“Politically Correct” version of the Bible Published

  • Thread starter Thread starter ble
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

ble

Guest
CONTROVERSIAL “POLITICALLY CORRECT” VERSION OF THE BIBLE PUBLISHED IN GERMANY

Berlin, Nov. 09, 2006 (CNA) - A group of 52 biblical “specialists” have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and “political correctness” have replaced some “divisive” teachings of Christianity in order to present a “more just language” for groups such as feminists and homosexuals.

According to the AFP news agency, the new version of the Sacred Scriptures was presented at a book fair in Frankfurt. Entitled, “The Bible in a More Just Language,” the translation has Jesus no longer referring to God as “Father,” but as “our Mother and Father who are in heaven.”

Read the rest of the story at:
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=73192
“our Mother and Father”? :eek: :eek: :eek: Are they putting words in Jesus’ mouth? To me, it is kind of like saying, “By popular vote, you lose Jesus. Your teachings are too hard to follow so we’re going to water it down.”

Warmest regards,
Ben
 
ble said:
CONTROVERSIAL “POLITICALLY CORRECT” VERSION OF THE BIBLE PUBLISHED IN GERMANY

Berlin, Nov. 09, 2006 (CNA) - A group of 52 biblical “specialists” have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and “political correctness” have replaced some “divisive” teachings of Christianity in order to present a “more just language” for groups such as feminists and homosexuals.
Ben
Click to expand...
I would love to read how they handle Matthew 19, 11-12, where Jesus asks men to make themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake. Most translations and commentaries wimp out and claim that Jesus meant to say “chastity”. :rolleyes:
 
One of my Mothers favourate sayings has long been that “the path to Hell is paved with good intentions” and I always equated political correctness to be a great example of this.

I never thought it would ever be a literal example!

They might as well publish a blank one so that you can fill it in with what ever you please. That way you can feel justified about anything you do.
 
Just remember, whoever ads to or takes things out of the scriptures are most likely going to spend their eternity in a really really hot place.
 
Andruschak said:
I would love to read how they handle Matthew 19, 11-12, where Jesus asks men to make themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake. Most translations and commentaries wimp out and claim that Jesus meant to say “chastity”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

Well, I’m sure that’s what Jesus did mean. I sincerelly doubt he meant for us to take a knife to ourselves.

In Christ,
Rand
 
I am for political correctness. No one should be [or feel] excluded.

The Lord put great store in the validity of women, hence their presnce in His preaching and witnessing. The first witness to the resurrction was a woman.

I. I am so embarrassed when we pray for ‘us men’ but not for the women-folk. If we are praying for ‘us men’ do we assume they are included or that they are excluded as they are not mentioned? am sure He did not intend them to be excluded.

God IS surely both Father and Mother. We are made in His image. Therefore, He must be both male and female.

A correspondent said [quoting John] that 'nothing should be added. But how do we know it was never taken away?

Peace
 
Sixtus said:
I am for political correctness. No one should be [or feel] excluded.

I suppose you’re disappointed that the Lord doesn’t employ political correctness when judging the souls of men and determining who will enter Heaven?

The Lord put great store in the validity of women, hence their presnce in His preaching and witnessing. The first witness to the resurrction was a woman.

No one disputes this, but to re-write history to reflect something that Jesus did not say is wrong, wrong, and wrong.

I. I am so embarrassed when we pray for ‘us men’ but not for the women-folk. If we are praying for ‘us men’ do we assume they are included or that they are excluded as they are not mentioned? am sure He did not intend them to be excluded.

Of course “us men” includes women. No where does the Bible say women are excluded from the Atonement of Christ. I suppose you favor altering the Declaration of Independence so that “all persons are created equal” will appear there?

God IS surely both Father and Mother. We are made in His image. Therefore, He must be both male and female.

God does not have gender. Traditionally we have used male terms to describe Him, but that does not mean much beyond that.

A correspondent said [quoting John] that 'nothing should be added. But how do we know it was never taken away?

What was taken away? Politically correct language?
Click to expand...
 
That’s what you get when people claim that there is no ultimate, God-given authority that, through the power of the Holy Spirit (the author of Scripture), can properly translate and interpret Scripture. How often do we hear people start a commentary on a Scripture passage with “Well, I don’t believe the passage says…”. With no authority, we’re left with everyone translating and interpreting Scripture to suite their own purposes. In this case, it’s to legitimize the moderists’ agenda.

With all the translations published, there is no longer “The Bible”, but “a bible”. Now, who has the authority to determine which translations are “The Bible”. Perhaps the same authority that determined what constituted The Bible in the first place? :hmmm:
 
The devil, however, is still referred to with masculine pronouns.
Click to expand...
Radical feminist sexist Hypocrites. :mad: It figures that Satan should be still refered to in masculine terms because of course all things masculine are evil. :rolleyes:
I am for political correctness. No one should be [or feel] excluded.
Click to expand...
Political correctness is intellectual bankruptcy.
The Lord put great store in the validity of women, hence their presnce in His preaching and witnessing. The first witness to the resurrction was a woman.
Click to expand...
Point being? The Church never has said that women are worthless subhumans.:rolleyes:
I. I am so embarrassed when we pray for ‘us men’ but not for the women-folk. If we are praying for ‘us men’ do we assume they are included or that they are excluded as they are not mentioned? am sure He did not intend them to be excluded.
Click to expand...
“Fratres” means “brethren” and for many instances this word covers all men, women, children-people in general. Do you think the Church has been praying for only men during the last 2000 yrs. Come on.
God IS surely both Father and Mother. We are made in His image. Therefore, He must be both male and female.
Click to expand...
That is not how “in His image” is to be interpreted. God doesn’t fit into any “gender” because He doesn’t have one, per se. However, Jesus Christ is the God-Man and God the Father was revealed as such. If God wanted to be known as “Mother” He would have revealed it as such.

