Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Carry nation

2009-12-17T22:42:01Z

AdeleM: Redirected page to Carry A. Nation

#REDIRECT [[Carry A. Nation]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2009-12-17T22:29:54Z

AdeleM: /* "One man, one woman" God-given? */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Pinot noir

2009-12-17T22:19:15Z

AdeleM: Removed a *big* chunk of parody.

'''Pinot noir''' is the preeminent red [[grape]] variety in many of the world’s finest [[wine]] growing regions, such as the [[Pacific Northwest]] of the [[United States]]; Burgundy and Champagne, in [[France]]; Kent, in England.

In Burgundy, Pinot noir makes some of the most highly regarded red wines anywhere on Earth, but many experts believe that, as Pinot noir tends to produce its best wines in areas of lower [[temperature]]s, various regions further north may well eclipse the famous vineyards of the Cote d’Or in the very near future.

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

British Empire

2009-12-17T22:00:18Z

AdeleM: Kept fact about land mass and provided reference

[[Image:BritishEmpire1921.png|thumb|right|350px|The world in 1921, with British Empire shown in pink]]

The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (or, from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called "Great Britain" or "Britain" in historical studies). After 1945 the Empire collapsed and most former colonies joined the loosely organized "British Commonwealth," and many--including Canada and Australia--kept the monarch as their nominal head of state.

At its peak in 1921, the Empire contained a quarter of the world's land area (with emphasis on Australia and Canada) and more than a fourth of the world's population (with emphasis on India). Imperialists often boasted, "The sun never set on the British Empire," for it included parts of every continent. The Empire was held together by a highly professional bureaucracy based in London, and by the world's most powerful navy, the Royal Navy, which enlarged its power by creating naval bases and coaling stations in many of the colonies. It was the largest seaborne empire in history, and the second largest in terms of land area (the Mongol Empire being the largest). <ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_largest_empire_in_history</ref>
==History==
Its origins can be dated to the English discovery of [[Newfoundland]] in 1493, and its voluntary end began in 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), and peaked in the 1960s (when Britain withdrew from most of its remaining colonies). The last stages came as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule).

The European powers after 1500 had national governments with centralized military and navy power, financial resources, religious impulses and military technology. Some of them--Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands especially, wanted overseas colonies to bolster their economic, religious and political ambitions, and provide an outlet for the energies of ambitious young men. England (Britain after 1703) was the most successful because it resisted the ambitions of Spain and, in a series of wars in the 18th century, defeated France in North America and India.

In the long-run, the success of the British Empire depended on an economic system that had stable money and encouraged trade and entrepreneurship, a strong navy that guaranteed protection for all the colonies (none was ever captured by an enemy), and a legal system that was stable, fair and lacking in petty corruption or bribery.

==Settlement==
Millions of Britons migrated and settled some of the Empire--especially the [[Colonial America|13 American colonies]], Canada (and Newfoundland), Australia, New Zealand and (in part), South Africa. Some settlers came as prisoners, especially to Australia. Others came as slaves, especially to the West Indies and the 13 American colonies.
[[Image:B-Emp-1763.jpg|thumb|375px]]

In the rest of the Empire Britain sent in soldiers, administrators, businessmen and missionaries on temporary duty, as in India and Africa, along with a relatively small number of permanent settlers.
===First efforts, 1497-1640===
Portugal and Spain built the first empires, based on the wealth of Brazil and Mexico and Peru. England was allied with Portugal, but was a foe of Spain, a much larger country with a stronger navy in the century after Columbus. The English responded as predators, raiding and seizing Spanish ships, under the cover of "privateering" authorized by the government. Spain in 1588 sent a major fleet (the Armada) to conquer England, but it was destroyed by storms, and Spain lost her superiority at sea. England set out small expeditions to claim land (such as [[Newfoundland]], settled in 1610) and set up bases to raid the Spanish main. Most of the early efforts were of small scale, and failed, such as the "Lost Colony of Roanoke" (1585-87), where a hundred settlers in North Carolina simply vanished. The Scots (independently of England), attempted a vast colony in Darien, the Panama region of Central America; it was a total failure.
===13 American colonies===
The small settlement at [[Jamestown]] miraculously survived and once the value of native tobacco was appreciated it became the nucleus for the highly successful colony of [[Virginia]]. In 1619 the Virginians set up an elected legislative assembly, the house of burgesses, which is now the state legislature. It was the first distinctively American local government and became the model for other colonies. Religion motivated some 30,000 [[Puritans]], a community-oriented, modernizing group that settled Massachusetts and Connecticut in the 1630s, and created the [[Yankee]] model of being American.

The main colonies were created by the English, but one was captured. The English captured the Dutch colony of [[New Amsterdam]] in 1664 and renamed it New York; the Dutch settlers remained and the rich poltroons had huge estates along the Hudson River.

Each of the 13 American colonies was different, but typically a colony was ruled by a governor appointed from London who controlled the executive administration and relied upon a locally elected legislature to vote taxes and make laws. By the 18th century, the American colonies were growing very rapidly because of ample supplies of land and food, and low death rates. They were richer than most parts of Britain, and attracted a steady flow of immigrants, especially teenagers who came as indentured servants. The tobacco and rice plantations imported black slaves from the British colonies in the West Indies, and by the 1770s they comprised a fifth of the American population. The question of independence from Britain did not arise as long as the colonies needed British military support against French and Spanish power, for a series of major wars made welcome the protection afforded by the Royal Navy. London regarded the American colonies as existing merely for the benefit of the mother country. The Americans developed their own legal and political traditions, focused on self government with elected legislatures and in new England, elected town officials). They developed a political philosophy of [[Republicanism]] to justify their system, which had no aristocrats. The British threat to American self-government was the cause of the [[American Revolution]], where fighting lasted 1775-1781.

==Second British Empire==
[[File:Empire1815.jpg|thumb|350px|Start of the Second british Empire, 1815]]
After the loss of the American colonies in 1776, the British painstakingly rebuilt a new "Second British Empire." They kept their small but valuable slave-islands in the Caribbean (which produced sugar), grew Canada, and conquered the major part of India and nearby areas. [[Egypt]] was taken over in the 1880s, although nominally it was still part of the [[Ottoman Empire]]. Australia and New Zealand were settled, and the new cities of [[Hong Kong]] and [[Sinagpore]] were created. By the late 19th century they added much of Africa. After World War I, former German colonies were added, as well as parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, such as Palestine and Iraq.
==Economics==
After 1689 England created the world's first modern financial and banking system. The City of London, where finance was and is still based, became the financier to the world, providing short-term credit for trade and long-term credit for investment. By 1810 Britain also had its [[Industrial Revolution]], which produced a flow of high-quality low-cost, textiles, machines and other products that could be sold worldwide. As the leading force in finance and manufacturing, and as the world's dominant naval power, Britain could easily expand across the globe, and did so. In general, in Latin America and China the expansion did not involve colonies.<ref> The British set up a new colony in Hong Kong that became its base for expansion into the China market. Otherwise China remained independent. There were two small colonies on the mainland of Latin America, but they were not very important.</ref> In Africa and Asia new or enlarged colonies were the method used.

Britain's greatest exports were modernization of the economy, and fostering a cosmopolitan attitude toward government, business, law and civic duty, as opposed to local support for traditional rulers and customs. The Empire brought each colony a modern infrastructure, with new roads, railways, ports, banks, post offices and telegraph systems that any modern person could use. Cain and Hopkins (2001) argue that British imperialism was not a form of plunder that hurt the economies they took over; rather, it primarily modernized the territories it controlled.<ref> See Cain and Hopkins, ''British Imperialism'' (2001)</ref>

Imperial policy was set by London-based financial and mercantile interests. Gentlemanly capitalism was the nexus of landed, financial, and service elites that dominated politics and the economy in Britain and were the driving force behind imperial expansion. That is, "gentlemanly capitalists" in Britain set policy, while the dominions were run by a dependent and collaborating elite.<ref>Cain and Hopkins (2001); Dumett, 1999</ref>

