NationStates Jolt Archive

Jeez, Im all for making Jesus accessible to everyone, but um this is a little stupid, IMO. Calling Jesus the "child" of God, where as he referes to himself as the Son of God, and the Song of Man. Meh, I'm sure in 10 yrs this will be the standard in most churches. Truly a lukewarm church.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556
German scholars unveil "politically correct" Bible

Nov. 09 (CNA/CWNews.com) - A group of 52 biblical “specialists” have released a new version of the Bible in which inclusive language and “political correctness” have replaced some “divisive” teachings of Christianity in order to present a “more just language” for groups such as feminists and homosexuals.

According to the AFP news agency, the new version of the Sacred Scriptures was presented at a book fair in Frankfurt. Entitled, The Bible in a More Just Language, the translation has Jesus no longer referring to God as “Father,” but as “our Mother and Father who are in heaven.” Likewise, Jesus is no longer referred to as the “Son” but rather as the “child” of God. The title “Lord” is replaced with “God” or “the Eternal One.” The devil, however, is still referred to with masculine pronouns. “One of the great ideas of the Bible is justice. We have made a translation that does justice to women, Jews, and those who are disregarded,” said Pastor Hanne Koehler, who led the team of translators.

Last December, Matin Dreyer, pastor and founder of the sect “Jesus Freaks,” published the Volksbibel (The People’s Bible), in a supposed attempt to make the message of Christianity more “accessible.” Jesus “returns” instead of resurrects, and multiplies “hamburgers” instead of the fish and loaves. In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son squanders his inheritance at dance clubs and ends up “cleaning bathrooms at McDonald’s.”

The word of god is flexible.

Yay! Anything that makes the Bible look pointless gets a thumbs up from me and a 'get-out-my smouldering crater' free card!

Instead of being expelled from Paradise, Adam and Eve get a long talk and a timeout.

I think this is silly …not to mention detrimental. People reading this may actually start to believe that Christianity is something more then the hard line patriarchal religion that it really is.
Glossing over the truth is never a good thing

That being said I guess they have the right to do with it as they please, even if I do find it silly

Instead of being expelled from Paradise, Adam and Eve get a long talk and a timeout.

That'd make God a bit less of a jackass.

Instead of being expelled from Paradise, Adam and Eve get a long talk and a timeout.
And sin is just a learning experience to help them grow! :p

The word of god is flexible.


to the point where it alters the words of Christ? I think not. If Christ refers to God as "Father" In the lord's prayer, then shouldn't we also read it that way? What about when he refers to himself as the Son? Are we to disregard that, and put new words in his mouth?

...wow...just wow. I dont think that the groups that are usually attacked by those claiming to be christians will at all be reassured by this move.

That'd make God a bit less of a jackass.

Agreed ... seems rather a jackass move from a god that suposedly preaches this

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

to the point where it alters the words of Christ? I think not. If Christ refers to God as "Father" In the lord's prayer, then shouldn't we also read it that way? What about when he refers to himself as the Son? Are we to disregard that, and put new words in his mouth?

*Hits Z w/ the righteous brick of sarcasm (tm) *

Instead of being expelled from Paradise, Adam and Eve get a long talk and a timeout.

Cain fiercely pummels Abel in fair debate.

to the point where it alters the words of Christ? I think not. If Christ refers to God as "Father" In the lord's prayer, then shouldn't we also read it that way? What about when he refers to himself as the Son? Are we to disregard that, and put new words in his mouth?

Ehhh nothing new people have been doing that for millenium intentionaly or not

to the point where it alters the words of Christ? I think not. If Christ refers to God as "Father" In the lord's prayer, then shouldn't we also read it that way? What about when he refers to himself as the Son? Are we to disregard that, and put new words in his mouth?

Well, since he never called himself the "Son of God", changing that is fine. (He called himself the "Son of Man", which you'd know if you read your own holy book.)

