Hi Alex. The Good News Translation I think is fairly inclusive. To what extent however, I am not too sure.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 01:23
What about NRSV?
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 08:01
Alex: Why do you think that an inclusive Bible is more accurate than a non-inclusive Bible? Which do you think more accurately represents the thoughts of its original authors?
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 08:55
inclusive
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 09:47
Pinga, the inclusive version of the Bible more accurately represents our thoughts. Why do you think it more accurately represents the thoughts of the people who wrote the Bible?
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 10:33
At best, the Bible is a human's attempt to record stories which traditionally were shared through story to relate to the people of the time. They, in that sense, were meant to speak to the target audience to make profound messages or share wisdom or provide teaching stories.
So, human selected how to write them, what to include, what NOT to include, how to translate, etc, etc.
The underlying message though, that comes through is of a God beyond description. We, as humans, chose the male imagery for years to describe God, That speaks about who is in power and who makes decisions, etc.... It doesn't speak about God.
so, Azdgari, you & i disagree fundamentally on many aspects of the Bible, but when we boil them down, it comes down to ...how it came to be.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 12/12/2009 11:20
Azdgari wrote:
Pinga, the inclusive version of the Bible more accurately represents our thoughts. Why do you think it more accurately represents the thoughts of the people who wrote the Bible?
Personally I want to read the Bible that is the accurate God-thoughts-representation.
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 11:26
Aquila wrote:
Azdgari wrote:
Pinga, the inclusive version of the Bible more accurately represents our thoughts. Why do you think it more accurately represents the thoughts of the people who wrote the Bible?
Personally I want to read the Bible that is the accurate God-thoughts-representation.
Personally , I agree :)
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 12:20
Pinga, that didn't really answer my question, though it did make my question irrelevant (?).
My question was about how you know that the inclusive version reflects the thoughts of the original writers (which was your claim).
You answered that, essentially, it doesn't. Instead, it reflects what you believe God's message would have been to a modern audience. So while you countered my question, you did so by contradicting yourself.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:30
Actually, what I said was that any translation is at best human's attempt to provide a way to live our lives, be closer to God, etc..... divinely inspired or not, based on their cultural reference.
Let me quote from the United Church of Canada's site on "the Bible"
The Bible
The Bible is central to The United Church of Canada. As a source of wisdom, personal prayer, and devotion, we believe the Bible can bring us closer to God. It remains one of our best ways of experiencing God's continuing work of creation and liberation in the world, while offering us forgiveness, healing, and new life in Jesus.
We often refer to a passage as "the Word of God." By this we mean the writer was inspired by God.
Yet we also know the various books that make up the Bible are the stories of two ancient communities trying to be faithful to God under difficult circumstances-ancient Israel and the early Christian movement-and some of what was experienced and written then doesn't fit with today's world. We don't condone slavery, for example, or stone those who commit adultery.
Nevertheless, in its stories and teachings the Bible has a mysterious power to inform our lives."
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:33
God, as lived out through Jesus, was inclusive -> therefore, my interpretation would be that an inclusive bible is more accurate reflection. I, unlike some who participate onthis forum, do not take the Bible as a direct quote from God...at best, it is interpretation, upon interpretation, which has to be held in the context of the time it was written.
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:36
A more accurate reflection of what you believe Jesus would have thought. Not, as you had claimed before, a more accurate reflection of the views of the Bible's writers.
I'm totally willing to move on from that point, as soon as you concede it.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:52
lol, given that I didn't write the nrsv...and I am not a biblical scholar, i will have to go with those who I respect who are...and say....it's more accurate than the "good news" ...
Then again, the message is much like the good news, has its place, but sadly, uses male dominated language...
lol, if you are asking me what most accurately reflects the writings of the original authors, then I would have to say, the original texts in their original language...and given that some are simply recordings of stories shared orally ..the original "authors" weren't the recorders, and so...gosh, i would have to time travel to actually get their original work.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:54
(ps..i am not a minister...just a person who is chatting on the forums, so quite willing to have someone who can do a better job of explaining this to agz do so
Panentheism
Posted on: 12/12/2009 16:41
English language are translations done by sholars of the orginal languages - thus the translations change over time with more information. All translates have a theological bias - that is why I use the nrsv.
All our sources have been influenced by interpretation and theological constructs. All reflect a time and place of translation. The advantage of new ones are the discoveries of ancient documents since 1948.
To claim a literal read is a modern invention - all scripture is human shaped from religious experience which changed over time. The bible revises itself and we do as well. It is inspired but not literally God's word. This view can be rejected but it is the long tradition of scholarship and church teachings. You can reject this and believe a literal reading but it has no convincing power to those who know how literature is formed.
Alex I have not come across a translation that is God for God.
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:33
Panentheism wrote:
To claim a literal read is a modern invention - all scripture is human shaped from religious experience which changed over time. The bible revises itself and we do as well. It is inspired but not literally God's word.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-CA
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
I usually don’t respond to your posts because they never make any sense , but i have to here, what you don’t understand is that the Spirit of the word, remains the same throughout history , to present and into the future, you and other scholars don’t see the Spirit because they have in-telexulized its word, placing there faith in understanding on self and humanity rather than God.
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:35
and even though i spelled " in-telexulized " wrong, the spirit of the meaning remains the same
GordW
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:48
BB,
how could the Spirit of the word remain constant when the meaning of words changes regularly, when we read translations of copies, which don't all agree with each other.
Mind you I am not convinced that the Word remains constant through theological history, much less the words about the WOrd
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:56
GordW wrote:
BB,
how could the Spirit of the word remain constant when the meaning of words changes regularly, when we read translations of copies, which don't all agree with each other.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-CA
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Go directly to the source of the Spirit , and dump all theologians , if God is who He says He is, your see Truth, i know God is, been there
Alex
Posted on: 12/12/2009 22:19
Azdgari wrote:
Alex: Why do you think that an inclusive Bible is more accurate than a non-inclusive Bible? Which do you think more accurately represents the thoughts of its original authors?
If we were to use the thoughts of it's original authors then the Bible would unlikely even use the word God. God is neither female or male, but is both. Also all of the terms in the NRSV and other translations use masculine pronouns when reffering to people, which include men, women and the inter-sex. In my culture that is not an acceptable way to use English. However when these translations were written they were acceptable and still are to others.
Comments
Tyson
Posted on: 12/12/2009 00:16
Hi Alex. The Good News Translation I think is fairly inclusive. To what extent however, I am not too sure.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 01:23
What about NRSV?
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 08:01
Alex: Why do you think that an inclusive Bible is more accurate than a non-inclusive Bible? Which do you think more accurately represents the thoughts of its original authors?
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 08:55
inclusive
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 09:47
Pinga, the inclusive version of the Bible more accurately represents our thoughts. Why do you think it more accurately represents the thoughts of the people who wrote the Bible?
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 10:33
At best, the Bible is a human's attempt to record stories which traditionally were shared through story to relate to the people of the time. They, in that sense, were meant to speak to the target audience to make profound messages or share wisdom or provide teaching stories.
So, human selected how to write them, what to include, what NOT to include, how to translate, etc, etc.
The underlying message though, that comes through is of a God beyond description. We, as humans, chose the male imagery for years to describe God, That speaks about who is in power and who makes decisions, etc.... It doesn't speak about God.
so, Azdgari, you & i disagree fundamentally on many aspects of the Bible, but when we boil them down, it comes down to ...how it came to be.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 12/12/2009 11:20
Pinga, the inclusive version of the Bible more accurately represents our thoughts. Why do you think it more accurately represents the thoughts of the people who wrote the Bible?
Personally I want to read the Bible that is the accurate God-thoughts-representation.
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 11:26
Pinga, the inclusive version of the Bible more accurately represents our thoughts. Why do you think it more accurately represents the thoughts of the people who wrote the Bible?
Personally I want to read the Bible that is the accurate God-thoughts-representation.
Personally , I agree :)
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 12:20
Pinga, that didn't really answer my question, though it did make my question irrelevant (?).
My question was about how you know that the inclusive version reflects the thoughts of the original writers (which was your claim).
You answered that, essentially, it doesn't. Instead, it reflects what you believe God's message would have been to a modern audience. So while you countered my question, you did so by contradicting yourself.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:30
Actually, what I said was that any translation is at best human's attempt to provide a way to live our lives, be closer to God, etc..... divinely inspired or not, based on their cultural reference.
Let me quote from the United Church of Canada's site on "the Bible"
The Bible
The Bible is central to The United Church of Canada. As a source of wisdom, personal prayer, and devotion, we believe the Bible can bring us closer to God. It remains one of our best ways of experiencing God's continuing work of creation and liberation in the world, while offering us forgiveness, healing, and new life in Jesus.
We often refer to a passage as "the Word of God." By this we mean the writer was inspired by God.
Yet we also know the various books that make up the Bible are the stories of two ancient communities trying to be faithful to God under difficult circumstances-ancient Israel and the early Christian movement-and some of what was experienced and written then doesn't fit with today's world. We don't condone slavery, for example, or stone those who commit adultery.
Nevertheless, in its stories and teachings the Bible has a mysterious power to inform our lives."
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:33
God, as lived out through Jesus, was inclusive -> therefore, my interpretation would be that an inclusive bible is more accurate reflection. I, unlike some who participate onthis forum, do not take the Bible as a direct quote from God...at best, it is interpretation, upon interpretation, which has to be held in the context of the time it was written.
Azdgari
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:36
A more accurate reflection of what you believe Jesus would have thought. Not, as you had claimed before, a more accurate reflection of the views of the Bible's writers.
I'm totally willing to move on from that point, as soon as you concede it.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:52
lol, given that I didn't write the nrsv...and I am not a biblical scholar, i will have to go with those who I respect who are...and say....it's more accurate than the "good news" ...
Then again, the message is much like the good news, has its place, but sadly, uses male dominated language...
lol, if you are asking me what most accurately reflects the writings of the original authors, then I would have to say, the original texts in their original language...and given that some are simply recordings of stories shared orally ..the original "authors" weren't the recorders, and so...gosh, i would have to time travel to actually get their original work.
Pinga
Posted on: 12/12/2009 13:54
(ps..i am not a minister...just a person who is chatting on the forums, so quite willing to have someone who can do a better job of explaining this to agz do so
Panentheism
Posted on: 12/12/2009 16:41
English language are translations done by sholars of the orginal languages - thus the translations change over time with more information. All translates have a theological bias - that is why I use the nrsv.
All our sources have been influenced by interpretation and theological constructs. All reflect a time and place of translation. The advantage of new ones are the discoveries of ancient documents since 1948.
To claim a literal read is a modern invention - all scripture is human shaped from religious experience which changed over time. The bible revises itself and we do as well. It is inspired but not literally God's word. This view can be rejected but it is the long tradition of scholarship and church teachings. You can reject this and believe a literal reading but it has no convincing power to those who know how literature is formed.
Alex I have not come across a translation that is God for God.
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:33
To claim a literal read is a modern invention - all scripture is human shaped from religious experience which changed over time. The bible revises itself and we do as well. It is inspired but not literally God's word.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-CA
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
I usually don’t respond to your posts because they never make any sense , but i have to here, what you don’t understand is that the Spirit of the word, remains the same throughout history , to present and into the future, you and other scholars don’t see the Spirit because they have in-telexulized its word, placing there faith in understanding on self and humanity rather than God.
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:35
and even though i spelled " in-telexulized " wrong, the spirit of the meaning remains the same
GordW
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:48
BB,
how could the Spirit of the word remain constant when the meaning of words changes regularly, when we read translations of copies, which don't all agree with each other.
Mind you I am not convinced that the Word remains constant through theological history, much less the words about the WOrd
blackbelt
Posted on: 12/12/2009 19:56
BB,
how could the Spirit of the word remain constant when the meaning of words changes regularly, when we read translations of copies, which don't all agree with each other.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-CA
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Go directly to the source of the Spirit , and dump all theologians , if God is who He says He is, your see Truth, i know God is, been there
Alex
Posted on: 12/12/2009 22:19
Alex: Why do you think that an inclusive Bible is more accurate than a non-inclusive Bible? Which do you think more accurately represents the thoughts of its original authors?
If we were to use the thoughts of it's original authors then the Bible would unlikely even use the word God. God is neither female or male, but is both. Also all of the terms in the NRSV and other translations use masculine pronouns when reffering to people, which include men, women and the inter-sex. In my culture that is not an acceptable way to use English. However when these translations were written they were acceptable and still are to others.