No doubt about that; the question is, which god?
From the Journal:
Niagara’s nod to same-sex blessings draws mixed reviews.
The decision by the diocese of Niagara to offer same-sex blessings as of Sept. 1 has drawn mixed reactions from Anglicans in Canada.
Niagara is now the second diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada, after the Vancouver-based diocese of New Westminster, to offer a sacrament for same-sex blessings. The “Niagara Rite” may also be used for the blessing or renewal of vows for heterosexual couples celebrating a significant moment in their married life together.
“I believe that we’ve done our work of discernment,” said the diocesan bishop of Niagara, Michael Bird, when asked what made him decide to go ahead despite repeated calls for a moratorium on same-sex blessings. He noted that the votes on the matter had both resulted in an “overwhelming” majority at two successive diocesan synods – 2004 and 2008 – and had not been acted upon until now.
Bishop Bird said he also felt compelled to move forward after the diocese developed a new vision for its ministry that included a commitment to prophetic social justice-making. “What’s become clear as we have worked through that discernment process…is that for that work of justice-making to have integrity, we needed to bring this piece around same-sex blessings to a conclusion.”
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, acknowledged that the decision is bound to create some tension among bishops. But he said that Bishop Bird had informed the Canadian house of bishops of his plan when it met last October.
The last paragraph leaves little doubt that Bishop Michael Bird has the full support of Archbishop Fred Hiltz. Today, New Westminster and Niagara; for the complacent in other dioceses who believe “it can never happen here” – the direction is clear, it is only a matter of time.
Kate #49:
OK already Kate….I can buy into the argument of older scripture being found and changes being made accordingly.
What I cannot buy into however is that ALL of the changes I see being made are weakening the Word and none appear to strengthen it…..perhaps if some scholars could explain that little bit of information to me I would buy into your thinking totally, however, until then…….well, nyet.
Why is it that ALL these new VERSIONS are being touted as “new and more informative”, “easier to read”, “better for us”, etc. when some of them are simply removing important words from the Bible and putting in the weakening words which give the “revisionists and New Age” persons the little cracks they look for to try and tear the Holy Scriptures further apart?
I’m sorry folks, maybe I’m getting stubborn or am so much less informed than the literate scholars that I just don’t get it. What I do get though, is that The Holy Bible is “God Breathed”; “The inspired Word of God” and so on…….and that not one jot n’or tittle is to be changed until our Lord Jesus comes back on Judgement Day. Now, the problem, Do we rely on Versions like the Message or some of the other Weaker Versions or do we rely on ones that stood the test of the years that didn’t weaken the Word?
Taken from #44:
“When Evangelical Protestants received the Revised Standard Version, certain texts regarding the virginity of Mary and other Old Testament passages whose Christian interpretation referred to Jesus did not follow traditional Evangelical translation. [3] The New International Version project was started after a meeting in 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois between the Christian Reformed Church, National Association of Evangelicals, and a group of international scholars.[4] The New York Bible Society (now the Colorado Springs-based International Bible Society) was selected to do the translation. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978. It underwent minor revision in 1984. A major revision and update was announced on September 1, 2009 and is due out in 2011[5].”
Does the foregoing tell us something I wonder. The NIV appears to have been written because “Evangelical Protestants” did not agree with what was translated into the RSV.
Now we see where a “Major Revision and update is coming out in the year 2011″.
I wonder just how much more will be watered down or changed to suit the desires of protestanism?
Additional to #52:
I also wonder just how many new revised versions will continue to come out for the sake of selling more “New” versions and supporting the huge business of $$$ that such work does. I wonder if many of these “NEW” versions are nothing other than that, just money, money, money……
Now I am confused. Understandably, it is next to impossible for everyone to agree on which single translation is “best” or “most accurate”. Having failed French in middle school, I doubt that I have the ability to learn other languages such a Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. So I am stuck with having to rely upon English translations. Perhaps some of you would be kind enough to suggest two (or even three) translations for me to read?
Gerry (#51, 52, & 53), you make some good points in these posts. Translators do make choices and not all of them are good (at least not in everyone’s eyes). Some translations have tended to tone down certain language or avoid the use of older words that carried a sense or meaning that now may be obscured. I also have reservations about translations that have moved towards gender neutral language. Translators do have a difficult task, though. You can have a very literal translation that is technically accurate, but hard to read (KJV, NASB and ESV are in this camp), or a more dynamic-equivalent translation that strive to capture the true meaning of the original language but still keep it readable for the modern reader (NIV would be in this camp). Farther out on the spectrum you have free translations or paraphrases where the translators just try to capture the ideas from the original language without being constrained by the exact wording (the Good New and Living Bibles are in this camp, with The Message being at the very end of the spectrum). In defence of Eugene Peterson, I don’t believe he claims that The Message is a translation and accepts it being labeled as a paraphrase.
It is also interesting to look at the work that organizations such as Wycliffe are doing in translating God’s Word into obscure languages that have never had the Bible before. They sometimes make changes that, to us, would seem quite radical, but these changes are necessary if there is to be any understanding at all. They always strive, however, to not corrupt the true sense of the original message from God.
Money is doubtlessly a motivator, but I think this criticism applies mostly to different editions of a translation. Do we really need separate NIV Bibles for bikers who ride Harleys, and those who ride Yamahas, etc., etc.? (I know I’m exaggerating a bit, but it seems like you can find an edition aimed a virtually every segment of society).
The best advice I can give is to not put all of your eggs in one basket. Have several different translations and compare them – especially for more difficult passages. This is easy to do on line.
