'Father' and 'Son' Ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations

The changes smack of one world religion type of pandering.

Muslims themselves would never change one iota of their books for xtians.
Dont sweat it all you need is Jesus anyways the rest is just icing on the cake.

This is interesting, but not altogether unexpected.

Thou shalt not offend others ... latest man made bs, but it has several goals and effects. I heard it stated that preaching about Christ to another was an "assault" on him, because it may offend him, hurt his feelings or something. I'm pretty offended by MOST religions and organisations that exist, but really, that's just me.

The other goal is to de sexualise the christian God. HE makes it very clear that HE is a HE and not a SHE God. There isn't a grey area on that. Now if a god (any) says that certain attributes apply to them, then surely it is the duty of the follower to hold those attributes highly? By denying ANYONE the right to know or recognise their own god, you have made them slaves to you. Sure worship the christian God, but call it "She" (even capitalised) and it's not the same "deity". It's a different one, one you just made up.

Making up a god and trying to convince others that "your" god is the same as "their" god, despite obvious differences such as gender or any other attributes, is stupid, blind, and all those nasty things. Why would people be that?

But the most curious thing is that such a massive effort is underway to completely discredit the bible. Now if the bible was just fairy tales, why bother trying to discredit it?

reply to post by harryhaller


dude, source?

I think they are content in just being Muslim. They dont really care what we do. I agree there is an effort to do something to the bible, question is who is trying to do it. I think it is to make it the end all source to all life, when in reality it is a companion. Placing authority in a book only gives that authority to whoever interprets it, hence everyone's version. It is best to not discredit it or follow it to the letter. That goes for any religion and their good books.

reply to post by stirling

The changes smack of one world religion type of pandering.

Muslims themselves would never change one iota of their books for xtians.
Dont sweat it all you need is Jesus anyways the rest is just icing on the cake.

Why should they? And when did the muslims ever ask christians to make these changes in the bible?
If you read past the headlines, you will see that its not about anybody changing their books to appease another group.

This whole thing is a cunning attempt to make christianity more appealing to arabic speaking population, most of whom who are muslims.

Kind of how the christian website www.injil.org targets muslims by using "injil" the arabic word for "gospel"...and uses PBUH after mentions of Jesus and other prophets... basically pretending to speak "Islamic talk"... only to finally present christianity.

Its also like how some christians put on a jewish disguise / use jewish imagery, language etc.... and call themselves "messianic jews" to lure unsuspecting Jews into accepting trinitarian Christianity being presented as "judaism".

This is better than Monty Python.

Y'all are debating biblical translation.

That is analogous to a "deaf and blind" people focus group debating the merits of the 3D IMAX version of "The Sound of Music".

Very funny,


Thanks OP star and flagged.

reply to post by AQuestion


Good post. I do not understand the choices either, but I do know if you offend at the get go, communication is greatly impaired. Wycliffe Bible Translators has done an excellent job providing Bibles for people all over the world.

The whole point is being missed here.

In order to have NWO, you need one-world religion.

The pope is now recognized by most religions of the world. The papacy is the driving force behind a united world. They plan to use the divinity of Mary to accomplish this. You see, Muslims believe heavily in the virgin Mary, the Catholic church has been trying to replace Jesus with Mary as the gate of heaven. The whole world agenda is to deny Jesus, if one can't see this, one is not looking.
The papacy despises the Prodestants/7 th day because they hold to only the scripture which takes all power from the papacy. Pope is the beast in revelation that will do war with Jesus. They are attempting to unite the world as they did in Babylon. It is written that they will not succeed.

The King James version has been proven to be a near exact translation from the first known scriptures and matches quite well with Dead Sea scrolls. So not true that the bible has been rewritten many times IF we're speaking of the King James.

We are all entitled to our opinion here, and I believe this is a relatively significant topic... but I think there are numerous ways to characterize the idea behind it.. and thus some disagreement will always be held by those predisposed to one bias or another.

The truth of the matter is that there is a very significant difference between the dogma of the church, the religions based upon their "accepted" Bible, and the stark reality of Christianity as it appears to be intended to manifest itself in the lives of the faithful.

While it is clear that - just as with many other religions' "holy writings" - each had been (if not continues to be) exclusively the domain of those "ordained" to interpret. When man is inserted into the equation, the truth being conveyed will always be subject to human perception - human motivation - and finally human purpose. By human I mean "things of man not Divine." and self-proclamation about Divine Inspiration can only be extended to the point of 'trust' - a much different thing than "faith."

Sadly, in human affairs, the 'entrusted' often succumb to the vainglory of it, and begin to exercise an 'entitled privilege' to suit their own interests. Thus an 'elite' are born... increasingly cloistered and isolated from those they should be straining to understand, embrace, and minister to - instead they engender the straining to affect the body of the church and the faithful.... and then wonder why they sense increasing disaffection within their churches.

Changing the text to remove culturally motivated social engineering of the dark ages can be seen as a surrender. But frankly, now that the original texts and comments of scholars and those devoted to study are available... it is highly unlikely that we require some 'group-think' approach to a solution... because the problem, once recognized, can't really survive anymore without willful ignorance... the kind that will not be swayed by facts or truth.... we all know at least one.

I grew up leaning about the Holy Ghost.... then it became the Holy Spirit... not an faith-shattering change by any means... but it also did not require the presence of a cabal of conspirators trying to corrupt faith in general. Nor was it an offensive action taken to smite one group over another. In fact, it was simply the manifestation of the development of the human condition, and the paradigms of the audience...

