Quote from: Scourge of teh Galaxy on April 23, 2011, 03:16:07 PMThe census was ordered by Augustus Caesar, not JuliusIt 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
Quote from: Scourge of teh Galaxy on April 23, 2011, 06:21:15 AMYep :DThat 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 , 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.
Yep :DThat 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 , and he did get killed on order of Pilate of the Roman Empire. History supports this, and other parts of the Bible too.
im just waiting for meganerdbomb to come along and kick things into gear.
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.
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?
It just strikes me as styupid, 'tis all, so I was trying to find a comparison *shrugs*
Quote from: Scourge of teh Galaxy on April 24, 2011, 09:04:05 AMIt 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Kujii on April 21, 2011, 06:43:56 PMWhat 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
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.
QuoteIt 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.QuoteTo 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.
Author
Topic: Bible Rewritten (Read 3316 times)