==Culture of the Empire==
The Victorians saw themselves as the vanguard of western civilization, as pioneers of industry and progress. They were confident in their ability to improve the human condition everywhere, and of their capacity to turn potential wealth into reality. Their formula was liberalism, that is the release private enterprise from the dead hand of the state. They believed that unending social energy would flow from the interplay of free minds, free markets and Christian morality. The Victorian outlook, furthermore, was suffused with a vivid sense of moral superiority, religious mission and self-righteousness. Across the globe the Canningites and Palmerstonians worked endlessly to bring about conditions favouring commercial advance and liberal awakening. Since the 1970s, historians more attuned to the sensitivities of the colonized people have challenged the effectiveness of the imperialists.<ref> Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher with Alice Denny, ''Africa and the Victorians: The Climax of Imperialism'' (1968), pp 1-4</ref>

==1914==
In its heyday, the British Empire was the largest empire in history: by 1914, the eve of the [[First World War]], it spanned a quarter of the world's total land mass (though much of this consisted of vast, uninhabited areas of northern Canada and Australia). Its constituent parts included [[India]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], Malaya (now [[Malaysia]] and [[Singapore]]), [[South Africa]], [[Egypt]], [[Nigeria]], [[Kenya]], [[Uganda]] and [[Hong Kong]]. The saying used to be that the sun never sets on the British Empire.
==Dissolution==
The various parts of the Empire were granted independence by London (peacefully usually, sometimes otherwise) at different times. The thirteen American colonies that formed the original [[United States of America]] declared their freedom in 1776 and, with France, defeated the British in a major war. Most of [[Ireland]] went its separate way in 1922. The remaining "settler colonies" that were inhabited mainly by white people of British descent were formally granted self-government in 1931, though they had been self-governing for some years prior to that date. The remaining colonies were granted independence in the decades following the [[Second World War]], and the last remaining colony of importance, Hong Kong, left British rule in 1997 after a long lease with China expired.

Most former colonies are members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] and many of them, such as Canada and Australia, still have the the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch.

Fourteen small territories that formed part of the Empire, such as the [[Cayman Islands]], [[Bermuda]], [[Anguilla]], the [[Falkland Islands]] and [[St. Helena]], remain under British rule today. They are legally known as the "British Overseas Territories".
==Historic regions==
===United States===
Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [http://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online].
===India===
A raging debate continues regarding the good-or-bad economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref>

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>
==Slavery==
One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century British merchant ships were the largest element in the "Middle Passage" which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad. (The plantation owners lived in Britain.) Parliament ended the the international transportation of slaves in 1807, and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833 it bought out the plantation owners for cash and officially banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as [[William Wilberforce]] and the Evangelical Protestants (especially Methodists) were primarily responsible.

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian [[Eric Williams]] in ''Capitalism and Slavery'' (1944), rejected this moral explanation and substituted a [[Marxist]] interpretation. He argued that abolition was now more profitable, for a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the [[Industrial Revolution]]. By implication, Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital extracted from the unpaid work of slaves.

More recently historians have challenged Williams. They have shown that slavery remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture, so the profit motive was not central to abolition.<ref> J.R. Ward, "The British West Indies in the Age of Abolition," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 415-39.</ref> Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa--indeed that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa. Admitting the horrible suffering of the slaves themselves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly, because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favor of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.<ref> David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 440-64.</ref>
==Name==
The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708.<ref> John Oldmixon, ''The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America'' (London, 1708))</ref> before that the usual term was "English Empire."<ref>As in Nathaniel Crouch, ''The English Empire in America: Or a Prospect of His Majesties Dominions in the West-Indies'' (London, 1685).'' Armitage pp 174-5</ref>

==Further reading==
[[File:James-brit-empire.jpg|thumb|280px]]
* Bayly, C. A. ed. ''Atlas of the British Empire'' (1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated
* Beinart, William, and Lotte Hughes. ''Environment and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Environment-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199260311/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Black, Jeremy. ''The British Seaborne Empire'' (2004)
* Brendon, Piers. "A Moral Audit of the British Empire." ''History Today'', (Oct 2007), Vol. 57 Issue 10, pp 44-47, online at [[EBSCO]]
* Brendon, Piers. ''The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997'' (2008), very well written popular survey [http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-British-Empire-1781-1997/dp/0307268292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253004822&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Bryant, Arthur. ''The History of Britain and the British Peoples'', 3 vols. (1984–90), popular.
* Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. ''British Imperialism, 1688-2000'' (2nd ed. 2001), 739pp, detailed economic history that presents the new "gentlemanly capitalists" thesis [http://www.amazon.com/British-Imperialism-Crisis-Deconstruction-1914-1990/dp/058220965X/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/24219275?title=British%20Imperialism%3a%20Innovation%20and%20Expansion%2c%201688-1914 full text online]
* Colley, Linda. ''Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850'' (2004), 464pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385721463/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dalziel, Nigel. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire'' (2006), 144 pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0141018445/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from amazon.com]
* Etherington, Norman. ''Missions and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Missions-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/019925348X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], on Protestant missions
* Ferguson, Niall. ''Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power'' (2002), [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Demise-British-Lessons-Global/dp/0465023290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a conservative scholar
* Hyam, Ronald. ''Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Britains-Imperial-Century-1815-1914-Expansion/dp/033399311X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061553&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* James, Lawrence. ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997), the best scholarly overview [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-British-Empire/dp/031216985X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252982523&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
** James, Lawrence. ''The Illustrated Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997), abridged edition with many superb illustrations
* Johnson, Robert. ''British Imperialism.'' (2003) 284pp; good, short introduction to the major issues
* Judd, Denis. ''Empire: The British Imperial Experience, From 1765 to the Present'' (1996). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6969240 online edition]
* Lloyd; T. O. ''The British Empire, 1558-1995'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27709944 online edition]
* Louis, William Roger (general editor), ''The Oxford History of the British Empire'', 5 vols. (1998–99).
** vol 1 "The Origins of Empire" ed. by Nicholas Canny
** vol 2 "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Eighteenth/dp/0199246777/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
** vol 3 ''The Nineteenth Century'' edited by William Roger Louis, Alaine M. Low, Andrew Porter; (1998). 780 pp.. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98650583 online edition], also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Nineteenth/dp/0199246785/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
** vol 4 ''The Twentieth Century'' edited by Judith M. Brown, (1998). 773 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104728347 online edition] also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Twentieth/dp/0199246793/ref=sr_1_13/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
** vol 5 "Historiography" ed, by Robin W. Winks (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Historiography/dp/0199246807/ref=sr_1_25/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842573&sr=8-25 excerpt and text search]
* Marshall, P. J. (ed.), ''The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire'' (1996). [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Illustrated-History-British-Empire/dp/0521002540/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
* Olson, James S. and Robert S. Shadle; ''Historical Dictionary of the British Empire'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58315322 online edition]
* Porter, A. N. ''Atlas of British Overseas Expansion'' (1994)
* Robinson, Howard . ''The Development of the British Empire'' (1922), 465pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=woRdQlGbL_oC&dq=intitle:british+intitle:empire+date:1900-1924&num=30 online edition]
* Rose, J. Holland, ed. ''Cambridge History of the British Empire: vol 1: The Old Empire from the Beginnings to 1783'' (1929) [http://www.questia.com/read/99039834?title=The%20Cambridge%20History%20of%20the%20British%20Empire online edition]
* Smith, Simon C. ''British Imperialism 1750-1970'' (1998). brief

====Notes====
<references/>

=== See also ===

*''[[The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World]]''

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:Economic History]]
[[Category:Africa]]
[[Category:Asia]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective

2009-11-26T18:48:01Z

AdeleM: /* The Discussion */

==Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective==

===The Problem===

Much of modern Christianity gets periodically torn apart by two main attitudes toward the "Inspiration of Scripture"- that is, in what way, and in to what extent, the Sciptures have been preserved or prevented from error so that the Church may be guided rightly in faith and living. One attitude stesses that there are no mistakes in Scripture, if not in the copies we now have, then in the originals, and it is this fact which gives the Church the confidence that we may, indeed, be guided rightly in matters of faith and living. The other attitude stresses that there are indeed historical, scientific, or other mistakes in Scriptures and so being guided rightly through Scripture, is indeed questionable.

What both of these positions have in common is the assumption that whatever is meant by "inspiration of Scripture", what we are to understand by this is "uniformity" of inspiration, that is, all of what is in Scripture is inspired, or not inspired in the same way, to the same extent, for all time or in all times, and independent of any other "participating" factor, or of usage - that is, Scripture is an independant "literary given".

