gametechmods
Off-Topic => Chatterbox => Topic started by: Kujii on April 21, 2011, 06:43:56 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001)
Now, I'm not a religious person, but...something about this seems stupid to me, since they changed some basic principles that were intended that way within the bible, I'm fairly certain that if waaaay back then, men and women were not equivalent, Jesus would have said 'bring fish back for the men' instead of 'the people', I'm also fairly certain, since uncut bibles mentioned controversy over the birth for the reasons that she was a virgin, that removing virgin from Mary's title is a stupid choice.
What really gets to me is their plans to discontinue to 1984 model of the bible, so that, in the future, churches that are currently boycotting this book will be forced to buy it if they want bibles.
The Fu-? Capitalism, politics, we ruin everything!
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001)
Now, I'm not a religious person, but...something about this seems stupid to me, since they changed some basic principles that were intended that way within the bible, I'm fairly certain that if waaaay back then, men and women were not equivalent, Jesus would have said 'bring fish back for the men' instead of 'the people', I'm also fairly certain, since uncut bibles mentioned controversy over the birth for the reasons that she was a virgin, that removing virgin from Mary's title is a stupid choice.
What really gets to me is their plans to discontinue to 1984 model of the bible, so that, in the future, churches that are currently boycotting this book will be forced to buy it if they want bibles.
The Fu-? Capitalism, politics, we ruin everything!
Completely agree. I'm 100% Roman Catholic, and this is bullsh*t.
-
I thought this was a thread asking what you would change if the bible was re-written. Curses!
-
VDSKHF\JKSDFHDSJKFHDSKJGHDSKJFHDGKJDHGFDKGLSFKJGHD
**** them. Seriously.
I don't think I've been this pissed off since I ranted at Jonzu for spamming ST.
How dare they - how DARE they - ruin the Bible in this manner? Sure, I may not be a devout Earth-was-created-in-seven-days-and-evolution-is-bullsh*t Christian, but the Bible should never, EVER be sullied by the problems about discrimination. It's a HISTORICALLY ACCURATE BOOK, goddammit! (lolirony)
*goes to sit in corner, seething with fury*
-
My thoughts on the matter exactly
-
The Bible is retarded anyway. Let them wackos do what they want.
-
That's your personal opinion, but the fact of it is, they're basically defacing a history book by doing this. It's like taking a book about the Middle Ages and making it so it isn't sexist
-
That's your personal opinion, but the fact of it is, they're basically defacing a history book by doing this. It's like taking a book about the Middle Ages and making it so it isn't sexist
Have you actually fully read the bible?
-
Yes I have, it's what I did rather than listen to the crap the girls talked about at Bible Study (they would just talk about clothes and shoes and make-up and other disgusting girly things when we were SUPPOSED to be learning)
-
They made a LOLspeak version of the bible. i own it.
-
Now, I guess I made my own version of Christianity where I fuse Science and Religion, so I'm not a strong Christian, but this version of the bible is BS. I would refuse to read it. The whole point is that it is God's word, why change it?
-
Now, I guess I made my own version of Christianity where I fuse Science and Religion, so I'm not a strong Christian, but this version of the bible is BS. I would refuse to read it. The whole point is that it is God's word, why change it?
Likewise, mon amigos
-
Now, I guess I made my own version of Christianity where I fuse Science and Religion, so I'm not a strong Christian, but this version of the bible is BS. I would refuse to read it. The whole point is that it is God's word, why change it?
If by fusing science and religion you mean Theistic Evolution, you're already ignoring the Bible.
-
I fuse Science and Religion
Sense this makes not. How can you combine the scientific approach, one that is based on reason and rationality with religion, which orders you to believe things deprived of sense and promotes irrational fear of invisible things?
-
I fuse Science and Religion
Sense this makes not. How can you combine the scientific approach, one that is based on reason and rationality with religion, which orders you to believe things deprived of sense and promotes irrational fear of invisible things?
Such as Gid made all the animal onthe earth, with then evolved. Simple.
Meh, it doesnt make sense when you go into detail, but who cares?
-
I fuse Science and Religion
Sense this makes not. How can you combine the scientific approach, one that is based on reason and rationality with religion, which orders you to believe things deprived of sense and promotes irrational fear of invisible things?
Such as Gid made all the animal onthe earth, with then evolved. Simple.
Meh, it doesnt make sense when you go into detail, but who cares?
Evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive. Any amount of study into either will tell you that much.
Anyway, on the topic at hand, changing to gender-neutral pronouns isn't such a big deal, but downplaying that Mary was a virgin is the same as downplaying Jesus' divinity, and if you don't believe in that, then you may as well stop calling yourself a Christian.
-
Exactly, its just the minor changes add up over time, and change the bibles meaning enough to make it no longer the same.
-
That's your personal opinion, but the fact of it is, they're basically defacing a history book by doing this. It's like taking a book about the Middle Ages and making it so it isn't sexist
If you think the Bible accurately depicts history, you are ****ing retarded.
-
That's your personal opinion, but the fact of it is, they're basically defacing a history book by doing this. It's like taking a book about the Middle Ages and making it so it isn't sexist
If you think the Bible accurately depicts history, you are ****ing retarded.
Now that wasn't very nice, Frezzy. The Bible actually agrees with other ancient records in many cases.
-
That's your personal opinion, but the fact of it is, they're basically defacing a history book by doing this. It's like taking a book about the Middle Ages and making it so it isn't sexist
If you think the Bible accurately depicts history, you are ****ing retarded.
I like your avatar.
-
I think Frezal missed the meaning of Scourges post.
-
That's your personal opinion, but the fact of it is, they're basically defacing a history book by doing this. It's like taking a book about the Middle Ages and making it so it isn't sexist
If you think the Bible accurately depicts history, you are ****ing retarded.
Now that wasn't very nice, Frezzy. The Bible actually agrees with other ancient records in many cases.
This, but yes, he did miss my point
-
On the subject of historical accuracy, there is evidence that there WAS a man called Jesus roughly 2,000 years ago in the sort of Middle Eastern area, but there is no evidence that he was actually the supposed son of God.
Even though I'm not a religious person at all, I don't think that changing the Bible to reflect the modern idea of political correctness is the right thing to do. I think it's basically butchering it, personally. It's a bit like the discussion about censoring Huckleberry Finn to remove the word "nigger". I can understand some people would be sensitive about it, but it completely changes the meaning and message of the book.
-
Bingo! Thats what I believe was meant by it being a 'historic' text, the way its written meant something
-
Yep :D
That and, if you get past all the god stuff, most of it is actually historically accurate. There's enough evidence to support quite a good portion of it - there was a man called Jesus, he did annoy the Pharisees to heck, and he did get killed on order of Pilate of the Roman Empire. History supports this, and other parts of the Bible too.
-
The whole point is that it is God's word, why change it?
We have no solid proof of this. The bible is a book written by man who claims it is the word of god. Man does not have the mental capacity to even interpret the word of god, and thus taking God's word and putting it into a book form seems ludicrous to me.
If god wanted to communicate with us via a book based on his/her word, then god would write the book and bring it to us in a flash of magnificent light to indicate that we need to read it and trust it as the infallible source. If that happened I would take it more seriously.
But until then the Bible is a series of stories written by man, translated by man, edited and changed over time by man. We can learn from it, yes... but no differently than we can learn from a book like "Catcher in the Rye."
If you are upset about the edits they are making to it now... you should be upset about all the edits they have made to it in the past... But the unfortunate thing is that the reason they make edits to this literary work is because people take it too seriously (so they feel the need).
People don't take books by Socrates seriously enough (unfortunately) and, to my knowledge, there have been no significant edits of his work.
-
Can we just lock this topic?
-
Yep :D
That and, if you get past all the god stuff, most of it is actually historically accurate. There's enough evidence to support quite a good portion of it - there was a man called Jesus, he did annoy the Pharisees to heck, and he did get killed on order of Pilate of the Roman Empire. History supports this, and other parts of the Bible too.
There was a man named Jesus. The census ordered by Julius Caesar that required everyone to return to their homeland didn't ever occur. Quirinius wasn't the governor of Syria at any point during King Herod's life. Those are but a few historical inaccuracies surrounding just the birth of Jesus.
My favorite historical inaccuracy of the Bible is located in the Old Testament. There is no record of there having been any Jewish slaves in Egypt.
-
The census was ordered by Augustus Caesar, not Julius
-
Yes I have, it's what I did rather than listen to the crap the girls talked about at Bible Study (they would just talk about clothes and shoes and make-up and other disgusting girly things when we were SUPPOSED to be learning)
Sounds like they are learning something more useful with their time.
-
The bible is a case of manipulating history/story to suit the causes needs. This is further compounded by the amount of edits made to the text- each one carrying its own fair share of bias. I'd love to get my hands on the first bible ever to compare them to see what has changed over time. However, there are historical facts (forgot the word I wanted) in there, though these themselves are probably imbued in bias from the writers point of view.
