• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Next Up: Change the Bible (interpretation)

It's still hilarious to watch people claim that criticizing their bigotry is intolerance. And that not discriminating against people they don't like is forcing them to betray their beliefs.

Loss of privilege is nowhere near the same thing as discrimination, and only someone who has never and will never suffer discrimination can make this mistake.
 
CalGun said:
Does Phil Robertson get the Bible wrong? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Its not enough that the homosexual lobby needs to change the Christian term of "marriage" into one that includes them; they now must change the interpretation of the statements in the bible they don't like. Tough.
Click to expand...

Arggh! This this is just more crap about this stupid Duck Dynasty bunch! When I first saw the title: "Next Up: Change the Bible (interpretation)", I thought it was about this story: Right-Wing Group Seeks Help Rewriting the Bible Because It's Not Conservative Enough, where it seems Phyllis Schlafely's son...who is charge of the encyclopedia of the alternate universe - Conservapedia, has decided that the Bible has too many passages that sound liberal and socialistic:

In the several years since their translation project was inaugurated, all of the New Testament and several books of the Old have been thoroughly revised. But lots still remains to be done. If you've got a soft spot for Leviticus, the Book of Amos, Lamentations or Numbers, they are all still available for rewrite, so get cracking!

To give a sense of how to go about your own retranslation, here are some examples of changes the editors have already made.

Take that story where the mob surrounds a woman accused of adultery and gets ready to stone her, but Jesus intervenes and says, “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" (John 7:53-8:11). It might have been a later addition that wasn’t in the original Gospels, according to some right-thinking, or rather right-leaning scholars. So the editors have excised this bleeding-heart favorite from the Good Book, and they've also removed Jesus’ words on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

“The simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing,” Schlafly points out, proving that, “Jesus might never had said it at all.”

Another thing Jesus might never have said at all is, “Blessed are the meek.” Change that one to, “Blessed are the God-fearing,” the translation’s editors advise, which is far less touchy-feely than the King James version.

Where Jesus teaches that, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:24) our mentors at Conservapedia recommend that we scratch the word “rich” and replace it with either "fully fed and entertained" or, if you prefer, "idle miser," which have none of the Occupy Wall Street-ish sour grapes of the better-known translation.

When Jesus greets his disciples with the blessing, “Peace be with you” (John 20, 26), the editors cleverly change the wording to, "Peace of mind be with you," so that nobody gets the wrong idea and thinks Jesus was some kind of lilly-livered pacifist.

Likewise where Jesus says, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but to save it” (John 3, 17), they change “world” to “mankind,” so it is clear the Christian savior is not advocating environmentalism here. Hey, you can’t be too careful!

Finally, when Jesus admonishes hypocrites to, “Cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye,” the conservative Bible replaces the word “hypocrite” with "deceiver," since hypocrite is often “misused politically against Christians.” Good point!

It's about time that conservatives started to realize that their Blessed are the Rich theology and guns&ammo Jesus, are not supported by most of the verses in the Bible. So, what to do if you want a theology that's completely antithetical to old and new testament teachings? Retranslate the Bible so that you can change the meanings, or at least diminish the verses that fly in the face of modern nationalistic conservatlve values.
 
Commie said:
Arggh! This this is just more crap about this stupid Duck Dynasty bunch! When I first saw the title: "Next Up: Change the Bible (interpretation)", I thought it was about this story: Right-Wing Group Seeks Help Rewriting the Bible Because It's Not Conservative Enough, where it seems Phyllis Schlafely's son...who is charge of the encyclopedia of the alternate universe - Conservapedia, has decided that the Bible has too many passages that sound liberal and socialistic:

In the several years since their translation project was inaugurated, all of the New Testament and several books of the Old have been thoroughly revised. But lots still remains to be done. If you've got a soft spot for Leviticus, the Book of Amos, Lamentations or Numbers, they are all still available for rewrite, so get cracking!

To give a sense of how to go about your own retranslation, here are some examples of changes the editors have already made.

Take that story where the mob surrounds a woman accused of adultery and gets ready to stone her, but Jesus intervenes and says, “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" (John 7:53-8:11). It might have been a later addition that wasn’t in the original Gospels, according to some right-thinking, or rather right-leaning scholars. So the editors have excised this bleeding-heart favorite from the Good Book, and they've also removed Jesus’ words on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

“The simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing,” Schlafly points out, proving that, “Jesus might never had said it at all.”

Another thing Jesus might never have said at all is, “Blessed are the meek.” Change that one to, “Blessed are the God-fearing,” the translation’s editors advise, which is far less touchy-feely than the King James version.

...and la la la....
Click to expand...


We have the earliest extant manuscripts and you can't change those. And in them ALL FOUR GOSPELS AND VARIOUS EPISTLES VERIFY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST!

Don't miss the forest for the trees!

Praise the Lord!
 
Logicman said:
We have the earliest extant manuscripts and you can't change those. And in them ALL FOUR GOSPELS AND VARIOUS EPISTLES VERIFY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST!

Don't miss the forest for the trees!

Praise the Lord!
Click to expand...

Yes, but those earliest extant manuscripts are mere fragments, not the complete New Testament, which did not start coming together until the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.

No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes." {1}

Bruce Metzger studies the Codex Vaticanus at the VaticanIt is the task of textual criticism, therefore, to study and compare the available manuscripts in order to discern which of the variations conforms the closest to the original. Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, a prominent modern textual critic, describes the role of textual criticism this way:

The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings. In other instances, however, the critic can arrive at a decision based on more or less compelling reasons for preferring one reading and rejecting another. {2}
New Testament Manuscripts - ReligionFacts

When it comes to conservatives realizing that their Bibles aren't in synch with their philosophies, I could have noted that in that quoted portion from Andrew Schlafly previously: Schlafly points out, proving that, “Jesus might never had said it at all.” He, may be hinting at the fact that the entire parable of the stoning of the accused woman, with "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is not found in any of the early Greek manuscripts, and is almost certainly a later addition to the book. It is more likely that the story was added by a gospel writer who wants to rebuke those early Christians who were still following the Law, as Jesus's actions described, are a direct violation of Mosaic Law. The story...whether original or not, has been pivotal in development of Christian theology on the importance of mercy and forgiveness....something that today's harsh, legalistic conservatives don't feel comfortable with it seems. But how far would Conservapedia go in applying higher criticism to the Bible, when most rank and file conservatives are fundamentalists, and act on the premise that the entire canon that we have today is divinely inspired and cannot be altered?
 
Commie said:
Yes, but those earliest extant manuscripts are mere fragments, not the complete New Testament, which did not start coming together until the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.

No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes."
Click to expand...


The information in the following link confirms the reliability of the New Testament.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Probe Ministries

lthough we can be confident in an accurate copy, we do have textual discrepancies. There are some passages with variant readings that we are not sure of. However, the differences are minor and do not affect any major theological doctrine. Most have to do with sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. These in no way affect any major doctrine.

Here is one example. In our Bibles, Mark 16:9-20 is debated as to whether it was part of the original writings. Although I personally do not believe this passage was part of the original text, its inclusion does not affect any major teaching of Christianity. It states that Christ was resurrected, appeared to the disciples, and commissioned them to preach the gospel. This is taught elsewhere.

The other discrepancies are similar in nature. Greek scholars agree we have a copy very accurate to the original. Westcott and Hort state that we have a copy 98.33% accurate to the original.{7} A.T. Robertson gave a figure of 99% accuracy to the original.{8} As historian Sir Fredric Kenyon assures us, "...the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{9}
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom