New Bible translation promotes fornication
Archbishop of Canterbury praises
version for 'extraordinary power'
A brand-new translation of the Bible – praised by Britain's archbishop of Canterbury, that nation’s senior Christian voice – flatly contradicts traditional core Christian beliefs on sex and morality.
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.
Archbishop Rowan Williams
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 new version, which Dr. Williams says he hopes will spread 'in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike', turns St. Paul's strictures against fornication on their head," adds the Times.
The One organization that produced the new Bible translation is dedicated to "establish[ing] peace, justice, dignity and rights for all." It is also focused on "sustainable use of the earth's resources," challenging "oppression, injustice, exclusion and discrimination" as well as accepting "one another, valuing their diversity and experience."
According to Ekklesia, a London-based "theological think tank" that supports the "One" translation:
The translation is pioneering in its accessibility, and changes the original Greek and Hebrew nomenclature into modern nicknames. St. Peter becomes "Rocky," Mary Magdalene becomes "Maggie," Aaron becomes "Ron," Andronicus becomes "Andy" and Barabbas becomes "Barry."
In 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."
Here's how Williams, the top Anglican archbishop, describes the new Bible: "Instead of being taken into a specialized religious frame of reference – as happens even with the most conscientious of formal modern translations – and being given a gospel addressed to specialized concerns … we have here a vehicle for thinking and worshipping that is fully earthed, recognizably about our humanity."
In addition, notes Ekklesia, the archbishop praises Henson's translation for eliminating "the stale, the technical, the unconsciously exclusive words and policies" in other translations.
Here, according to the London Times, are a few sample passages:
Mark 1:4
Authorized version: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
New: "John, nicknamed 'The Dipper,' was 'The Voice.' He was in the desert, inviting people to be dipped, to show they were determined to change their ways and wanted to be forgiven."
Mark 1:10-11
Authorized version: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from the heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
New: "As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God's spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, 'That's my boy! You're doing fine!'"
Matthew 23:25
Authorized version: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"
New version: "Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"
Matthew 26:69-70
Authorized version: "Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, 'Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.' But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest."
New: "Meanwhile Rocky was still sitting in the courtyard. A woman came up to him and said: 'Haven't I seen you with Jesus, the hero from Galilee?" Rocky shook his head and said: 'I don't know what the hell you're talking about!'"
1 Corinthians 7:1-2
KJV: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
New: "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."
1 Corinthians 7:8-7
KJV: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
New: "If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated."
[QUOTE=~Mu'MiNaH~;275873 I find the modern english translations of the meaning easier to read than classical English.[/QUOTE]
Same here! But then English is not my first language.
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
I actually have to agree with Nicole. This "new" translation sounds completely disrespectful. It's one thing to try to make a book better understood by using modern terminology or simplified words for children, but it's completely different to take what Christians believe to be the word of God and make it sound like He's just come out of the mountains for the first time. Take a phrase, (and I'm making this up), of "How mayest I helpth ye?" The "new" bible could have said: "How may I help you?" but chooses: "What the Hell do you want?"
Using the term "partners" does not imply marriage, and in my opinion, based on the modern usage and terminology, this means ANY partner, regardless of gender, and implies that marriage doesn't have to be part of the equation. I can't imagine this version of the bible would ever be approved.
Anyway, just my opinion.
Wasalam and peace,
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Well perhaps I should have stressed the "in theory" part more?
But in practice, some meanings are changed in the process:
KJV: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
New: "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."
A 'regular partner' is not necessarily a spouse.
Hmmm, it is inevitable that meanings shift slightly perhaps. But then for Christians surely "regular partner" and "spouse" are synonymous?
One can but hope.
Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait pas. - Blaise Pascal
But in practice, some meanings are changed in the process:
KJV: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
New: "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."
A 'regular partner' is not necessarily a spouse.
That `regular partner' really bothered me a lot. Does it includes gays & lesbians too? How could the very concept of man & woman or husband & wife since the time of creation being venerated into something totally, different?
Oh dear!
Now I have read all your comments and posts I feel really embarrassed to have responded in such a flippant way initially! < hangs head in shame>
I just got carried away by finding the wording funny, without really reading the text, drawing comparisons to the authorised version and considering the implications of changing the meaning of God's word!
Of course I agree. It is okay to simplify a holy book, if necessary, but not to change it's divine message!
Apologies if I have offended anybody.:X
Next time I'll try to engage my brain first!
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Oh dear!
Now I have read all your comments and posts I feel really embarrassed to have responded in such a flippant way initially! < hangs head in shame>
I just got carried away by finding the wording funny, without really reading the text, drawing comparisons to the authorised version and considering the implications of changing the meaning of God's word!
Of course I agree. It is okay to simplify a holy book, if necessary, but not to change it's divine message!
Apologies if I have offended anybody.:X
Next time I'll try to engage my brain first!
Peace Glo:
It's nice to see that you took the time to look at other opinions and were able to say ooppsssyyy. It shows you are willing to listen to the opinion of others and alter yours after having more information. It's a wonderful quality....don't apologize for it.
