Updated Bible?

[Ingenious]

The Bible of Christianity, is said to be inspired by the word of God, and written by man. The Bible was also written ages ago in a time that is totally different from ours with different views of morality and tolerance. I wonder why the Bible hasn't been updated, or at least added on to. Is man no longer inspired by God? Are there no more stories, which the present ages can have an easier time relating to, that canonize God or teach the values of Christianity? Thoughts?

[PatrickHenry]

Most folks have a difficult enough time getting the gist of the original. The Bible is a classic. What would you add if you could?

Ever read the original? It is full of ancient wisdom. There's lots of modern self help books if that is what you're after...

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Most folks have a difficult enough time getting the gist of the original. The Bible is a classic. What would you add if you could? Ever read the original? It is full of ancient wisdom. There's lots of modern self help books if that is what you're after...

Well, for one, the Ten Commandments could be updated. I think it would be much more productive for god to get over himself and dump the "Thou shall not use my name in vane" crap and add something more usefull like "Thou shalt not molest children", or Thou shalt not beat your wife". We could also use a personal visit to "inspire" more writers.

If I was to tell you that God came to me and told me to write some stuff, would you believe me? He came to me last night in fact and said the original bible writers got it wrong. He said The bible we've been reading has been perverted, plagerized, edited and warped beyond what he originally intended.

Still don't believe me? Then why in the heck would you believe someone from 2000 to 3500 years ago? Duh!!!!!!!!!!

[phoenix_fire]

Well, do you believe the Mormons?

[Scribbler1]

How about things like the Ebonics bible?

[Mr. Jaggers]

It’s high time that the Congress did something to “reform” the Bible. We have suffered too long under the tyranny of the King James version, and should declare our independence by issuing an American Bible that makes the Scriptures “politically correct.” And there ought to be an constitutional amendment banning un-American Bibles.

[Samildanach]

God came to me and said the original bible writers were on mushrooms. The bible is actually the diary of mushroom addicts....lots of different one. Its actually a record of all their various trips.

[Mr. Jaggers]

There are some people so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text. For example William Tyndale's translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Sir Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their religious beliefs.) The King James version was adapted from William Tyndale's translation; which in turn was revised, rewritten and edited by Francis Bacon. So, if we assume that the Bible is the literal word of God, then must God be an Englishman? Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Samildanach God came to me and said the original bible writers were on mushrooms. The bible is actually the diary of mushroom addicts....lots of different one. Its actually a record of all their various trips.

Tasteless.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers It’s high time that the Congress did something to “reform” the Bible. We have suffered too long under the tyranny of the King James version, and should declare our independence by issuing an American Bible that makes the Scriptures “politically correct.” And there ought to be an constitutional amendment banning un-American Bibles.

They have no authority to. This is one case in which the door swings the other way concerning the so-called separation of church and state. And actually, some translations have noted that many of the verses in the Bible that traditionally translate with male pronouns were originally gender neutral and have attempted to return that gender neutrality. I can tell you that women have taken a lot of crap because of that particular nuance of translation.

While many bibles are taken from the KJV, if you want one that wasn't, check out the New International Version. It is the one I use most often. It is taken from the older texts and is far less derived than other translations. The Vulgate had some particular errors and it is a toss up as to which versions fixed them and which didn't. The NIV, however, does not rely on the Vulgate.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Ingenious The Bible of Christianity, is said to be inspired by the word of God, and written by man. The Bible was also written ages ago in a time that is totally different from ours with different views of morality and tolerance. I wonder why the Bible hasn't been updated, or at least added on to. Is man no longer inspired by God? Are there no more stories, which the present ages can have an easier time relating to, that canonize God or teach the values of Christianity? Thoughts?

First of all no it was not "written by man":

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing
was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did
not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we
beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth.
John 1

As such the values inherent in the Word are the same forever. They cannot be changed, and that there is no addition possible says there is neither need nor possibility of such change. That man becomes more evil all the time does not call him right and God wrong. Rather the timeless truth of those values of the Lord call man inherently evil, just as we read in that unchanging Word.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: phoenix_fire While many bibles are taken from the KJV, if you want one that wasn't, check out the New International Version.

NIV is a paraphrase.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Saint Vern NIV is a paraphrase.

No. It's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version Are all of your arguments so well researched?

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: phoenix_fire No. It's not.

It is, and it is full of flaws.

[phoenix_fire]

If that is so, then maybe you could point some out to me. If you're going to make statements like that, then you're going to have to give some proof. Cited sources would be nice too.