But is this so, and has it always been thought to be so? And do the Scriptures themselves show us "another way"?

These questions are important to deal with in the light of a startling realization so contrary to what we have grown to accept and be comfortable with throughout the hundreds of years. Far from being an independant book standing outside of the people of God, guiding, directing, commanding them as they strove or did not strive to know and serve the Lord, most of what is in the Bible came as Words of God, messages, oral or literary prophetic pieces, and "historical" accounts, from within the people and, in most cases, at times contemporary with the people of God as they walked their walk through hundreds of years with (or against) the Lord, who had covenanted with them. This fact does not imply unreliability or untrustworthiness. Not having a Bible as we have nowadays, It was always, therefore, in the contemporary time of the event, both possible and necessary, to determine - was that word or words or written message just received,"from the Lord"in part or in entirety, and is that prophet a true prophet, now obedient (himself close to God) to have really heard from God, for God to have really spoken to him, and is God speaking to me now through him, through this writing from him before me, requiring me to do thus and thus? Living the life rightly was thus much more a matter of a seeking heart right with God receiving His word and guidance than a pre-given road map and an independent plan of God's will for mankind mentally qrasped and contained in a single Book. But now, in God's determination, we have both!

Before getting into the matter, it's good to consider, and perhaps to find out for the first time, what we really believe about inspiration of Scripture, and their authority over our lives, What we really believe, and not what we think we believe. Let's think about the following four questions:

#Do we believe that when reading the prophets, perhaps the Prophet Isaiah, that there is a difference when he just writes his words whatever, than when he prefaces His words by "Thus saith the Lord"? Did we belieeve that Isaiah makes such a distinction in his own mind - that some words from him and some from the Lord?
#Do we believe that, when reading the letters of the Apostle Paul, there is a difference when he tells us to do something, or refrain from doing something, when he writes that it is from him and "not the Lord", than when he says, it is "from the Lord"?
#Do we believe, with the Apostle Paul, that a woman is commanded to keep silent in the church, that it is shameful for her not to do so, and it is not permitted her to speak? If we think otherwise than the Apostle and do permit it, what is the reason for our belief and practice?
#In reading the Old Testament, without intending to "pick and choose", do we, nevertheless, tend to not apply things that are commanded to be done to our lives, for instance, putting to death our children if rebellious, and stoning the adulterous, and do tend to apply other things, such as, "to loose the bonds of wickedness", "to undo the heavy burdons", "to let the oppressed go free", "to deal...bread to the hungry"? Do we feel that the Old Testament Scriptures generally and in particular places has less authority in our lives than the New Testament? In what places and for what reasons do we feel this?

===The Discussion===

'''I.'''

Eastern Churches, like Judaism, do not have, and have no inner need for, a uniform level of "Inspiration" of Scriptures, as Scriptures themselves did not create or define the Churches or cause them to be distinct from other peoples or bodies. The sense of inspiration, and belief in the nature of inspiration, is directly dependent on the actual use of Scriptures in the formation by God in Christ Himself and in the stages of the Church being led by God. God is the real One and His deeds are indisputable, and the Scriptures testify to those deeds and His words spoken alongside the deeds. That is why, without much reflection because of having knowledge intuitively from living experience, that is, "from the inside", for Jews, the Law (Torah) is the most authoritative, rather than the Prophets and the Writings, athough all are "Tenakh" (Old Testament).There are three divisions with subtle differing authorities. The Jews were formed, in their own understanding, by the Law given to Moses, so that the Law by its more total application to living is the most authoritive practically. In worship, the Psalms are the most vital - as they are prayers, so their inspiration, that is, the sense that they are, and as they are, from God, is indisputable- but largly unconsciously so. In like manner, inspiration of Scripture for Easterners is directly related to the usage we make of it in all its modulations - and how those Scriptures are related to the primary formation - which is certainly not, as it is in Judaism, The Law, but rather, the Gospel. In this sense, it is entirely consistant, if one would wish to conceptualize it, to say that the Gospels, and especially at the time of the Gospel Reading in Church, is more inspired, and has more authority in our lives, than the Book of Leviticus. God is "more there" for those now who have had faith in the Son of God who has freed us precisely from the failures of the Law's ability save us, than He is when we turn to the Book of Leviticus which deals mainly with that Law which we have failed. This does not imply that the Leviticus has more errors than the Gospels but rather that the Gospels bear more of the message of God for those in Christ, more applicability, and more of the persuasion that God is speaking to us from the Holy Gospels. (If we did hold to "uniform inspiration", we would be counted as degraders of God's Word as, in comparison to the time we devote in various forms to the Gospels and Epistles, Christians devote hardly anything to various priestly and and sacrificial prescriptions of Leviticus.) But He is certainly more there with those in Christ, and with the words on the page, when we turn to the book of Leviticus than when we turn to "some of the phantastical portions of the Apocrypha". But the Protestant Church, generally, knows little of this "levels of inspiration" understanding. By going to the Jewish Masoretic Text, Protestantism follows the "Council" of Jamnia/Yavneh 90AD which jettisoned "levels of inspiration" by setting a canon for the purposes of both warding off Christian use of Greek Septuaginta to prove the truth of Christianity, and warding off Roman persecution because of the End of Days defiance to Rome understood to be in the "Greek apocrypha".

'''II.'''

This is not only an issue of the Old Testament. it also occurs for the New Testament. But the early Church never saw this issue as an intractable problem. That is why the various Scripture usages from different locals, some even from the same era - read: insipient "canons" - (containing the "disputable" books - 2 Peter, 2nd 3rd John, Jude, the Apocalpse, Letter of Hermes, Didache, etc.) never became a cause for schism. Only under Marcion, who excised Scripture to fit his faith, a faith seen as so at variance with the Apostolic teaching and testimony, were varying canons aligned with schism . But this proves the point. Marcion went against the deposit of faith and so he and his canon as a way of propagating this his heresy, were found wanting. Similarly, Luther tried to get rid of the Epistle of James, that "epistle of straw", because it went against his distinctive from the Catholicism he knew all around him. But prior to that, who ever got concerned, let alone went on Schism, because the Epistle of James was considered antithetical to, or, in some sense, conflicting with the emphasis of the epistles of Paul?

'''III.'''

It is important to see how criteria of "levels of inspiration" were understood by the Jewish sages at the time of Jamnia in the first centruy and shortly after. Some of the books that almost didn't make it into the canon of Scriptures: Esther - no name of God, Ecclesiastes - too philosphically pessimistic, Song of Songs- too erotic (needed to be spiritualized). One of them that almost did make it - Ecclesiasticus (ben Sirach)- probably would have been included if they had had it in its original Hebrew as did the "Dead Sea scrolls community" from the desert around Qumran. It is also instructive to note how canon defining in Judaism actually did take place. The Council of Jamnia Canon (which the Protestant Reformers went to, thus excluding the Apocrypha} considered those books only which they had before them in the Hebrew language as worthy for consideration (As it turned out, some of the non Hebrew books before their consideration, were originally Hebrew, as attested by the Dead Sea compilations. But they didn't know that.)

'''IV. The Dynamics of the Usual Conflict'''

During the higher critical vs. the evangelical polemical controversies, there usually is a devolving to something like this . The Higher Critic will point out "mistakes", inacurracies, in the various recensions of Scripture come down to us. They will point out that these faults can be found in all the early translations and texts and not only in the modern translations. The Evangelical will counter that all these are only apparent and seek to point out ways to reconcile them. Perhaps the Evangelical will admit to these errata but then counter that what is infallible are the "autographs" the original writings, conceding that what follows as far as translations, texts, etc. can indeed be faulty. This is an attempt to maintain the position that Scriptures must be without error otherwise we are all adrift without any surety in faith and about to be shipwrecked. The Higher Critic will then point out "What!... you maintain that there must be infallible 'autographs', that God will surely not leave the believers with a faulty road map to eternal life, and yet He allows errors to come in afterwards to plunge us all into uncerainty and doubt?!!"

There is no good answer to that. But, then, there need not be. The Higher Critical and the usual Evangelical position, in Eastern thought, are mistaken about the understanding of inspiration and that the mistake lies in unbiblical and unsupportable assumptions of "uniformity in inspiration" and the fallacy that our faith must find its shipwreck if there be but an error in the Scripture. It also goes against the very varied usages in Scripture of Scripture and it obviates the biblical understanding of Authority and the perpetuation of truth in the Church, healthy historical development, and a great deal of common sense.