I've never read the bible myself. I'm too biased (being a wannabe astrophysicist), and would find myself unable to read it indifferently. I do own a copy though. I will read it at one point. Though I said that about the dictionary, and I still haven't read that all the way through yet..
-
Yes I have, it's what I did rather than listen to the crap the girls talked about at Bible Study (they would just talk about clothes and shoes and make-up and other disgusting girly things when we were SUPPOSED to be learning)
Sounds like they are learning something more useful with their time.
Even if they are, I'm anti-female, so I hate that kind of thing.
-
Even if they are, I'm anti-female, so I hate that kind of thing.
Do you hate yourself or something?
I don't understand your use of "anti-female".
-
I use the term "anti-female" like people use the term "anti-hero"
-
I think she's trying to say that she's not a stereotypical female. Not the one who spends her time shopping for shoes and makeup and fashion crap.
-
I think she's trying to say that she's not a stereotypical female. Not the one who spends her time shopping for shoes and makeup and fashion crap.
This, but I'm also against those things, not just not doing them
-
Lol sounds like the Chappelle Show gag, A Black, White Supremacist.
-
Lol sounds like the Chappelle Show gag, A Black, White Supremacist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITchV88Gjk&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITchV88Gjk&feature=related#)
-
I think by "anti-female", she really means "tomboy". I'm not sure why she doesn't just say that...
-
The census was ordered by Augustus Caesar, not Julius
It wasn't ordered at all. There was a census 4-6 years after the supposed year of Jesus's birth, but there was no such mandate that people return to their town of origin. You're clinging to Bronze Age myths because that's what you were raised to believe. Had the adults in your life been Muslim, you'd be explaining to me how the Qur'an is the way.
-
The census was ordered by Augustus Caesar, not Julius
It wasn't ordered at all. There was a census 4-6 years after the supposed year of Jesus's birth, but there was no such mandate that people return to their town of origin. You're clinging to Bronze Age myths because that's what you were raised to believe. Had the adults in your life been Muslim, you'd be explaining to me how the Qur'an is the way.
This.
-
Yep :D
That and, if you get past all the god stuff, most of it is actually historically accurate. There's enough evidence to support quite a good portion of it - there was a man called Jesus, he did annoy the Pharisees to heck, and he did get killed on order of Pilate of the Roman Empire. History supports this, and other parts of the Bible too.
My favorite historical inaccuracy of the Bible is located in the Old Testament. There is no record of there having been any Jewish slaves in Egypt.
I'm going to post this, just to troll you.
http://www.triumphpro.com/exodus.pdf (http://www.triumphpro.com/exodus.pdf)
-
I don't believe the same things as my parents, and frankly couldn't give a toss if the Bible is historically accurate or not. However, it shouldn't be rewritten to be politically correct and that's the end of that.
-
I don't believe the same things as my parents, and frankly couldn't give a toss if the Bible is historically accurate or not. However, it shouldn't be rewritten to be politically correct and that's the end of that.
But it's already been rewritten many times! What makes this rewriting any worse than the King James, American Standard, New Living, New Life, King James II, or any of the other countless translations? Besides, the OT portion is just a bastardization of the Tanakh anyway.
-
The versions are different translations of the Hebrew versions. Sure details have been lost, but the Bible has never been made to be politically correct and anti-discriminatory. That's what they're trying to do here - they're removing some important details, adding in equality where there was none (remember, equality is actually a fairly recent phenomenon) and all sorts of things which drain further meaning from the words.
Here's a comparison: Have they started defacing Shakespeare yet? If so, then fair enough, they're ruining good literature. If not, why are they PC'ing the Bible and not Shakespeare? In a Humanist society that is today, surely the Bible holds about as much meaning as, say, Hamlet?
-
Here's a comparison: Have they started defacing Shakespeare yet? If so, then fair enough, they're ruining good literature. If not, why are they PC'ing the Bible and not Shakespeare? In a Humanist society that is today, surely the Bible holds about as much meaning as, say, Hamlet?
I answered this before.
They are editing the bible because people take it too seriously. Shakespeare isn't edited because people don't follow it in such a passionate way that instigates a mindset that leads to bloodshed and conflict (i.e. war) Heck, Shakespeare even made up some of his own words for his work. People still leave those inaccuracies within his work because it doesn't have any morbid reprocussions.
Because the Bible and peoples beliefs of the pages within it spark conflict and war (usually amongst closed-minded people) they feel the need to revise it. When mankind senses something monumentally wrong, they usually try to fix it. Even though the answer is usually to put the book down and use some common sense.
-
It just strikes me as styupid, 'tis all, so I was trying to find a comparison *shrugs*
-
I burnt s bible yesterday. Then Quran, then today it's gonna be the Torah.
