389
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 14:33, December 23, 2009
, 14:33, December 23, 2009→==
::I do not think Mark left an abrupt ending, and better to include such, and then put a note. In fact, I still hold to my assertion that outside updating words, no real revision is necessary. The KJV does not produce liberals, though cults use it for its power, and providing sound conservative commentary is far far better than a "thought for thought" translation which does a substantial amount of revision, largely driven to prevent attempts by liberals to hijack the text.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:56, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
::I do not think Mark left an abrupt ending, and better to include such, and then put a note. In fact, I still hold to my assertion that outside updating words, no real revision is necessary. The KJV does not produce liberals, though cults use it for its power, and providing sound conservative commentary is far far better than a "thought for thought" translation which does a substantial amount of revision, largely driven to prevent attempts by liberals to hijack the text.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:56, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
:::I was concerned when I saw this edit, but took the time to read the full commentary above as well as the referenced online analysis/debates before commenting here. As a non-scholar but someone who takes the teaching of Jesus to heart, it troubles me to see Jesus' plea for forgiveness completely stricken from this Gospel, when it could have been left in brackets and annotated. I'm not saying this out of an unwillingness to consider that it ''could'' be inauthentic, but because I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it is inauthentic. You would not convict a man of a crime while reasonable doubt remains, and to purge a statement attributed to Jesus Himself from a Gospel when there remains reasonable doubt for doing so is the kind of act that Christians are warned against in other parts of the New Testament.
:::My reasons for still having doubt are straightforward:
:::*I have not found in any of the referenced articles or the debate above an alternate explanation for how Isaiah 53:12 would have been fulfilled. Much of the validity of the Bible comes from how the life of Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy, "closing the loop" as it were. Removing this statement breaks one of these important connections unless another reference can be found that is equal or better to the passage in Luke.
:::*The argument that something could be invalid because it is mentioned in one Gospel but not in others should not be used to invalidate it. When I was a young Catechist, my teacher explained why there were four distinct Gospels and not just one "biography of Jesus" by explaining that these were the accounts of different witnesses each describing the same story in their own way. The next week, she showed us a filmstrip about Jesus and afterward asked each of us to write what happened. As you can guess, each of us missed details that others caught, and sometimes we used very different words to describe the same things. The teacher's point is that the story still happened as it did no matter how each of us described it later, and that's what the Gospels are like. As I write this, I also realized that while there were many different recaps, no one added anything to the story that wasn't there in the filmstrip.
:::*The Bible is full of accounts where mankind, as opposed to individual men, is regarded child-like in terms of our capacity to live up to God's standards. Jesus was sent on behalf of all mankind, not just the individuals who saw him for who He was, but also for those who didn't. When I read the "Father forgive them" statement, I've always thought of the word "them" as referring to ''mankind'' and its inherent immaturity regarding God, and not just the people on the scene. That's just my personal observation, but it's as valid as any of the other opinions I've seen expressed here.
:::*What is the harm in leaving the statement in place with brackets, and then annotating it? This allows for the full ability to comment on why it may not be considered authentic without opening the door to criticisms of censorship or ideological "spinning" of the Bible. Engaging people to read & think about the Bible themselves, and research their questions regarding it with guidance is a much better approach than telling them to simply accept the conclusions you've reached on their behalf.
:::I guess this goes to my biggest concern about this project, so I'll get it out of my system here. I like the KJV, and find the prose beautiful even if it can be archaic at times. When I first heard of this project, I was surprised at the degree to which people were willing to change Biblical text and still call it "The Bible", but that is the nature of the Bible, after all. The Old Testament found in a synagogue would not be the same as the one in the Bible of my church, so we have to decide for ourselves what version(s) to use as a guide in our lives.
:::I would liked to have seen this project be more of a "Conservative's Annotated Bible", which would be a great counterpoint to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, rather than a re-translation of the Word of God itself. That's why I won't make any edits to the content pages itself other than the cleanup of obvious spelling and/or grammar errors. If these actions or my input above is unwelcome then tell me and I'll move on, but I want to try and represent the views of someone who sees himself as a conservative even if they don't line up with the mainstream here. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)
== Earthly ==
== Earthly ==