[Saint Vern]

Examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single reading of the NIV. Here we will compare it with the earlier NASV just to demonstrate that the NIV is bad in comparison even with its modern siblings. Romans 4:1, NIV: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?" NASV (text option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?" NASV (margin option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh?" First of all, notice that the NIV ELIMINATES the term "flesh," which is one of the most important theological terms in the entire Bible. The "flesh theology" begins in Genesis 2-3, and continues throughout the Scriptures. It is extremely significant in the Pauline understanding, especially in the book of Romans. This is NOT "concept by concept" or "dynamic equivalence" -- it is an unwarranted reduction of the text by those who simply did not want to include the idea in the English. The NASV, with a far greater scholarship, included the term while acknowledging they were not certain about what the phrase "according to the flesh" modified. Hebrews 11:11, NIV (text option): "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise." NIV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who made the promise." NASV (text option): "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised;" NASV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah herself received power for the laying down of seed, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered him faithful who had promised;" The second NASV reading is a literal reading (so much despised by "the majority" according to James White) and points us to the mighty and important "seed theology" that runs throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact, the first mention of the seed theology refers to the WOMAN'S seed. Thus Hebrews 11:11 has a very important place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in the margin. How convenient for a translation that translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic -- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism -- the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text -- the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option). The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as paraphrastic as the NIV! The NIV is so paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's mouth. Now that is arrogance! Furthermore, the things they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11 attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let me expatiate: First of all, of the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even *approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed theology. The text option, however, is just downright awful. With absolutely no textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It claims that Abraham was past age to have children -- which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further, Abraham's behavior with the handmaid Hagar is proof enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing children" (much less laying down seed, which is the theological import that is missing from both the text option and the margin option). As I have continued to examine the NIV over the years I have been increasingly impressed with what a poor translation it actually is.

:-)

[Saint Vern]

This next portion will be more of a book review of Robert Martin's _Accuracy of Translation and the NIV_. Hopefully nobody on the echo will be so shortsighted (and dare I say foolish) as to accuse Martin of being "KJV-only" or whatever the latest epithet happens to be for those who do not roll over for the "translation of the month." Martin provides dozens (perhaps scores) of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in the NIV. He groups these inaccuracies under seven categories: 1. Elimination of complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To do this, the translators had to make interpretive decisions about the *theology* of the passage in question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4. 2. Addition of words in translation (pp. 22-28). To be fair, older translations have done this as well, but when the AV adds words to clarify meaning it puts them in italics. The NIV does not -- it therefore gives no warning or notice to the reader as to what it has done. For example, 1 Cor. 7:9 states "it is better to marry than to burn," a statement which is subject to numerous interpretations. The NIV says, "to burn with passion," an addition to the text that is not indicated by any italics (or other flags) and that simply settles the interpretation for the reader. Acts 5:20 says, "all the words of this life," but the NIV reads "the full message of this new life." The word "new" is nowhere to be found in any Greek ms. It has been added by the NIV translators and clearly adds a "new thought" to this verse -- a thought which is man's and not God's at this place. 3. Omission of words (pp. 28-29). Be careful -- some words are omitted due to a difference in textual choice. That is not what Martin is speaking to here. The NIV often omits conjunctions and interjections. The word "lo" or "behold" occurs 62 times in Matthew, but the NIV omits it 37 times. Mark's gospel abounds in the term "immediately" and creates a major theme in Mark's Davidic perspective on Jesus. The NIV omits it in 5 places. In Matthew 10:6, "of the house" is simply left out, and "unto himself" is left out of Ephesians 1:5 -- neither of these omissions have any textual basis. 4. Erosion of technical vocabulary (pp. 29-38). There are parts of the Bible that use highly technical words -- words that have been used in a specifically Christian way by the author. Thus the NIV translates the Greek term *dikaioo* as "justify" except in Romans 2:13 and 3:20, where it reads "declared righteous." Martin correctly points out that justification "involves the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us," not simply a mere verbal declaration. Propitiation becomes the vague "sacrifice of atonement" and "atoning sacrifice" in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2. Martin provides several pages of discussions of the "flesh" as mentioned in another post on Romans 4:1. 5. Levelling cultural distinctives (pp. 38-40). "Girding up the loins of your mind" in 1 Peter 1:13 becomes "prepare your minds for action" in the NIV. The NIV does give the "sermonic gist" of the idea, but it eliminates the biblical imagery which calls to mind much of the OT, especially the priestly ministry. The priests were forbidden to approach the altar by steps, lest their nakedness be exposed. They were given special, anointed loin coverings (breeches) so that they could do so. Ordinary underwear would not cover "nakedness" any more than Adam's figleaves did. Thus the notion of girding up the loins has a priestly ring to it, which the NIV eliminates. See Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43; Lev. 9:30. 6. Slipping in subjective interpretations (pp. 41-62). Here is a handful of Martin's numerous illustrations: In each case, the first translation is word-for-word formal equivalency; the second is the NIV. In each case, the NIV decides to perform the office of pope for us by interpreting the "sense" of the Greek. John 17:11 in thy name by the power of your name Gal. 1:11 according to man something that man made up Phil. 2:1 in Christ from being united with Christ 1 Thes. 4:2 through the Lord Jesus by the authority of the Lord Jesus

