St Paul urges more copulation for couples in sexed-up Bible

[emad]

Snip from The Times

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent


THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has given his personal backing to a new translation of the New Testament in which St Paul’s notorious condemnations of gay sex are deleted and Christians are told to go out and have more sex.

Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and “abusers of themselves with mankind”, the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get “frustrated”.

The translation appears to contradict the authorised King James version which, in a passage in I Corinthians vii, often used to back the celibacy requirement in the Roman Catholic priesthood, quotes St Paul saying: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

The new version, which Dr Williams says he hopes will spread “in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike”, turns St Paul’s strictures against fornication on their head.

More:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1154890,00.html


I particularly like:

"St Paul’s words now are: “Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from one another.

“I think that is more likely to lead to sexual offences.

“My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner. Husbands and wives should strive to meet each other’s sexual needs. They should submit to one another for that purpose. It’s not good to refuse a partner.” "

NB This is not a story from The Spoof.....


If you can't access the link without paying Newscorp some fatuous fee to read the rest of this, post me.

[ze_dscherman]

1. Access

Try http://www.bugmenot.com

[hightime]

9. queenclinton and hillaryisaliar???

At http://www.bugmenot.com in the faq section there are 2 tutorials. In tutorial #2 the username is queenclinton and the passwoard is hillaryisaliar.

While I have no evidence of any evil intent at this site, it makes me suspicious of entering or using the site.

Just a heads up.

[checks-n-balances]

13. Thanks, but it didn't work for me with a simplified version of that websit

eom

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Sorry, it's a pay site

Is it owned by Rupert Murdoch, by any chance?

--bkl

[emad]

3. "I'm a subscriber"......

The translation also changes the original Greek and Hebrew nomenclature into modern nicknames. St Peter becomes “Rocky”, Mary Magdalen becomes “Maggie”, Aaron becomes “Ron”, Andronicus becomes “Andy” and Barabbas becomes “Barry”. In other passages the translator John Henson, a retired Baptist minister, renders “demon possession” as “mental illness” and “Son of Man”, the phrase used frequently to refer to Jesus, as “the Complete Person”. Parables become “riddles” and to baptise is now to “dip” in water. Salvation becomes “healing” or “completeness” and Heaven becomes “the world beyond time and space.”

Mr Henson is the translation co-ordinator for ONE, a network of radical Christians that was one of the first organisations in Britain to make the case for “inclusive language”, in a 1981 pamphlet Bad Language in Church. In his foreword to the new version of the New Testament, which also includes the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Dr Williams describes it as a work of “extraordinary power” because it is “so close to the prose and poetry of ordinary life”. He writes: “Instead of being taken into a specialised religious frame of reference — as happens even with the most conscientious of formal modern translations — and being given a gospel addressed to specialised concerns . . . we have here a vehicle for thinking and worshipping that is fully earthed, recognisably about our humanity.” Dr Williams is himself not known for his use of accessible language, and has been criticised recently for his use of obtuse and arcane theological phrases. In his foreword however, he praises Mr Henson’s translation for screening out “the stale, the technical, the unconsciously exclusive words and policies”.


DIPPING INTO A NEW TRANSLATION

Mark 1:4

Authorised version: “John did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”


New: “John, nicknamed ‘The Dipper’, was ‘The Voice’. He was in the desert, inviting people to be dipped, to show they were determined to change their ways and wanted to be forgiven.”


Mark 1:10-11

Authorised version: “And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from the heaven saying, Thou are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”


New: As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God’s spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, ‘That’s my boy! You’re doing fine!’ ”

Matthew 23:25

Authorised version: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”

New version: “Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!

Matthew 26:69-70

Authorised version: “Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, ‘Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.’ But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest”.


New: Meanwhile Rocky was still sitting in the courtyard. A woman came up to him and said: “Haven’t I seen you with Jesus, the hero from Galilee?” Rocky shook his head and said: “I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!”

[Tracer]

4. Yikes!

This translation, by itself, is a sin and an abomination!! : >{

[Ripley]

5. One more example of their hypocrisy.

How can you encourage everyone to have sexual relations so as not to be "frustrated", yet tell priests they must remain celibate?

And since they're against birth control, what is the plan? Sounds like they want people to hump and breed like rabbits. Where does that leave women? Pregnant all the time? Nice.

[ithacan]

10. ummmm.

I think you've totally missed the point.

The purpose of the new translation seems to be to point out that these things that are taken as part of teh bible are in fact only one interpretation. This new translation opens the door to a very different way of seeing these things, based on the "Word of God" itself.

[Ripley]

12. So are they removing the celibacy clause?

Are they allowing women to control their reproductive rights?