Don’t try to say that the Evangelists and authors of the Old Testament just used the language that they were saddled with in their “misogynist, sexist world view” and that the Scriptures can be “updated” to fit into some “enlightened” world view because that is a bunch of Modernist nonsense.
A correspondent said [quoting John] that 'nothing should be added. But how do we know it was never taken away?
Click to expand...
Because to think that the Bible was handed down to us in error is heresy. We should be conforming to God’s Word, not conforming God’s Word to suit us.
 
Sixtus said:
I am for political correctness. No one should be [or feel] excluded.

The Lord put great store in the validity of women, hence their presnce in His preaching and witnessing. The first witness to the resurrction was a woman.

I. I am so embarrassed when we pray for ‘us men’ but not for the women-folk. If we are praying for ‘us men’ do we assume they are included or that they are excluded as they are not mentioned? am sure He did not intend them to be excluded.

God IS surely both Father and Mother. We are made in His image. Therefore, He must be both male and female.

A correspondent said [quoting John] that 'nothing should be added. But how do we know it was never taken away?

Peace
Click to expand...
In the Beginning there was God, and the Word was with God, and the Word is God, … and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.

God came into the world as Jesus, both God and Man. God is masculine. He is not a She or a female.

One of my major problems is claiming that God is a Woman, or female.

Jesus called God Our Father, in masculine tone, not Mother.

These liberals are better off becoming Gnostics because they believe in Sophie Goddess, who they believe is the wife of God, the Father… (Correct me if I’m incorrect about Gnostic beliefs)
 
Sixtus said:
I am so embarrassed when we pray for ‘us men’ but not for the women-folk. If we are praying for ‘us men’ do we assume they are included or that they are excluded as they are not mentioned? am sure He did not intend them to be excluded.
Click to expand...
“Men” meaning “mankind” as opposed to angels.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
These liberals are better off becoming Gnostics because they believe in Sophie Goddess, who they believe is the wife of God, the Father… (Correct me if I’m incorrect about Gnostic beliefs)
Click to expand...
There were many branches of Gnostic beliefs. The early Catholic Church did a fairly good job of killing most Gnostics and burning their books.

Some Gnostics, not all, would regard God and Goddess as part of UNITY. Others would say that SIGE, Goddess of Ultimate Silence, brought for both God and Goddess. And others would regard The Son/Daughter as Wisdom.

Or the Trinitarian formula is kept as God the Father/Mother, God the son/Daughter, and God the Holy Spirit.

Or the Holy Spirit, in female form, would be considered Divine Wisdom.

That Sistine Chapel painting with God giving life to Adam…who IS that beautiful woman God’s other arm is around?

At one time the greatest church in Christendom was DIVINE WISDOM in Constantinople. I’ve seen it in person. Awesome. 👍

Nowadays the Catholic Church is not allowed to burn you at the stake for holding Gnostic beliefs, so I would guess they are making a comeback. :rolleyes:
 
Sixtus,
I don’t know why you have such an issue with this. As a woman it does not bother me in the least. I know that when man is used in certain places it means all human beings. not just man as in the male human.
What I want to know is how do they handle those passages that speak directly about homosexuality? Such as:

Lev 20:13
13] If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Rom 1:26-27
26]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1 Tim 1:10
[10] immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Cor 6:9
9]Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

Interesting, in my RSV-CE it specifically says homosexuals in place of the bolded word. So if this is supposed to be more pc, then how do they handle the above verses? After all there not exactly pc. :hmmm:

Interesting that Satan is still referred to in the masculine. :rolleyes: Since when is being a man such a bad thing?
 
ComradeAndrei said:
Radical feminist sexist Hypocrites. :mad: It figures that Satan should be still refered to in masculine terms because of course all things masculine are evil. :rolleyes:

Political correctness is intellectual bankruptcy.

Point being? The Church never has said that women are worthless subhumans.:rolleyes:

“Fratres” means “brethren” and for many instances this word covers all men, women, children-people in general. Do you think the Church has been praying for only men during the last 2000 yrs. Come on.

That is not how “in His image” is to be interpreted. God doesn’t fit into any “gender” because He doesn’t have one, per se. However, Jesus Christ is the God-Man and God the Father was revealed as such. If God wanted to be known as “Mother” He would have revealed it as such.

Don’t try to say that the Evangelists and authors of the Old Testament just used the language that they were saddled with in their “misogynist, sexist world view” and that the Scriptures can be “updated” to fit into some “enlightened” world view because that is a bunch of Modernist nonsense.

Because to think that the Bible was handed down to us in error is heresy. We should be conforming to God’s Word, not conforming God’s Word to suit us.
Click to expand...
Comrade,

In this, thou hast answered rightly.
 
I feel bad for people who think that “men” automatically refers to the male gender. It clearly demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge in those people who find it impossible to deal with the fact that “men” can mean all mankind. How hard is it to grasp? Surely not that difficult. If that makes people feel excluded, then I feel bad that they lack that much self-esteem, or the ability to use a dictionary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top