Amp #54,
My picks are: ESV for accuracy to the original; MSG for a refreshing, sometimes startling perspective and KJV because its language is entrenched in what is best in – or left of – our western culture.
#54 AMPisAnglican:
The Bible website http://www.blueletterbible.org/ is an excellent tool if you’re trying to sort out the translation issue. It brings up your chosen passage in the KJV but has the option to change to many other translations, either in verse or paragraph form. In addition is has a Stong’s concordance option beside every verse (just press the ‘C’) so without reading Greek or Hebrew you can quite easily see what the translators are up against. Also whether or not they have a unhelpful agenda.
Doing this kind of search would shed a lot of light on the above discussion about translations. (Does Bible Gateway have a concordance option?)
#50 Warren Boy you can be exasperating, were you got the idea that I was talking about North American problems is beyond me. I think it is a red herring. What in the name of common sense do you mean by “propositional truth” and how can you use that in the same sentence as “God Commands His children to believe”. Faith, the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen. We receive that substance and evidence incarnately through the Holy Spirit. It Comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God. Feelings and emotions are not grounded in absolute truth, they are created by it……The Heart Sings and we soar on eagles wings. and I ain’t talkin about those 4winged noise machines you play with in your warren -Warren
Stuck (#58), although I don’t apologize for my beliefs, I could express them in a more charitable manner. My intent is to engage with your opinions and not judge you personally. Where I have failed to do so, I apologize.
With respect to propositional truth, maybe we could both learn from John Armstrong:
http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2006/03/how_important_i.html
This was posted a short time ago in another blog I enjoy. Meant as humour, but there’s an element of truth:
The original source is Scot McKnight – a New Testament Scholar and author:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/translation-tribalism.html
I have noted the references to the many and various Bible translations and the wording differences. Surprisingly no one has mentioned the Revised Version of 1881 – I am confident that “Stuck in Toronto” (that poor soul!!) is fully familiar with that translation. In any event the discussion of words and their meanings can perhaps be covered by the following. Sinful man has always had a way to divert or change the meaning of words to suit his/her needs. We only need to look at the word “gay”. It was never designed to mean what it does today. What we need as Christians is to know the Word and avoid needless discussion on how that word can be twisted to serve our own purposes. Twisting the meaning to serve its purposes is exactly what the apostates within the ACoC are doing and they continue to lead many astray from the faith.
Frank Wirrell #61-
Frank, well done!!! You have said everything that I have been trying to say and all in a scant eleven short lines. You have defined the largest, latest reason for some of the meaningless versions of the Bible that have been published of late.
OF interest – The NIV will be coming out with it’s latest revision in 2011…. It will be of great interest to see just how far it goes in the gender issues….. I’ll venture out on a limb and say to all…..Just watch where it goes and then be prepared to (if you lean that direction) support Young’s “The Shack” even moreso in his gender changing book……
I won’t be changing my mind very quickly, if at all on any of what I have said on this string, even if Warren likes to equate me to being a NKJV and KJV for Byzantine manuscript-tree hugger as shown in #60 above.
Frank, I think you may have had the final word on the issue and this post of mine is supplementary.
Warren et al, at the end of the day we are all Brothers and Sisters So long as I keep that reality close in with my hearts desire that we are one, the circumstance of difference, misunderstanding, sarcasm, even outright error and anger (not that I could be guilty of any of these
) cease to be of any importance.
MY LOVE (expressed here by the grace of our Lord Jesus) TO YOU ALL
Gerry (#62), the article I posted was not aimed at you and didn’t favour any translation. Rather, it poked fun at one of the many controversies that needlessly divide the body of Christ. I think such divisions should be made light of given the many more important issues that the Church should be focused on.
Rather than giving the translation committee the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like you are hoping that the 2011 revision of the NIV will be more gender neutral than the TNIV so that you can say, “I told you so”. If so, you might be disappointed:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html
Regardless of the language used, there will be critics; no translation is perfect or satisfies everyone. That said, I think you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate how any modern translation changes an important Christian doctrine (or supports a book like The Shack any moreso than the KJV).
As Frank validly pointed out, sinful man will find a way to twist God’s words – despite what any translation says.
Warren:
“Rather than giving the translation committee the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like you are hoping that the 2011 revision of the NIV will be more gender neutral than the TNIV so that you can say, “I told you so”. If so, you might be disappointed:”
Those are your words Warren, not mine and to the absolute contrary, I would not want that outcome whatsoever, However, time will be the teller here and I state that I hope that I am totally wrong in my assessment. That being said, the way North America society is bending, now being led by Barack Obama, I have very little doubt about where it will go.
Perhaps prayer is the best and only answer to what is happening in this world and to what has infiltrated the Christian Church especially in North America.
“Perhaps prayer is the best and only answer to what is happening in this world and to what has infiltrated the Christian Church especially in North America.”
AHHH Gee Brother mine, there ya go makin sense again.
Stuck –
Re: 66 above……See, every now and then both you and I make some sense…..Warren and others will be delighted.
Warren……I was poking fun (a bit) Re: #64, but didn’t really think you were taking a shot at me although I am deserving once in a while…..
Blessings
#57 Irena, interesting reference, thank you.
#61 Frank (my bro) I don’t know how you found out I have no money but let me assure you that my soul’s desire is to magnify the Lord.
#62 Gerry (another Bro)”I am deserving once in a while” What? You? never ol’ chum, you, Like me are driven snow (once it has been piled off the highway- Love ya.