[hightime]

14. I think the confusion is caused by who "they" are.

Who put out the translation? As for the endorsement from the Archbishop, do a google on him and you will find that he is controversial to say the least.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Reread the original post

This is the Anglican church, not the Roman Catholic church.

Anglicans (i.e. known as Episcopalians in the U.S.) have always permitted priests to marry, and if they were ever against birth control, it was so long ago that the question is irrelevant to the Anglican community.

There are priests, monks, and nuns in Anglicanism who have taken vows of celibacy, but it's completely optional.

[Ripley]

20. Thanks for the clarification.

I misunderstood.

[forgethell]

17. I think that you are confusing

the Anglicans with the Roman Catholics. One church cannot be condemned for hypocrisy because of another church's beliefs. Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury is, if I remember correctly, a fairly progressive guy.

[Wednesdays]

21. Just to be clear...

>>How can you encourage everyone to have sexual relations so as not to be "frustrated", yet tell priests they must remain celibate?

And since they're against birth control, what is the plan?<<

The article above refers to the Anglican Church, which allows priests to marry, and which also permits use of birth control.

[Ripley]

22. Yes, I see my error..noted in above response.

Thanks, my oops. Sorry to all.

[Wink]

6. Ain't religion great.

The source of so much pain (and yes, even some happiness and help) throughout the world. It's too bad the source of all this suffering can be linked back to fables and spooky stories intended to keep the populace in control by the church and/or political groups.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. "fables and spooky stories "

That statement dismisses you from any consideration for having useful thoughts on the subject.

[struggle4progress]

37. "From ghoulies and ghosties and fierce little beasties ...

... and things that go bump in the night .. deliver us"

[BiggJawn]

38. How about "Myths"?

Remember-a "Myth" is not a bad thing.

[supernova]

39. How about "Narrative"?

That leaves the interpretation of the meaning of the text to the individual.

The word "Myths", while it can have certain positive instructive qualities, still connotes "untruth."

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. It's a mixture of both

For instance, it's hard to accept the story of Noah (water covering the whole world, living to over nine hundred) as anything other than 'fable' or 'myth'. The story of King David, on the other hand, does qualify as 'narrative'.

[carpediem]

7. does this version have a name?

Just curious if it mentions a name or if it is published yet?

[emad]

8. Not named in the link.

No pre-publicity blurb

[Solly Mack]

11. Nothing like adaptable scripture.......eh?

lolololol

[Merlin]

15. This is fairly consistent with Paul's teachings.

Paul said it was preferable to remain single. But he cautioned only a tiny handful of people have the discipline to remain celibate.

That being the case, he said "it is better to marry than to burn (e.g. in hell for adultery)."

Paul was of course the true founder of Christianity. He was a brilliant and extraordinarily dedicated promoter, though he never even met Jesus. Unfortunately he also inflated many of his own ideas into parts of the Jesus mythology, such as the last supper, and the body and blood eucharist. Still, Paul remains one of the most significant men in all of history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. Or to "burn" with

unsatisfied passion. That's another interpretation I've seen.

[On the Road]

23. I Agree With Your Transalation

that "burn" refers to burning in hell rather than burning with sexual frustration. Paul was celibate and undoubetdly suffered sexual frustration. He wanted others to do the same as long as they didn't go to hell by faltering.

[Romulus Quirinus]

27. I dunno, could go either way.

Passion was often equated with burning in the ancient world. A good example that comes to mind is the description of Dido's passion for Aeneas in the Aeneid.

I don't see what authority they have to just go and take things out of the Bible, though. I mean, one might be able to justify adding or subtracting books based on how much stock one puts into the council of Nicea, but to change the content of individual books is bad, bad stuff.

[struggle4progress]

29. Are they "changing the content" or simply offering new translation?

Michaelangelo's Moses has horns, y'know, based on an early mistranslation.

[On the Road]

30. It's Supposed to be a Paraphrase

and from that point I understand what they're trying to do.

The translators believe their version is what Paul meant. The particular passage, though, has been hotly debated for centuries, and the paraphrase conceals the issue and doesn't let people make up their own minds.

And thanks for the reference to the Aeneid. Hadn't seen that one. Might have to change my mind on Corinthians.

[Toucano]

18. Now I'm a BELIEVER! n/t

[Demeter]

24. Oh, God, I'm Such a Sinner

TEN YEARS and counting---not that anyone's asked, or that my kids would allow me the time and energy to do anything about it, let alone trying to keep head above bills, watching the country disintegrate before my eyes, etc.

[struggle4progress]

25. These colloquial modernizations appear from time to time.

"The Cottonpatch Gospel" was popular about forty years ago.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. Remember "The Way"?

It was a hip fundamentalist version of the New Testament for "Jesus Freaks" in the early 1970s.

Although it was pretty theologically faithful to the fundamentalist protestant point of view, it was denounced as being sinful.