It's a fad. Might be worth buying one of the new translations, though, could be worth something someday as a curiosity. Like the version of the Bible that was published during the 1600's, that left the word "not" out of the commandment prohibiting adultery. The printer was fined the huge sum of 1000 pounds, which was used to create some very nice Greek type-fonts for the Oxford University press.

It's a fad. Might be worth buying one of the new translations, though, could be worth something someday as a curiosity. Like the version of the Bible that was published during the 1600's, that left the word "not" out of the commandment prohibiting adultery. The printer was fined the huge sum of 1000 pounds, which was used to create some very nice Greek type-fonts for the Oxford University press.

Thats my favorite story ever as of now.

Infallibility. Gotta love it. :)

*Hits Z w/ the righteous brick of sarcasm (tm) *

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m92/matthewthirlwell/sarcasm.jpg



LMAO

I'd like to add my own section!

In the beginning there was stuff.....other stuff happened......and here we are.....all done by God - true story!

Cain fiercely pummels Abel in fair debate.

The sons of God get sued for harassment after trying to take the daughters of men.

to the point where it alters the words of Christ? I think not. If Christ refers to God as "Father" In the lord's prayer, then shouldn't we also read it that way? What about when he refers to himself as the Son? Are we to disregard that, and put new words in his mouth?The gospels are putting words in Yeshua's mouth anyway. There is nothing they could spoil.
.

Well, since he never called himself the "Son of God", changing that is fine. (He called himself the "Son of Man", which you'd know if you read your own holy book.)

So John 3:18, 5:25, 10:36, and 11:4 has Jesus as referring to a different son of God? Maybe i am just reading my holy book wrong or something.:rolleyes:

So John 3:18, 5:25, 10:35, and 11:4 has Jesus as referring to a different son of God? Maybe i am just reading my holy book wrong or something.:rolleyes:

John 3:18 - "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Oh, whoops, that ain't Jesus talking.

John 5:25 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

Still not Jesus.

John 10:35 - "If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—"

Not Jesus, and the words "Son of God" do not appear.

John 11:4 - "But when Jesus heard it, he said, 'This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that God's Son may be glorified by it.'"

Notice that Jesus does not refer to himself as the Son of God. This also refers to Lazarus, who did die. Odd that.

I think this is silly …not to mention detrimental. People reading this may actually start to believe that Christianity is something more then the hard line patriarchal religion that it really is.
Glossing over the truth is never a good thing
Christianity is a nice and good religion. You're talking nonsense. Of course, there are a lot of bad, 'hardline' Christians out there but that's not the hole religion.

This is a joke. I accept that translation from Latin, Greek and Hebrew does afford amiguity, but this is not permitted by translation into vernacular. To take the case in point, "son", in either Latin or Greek, does not equate to the ambiguous "child".

Moreover, how is this Christian? Protestantism asserts the primacy of scripture, and not it alters it for the politically correct world?

From what I understand, many in the theolgocial academic community have started using gender-neutral language in essays, papers, etc. God is generally not referred to by gendered-terms, but is just referred to as God.

However, I see little reason to do this to the Bible. Even if you did, God wouldn't become "Father and Mother", but would simply become...God. The idea is that God has no gender, not that God is both male and female.

Meanwhile, I have seen no dispute as to the Jesus Christ's sex. As such, there is definitely no reason to refer to Christ as the "Child of God," rather than the "Son of God," or the "Child of Man," rather than the "Son of Man." There is a gender there, so there is no problem using it.

John 3:18 - "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Oh, whoops, that ain't Jesus talking.

John 5:25 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live."

Still not Jesus.

John 10:35 - "If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—"

Not Jesus, and the words "Son of God" do not appear.

John 11:4 - "But when Jesus heard it, he said, 'This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that God's Son may be glorified by it.'"

Notice that Jesus does not refer to himself as the Son of God. This also refers to Lazarus, who did die. Odd that.

10:35 is supposed to be 10:36..My fault. And they are Jesus talking. I have the red print version, where as the red is Christ's words, and those are all in red bub. read 11:4 again, it said that God's Son may be glorified, why would he call lazarus the son of God?

10:35 is supposed to be 10:36..My fault. And they are Jesus talking. I have the red print version, where as the red is Christ's words, and those are all in red bub.

There is a dispute as to whether those words were meant to be recorded as Christ's words or were John's embellishments. Truth be told, they make more sense as John's explanation of Christ's message than as Christ himself suddenly swinging into third-person mode and saying them, especially since nothing like this is recorded in any of the other Gospels.

Edit: Oops, I was referring to 3:16, not 10:36.

read 11:4 again, it said that God's Son may be glorified, why would he call lazarus the son of God?

IIRC, Christ refers to everyone as children of God. That would mean that any guys would be sons of God and any girls daughters, would it not?

10:35 is supposed to be 10:36..My fault. And they are Jesus talking. I have the red print version, where as the red is Christ's words, and those are all in red bub. read 11:4 again, it said that God's Son may be glorified, why would he call lazarus the son of God?

Did I say he was talking about Lazarus? He could be talking about anyone, because he did not use the necessary qualifier of "I".

Plus, the first two can't be Jesus, since the speaker is talking about Jesus in the third person.

By the way, I read the context for John 10:36, and Jesus is quoting someone, as he makes clear in John 10:34.

Why do these people exists? They are a waste of a mind, and take up much needed living space.

Honestly, this is so fucking lame, I thought it was a joke at first.

Must we get so politically correct that there is nothing unique, different, better or worse about the world we live in?

Fuck these idiots.

Jeez, Im all for making Jesus accessible to everyone, but um this is a little stupid, IMO. Calling Jesus the "child" of God, where as he referes to himself as the Son of God, and the Song of Man. Meh, I'm sure in 10 yrs this will be the standard in most churches. Truly a lukewarm church.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556

1. It's NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, the Holy Bible just because someone says it is. If Jesus referred to God as 'the Father", then that is exactly what He is, not the Father and the Mother - to change the text to that is totally against the Bible as it is clearly blasphemous, claiming that 'Jesus actually lied, so we'll have to correct what He said to 'Father and Mother'

2. The fact that they change good people to non-gender specific or both-gender people and leave Satan as being male, shows that they are just being sexist and have most likely created such a fairytale (as I said, it's not the Holy Bible) because they want to put across a sexist "women are better than men" agenda

3. If I find a book, such as 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' and change Frodo's name to Suzanne and Wizard Gandalf's name to Georgina Clooney, it is clearly not the book 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' but an entirely different book with bits stolen from 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'

There is a dispute as to whether those words were meant to be recorded as Christ's words or were John's embellishments. Truth be told, they make more sense as John's explanation of Christ's message than as Christ himself suddenly swinging into third-person mode and saying them, especially since nothing like this is recorded in any of the other Gospels.

Edit: Oops, I was referring to 3:16, not 10:36.



IIRC, Christ refers to everyone as children of God. That would mean that any guys would be sons of God and any girls daughters, would it not?

So what you propose is that Christ isn't the Son of God? What should we call him then? If thats the case, then my beliefs are jsut stupid and I've been lying to myself.

Did I say he was talking about Lazarus? He could be talking about anyone, because he did not use the necessary qualifier of "I".

Plus, the first two can't be Jesus, since the speaker is talking about Jesus in the third person.

By the way, I read the context for John 10:36, and Jesus is quoting someone, as he makes clear in John 10:34.

Third person..hmm where else do i see that in the bible? Oh yeah. like all over the new testament. "Paul, the servant of Christ" yadda yadda. As for lazarus, I guess I misunderstood what you said.

So what you propose is that Christ isn't the Son of God? What should we call him then? If thats the case, then my beliefs are jsut stupid and I've been lying to myself.

Huh? Where did I say anything like that?

All I said was that, according to the Bible and general Christian teachings, we are *all* children of God. As such, we would all be sons and daughters of God. No capitalization necessary.

Now, as to referring to Christ as the Son of God, I see no problem with it. While it may not be an accurate descriptor in the way we think of familial relationships, I doubt that we could accurately describe a relationship in which an entity was fully God and fully man, which is generally the way that Christ is described. I don't worry too much about the technicalities of it, because I don't really think they matter all that much.

Christianity is a nice and good religion. You're talking nonsense. Of course, there are a lot of bad, 'hardline' Christians out there but that's not the hole religion.

Come on patriarchy is ingrained into the entire text ... it may be heavy influence of the times but that just goes to show that the bible is not unnecessarily what god intended

Unless you think that quotes like this are not patriarchal (then you are delusional)


Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Third person..hmm where else do i see that in the bible? Oh yeah. like all over the new testament. "Paul, the servant of Christ" yadda yadda. As for lazarus, I guess I misunderstood what you said.

Paul didn't convert until after Jesus ascended into heaven. You fail once more.

Huh? Where did I say anything like that?

All I said was that, according to the Bible and general Christian teachings, we are *all* children of God. As such, we would all be sons and daughters of God. No capitalization necessary.

Now, as to referring to Christ as the Son of God, I see no problem with it. While it may not be an accurate descriptor in the way we think of familial relationships, I doubt that we could accurately describe a relationship in which an entity was fully God and fully man, which is generally the way that Christ is described. I don't worry too much about the technicalities of it, because I don't really think they matter all that much.

Well for me, if Jesus was just an ordinary man, not the Son of God, then the whole crucifixion thing means nothing. It then becomes, "so what, a man died" situation. But becuase He was of God, it shows that God loved us enough to give up a part of Himself to save us from the bondage of sin.

Paul didn't convert until after Jesus ascended into heaven. You fail once more.

How do I fail? I was saying that other people in the NT refer to themselves in third person, so why couldn't Jesus have done the same thing? You must remember all the times he told his apostles to be silent of his miracles, right? Why? Becuase it would have been a quicker death for him. So then wouldn't talking about himself in the third, rather than the first, be following the same lines?

Well for me, if Jesus was just an ordinary man, not the Son of God, then the whole crucifixion thing means nothing. It then becomes, "so what, a man died" situation. But becuase He was of God, it shows that God loved us enough to give up a part of Himself to save us from the bondage of sin.

Which isn't what Dem was saying, but go ahead and think that. In fact, you should be happy that Jesus didn't refer to himself as the Son of God. If he did, he would not qualify as the Messiah, if I remember the prophecies correctly.

Well for me, if Jesus was just an ordinary man, not the Son of God, then the whole crucifixion thing means nothing. It then becomes, "so what, a man died" situation. But becuase He was of God, it shows that God loved us enough to give up a part of Himself to save us from the bondage of sin.

Once again, you seem to be arguing with something I never said. Where did I suggest that Jesus was just an ordinary man?

Come on patriarchy is ingrained into the entire text ... it may be heavy influence of the times but that just goes to show that the bible is not unnecessarily what god intended

Unless you think that quotes like this are not patriarchal (then you are delusional)


Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Of course you forget where it tells men to submit to wives as well, right?

Jeez...I've heard of this "politically correct" Bible, but it's still every bit as absurd. Come on now. "The Father and Mother"? And are we really disputing that Jesus was a dude? As if the beard wasn't a giveaway and the fact that most people in thise days didn't name their daughters "Yeshua." This is ridiculous. It's patriarchal, yes. Guess what? Most of history is patriarchal. Does that mean we have to be patriarchal now? Of course not. Does it mean that we should ignore some basic elements of history? Hell fucking no.

In the words of a great and wise being, "Gag unto me with a spoon." The first person who can tell me who said that gets a metaphorical Twinkie.

Of course you forget where it tells men to submit to wives as well, right?

Ever read your religious text? Show me where it says for a man to submit to his wive ... it doesent that I have found anyways

I THINK your thinking of the following line

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

They don't have to submit, just love. Still though if you want another quote as an example


How bout timothy ... I find this one rather disheartening personally

1 Tim. 2: 11 Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; 12 but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace.