It's a weird thing I do.
Showing that I equally don't care about the world's 3 most dominant religions.
-
It just strikes me as styupid, 'tis all, so I was trying to find a comparison *shrugs*
Yeah. I certainly didn't mean to argue with you. You are right, it is stupid. I guess I piped up because it seemed like you were enraged by the whole thing and I wanted to indicate some reasons why they are making the changes. Not because I wanted to justify them, but because I feel that if you become enraged over edits in the bible then you are taking the book too seriously. Always remember that no matter what they change in any book, it can never affect your core beliefs that you hold within yourself. Reading books, from the bible to comics, is like a knowledge buffet. You take what you want to hold close to your mind and heart and let the rest be.
-
It just strikes me as styupid, 'tis all, so I was trying to find a comparison *shrugs*
Yeah. I certainly didn't mean to argue with you. You are right, it is stupid. I guess I piped up because it seemed like you were enraged by the whole thing and I wanted to indicate some reasons why they are making the changes. Not because I wanted to justify them, but because I feel that if you become enraged over edits in the bible then you are taking the book too seriously. Always remember that no matter what they change in any book, it can never affect your core beliefs that you hold within yourself. Reading books, from the bible to comics, is like a knowledge buffet. You take what you want to hold close to your mind and heart and let the rest be.
Yeah, I understand. I wasn't getting mad, I was just trying to state a point in a debate-like fashion. Guess I still need some work on that there ^^
-
The versions are different translations of the Hebrew versions. Sure details have been lost, but the Bible has never been made to be politically correct and anti-discriminatory. That's what they're trying to do here - they're removing some important details, adding in equality where there was none (remember, equality is actually a fairly recent phenomenon) and all sorts of things which drain further meaning from the words.
Here's a comparison: Have they started defacing Shakespeare yet? If so, then fair enough, they're ruining good literature. If not, why are they PC'ing the Bible and not Shakespeare? In a Humanist society that is today, surely the Bible holds about as much meaning as, say, Hamlet?
The Bible is a book of Bronze Age myths. What makes you so sure that the racist/sexist translations are accurate? Besides, it's religion. If you don't wish to believe this translation, don't adhere to that version of Christianity. Stick to the racist/sexist/homophobic version.
-
What really gets to me is their plans to discontinue to 1984 model of the bible, so that, in the future, churches that are currently boycotting this book will be forced to buy it if they want bibles.
So in 20 years time, 9/10 places will only have this Bible
-
What really gets to me is their plans to discontinue to 1984 model of the bible, so that, in the future, churches that are currently boycotting this book will be forced to buy it if they want bibles.
So in 20 years time, 9/10 places will only have this Bible
Complete and utter bullsh**.
-
You see Frezal, its not entirely the rewriting that piss's me off.
What really got to me was the Article saying the okay to discontinue the prior version; it also mentioned this will force the churches of the southern states to buy this book (the book is currently boycotted)
-
"And Nary shall smite the n00bish, and plunge them into the fiery pit of razors"
-
It will nonetheless be highly influential in the United States as a study Bible officially approved by the U.S. bishops, who said it would replace the current version as the official text on the conference's website later this year.
To promote acceptance of the new translation, Zondervan said it would phase out the 1984 update of its popular 1978 version of the book, which many churches have continued to use during the translation controversies. That means no more copies will be printed to continue stocking the pews for denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, which rejected the 2005 modernization and stuck with the 1984 version.
Just for those too lazy to find it themselves/
-
It will nonetheless be highly influential in the United States as a study Bible officially approved by the U.S. bishops, who said it would replace the current version as the official text on the conference's website later this year.
To promote acceptance of the new translation, Zondervan said it would phase out the 1984 update of its popular 1978 version of the book, which many churches have continued to use during the translation controversies. That means no more copies will be printed to continue stocking the pews for denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, which rejected the 2005 modernization and stuck with the 1984 version.
Just for those too lazy to find it themselves/
Jesus ****ing Christ! There are multiple translations of the Bible that are commonly accepted in the US and throughout the world right now. If churches don't like to preach a gospel that isn't racist/sexist/homophobic, they can always use a translation that isn't the 2011 version of the New International Version.
-
For once, Frezal is absolutely right here.
-
Jesus ****ing Christ! There are multiple translations of the Bible that are commonly accepted in the US and throughout the world right now. If churches don't like to preach a gospel that isn't racist/sexist/homophobic, they can always use a translation that isn't the 2011 version of the New International Version.
Now Now Frezzie. Be gentle. These are young minds we are shaping here.
-
Fair enough.