Politcally Correct Christ

There have been a number of subtle attacks on the divinity of Christ throughout the ages, however, in recent times it seems that the best way to undermine Jesus is just to invent ones' own cushy version of the Bible. Few instances better illustrate the point than a recent translation offered by the Oxford University Press's release of a "culturally sensitive" version of the Bible. This comes to me from a back issue of "Neewsweek," that cleverly quips such poignant comments as:"Readers who find the Bible sexist, racist, elitist and insensitive to the physically challened, take heart. Oxford University Press's new "inclusive language version" of the New Testament and Pslams has cleaned up God's act. In this version, God is no longer "Father" and Jesus is no longer the "Son." The hierarchical title of "Lord" is excised as an archaic wy to address God. Nor does God (male pronouns for the deity have been abolished) rulle a "kingdom"; as the editors explain, the word has a "blatant androcentric and patriachal character." Even God's "right hand" has been amputated in deference to the left-handed. Some examples:

​

In the majestic opening of John's Gospel, "the glory he has from the Father as the only Son of the Father becomes "the glory as of a parents only child." (John 1:14)

​

The Lord's Prayer now begins like this: "Father-Mother, hallowed be your name. May your dominion come." (Luke 11:2)

​

Jesus' own self-understanding as God's only son is generalized to: "No one knows the Child except the Father-Mother; and no one knows the Father-Mother except the Child." (Matthew 11:27

​

Avoiding another traditional phrase, "Son of Man," the Oxford text reads: "Then they will see 'the Human One' coming out of the clouds with great power and glory." (Mark 13:26) -Kenneth L. Woodward, "Religion: God Gets the Ho-Ho," Newsweek, Sept 11, 1995

​

The editors don't claim that Jesus spoke in a gender-neutral language, but they obviously feel as though He should. You know, one is tempted to ask the Oxford University Press if they would dare tamper with or so implicitly demean the Qur'an in this way. Perhaps they know they only backlash they will recieve with Christians is a stern talking to as opposed to some of the more color actions taken by certain Muslims.

​

Does anyone think that it is appropriate to change the meaning of the text in order to be 'sensitive' to the readers feelings or should anyone wanting to read the Bible take it for its face value?

​

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think these days people tend to view everything in light of insane streaching of PC and inclusiveness. some sensitivity is good but this new bible is insanityeven though i am not a christian, i agree with you, this is stupid and ruins the whole idea of christian beliefs.I mean son of man to the human one? or changing john 1:14, thats just scary to do this, it undermines the authors views of god and jesus
now thats a new one father-mother? who says that? only ratical feminists seem to call god herchanging everything in the bible not to offend some people is just silly when the bible is an archaic text with lots of stuff we view as sexist and wrong, but to butcher it because you don't like it is just blasphemy!
i consider this along with anyone chopping up and reinterperating any ancient texts, that includes the way creationists do this as wellthats just to point out imo that rewriting a text to fit agendas they don't inspouse is just wrong in any cases

The Inclusive New Testament was published over a decade ago (and your reviews are from about the same time) so 'recent' is a little loose (unless we mean 'compared with the original manuscripts').Oxford Press didn't write or translate the work, they just published it (according to your sources, though I can't find any confirmation of it). Would they publish a similar translation of the Qur'an? I don't know. Somebody kinda has. Of course, it depends if the meaning of the text is necessarily changed. And that depends on what the individual feels is the meaning of the text.

I don't see where any of the examples "change the meaning of the text", let alone attack the divinity of Christ.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, the trend is certainly nothing new. The Tyndale, Wycliffe, Cromwell, Bishops and Geneva Bibles were all translated to be politically correct with a bias towards Protestant positions and both the Douay and King James Versions of the Bible were created to be both politically correct and to try to 'correct' the perceived problems of the earlier one.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I had thought you were a political conservative. Surely, this is just an example of the creativity of the market.

Sure. Its a free country, and perhaps many people would actually prefer the newer version. The Bible is just a book---its not an object of worship. Personally, I have no use for (the all inclusive translation), but interpretations of anything are poetic license. The more that the fundies get up in arms over it, the more copies it will sell! Edited by Phat, : clarification