Peace to you,
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Oh dear!
Now I have read all your comments and posts I feel really embarrassed to have responded in such a flippant way initially! < hangs head in shame>
I just got carried away by finding the wording funny, without really reading the text, drawing comparisons to the authorised version and considering the implications of changing the meaning of God's word!
Of course I agree. It is okay to simplify a holy book, if necessary, but not to change it's divine message!
Apologies if I have offended anybody.:X
Next time I'll try to engage my brain first!
No apologies are neccessary Glo...not everything is what it first appears to be....I guess we've all had experience of that in one way or another....
I agree with you totaly, there is a need for making the Bible accessible for everyone, who wants to understand it's history, prophecy, Gods plan for salvation etc ....but there is a definate reason behind this publication.
I'm not really surprised that the Archbishop of Canterbury praised this...I'd like to know though what the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu has to say about it...
And what is attacked and distorted more than the Quran and Islam eh? :P
I believe why the Quran and Islam appears to be distorted is because of cuturals differences that non Muslims class as Islamic.
Besides I thought it was impossible to distort the Quran
I have not come across this version, but I know there are some 'modern' versions around. I believe their intent is to bring God's story to modern people, especially the young. Some people are discouraged by heavy and old-fashioned wording.
By "modern" and "young" I suspect you mean "functionally illiterate"
I understand that it is one of Islam's main criticism of Christianity - the way the Bible is translated, and the amount of versions that exist.
It's a valid criticism, I think, although it should be remembered that the "old-fashioned wording" concerned is not the Hebrew and Greek, but the most famous English translation, the King James Bible, and to a lesser extent its direct derivatives. The Latin translation of St Jerome (382 CE) is still around for those who make the effort to learn Latin in the way many muslims do Qur'anic Arabic. They don't of course because the same need doesn't exist. Even that and surviving Greek and Hebrew texts can never be historically "authentic" (in the sense of unchanged) in the way the Qur'an is.
I believe why the Quran and Islam appears to be distorted is because of cuturals differences that non Muslims class as Islamic.
Besides I thought it was impossible to distort the Quran
Salam Alaikum and Peace:
It's not the Qur'an that is distorted....the Qur'an is the same now as it was since it was revealed. What gets distorted are people taking the text and twisting it to suit their purpose. There will always be people that do this, but, Alhamdulillah, we have the original revelation to show these people where they are wrong. Islam is not distorted either, but there are those that mix culture with thier belief. When they do this, it is not Islam that is distorted, but that person's view or practice which is distorted. Again, we only need refer back to the Qur'an and Sunnah to show them their mistake. So, yes, you're right in the sense that many non-muslims mistake Islam for culture and are unable to distinguish between the two, mainly because of lack of knowledge which is to be expected if someone isn't Muslim.
I think the point the brother was trying to make was referring to the comment "I always found that when something Holy is attacked and distorted by men, it is because it is Holy and true.". He meant that if that statement were true, then the Qur'an MUST be true because people try to distort or twist the meaning of the text more than any other.
Wasalam and Peace,
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
By "modern" and "young" I suspect you mean "functionally illiterate"
Yeah, probably!
I mean that texting Bible was the best example. It drives me mad when young people don't seem to able to spell properly any more! :rant:
It's a valid criticism, I think, although it should be remembered that the "old-fashioned wording" concerned is not the Hebrew and Greek, but the most famous English translation, the King James Bible, and to a lesser extent its direct derivatives. The Latin translation of St Jerome (382 CE) is still around for those who make the effort to learn Latin in the way many muslims do Qur'anic Arabic. They don't of course because the same need doesn't exist. Even that and surviving Greek and Hebrew texts can never be historically "authentic" (in the sense of unchanged) in the way the Qur'an is.
I would love to read those old translations one day!
But having to learn Latin??!
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Yeah, probably!
I mean that texting Bible was the best example. It drives me mad when young people don't seem to able to spell properly any more! :rant:
I would love to read those old translations one day!
But having to learn Latin??!
I have a solution! Find a hot Latin lover to teach you the language!
What gets distorted are people taking the text and twisting it to suit their purpose. There will always be people that do this, but, Alhamdulillah, we have the original revelation to show these people where they are wrong. Islam is not distorted either, but there are those that mix culture with thier belief. When they do this, it is not Islam that is distorted, but that person's view or practice which is distorted.
I totally agree with you..Satan will use any means possible to distroy Gods words on how we should conduct ourselves in this life. It isn't the only Bible that gives a different message...small points people may think.
For instance
This as been distored why change the bird from a dove to a pigeon...everyone I should think knows a dove represents, peace, love and purity...a pigeon is known as a flying rat full of disese and gems..
This is just one example...every change in words will have a reason behind it..the changes are to mock God.
This example above has been purposely done to mock Jesus.
But how do you know the new text isn't closer to the original version of the Bible as it was first written down? After all, the 'old text' you think is better was probably at one time 'new' as well and distorted in similar ways?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
.
It shows you are willing to listen to the opinion of others and alter yours after having more information. It's a wonderful quality....don't apologize for it. 
oh: 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks