www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings beware - New Bible translation - promotes fornicatio

BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

n keeping with the times, translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness" and "Son of Man," the expression Jesus frequently used to describe himself, as "the Complete Person." In addition, parables are rendered as "riddles," baptize is to "dip" in water, salvation becomes "healing" or "completeness" and Heaven becomes "the world beyond time and space.

Titled "Good as New," the new Bible is translated by former Baptist minister John Henson for the "One" organization, to produce what the group calls a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the Christian scriptures.

The 104th archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams � leader of the Church of England � describes it is a book of "extraordinary power," but admitted many would be startled by its content.

"Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," says Ruth Gledhill, the London Times religious affairs correspondent, "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St. Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated.'"

THE REST IS HERE
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39114

Reminds me of the old Living Bible, seems like there was great condemnation of that too, but it ended up going mainstream. I like this new paraphrase, you can't really call it a translation and I don't think it was meant to replace standard versions of the Scriptures. But if it can get someone to reading the Bible, even in a paraphrase like this, then more power to it. And face it, sometimes to the uniniated it isn't easy to read the Bible as it is written, they would need a paraphrase such as this. And as it promoting fornication, if you read the parts where this is supposed to be happening, you will be sadly disappointed, it clearly does not do that. But misinformation is to expected from www.worldnetdaily.com, [worldnetdaily.com,] it isn't the best of online news sources. Moe

Rowan Williams is the archlaic of Canterbury. The last archbishop of Canterbury was Reginald Cardinal Pole (1556-1558), the 68th and final archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England.

Jason

Jason,
you are quite right! I maintained that here in a post a few months ago and was chastized for saying such a "terrible" thing.

StephanosI
PS and it is even likely that he isnt a proper bishop in the Orthodox or Catholic sense, just a plain mister, now that is not being disrespectful just the facts.

StephanosI
PS and it is even likely that he isnt a proper bishop in the Orthodox or Catholic sense, just a plain mister, now that is not being disrespectful just the facts.

I know that Rome has already ruled that Anglican orders are not valid. Interestingly, there have been a couple of Episcopal priests in my area that have gone to the Middle East and had themselves re-ordained by Orthodox bishops. My question to them is usually along the lines of, why do you wish to serve in a church whose orders you obviously doubt? I have never gotten much of an answer to that.

Why would an Orthodox bishop ordain such a man?

Jason

I would remind all that it is the policy of this forum that ministers and bishops of Protestant Churches are to be accorded the title their Church gives them as a sign of respect and courtesy and does not imlpy any agreement about validity of their orders or theology of their Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Why would an Orthodox bishop ordain such a man?

Jason,

Your guess is as good as mine. One Knoxville priest went somewhere in Syria and was re-ordained by an Orthodox bishop. I have heard of some Orthodox who consider themselves Protestant, since they are not in union with Rome. Following that line of thought, perhaps the bishop wanted to reinforce the validity of Protestant orders, or was taking a slap at the RC position on Anglican orders. Other than that, I have no idea.

Charles

Moe - The quotations from this new "Bible" speak for themselves extremely well; dismissing the surrounding news article as "misinformed" does not make them sound any better. The Bible is not paraphrased; the Bible is rewritten, in a manner ranging from comic ("John the Dipper" and "Rocky"), to heretical (from "wife" and "husband" to "regular partner"; from "better to marry than to burn" to "get a partner"), to blasphemous (from the Son of Man to the "Complete Person" - dude, that Jesus, he's so, like, together!; from "You are my beloved Son" to "That's my boy!") Nobody reading that is going to be reading the Bible - that is, the inspired Word of God. Too much has been changed and too much depth and meaning has been lost.

(If I sound angry, it is not at you - it is at that book, which is a sheer mockery of God's Word.)

Nobody reading that is going to be reading the Bible - that is, the inspired Word of God. Too much has been changed and too much depth and meaning has been lost.

I haven't seen this translation, but its source would make me suspect it to some degree. I am in complete agreement that we need good translations to encourage people to read the Bible. However, it seems to me that a bigger problem is that many of the people who read scripture don't live it.

ByzanTN - Just going from the quotes provided in the WorldNet article, and again in an article by the BBC...anyone who would think that the title 'Son of God' is something that can be changed with impunity has no business writing a Bible tranlation/paraphrase.

General query: What makes a good translation? Elevated language? Down-to-earth, modern language? Paraphrases/modernizations of obscure sayings and customs? (Obviously, I think this version goes way too far in that. :p ) How much liberty can be taken with the sacred texts in making them understandable to the modern mind?

Non nomen,

How much liberty should be taken? I don't think liberties should be taken in translation which change or take away from or add on to the original text. In order to understand what it means we need to know what it meant and rely on translations which accurately translate right from the Hebrew, Greek,and some Aramatic(original languages in which it was written) Fortunately good bible scholars help us do just that and keep it all in context.

Blessings,
Mary Jo

Say, Rocky, watch me pull some loaves and fishes out of my hat! Presto!!

(You, too can create a Bible along the lines of "Fractured Fairy Tales", for those who remember Rocky and Bullwinkle)

I cannot believe anyone can do that to the Bible, much less get a blessing to do so, or be commended by any real prelate.

Moe, if you are confused by KJV, get an NKJV, with a study guide. NOT a "Bible" that thinks it important to change St. Peter into a guy named Rocky.

Gaudior, in contempt

(Oh, and then there's the way they replace Revelation with the Gospel of Thomas. Looks like I won't be going to Heaven until I transform into a man...nah, they've probably changed that as well. For a look at the promo page, go here. [o-books.net] Or here, for the first 3 chapters of Matthew. [one.gn.apc.org] )

Porter - point taken, and I completely agree with you...'liberty' was a sloppy choice of words on my part, to say the least. I meant more, how far can we go in adapting the Bible to modern, everyday English even when we can keep the original meaning intact...is there a point past which the translation, even if accurate, is simply too pedestrian? (Which may not be any better than my original question, for all I know)

Dear Non Nomen...

Yes, there is a point. Once upon a time, twenty years ago or so, one of the same companies that produces study guides produced a "modern language" Shakespeare series for college students. Real version, then, modern English on facing page.

"Friends, Romans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears!" became "Everybody, listen to me!"

Yes, it was accurate, and conveyed the meaning, but all the beauty of the language was gone forever. It became, as you say, "too pedestrian". There was none of the original beauty that made Shakespeare's plays last over 400 years...We bought one and read it aloud, howling with laughter, until one of us said..."Hey...what if this is what someone thinks Shakespeare IS...if they only see the meaning, not the poetry." We all thought about that.

It would be even worse with God's Word, because anyone reading it with no background will NEVER go on to patristics, or anything else that leads them away from Sola Scriptura and into the Church.

Gaudior, who believes that if one is in an apostolic Church, one should listen to what the Church says if one is confused about the meaning of a passage of Scripture...