SITE NOTICE | MORE..Android Version 2.1 Update! We've already released our first update to the Android app which includes auto-retry of playback after network interruption, maps support in tablets, stability fixes, and more! .. click for more info!
New Conservative Bible will eliminate 'liberal' text
If Andy Schlafly has his way, there will be no socialists or snake handlers in the Bible. No woman caught in adultery. And, definitely, no Stephen Colbert.
Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, wants to save the Scriptures from liberals with his latest venture, the Conservative Bible Project. He says translations like the New International Version have added socialist ideals to the Good Book. But his rewrite of the Bible has drawn criticism from biblical scholars, liberals and conservatives.
Schlafly, the son of national political activist Phyllis Schlafly, says a conservative Bible should be masculine, for example, using the words mankind and man rather than more inclusive language. It also should shun terms like laborer or comrade. It also should put a free market spin on the sayings of Jesus....
Re: Guiness. I am not ignorant, neither inferior in the knowledge you ask me to state. We can sum it up in these words: There is nothing new under the sunne. If those things proved to be detrimental to the work of translation, then such would comprise "another gospel", and I might well bear with them if I were respecting persons, or sitting scornfully in a sense of self-righteousness.
Your fault-finding was for my publishing (as I do everywhere) that the Translators did not make a false draft of the Holy Bible, as many of you do falsely allege, saying they were politically manipulated: and you yet find fault, even though I based my single minded conclusion on a full-sized document weighty with well-reasoned learning, which conclusion I arrived at as consistent with the signs that Lord wrought around my life at the time I found them: I sought not the praise of men, nor to give the praise to men, but God. No doubt my appeal is to expedite the complexity of issues and endlesse complaints, to bring into captivity to the plain speech of Scripture, and to cast out unprofitable debate (for what end? to what persuasion?), so that our mutual faith is established because the only wise God is beholden to perform it: and I firmly believe God is beholden to the King James Bible.
Gentlemen, why don't you just look over the Wikipedia article, Authorized King James Version. You will see that King James wanted, "....Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy."
rhymnrzn2zion wrote: You say it is not relevant, whereas all I was saying was for you to count me in agreement with the Translators, who I have no reason to accuse of un-Christian/selfish/political motives, reguardless of King James I's person.
To transplant your subjective opinion of yourself and impose that on the Translators of 400 years ago is an anachronism.
Likewise at no point did I accuse the Translators themselves of "un-Christian/selfish/political motives". However, the delegates at the Hampton Court Conference were most certainly involved in a political process, and political lobbying.
btw again- you refered to the Puritan's complaints. What were the chief of these in summary and which of them were entertained? What bone did King James VI and I throw them instead?
Would you like to address Neil's counterexamples from the Geneva Bible's book of Acts?
Neil- thanks for the examples, I think I will do my own private study of Tyndale, Geneva, and AV on the translation of this word. It would also be interesting to find out more history on who in the period 1604-1611 was continuing to press the issue to the extent that it provoked a written response from the Translators. Tyndale was long dead, but the principles evidently alive.
Neil wrote: It is indeed silly, that you didn't bother to select "in context" at that webpage to verify you were not mistakenly citing verses discussing Moses & Synagogues. Nor did you address my counterexamples from elsewhere in Geneva's Acts. This has nothing to do with Replacement Theology.
It does not? Way to swallow up the matter in one bite, for both of us, Neil. I also understood that there was probably more than one reason why the Translators did not put "congregation" in Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 12:23, as did the Puritans (seeing that it is such a small difference, really).
It is indeed silly, that you didn't bother to select "in context" at that webpage to verify you were not mistakenly citing verses discussing Moses & Synagogues. Nor did you address my counterexamples from elsewhere in Geneva's Acts.
Neil, That is silly. The New Testament in all its original form would have all Christians everywhere to make the proper correlation between the congregation of the saints under Moses and the Church under Christ.
There is hardly more sleight of hand than when you brothers want to point out "Judaism contexts" in the harmonious New Testament. You are fooling no one in my presence. Next you will tell me that I am replacing Israel with the church, when I am simply maintaining the truth, and myself absolutely refuse (for the fear of God in Christ) to replace Israel with anyone who denies Jesus Christ.
RMRZ, thanks, but in each of those verses, the context is organized Judaism, not the NT "ekklesia," which is rendered as "church" in Acts 8:1, 11:26, 12:5, 13:1, 14:23, etc., by both the 1560 & 1587 Geneva editions.
Guiness said "If refusing to indulge your subjective anachronism causes you unjustified offense then, sadly, so be it. I have tried to explain to you."
Doubtless my point ought to be well taken, and no offense contrary to Scripture on either side. My point was good, being reflective of the Translators trembling, non-political attitude, in the sight of God and man. You say it is not relevant, whereas all I was saying was for you to count me in agreement with the Translators, who I have no reason to accuse of un-Christian/selfish/political motives, reguardless of King James I's person.
...as the King‚Äôs speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King‚Äôs speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace."
It is clear that by the word "meanest" they do not mean "worst" (ie "evil in the highest degree"). Who would dare mistranslate the king‚Äôs speech? Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By "meanest" they meant poor in literary grace. When beginning Greek students translate their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and wooden; but if literal and precise, it is the Word of God. The KJV translators, some of whom were Puritans, certainly did not humour wicked or corrupt versions. JK
The question is what would the Translators have to say about a compltetely new text if they were alive today?