--bkl

[struggle4progress]

31. I must admit I studiously avoided Jesus Freaks in the 1970s.

[struggle4progress]

26. Radical new translation makes Bible accessible to unchurched

A radical translation of the New Testament released with the personal backing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and aimed at the those disillusioned with institutional religion, has been met by the mainstream media with a focus on a small number of biblical passages that relate to sexual ethics.

The ONE translation aims at a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the early Christian scriptures. It is designed both for mature Christians and for those who have limited experience of traditional Christianity or "may have found it a barrier to an appreciation of Jesus".

But in its reporting the new translation, press and radio commentary has focused on translations of the small number of passages that refer to sexual matters....
<snip>
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_040623.shtml


THE BELOVED DISCIPLE (The Gospel of John chapter 12, verses 1-7)

We were fast getting the reputation of being a weird family. I still had fits of depression when my behaviour followed very strange patterns. I had a dread of tombs and wouldn't go near them. I upset several neighbours because I couldn't bring myself to attend the funerals of family members. I still missed Jesus when he had to be away for long periods of time. But he did relax his orders confining me to base ....
http://one.gn.apc.org/PastFolder.htm

[Merlin]

32. Wow! Thank you for the link to ONE. Very impressive.

I applaud their modernized expansion on the original gospels. But I'm also reminded that this is exactly what the original gospel writers did to the legends handed down to them about Jesus.

Also, it's a bit disconcerting to read it suggesting that John, the gospel writer, was actually an apostle who knew Jesus. Not so, since "John" was not written until the '90s.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. It's a fairly standard thing to say it was the apostle John

and I think it's the official position of the Roman Catholics, although many dispute it, because of dates, eg

The Gospel of John differs markedly from the other three books both in tone and in some historical details. John does not follow the timeline in the other three and adds quite a few stories and details not found in them. For this reason, it's thought that John's gospel was not a child of Q, but a completely original work either by someone who knew Jesus directly or by one of his associates. The three letters of John found near the end of the New Testament are generally assumed to have been written by this same individual.

The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.

William Barclay gives us an elegant answer. He states outright that even if John was not the direct author of the book, it was at least written under his authority. The book likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances from John's fading memories, and it was they who described John as the disciple Jesus loved.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html (quite an interesting series of articles on who may have written the books of the bible, and when)

The date of "the 90s" doesn't make it impossible for it to be an apostle, anyway - say John was born in 5 AD, then he'd be around 90 then. Not impossible, though unlikely.

[struggle4progress]

34. On the other hand, the commentary in my copy of ...

... The New Jerusalem Bible (which at least follows the catholic canon) argues that the Gospel of John is, even if traceable to one of the apostles, nevertheless a highly modified text.

[supernova]

36. Hey, this is a bible I want to read

:D

I state clearly that I've always had Paul issues. His percieved strictures on sex and on women chap my ass. Even if he did say, it chaps my ass even more that down through these 20 Centuries men have felt compelled to slavishly follow this nonsense, at the expense of real understanding, IMO.

Perhaps I've been mistaken and it's the inadequate translations of Paul with which I've had problems. I'm willing to consider it.

This translation, despite all the chummy language, seems to support that view. I do think "the Bible" and "the Church" have become unnecessarily formal. At times it is rather off-putting as I don't really get that impression when musing about/communing with God. That connection is intimate and informal as can be for me.

[Kinkistyle]

41. The Jefferson Bible: Compile by the One and Only.

Thomas Jefferson's, arguably our country's most intelligent president, version of the Bible should be the one used by the Church.

It basically drops all the miracles and hokey crap and sticks to Jesus's teachings of love and morality. The way Christianity was really meant to be taught: loving thy neighbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

The Jefferson Bible was an attempt to harmonize the gospels. All references to the Deity of Christ are deleted. The virgin birth of Christ, His genealogy, miracles and claims of Divine Sonship are gone. One of the few things left are the parables.

According to Jefferson, when Jesus left the man who had been blind since birth (John 9) the man was still blind, Malchus was left with his ear cut off and Lazarus was left rotting in the tomb.

In The Jefferson Bible, you will find no reference to Christ fulfilling prophesy, or the Spirit of the Lord being upon Him. Nor will you find the victory of Christ over the temptations which Satan placed in His way.

Jefferson's Bible abruptly ends with these words: "Now, in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

[emad]

42. It's all a load of bollox because John the Baptist was the one

who got crucified and the rest of the story is all Judaeo-Roman revisionist crap. The biggest con trick ever sold on planet earth has been the "Jesus died on the cross" story and the biggest cover up of historical and archaeological documents/artefacts has always hidden the evidence about John the B.

No matter what new "translations" they come up with, they are all irrelevant until they get their act together and admit the lying.