Or maybe

1 Corinthians 14: 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

That one is rather sexist as well

This only proves more and more that the Bible is made up, instead of it being god's story and will. I mean, in the first bibles, some form of a dragon is still mentioned. Not that you'd ever see that in a modern one, as it wouldn't be believable. (as if it is now...)

The Bible does state that Jesus us the son of God. It is true. If it were not for him, everyone would be doomed to hell. He sacraficed himself to death for us. A leader anytime, should sacrafice themsleves for who they represent. The Bible is not based on politics. It is based on actual events. Christianity should be the official religion of America, just like english should be the national language. We all know that's because of the liberals not wanting to hurt anyones feelings. Such as the illegal immigrants. That;s my political beliefs, dosnt mean it's the truth. If you agree, join me. DEMOCRACY IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING!!!!

[The Bible does state that Jesus us the son of God. It is true. If it were not for him, everyone would be doomed to hell. He sacraficed himself to death for us. A leader anytime, should sacrafice themsleves for who they represent. The Bible is not based on politics. It is based on actual events. Christianity should be the official religion of America, just like english should be the national language. We all know that's because of the liberals not wanting to hurt anyones feelings. Such as the illegal immigrants. That;s my political beliefs, dosnt mean it's the truth. If you agree, join me. DEMOCRACY IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING!!!!

Show us where oh wise one

re: arguments against the Bible. whatever your thoughts, I suggest taking a look at http://www.religioustolerance.org

Let me get this straight. They want to alter a text that is hundreds of years old, to make it more 'politically correct' by today's standards? And in 30 years time? Will that version still be seen as politically correct? Will certain religious branches be swearing only by this 'politically correct' version? I shudder at the thought of it...

This is beyond lame. What ever happened to good old fashioned values? :upyours: 52 German Scholars. They know nothing but then again that updated version sucks even more.

Jeez, Im all for making Jesus accessible to everyone, but um this is a little stupid, IMO. Calling Jesus the "child" of God, where as he referes to himself as the Son of God, and the Song of Man. Meh, I'm sure in 10 yrs this will be the standard in most churches. Truly a lukewarm church.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47556
that's retarded.

Huzzah for revisionist history!
I suppose the Romans just gave Jesus a firm talking to? Told him that if he did it again they wouldnt give him any more candy?
Sheesh.
Hey, heres an idea!
Lets go through history and edit out all the wars and bad stuff. Not only would children not learn bad stuff from history, but we would only need a single history class from now on, and the book wouldnt be very heavy either.

this disgusts me..
to make the bible accepting of homosexual ways is completely against the bibles teachings..

i understand wanting to put it in understandable language but thats why there are so many different translations..
NOT revisions..

i like the NIV and the NKJ as well as the New Living Translation and the Message which are all quite clear..

this is a disrespect to the christian church..
:headbang:

Ever read your religious text? Show me where it says for a man to submit to his wive ... it doesent that I have found anyways

I THINK your thinking of the following line

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

They don't have to submit, just love. Still though if you want another quote as an example


How bout timothy ... I find this one rather disheartening personally

1 Tim. 2: 11 Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; 12 but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace.

Or maybe

1 Corinthians 14: 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

That one is rather sexist as well

And you will also realize that those are the words or Paul, not Christ. A big Difference. I don't really agree with most of Paul's writtings.

I love all the noobish posts....

I love all the noobish posts....

101z 1 /\/0 1z /\/00b, 100]< /-\7 /\/\1 /-\\/\/z0/\/\3 1337 5p3]<e!

I don't see why this is so horribly offensive to anyone. I mean, it's not like english is even the original language of the Bible, it was probably changed a hell of a lot more when it was translated.

And you will also realize that those are the words or Paul, not Christ. A big Difference. I don't really agree with most of Paul's writtings.

