I have another question . . . "Good as New" Bible . .

[thereselittleflower]

First, I want to clarify, this is not a thread to attack the ECUSA, but to seek clarifcation on something.

I believe the best way to understand an issue is to go directly to the group involved, rather than take my understanding from those outside.

So, my desire is to understand . . and I hope that those who respond to this thread will do so charitably. :)


I just became aware of a new bible translation hailed by the Archbishop of Cantebury, Dr. Rowan Williams hailed as a book of extraordinary power, with hopes that it would spread 'in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike' .

The bible translation is called "Good as New"tranlsated by John Henson of the "One" corporation.

Examples of translated passages I have read are really concerning to me.


Can you all help me understand the position of the Episcopal/Anglican Church on this and what your personal thoughts are?


Thanks. :)



Peace in Him!

[julian the apostate]

what passage bothers you?

[pmcleanj]

This was fairly copiously discussed in this forum when "Good as New" was in news. In particular see posts 4 and 5 of the previous thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t711876-radical-new-translation-makes-bible-accessible-to-unchurched.html

It's also a good example of a non-Anglican coming into our forum and using a blown-out-of-proportion contraversy as a jumping-off point to malign our institutions. Please take a care, in re-opening the thread, to avoid toes that have already been stepped on quite enough.

[thereselittleflower]

This was fairly copiously discussed in this forum when "Good as New" was in news. In particular see posts 4 and 5 of the previous thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t711876-radical-new-translation-makes-bible-accessible-to-unchurched.html

It's also a good example of a non-Anglican coming into our forum and using a blown-out-of-proportion contraversy as a jumping-off point to malign our institutions. Please take a care, in re-opening the thread, to avoid toes that have already been stepped on quite enough.
I think I would have better off not reading that thread actually . . . :(

It also seems to me that the topic I brought up was not really discussed at all as you suggested above, but a different issue derailed the thread altogether . . .


I would really appreciate knowing where everything stands now with this translation and the ECUSA and Anglican Church(es).

:)


Thanks!


Peace in Him1

[thereselittleflower]

what passage bothers you?
Well, the ones I am familiar with:


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!"


Peace in Him!

[pmcleanj]

I would really appreciate knowing where everything stands now with this translation and the ECUSA and Anglican Church(es).

Well, if that's all, it's simple.

The translation wasn't published by ECUSA or any other province of the Anglican Church. It isn't authorized for use in public liturgies in ECUSA or any other province of the Anglican Church.

Anglican bishops don't, in general, define what translations their flock may or may not read, although they do frequently enter into dialogue regarding the strengths and weaknesses of different translations. This translation has been the subject of some such dialogue, some of which was quoted by ++Rowan.

The Archbishop of Cantebury's expressing an opinion about the advantages of a particular translation is a personal opinion, to be understood in the light of the particular situation in which he sees those advantages manifesting. To learn more of his opinion, and what situations those would be, you would need to enter into correspondence with him. I haven't heard any additional opinions from him since the initial release of the translation, and I haven't seen the translation being actively promoted anywhere.

[thereselittleflower]

Well, if that's all, it's simple.

The translation wasn't published by ECUSA or any other province of the Anglican Church. It isn't authorized for use in public liturgies in ECUSA or any other province of the Anglican Church.

Anglican bishops don't, in general, define what translations their flock may or may not read, although they do frequently enter into dialogue regarding the strengths and weaknesses of different translations. This translation has been the subject of some such dialogue, some of which was quoted by ++Rowan.

The Archbishop of Cantebury's expressing an opinion about the advantages of a particular translation is a personal opinion, to be understood in the light of the particular situation in which he sees those advantages manifesting. To learn more of his opinion, and what situations those would be, you would need to enter into correspondence with him. I haven't heard any additional opinions from him since the initial release of the translation, and I haven't seen the translation being actively promoted anywhere.
Hi pmcleanj

Thank you very much for your answer. It is much appreciated. :)



Peace in Him!

[seebs]

I don't wish to debate, but I have a story I think might be relevant.

I once saw a production of The Magic Flute at Theatre de la Jeune Lune.

Their notion is that the original opera was full of cultural references unique to the time period in which it was produced, and that, to properly understand it, you needed to see it adapted.

So they adapted it.

Their adaptation involved a few subtle changes. For instance, one guy with a very funny fake Italian accent, who quoted Yogi Berra a lot. Papageno was a lightbulb changer, and actually changed lightbulbs in the theatre during the performance. Some songs were in German, some in English, some in Italian. Various plot devices were altered and changed.

Was it The Magic Flute? Undeniably. Was it an "accurate" translation? No. Did it make it easier to understand the underlying messages? Yes. Did it leave you with a clear and accurate understanding of the original plot? No.

I would recommend this production highly... But not to someone seeking the historical piece. I would recommend it to someone who had already seen that, and wanted to get a better sense of the feel for it, but who would recognize that this was an adaption, not the original work.

[AveMaria]

seebs, that sounds like a really interesting adaptation of the Magic Flute! I wish I could have seen it.


As far as the "Good as New", I haven't had the chance to get my hands on a copy yet, but I would like to. All I've seen are those few passages that were quoted earlier, I believe, in this thread.

[thejesusfish90]

hmmm... this sounds like another new bible that has come out recently called "the message"... I reckon its a good thing and a bad thing... It obviously makes the gospel more accesible and understandable for the masses.. though reading through a friends copy it does all the interpreting for you... so it really only gives you the translators interpretation of the original scriptures which can get messy when the people actually realise that there can be more than one meaning to the passages they were so sure about in their message bible... lol... just out of interest have any of you guys seen or heard of the Aussie Bible?.... lol, heres a sample of some of it... the real, fair dinkum, ridgie diggie, dinky die, Aussie Bible...
http://www.theaussiebible.com.au/samplechapters.html

you might need this to help you....
http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html

Enjoy!!

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

[ahab]

I think the problem is that Rowan Williams has commented favourably on this work and so it reflects on the Anglican Communion.

Sadly from what I have read so far (we already contemporary relevant versions like the message and the amplified) it seems to have an agenda. IMO the issue is summed up by the One Translation themselves in that they say traditional Christianity may have been a barrier to an appreciation of Jesus. I believe they amy well have changed the message of Jesus to remove the barrier. I personally think that to endorse this Rowan Williams has made a dreadful mistake. Dreadful.

[AveMaria]

On the other side, I think some people jump to condemn anything endorsed by ECUSA or Dr. Williams.

*shrug* To each their own - it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,

On the other side, I think some people jump to condemn anything endorsed by ECUSA or Dr. Williams. :scratch: Well they might do, but some may just try and endorse it because they dont like the message of the gospel. The point being, is there any reasoning why.