:-)

[Saint Vern]

Robert Martin is Professor of Biblical Theology in Trinity Ministerial Academy in Essex Fells, NJ. He is hardly a slouch when it comes to the New Testament. I have related a short review of his work, published by Banner of Truth Trust (which is more Reformed on its worst day than Bethany House is on its best day) of Carlisle, PA and Edinburgh, UK. The previous post gave a list of six categories under which Martin upbraids (thanks for the word, Doug Palmer) the NIV for inaccuracies and worse. This post gives his seventh category. 7. Finally, paraphrasing (pp. 62-67). The problem with paraphrasing again is that it allows too much latitude to the translator to do our thinking and meditating for us. But the primary focus that Martin illustrates in this category is the manner in which the cadence and beauty of the original text is changed. Here are just a *few* of Martin's numerous illustrations. Remember, there is an entire generation being raise on this pap. . . Matt. 12:49 and he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples and said NIV pointing to his disciples, he said (the hand is eliminated) Matt. 13:33 in three measures of meal NIV into a large amount of flour (the number three is eliminated) Mark 1:2 before your face NIV ahead of you (the face is eliminated) Luke 1:15 from his mother's womb NIV from birth (completely changes the meaning; pro-aborts can take comfort here!) John 1:20 and he confessed and denied not; and he confessed NIV and he did not fail to confess, but confessed freely (lessens the emphatic character of the language) 1 Thes. 4:6 the Lord is an avenger NIV the Lord will punish (the OT Avenger of Blood theology vanishes) The kinds of errors outlined in this and the previous post reveal more than just the usual mistakes that are made in any translation. They reveal a cavalier attitude toward the doctrine of VERBAL inspiration. The NIV is not interested in translating the WORDS of God, but the CONCEPTS of God. Yet such cannot be done apart from the words. I would remind anyone interested in the truth, that Paul based an important aspect of the "seed theology" on the fact that the word occurred in the SINGULAR and NOT the PLURAL form. If even singulars and plurals are important to a correct understanding of God's word, how dare we take such an attitude toward it that we will translate "idea by idea" rather than word by word? Btw, for a bit of CLEAR evidence that both NASV and NIV have a chiliastic bias, simply compare Matthew 24:30 in either of those versions with the ACCURATE translation to be found in the AV. It is not a sign that appears in the sky or heaven, but rather a sign is given that the Son of Man is in heaven. Again, while theologians of various eschatological stripe may dispute the *MEANING* of this text, the AV preserves the word order and sense of the Greek text and allows for more than one interpretation. At this point, both the NASV and the NIV remove "ambiguity" from the text by FORCING one interpretation onto the text. If it is still in print, I would suggest that anyone interested in reading *both sides* of the dynamic equivalency philosophy get Jacob van Bruggen's critique of it in _The Future of the Bible_. It was published 10 or 15 years ago by Thomas Nelson. The Bible was not written in 20th century "street English." It was written in Hebrew and Hebraized Greek. Attempts to make the Bible sound like a modern novel do it no service and in the opinion of numerous scholars (James White's unwarranted claim to a "majority of scholars" notwithstanding) are beginning to realize that the NIV went WAY OVERBOARD with a new idea -- an idea that is philologically unsound.

:-)

[Chris]

Quote by: ItsDarts Quote by: PatrickHenry Most folks have a difficult enough time getting the gist of the original. The Bible is a classic. What would you add if you could? Ever read the original? It is full of ancient wisdom. There's lots of modern self help books if that is what you're after... Well, for one, the Ten Commandments could be updated. I think it would be much more productive for god to get over himself and dump the "Thou shall not use my name in vane" crap and add something more usefull like "Thou shalt not molest children", or Thou shalt not beat your wife". We could also use a personal visit to "inspire" more writers. If I was to tell you that God came to me and told me to write some stuff, would you believe me? He came to me last night in fact and said the original bible writers got it wrong. He said The bible we've been reading has been perverted, plagerized, edited and warped beyond what he originally intended. Still don't believe me? Then why in the heck would you believe someone from 2000 to 3500 years ago? Duh!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods"

Plain bullshit. Coveting creates jobs, it helps the economy, leave it alone.

George Carlin did a bit on the 10 comandments it was great wish I had a text version of it.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: |Chris| Yeah and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods" Plain bullshit. Coveting creates jobs, it helps the economy, leave it alone. George Carlin did a bit on the 10 comandments it was great wish I had a text version of it.

Actually coveting is a matter concerning what belongs to someone else, as opposed capitalism's incentive to earn something for yourself. Coveting involves stealing from others. Carlin is a bitter and frustrated old bugger whose act has not changed much except that he got really nasty after his wife croaked, so the fact that he still is out of touch is something to consider. We can pity him.