Tischendorf said that he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." It was corrected into the twelfth century, so how do we know which is original and old in the manuscript? MAV
Can someone explain why a Protestant 'accepts' Tischendorf or Codex Vaticanus from the Pope's Library shelf on the basis of the claims of scholars.
Recall the NASB had to include LUKE 24.51 AFTER REJECTING IT FOR YEARS AS NOT inspired
If refusing to indulge your subjective anachronism causes you unjustified offense then, sadly, so be it. I have tried to explain to you.
Yes, the Translators avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans. More is the pity! The Puritans avoided ecclesiastical accretions and went back to the pure Word of God. That's what Protestants and Bible believers are supposed to do.
It should indeed be congregation or assembly instead of "church". That is a case in point.
btw - you refer to the Puritan's complaints. What were the chief of these in summary and which of them were entertained? What bone did King James VI and I throw them instead?
Frank, The AV Translators were in principle more generous in their age:- "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
Guiness said "...Your subjective comment about your supposedly apolitical self is irrelevant to the historical question."
Heh, only as relevant as you want to take from "one of the least of these" supposed members. I have read about your mention, here, in the 6th paragraph of 'Translators To The Reader'
"But besides all this, they were the principall motives of it, and therefore ought least to quarrel it (the work): for the very Historicall trueth is (being one), that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at this Majesties (power that be ordained by God) comming to this Crowne, the Conference at Hampton Court having bene appointed for hearing their complaints....."
Guiness said "No, the translators' point was that they were using "ecclesiastical" / churchy words over against a straightforward and simple translation advocated by some of the wiser Puritans....."
Nay, nay. The 11th paragraph of the 'Translators' sets it out clearly that they avoided the "scrupilositie of the Puritanes, who leave (that is, depart from) the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other...."(to serve their own turn) in addition to avoiding the "obscuritie of the Papists". The Geneva Bible, held by the Puritans is the version that puts "Congregation instead of Church"
rhymnrzn2zion wrote: Let not my fair and honorable brother say so. If this were true, to say the KJV was drafted on political bias, and it is not rather making a slander and heresy (presumption going forth at best), then what do you do with us who have not a political bone in our body?
I suggest you look up the history of the political Hampton Court Conference if you want to know the principal reason why there is an Authorised Version. Your subjective comment about your supposedly apolitical self is irrelevant to the historical question.
rhymnrzn2zion wrote: In your quote, the Translators explained they were using the original words, which the Puritans departed from in order to put their own stamp in the Bible).
No, the translators' point was that they were using "ecclesiastical" / churchy words over against a straightforward and simple translation advocated by some of the wiser Puritans. Are you getting confused with their following point against the Papists?
Try substituting the word congregation every time someone uses the word "church" today and you will see what a bad choice the AV translators made (not that they had any choice of course!).
Frank-the translators have your answer watch this space.
Well, the interest in this discussion left me a long time ago. Very boring, nothing new. The same old, worn out, flimsy arguments being used against the King James Bible that have been used for many DECADES. Such were proven false long ago, yet the arguments continue. (See last sentence below for the reason why.)
Meanwhile, the KJB is STILL in the hands of the masses young and old, rich and poor, educated and ignorant in all countries and cultures of the world. It's STILL being mightily used of God as it has been for generations behind pulpits and on mission fields. STILL considered a literary masterpiece by even its harshest critics. The modern versions? They keep on coming and going, coming and going, over and over and over and over.....
Oh, and the Bible publishers keep on making their $$$$$$.
Guinness wrote: This was a simple political device by a man who decided in his own "infinite" wisdom to have a new Conservative version written for his own ends.
Let not my fair and honorable brother say so. If this were true, to say the KJV was drafted on political bias, and it is not rather making a slander and heresy (presumption going forth at best), then what do you do with us who have not a political bone in our body? we cannot abide the broken looking glasses and hireling voices, as we compared them to the Word of the Lord we received when we were sealed with the Spirit of Promise. Do not write off the Translators as thieves of your Church (there's only one real Church), for doing the king's bidding in all things you accuse here "for his own ends" (we have knowledge, and are not ignorant of Satan's devices), if all the things were done in order and good conscience, not feeling any evil thing (by the Spirit in them) for keeping the word of the LORD: lest they handle the Word of God deceitfully (to their own destruction). They cleared themselves very well from such jarring imputations. In your quote, the Translators explained they were using the original words, which the Puritans departed from in order to put their own stamp in the Bible).
Guinness, grace & peace to you as well. I heard the same about the KJV's Tyndale origins. That would be an interesting read (once I got used to the orthography). Tyndale gets high marks for vision, boldness, & scholarship.
Guinness, I spot-checked 1560 Geneva facsimiles, & was disappointed to find that "church" as a translation for "ekklesia" did not begin in English with the KJV. And "bishop" was used as well, in 1 Tim, for example. I understand it was the margin notes, more than the Geneva text, that bothered Rex James.
But I do agree (as a Dissenting Protestant like yourself) that "congregation" is the better rendering. Perhaps the Puritans were complaining about the Geneva! I also submit that "word" to translate "logos" in John 1 (in many translations along w/ KJV) is inadequate & misleading. "Proposition" would've been better in context, though admittedly, "logos" has *many* possible renderings.
My reason? "Logos" elsewhere in the NT refers hardly ever to single words, but to declarative sentences or even entire sermons. Perhaps "verbum" from the Vulgate was the faulty precedent here.