Ahhh so the bible as is, is not the infallible word of god. I see
So what makes you trust what the others recorded about Jesus as he wrote nothing himself supposedly

Anyways lets look at some non pauline parts of the bible ... there are some jucy ones in the old testament


Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

So a man can sell his daughter to slavery, yet she is treated even more as property and does not gain her freedom like the male servants do (as explained in Exodus 21:2-4)

How about some Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."

Apparently being not a virgin is a stonable offense only if you are female.

There are all kinds of smaller references throughout many books specially those supposedly written by Paul and Peter... though there is much evidence to support the fact that some of the supposed writings were after their deaths ...

I don't see why this is so horribly offensive to anyone. I mean, it's not like english is even the original language of the Bible, it was probably changed a hell of a lot more when it was translated.

Agreed ... I may find the change silly but hardly unique

it's not like english is even the original language of the Bible

How dare you speak such blasphemy! Everyone knows God, Jesus, Moses, and all the children's action heroes spoke perfect English! It says so in the Bible! Why do you suppose the Bible is written in English? It's because that's what they spoke back then! Anyone who says otherwise is going to hell! Anyone who spoke another language was obviously a heathen Communist Muslim liberal who eats babies, marries men to other men, and speaks abominable languages like French. And I bet they're teaching lies like evolution to people, too.

Now if you'll excuse me, my head just exploded and made a gigantic mess.

I love all the noobish posts....

Best thing about this thread is the uberly nooberly posts.

I don't see why this is so horribly offensive to anyone. I mean, it's not like english is even the original language of the Bible, it was probably changed a hell of a lot more when it was translated.

so if everybody throw stones to someone, you consider perfectly right to do the same?

so if everybody throw stones to someone, you consider perfectly right to do the same?

No, But people should not be particularly surprised by it either if it seems a rather common occurrence.

If they edit all the woman-hating out of the Bible, then all that will be left is the bits about being freaked out about mortality and hating people who aren't a part of your tribe. Oh, and a couple of bits where Jesus says it might be nice if people chilled out and stopped fucking up the joint so much, but nobody much seems to read those anyhow.

If they edit all the woman-hating out of the Bible, then all that will be left is the bits about being freaked out about mortality and hating people who aren't a part of your tribe. Oh, and a couple of bits where Jesus says it might be nice if people chilled out and stopped fucking up the joint so much, but nobody much seems to read those anyhow.

What kind of nonsense is that? Women are and have always been a respected and wholly necessary ingredient, a primary component, of Christianity from the days of Jesus before the crucifixion to today. Any anti-woman interpretation of the passages or any anti-women misconstruction derived from the scripture is entirely due to the social construct of the culture, or of the person, reading the texts. Equality in Christ is the starting point for all truly biblical social ethics.

Galatians 3:28:
'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' "

For anyone who wants more reading about what Christian women think, here’s a modern day Women in Christianity link (http://www.christianitytoday.com/women)

I'd just like to point out that somewhere in this thread is the line, "He [jesus] sacraficed(sic) himself to death for us."

this disgusts me..
to make the bible accepting of homosexual ways is completely against the bibles teachings..

i understand wanting to put it in understandable language but thats why there are so many different translations..
NOT revisions..

i like the NIV and the NKJ as well as the New Living Translation and the Message which are all quite clear..

this is a disrespect to the christian church..
:headbang:

What's disgusting about it?

The Bible is Infallible. That means that this version is automatically 100% true. :)

this disgusts me..
to make the bible accepting of homosexual ways is completely against the bibles teachings..

i understand wanting to put it in understandable language but thats why there are so many different translations..
NOT revisions..

i like the NIV and the NKJ as well as the New Living Translation and the Message which are all quite clear..

this is a disrespect to the christian church..
:headbang:

1. I suggest doing a little more research on those "transaltions". There's a lots of stuff removed or added, stuff that makes a MASSIVE difference to the stories.

2. The Bible IS accepting of homosexuality. The passages that are supposedly against it are often wrongly interpreted.