. I haven't heard of this (re-translation), and if it is what the OP says it is, it would be a bastardization and probably not worth the paper it was printed on. As a conservative (and evangelical bible believing "fundamentalist" Christian) I would never buy it.
By the way, a "fundamentalist" is one who believes the bible to be the inerrant Word of God, written by God, through men, as the Holy Spirt led them (which is what is meant by "inspired.")
Really? I'd like to hear from some of them. Which version do they read?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to hear from some of them. Which version do they read?
