The New Bible...Really New..

[glo]

Same here! But then English is not my first language.

 

[*Hana*]

Salam Alaikum and Peace:

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

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Same here! But then English is not my first language.

Well it isn't supposed to be mine, but it kinda is.

 

[HeiGou]

I saw this and thought it was a joke.

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.

 

[Syed Nizam]

I saw this and thought it was a joke.


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?

 

[glo]

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> :embarrass :embarrass :embarrass

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! :hiding:

 

[*Hana*]

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> :embarrass :embarrass :embarrass

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! :hiding:

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. :happy:

Peace to you,
Hana

 

[Nicola]

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> :embarrass :embarrass :embarrass

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! :hiding:

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...

Peace

 

[glo]

Thanks, Hana and Nicola! hew
You are both very gracious.

 

[Alphaseed]

I always found that when something Holy is attacked and distorted by men, it is because it is Holy and true.

 

[azim]

I always found that when something Holy is attacked and distorted by men, it is because it is Holy and true.

And what is attacked and distorted more than the Quran and Islam eh?

 

[Nicola]

I always found that when something Holy is attacked and distorted by men, it is because it is Holy and true.

exactly! and who wants Gods word distorted more than anyone else?

 

[Nicola]

And what is attacked and distorted more than the Quran and Islam eh?

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

 

[Trumble]

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" :happy:

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.

 

[*Hana*]

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

 

[glo]

By "modern" and "young" I suspect you mean "functionally illiterate" :happy:

Yeah, probably! ;D
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??! :mmokay:

 

[defender1]

Yeah, probably! ;D
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??! :mmokay:

I have a solution! Find a hot Latin lover to teach you the language!

 

[glo]

I have a solution! Find a hot Latin lover to teach you the language!

Really??oh:

Actually, I did learn Latin in school, but that's a long time ago. And my Latin teacher was neither hot nor my lover!

Do you know Latin?

 

[------]

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.

Yeah mannnnnnnnnnnn

 

[KAding]

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?