---

“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” --C.S.Lewis

I agree on both parts. Yes, I think everyone needs to make a concerted effort to understand different cultures and to learn the views taken by people's all over the world. There is much benefit in that. However, any text that claims holiness, including but not limited to, the Bible, the Vedas, the Qur'an, any teaching by Buddha, etc, should be exempt from tampering. Its sacrilege no matter how you spin it. The Word means what it says and says what it means. But this push in the West for sensitivity training has been going on now for a good 15 years steadily. Yeah, I know you think Christianity is archaic and looking from the outside in I understand your view, perhaps more than some atheist/agnostics could ever believe, but yes, this is a bit much. Well, the Divinci Code spins the yarn that the early Church was out to eradicate the matriarchal notion of female pagan deities so that it could institute its own patriarchal rule. This, of course, is pushing the boundaries of reality because the Tanakh (Old Test) came thousands of years before and so ascribes male attributes to Yahweh long before there ever was anything known as a 'Church.' But its been said that the Shekina glory of God expresses feminine attributes. I don't ascribe to an athropomorphic God, however, changing the text is just, no. Well, that's just it. If someone wants to view the Bible as sexist or misogynistic or whatever other denunciations they feel are expressed within the text, then simply don't believe in it. But to change the Word in an attempt, I guess, to trick people into liking it better is something demeaning to the atheists who don't like it for a reason. I believe in miracels. The miracle in this case is that the translators hands were not at once palsied for their blasphemy.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Of course you don't! You believe that an individual has a right and a duty to interpret anything according to our own mind and reasoning capability.You put the word FUN back in FUNdamental! Upon examing the text, I dont see how it changes the God whom I know in my heart. It may very well help some people to open up to God in unique and new ways.As Jar says, the book is a map---directions how to understand God and how to open up to receive God. The book is not an idol.I still get irked when people call God a "she" though! Im such a chauvenist Pig!Edited by Phat, : kept jar from being misquoted

---

“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” --C.S.Lewis

Yeah, I realized that this issue of Newsweek is 11 years old, so that obviosuly negates the Inclusive NT being new as well. I shouldn't have said the 'recent' translation. If an entire country can be firebombed over one man's cartoons, something tells me that whoever would dare to alter the Qur'an would looking down the barrel of a horde of angry Muslims. Nobody would be so bold. That was my point. Only the Word of YHWH is considered refuse. You think Father means Father-Mother and you think the Son of Man means the Human One? There is no interpretation of the actual words that comes out of someone's mouth. You can interpret the underscores and overtones of their words, but not the word's the themselves. If Jesus literally said, "Father, I praise You for you have hidden these from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children," then that's what He said. That's what a quote is. Now, if you wantd to interpret that in some bizarre way, that's on the reader, but don't misquote someone because it might hurt somebodies feelings. No one seems to care if its insensitive to have spoofs about Jesus. Such a dichotomy. Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

One point to keep in mind, however.IF Jesus is Divine, nothing that anyone ever says or writes will ever change that fact. This brings up an interesting side debate. How do we know which version of the Bible is actually the true Holy one? I use the NIV a lot, yet have read critiques on it from various authors. Some of the more conservative Christians maintain the KJV as the only accurate Bible. I highly doubt that God expects us to be experts in Greek and Hebrew in order to understand what it was that we were meant to know. Gotta look this up! and of course a fundamentalist would trot out this scripture:
2 Tim 3:16-17-- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (from New International Version)What does that translate to in the Inclusive Bible?

Did you have a big bitch-fit when they translated the Bible into Latin, or into English? Don't you think they used their own judgement then, as well, in regards to the final wording used in the text?Or did you think that translation was just something you could do with a dictionary and some magic marker?It's just another translation. King James had it translated into the English spoken in his time, this isn't any different. Nobody's gonna force you to read it, and somehow, I suspect that this Bible isn't going to make Christians hate gays and atheists any less, or whatever apocalyptic consequences of tolerance you're quaking in your boots about.

Be assured - I was aware of your point when I responded to it. Would you rather a horde of gun toting Christians rebelled against it, killing and murdering people?The word of YHWH is not considered refuse (by the priests that made the translation). The nature of that word is just being understood differently than you understand it - and these priests are part of a religion and culture which allows them to express their ideas about their religion freely and openly. This is a good thing.They are not damaging the Holy Bible, your favourite translation/the original is not being burned or banned by this action and is freely accessable to anybody that asks. I didn't say they were accurately quoting the words somebody used. In their opinion the important meaning is not changed but certain connotations have been removed. Father does not mean Father-Mother, but the meaning of the phrase has not substantially changed in either case. I'd imagine from their point of view it isn't important that God is referred to as a male pronoun or that Jesus was male. The important thing is that God adopts a parental role to us and loves as children and Christ's sacrifice for salvation. Do you care?

Besides being off topic, this is a hasty generalization. Are ALL Muslims terrorists? No. Neither are ALL Christians haters. Lets keep personal jibes to a minimum.We now return to our regularly scheduled topic! One point of view says that anything ever written or discussed is open to personal interpretation.Another point of view says that certain beliefs by definition are written in stone. Like the idea that Jesus was a man and not a woman.As for God, we know no gender, unless a person ascribes to the belief that Jesus is God. In that case, God took on a human male form in order to relate to people at one point in time. The other side of that debate, however, would say that God (If God exists) has interacted with humanity in many forms, many cultures and many religions throughout History. (or is it Herstory?)