Thread: Bible being edited.. again.. word of God??

Most aren't even ready to learn Latin or Greek to read the originals, so perhaps another translation won't bother them. What their defence could be, I have no idea. Probably something along the line of a holy spirit keeping the essence of christianity. Or maybe I'm just being unfair and I should wait for an actual response before I judge. I guess they have to trust it isn't changed significantly.

The Bible is the word of God, and people must follow it. We don't have to do everything it says because a lot of it is outdated. It was written by people, you know. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, so it is. Eve didn't really come from Adam's rib. It's just symbolism. Creationism is the truth, and liquor stores must be closed on Sundays. I don't really have to let the hair on the sides of my head grow. Don't teach evolution.

Well in this specific case, they are not changing the bible, but the translation of it. The bible wasn't written in English. The question you should be asking is, why are they still trying to translate it to English after so many years?

We can ignore the new translations. The old KJV version works fine. Or even NIV if you like.

Originally Posted by Noogah

We can ignore the new translations. The old KJV version works fine. Or even NIV if you like.

The King James is probably the single most innacurate english translation of the bible ever made.

NIV is fine too, but the KJV is definitely the best.

You aren't supposed to change "The Word of God". They can't do that.

Personally, I like the New and Improved Hollywood Hip Hop Popup Version. It's what all the cool people have been reading the last few weeks. Instead of saying it's okay to beat your slaves to death as long as it takes them at least two days to die, it says to give your strippers back massages at Puff Daddy's parties. Ashley Olsen takes the place of Mary in it.

Originally Posted by Noogah

We can ignore the new translations. The old KJV version works fine. Or even NIV if you like.

Ah, so you're the authority on this subject? Great, I won't be getting any of the new copies, more money I can give to the pastor.

The changes did not make all men "people" or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn't intend it.

It's a revision to how they previously translated it, obviously.

If you wanted to attack this idea of changing actual content in the bible, you
could have referenced any number of times it's been done in the past.

I don't really care. They're not changing the holy, must-not-be-changed words of God Himself.

The Bible was written by prophets of God. Men. Not God.

Men under God's direction/influence, true, but still. Its not like you're going to burn in hell for changing them.

(Actually, I believe there is a passage in there to that effect, but oh well.)

So, as long as changes are minor and don't change the general context and ideas as a whole, it's A-okay with me.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

Men under God's direction/influence, true, but still. Its not like you're going to burn in hell for changing them.

(Actually, I believe there is a passage in there to that effect, but oh well.)

It seems like there is a verse that says it is forbidden to change one word of the Bible, but I can't find it on Google.

It's in Revelation. 22:18

Originally Posted by Noogah

NIV is fine too, but the KJV is definitely the best.

The NIV has numerous verses removed. Your reading verse 18 and then the next verse is 20...??Not many notice this, as we lucid dreamers often talk about, that people do things without notice or are aware of. They are placed in fine print though at the bottom of the page. But again, how many people reading NIV will jump to the small fine print to read the moved verse..Not many. ps whats with Adolf Obama? Is he filling in where Hitler left off..?

Originally Posted by Henry Jones, Jr.

It's in Revelation. 22:18

Thanks! I gave up on trying to find it myself. It's not a widely publicized verse, for some reason. This is Revelation 22:18 followed by 22:19.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...ding_bible.htm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...19&version=KJV

Add unto these things as in, add or remove content. Things? Let me consider your phrase.

Original:There was an certain man whom walked down from Nazareth

New:There was a certain man who traveled by foot to Nazareth

That's fine. Our English translation isn't original, it's a translation. If tweaking with words is what the verse means, the KJV translators are in trouble.

However,

Orignal:There was an certain man whom walked down from Nazareth.
New:There was an certain man whom walked down from Nazareth. On the way to Nazareth, he stopped to drink. He saw God, and God told himnot to drink. The man continued on his way.

Adding CONTENT especially relating to God is what that verse is reffering to.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

Originally Posted by Noogah

Original:There was an certain man whom walked down from Nazareth

New:There was a certain man who traveled by foot to Nazareth

Uh oh, the new one left out that he was moving in the down direction, and it added how he traveled and said he was going TO Nazareth instead of FROM it. Somebody's in troooooooooubbbbbbbbbble!

Well in this case their not really changing the meaning of everything. They are making "gender-inclusive changes". Even though its pretty silly, it doesn't actually change anything.

"God created man." Might change to, "God created humans." They have the same meaning, but some people apparently have a problem with words used. Most people know that when you say man in that context you are talking about mankind and not male humans.

Don't worry. If God exists, he'll put a stop to this.

Is it just me, or does it seem like they're pulling a Council of Nicea?

Originally Posted by Alric

Well in this case their not really changing the meaning of everything. They are making "gender-inclusive changes". Even though its pretty silly, it doesn't actually change anything.

"God created man." Might change to, "God created humans." They have the same meaning, but some people apparently have a problem with words used. Most people know that when you say man in that context you are talking about mankind and not male humans.

It does change something.. a very significant something..

The original context is sexist. Let us not forget that the original word of God is sexist.

Just like the original text of the bible.. Jesus was not a God. Uh ohh Dead Sea Scrolls time... *Guards face*

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Is it just me, or does it seem like they're pulling a Council of Nicea?

That was my first thought.

~

That is not true. At least that is not what they are claiming at all. They are claiming the Greek word for mankind is neutral while the English world for man is masculine. So translating it into a masculine word is incorrect and so they are fixing it.

God created personhole covers.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is not true. At least that is not what they are claiming at all. They are claiming the Greek word for mankind is neutral while the English world for man is masculine. So translating it into a masculine word is incorrect and so they are fixing it.

You make it sound so inviting and innocent; as though they are simply revising the original translation for mistakes.

However, this is not the case.

Acknowledging past missteps, the NIV's overseers are promising that this time, the revision process will be more transparent and that they will actively promote what they describe as a long-held practice of inviting input from scholars and readers.

I wonder which scholars bible translators will consider...

An effort earlier this decade to create a separate version of the NIV that used more gender-inclusive language in an attempt to reach a younger audience fell flat with groups that felt it crossed the line.

I wonder why they felt it crossed the line....

One of the most vocal critics of gender-inclusive translations, Randy Stinson of the Louisville, Ky.-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the group supports updating the NIV.

I wonder what precisely he means by "updating" here...

The point I am trying to make here is that they are not simply refurbishing the mistakes made in the original translation (and let us not forget the 1000 people involved with the original translation of the bible that was in HEBREW and NOT GREEK [let us also not ignore that the word "Greek" does not even appear in this article]), but also that they are editing the "word of God" which is intended as permanent, unchangeable, and perfect. Otherwise, the word of God is not perfect? All this while still ignoring the fact that it was not even written by God in the first place.

What am I aiming at?

Stop referencing the Bible as the word of God; it's the word of malicious, misogynistic, malevolent, manipulative, and grotesque men.

~

There is no reason to point out, that they are editing the translation, as proof that the bible is flawed however. There are much more obvious things that point to the bible as being flawed. Such as the bible it self. The only way the bible makes any sense at all, is if you read it as a guide.