Comments on: Signers Withdraw from Manhattan Declaration: It’s not Intolerant Enough!

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:57:02 +0000

Priya Lynn,

Do you have a source for your comment? I’m not disputing you, but I would like a source as some of what you say runs counter to my impression.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:49:39 +0000

Timothy, it’s very simple to see the mistranslation. Simply go to biblegateway.com and type in a few verses and read them in each translation. I know, that might seem like a bit of work, but if you make the effort you will see that what Priya Lynn says is in fact true.

As for the KJV some would tout, it is the most misogynistic of all the versions, as it was altered to diminish the role of women in the bible. It is the version most credited with keeping women out of the clergy and diminishing the role of Mary and other women f the bible.

And the Bible itself is missing quite a bit of what was originally in it, as Constantinethe Great altered and left out many books of the bible in First Council of Nicaea in aproximately 331 AD. They removed The Book of Mary, and a variety of other books that were extremely popular with the Christians of the time. They took them out because they elevated women, and in the Book of Mary, in particular, they felt it elevated Mary to a higher position than Jesus, as she was reported to also have been born of a virgin. Many historical painting will show the Ennunciation of Mary (in contrast to the Ennunciation of Jesus). Each and every “new” version changes some aspect depending on the motivations of those “translating” it. The biggest issue is that most translations are from other translations and not from the original Galilean Aramaic that Jesus’ words were written in, and the Hebrew langauage the majority of the rest of the books were written. It would be difficult to make an honest translation from faulty translations.

By: Snowman

Snowman — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:36:28 +0000

I don’t have a source handy either, but I’m very familiar with what Priya is saying out of personal experience. It’s a fairly common opinion (that the NIV sucks) among not only mainstream Christians…but a decent number of conservative and Fundamentalist Christians also. The only churches I’ve ever attended that preferred the NIV were Pentecostal churches. A lot of the churches that I attended (Especially the Baptists) greatly preferred the King James Version for its supposed accuracy in translation. As a former Christian now, I still prefer the KJV but then I’m also a fan of Shakespeare, you do the math.

In my personal opinion, the NIV is not only a bad translation…it’s terribly boring to read as well.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:37:44 +0000

Priya Lynn,

Do you have a source for that?

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:08:08 +0000

Timothy, the NIV may be the most readable, but its the most mistranslated in order to further a conservative agenda. Even some of the scholars who initially worked on it quit in disgust as they found political motivations were more important in deciding what the translation should be than what the original words actually mean. I never use the NIV when I’m studying bible passages, its been written to minimize controversial passages, support conservative ideology, and pretty up the ugliness that is througout the bible.

The NIV is likely the least accurate translation of the bible there’s ever been.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:14:39 +0000

Reed,

I truly haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about.

Maybe at some point later in the day I’ll have an epiphany and say “oh! duh! that’s where I was being ultra-bitchy and vitriolic”, but at the moment I’m just staring blankly at your comment, going “huh?”

But as for the translation, I almost always use NIV. Sometimes for sake of recognition of a very familiar passage I’ll use KJV but I find NIV to be the most readable.

By: Reed B

Reed B — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:54:08 +0000

SGM – let Scott Rose of “The New Civil Rights Movement” pursue that topic? It’s been his beat for many and many an article now.

Lightning – thank you. That’s one of my favorite passages, especially the “with a sword” part, which is the absurdist icing on that cyanide cake.

Timothy K – If you’re going to be ultra-bitchy about your proof-texting, cite the translation? It lends a momentary veneer of scholarly solemnity that distracts before you return to the usual vitriol.

By: Rob Tisinai

Rob Tisinai — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:31:12 +0000

SGM, I stay away from that stuff. If it’s genuine wrongdoing it’ll show up in the study itself (which, of course, is a wreck). Getting into issues of who funded whom can lead quickly to fallacious ad hominem arguments. We’ve got to remember that even the most biased, self-interested person can still be telling the truth. Proving bias and self-interest does not knock down the other side’s argument.

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:33:05 +0000

That first link above should be http://bit.ly/QpVdUE

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:32:13 +0000

Rob, Forgive me for being off topic and because I am I will keep this short. I wish you would write about the Collusion between Mark Regnerus (invalid, Gays Make Bad Parents)and Witherspoon Institute’s Brad Wilcox. Freedom of Information Act docs prove Collusion
bit.ly/QpVdUE

And now Witherspoon is removing incriminationg webpages
http://bit.ly/Qa71a

Sorry for the interruption, back to your regularly scheduled programming.