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

This whole thing is a cunning attempt to make christianity more appealing to arabic speaking population, most of whom who are muslims.

YES YES YES YES
finally someone puts it into the right words. Conquer and convert....I think though in this case The Crusade Wars were not the last word. History will repeat its self and I don't have a damned thing to say about it.
when it all shakes down its about Dollars and Control

reply to post by MentalData

Contrary to what some in the KJV camp believe, the 1611 KJV Bible was not without errors. In fact, it took several subsequent editions to arrive at the version that is in use today. For instance, in the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 said, “Then cometh Judas.” Today, the KJV renders that verse as “Then cometh Jesus.” This is a rather significant difference. The first edition also contained the Apocryphal books, which were removed in subsequent editions. The 1613 edition inadvertently left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, thereby encouraging people to commit adultery. This edition became known as the “Wicked Bible.” Another edition earned the nickname “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous would inherit the kingdom of heaven.

You have probably heard fundamentalist people who say, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the official text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek.
Read HERE for more on this.

I'm not a Christian, but I can't help but scratch my head on this one. I was forced to attend Christian church, as a child, and have a vague, cloudy memory of it. For some reason, I recall that the father,son,and holy spirit were an integral part of Christianity during those times (1970s-1980s). It would seem to me that Christianity is not Christianity without the father and the son theme. Take one of the most well known verses, for example, John 3:16. That verse is powerless without the implication that Christ is the son of God.

reply to post by Inquisitive1


Sure.... Because appeasement has always work well in the past.

I find it offensive when radical Muslims call for the death of a non Muslim for expressing their views on Islam. Drawing a picture of Mohamed has caused them to storm embassies in countries where freedom of religion expression and press are present.

I find it offensive that in my country I can be forced to speak to a female while all I can see is the eye slit. To me its offensive because it relegates females to being one rung above property, and thats being generous. I accept that if its the females choice, but not when its forced.

Respect is a 2 way road, and that is something the extreme elements of ALL religions are going to have to accept.

reply to post by autowrench


You are speaking of the NKJV. I was referring to the original KJV which is the closest translation you will get in English.
Any bible with the word "new" in the name is trash.

Allah is not an English word, it's an Arabic one. Why would you substitute an English world for an Arabic one in an English Bible? That's pure madness.

Oh, and are Muslims going to start substituting the word "God" for "Allah" in the Qu'ran because it offends Christians and Jews? I think not.

The is PC going way too far.

So what's new? Just look at all the times that God's personal name, "Jehovah or Yahweh", has been removed from the Bible. In the Old Testament King James version it has been replace almost 7000 times.

It is the responsibility of any Bible reader to do their own research if they want to discern the truth.

Yep same old story different thread yep you can trash talk Christianity the bible their belief systems the all around crap on them and reword them to suit other religions.

Things you will will never get away with Islam in fact things that will get you killed.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

F muslims are reading the Bible, then they should read one that is NOT made for Christians. It is that simple. If we are talking about a Christian Bible, who gives a flying cow what offends muslims? If that is the case, why don't we take out words that offend us in the Quran?

What is the difference? Is there a double standard? Between Israel and the muslims, I am going to go insane. No wonder they cannot get along, BOTH of them are extremely self-centered.

And Christians aren't?
What Bible is NOT made for Christians?

How 'bout we chuck out ALL the ancient texts and start over? Really. I mean it.
Not to be disrespectful Jiggyp, but ALL of the "religious tomes" have been horrendously edited, translated ad nauseum, and are no more or less respectable than Thomas Bulfinch's The Golden Age of Myth and Legend
free to read here:www.archive.org.../n7/mode/2up

in the last 30 years its changed alot....but most people wont notice...

ie.

...."to jesus and our lord"... = ....."to jesus our lord"

no one prays to god anymore they pray to jesus.......
small changes like this are fundemental

peace

plus..
the father = osiris
the son = horus
holy sprirt = re

reply to post by Xcathdra

I find it offensive that in my country I can be forced to speak to a female while all I can see is the eye slit. To me its offensive because it relegates females to being one rung above property, and thats being generous. I accept that if its the females choice, but not when its forced

What about females who do naked things in movies? whether its hollywood or porn?
Do you think they are just "one rung above property" or is it supposed to be the "christian" way?

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by Inquisitive1

 

Do you think that someone owns the right's to these words, and how they can be published?

merriam-websterdictionary.com

At base stands a profound respect for the integrity of history and the complex and convoluted relationship between present and the past. —Ira Berlin, New York Times Book Review, 9 Sept. 2001

edit on 30-1-2012 by Daedal because: Edit

I've tried your link, but it will not load for me. So, I'll assume what your asking is if I believe that the biblical texts are owned and therefor regulated in some way. The answer is: Not entirely.. The book has been grossly rip apart in the past. What we call the "Holy Bible" is but a fragment of what it was originally. There have been numerous books and chapters removed to fit some agenda or goal, and while you can search and find some of these removed texts; there is no indication that we've got them all. The translations are an entirely different matter. One that's significant to the way a particular story is told. There will always be errors both slight and sometimes profound when left to the old translations and even the new ones.

That all being said, Let me explain that I'm not trying to take the stance of those groups who would remove certain words from the bible just because they wish to. I'm simply stating it as a right of theirs to do so.. whether I like it or not. There are already a large number of "Versions" of the bible. This has been done before, and will be done again I imagine.