'''V. How Inspiration of Scripture and levels of Inspiration really work : The Eastern Perspective'''

The Eastern approach to Scripture is very different from the Western. At best, the Western seeks to locate the Inspired documents of the Faith by going back to the originals, and considers any thing later as not being inspired. Those later translations and version, however beautiful and apt, like the King James Version, are not considered bearers of inspiration, nor borne by Inspiration - no matter how used of God for his purposes. But the Eastern view of things seem to suggest that the Inspiration of the originals, has somehow abundantly overflowed on and permeatingly into the traditional versions and translations used by the various Eastern Churches - Greek, Armenian, Amharic, Aramaic (Syriac), etc. Inspiration carries on! Similarly, in the East, there seems to be "no stopping Christ". He, too, overflows. There are no distinct lines where Christ is and where He is not. For clarification and by example, the West has Christ coming in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in much clearer deliniation than the East. It is at the time of the Consecration (emphasizing the "Words of Institution") of the Bread and Wine and then the communicants partake of Him. All of this irrespective of His presence elswhere or in other form. In the East, Christ, more biblically, appears and is present at the gathering of the communicants (where two or three are gathered together there am I) at the "church service", and also at the Consecration of bread and wine (emphasizing the "Epiclesis"). He pervades all, invades all as He did into the upper room, and, of course, the bread and the wine, and His presence transmutes, permeates, without destroying the elements, that is, without there being the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine as understood by the Latin West. The how of transmutation might well be called "assumption". He assumes the bread and wine, takes them up into Himself, and they are no longer merely what they were before. So we have here something analogous to the Incarnation. The Son of God assumes, or takes up into Himself humanity and we have, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ, the perfect union of God and Man, But note that Jesus Christ has, after the Incarnation, a fully human form with all it's weaknesses unobliterated , even those that were produced through His forebearers, though, of course, He had no personal sin, and, as is also true, an "immaculate" cut off by the Holy Spirit of the stain of inherited Adamic sin with which we are all infected.

In the Eastern view, all this is analagous to the mode of inspiration of Scriptures. As God was able to incarnate and, in all the weaknesses of the humanity He assumed, fulfill all His purposes which He intended, so God is able to assume the writings He has chosen, with all its weaknesses and imperfections of humanity, to fullfill all his purposes that He intends for that. As, at the time of the Eucharist, in the Eastern view, He makes bread and wine into what it is not naturally, ''but not by destroying what it is naturally'', so God at the time, place, circumstances of our "usage" - writing, translating, reading of the Holy Gospel, prayerful or scholarly study for godliness, etc. descends, safeguarding what is needed for His and our purposes - whether it takes straitening out, clarifying, causing us to pay attention, causing us to overlook - He even uses "lense and prism" to make the "crookeds" straight for our sakes. It is understood that he is capable and able for that and ones faith is sourced in another mode, that of the message handed down, first by his apostles, and then by those after, and all this in coordinate with His gift oft he Scriptures. This understanding of how things really were for the Church removes us from the superfluous war of words between the Higher Critics with much of their denial of the verities of Faith and the Guardians of Orthodoxy. The surety of our faith has nothing to do with which of the competing views of the Scriptures is true, and we are quite open to evaluate and accept. At the same time, we are immune from the vagaries and whims and scholarly defects of these Higher Critics because our criteria and sourcing of Truth and Authority in the Church is "wholly other",rather than the "latest and assured results of the most recent scholarship".

'''VI.'''

Because of this understanding, and practice, of what is entailed by "the Church", in the understanding of the Eastern church, the biblical teaching concerning the responsibilities of bishops, priests/pastors, and deacons, and the hows of the safeguarding and perpetuating the teachings concerning the Person and Work of Christ the Savior and concerning the Holy Trinity, Higher Critical theories have less power to shake up the churches than where there is little understanding of the Biblical thrust concerning Authority. This Authority is not "Papal", but, rather, the understanding that Christ has commissioned the Apostles and then they, those after them, to say it like it is, to speak (and write) the truth to be believed in, and to defend it.

Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective

2009-11-26T18:47:20Z

AdeleM: /* The Problem */ Format

Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective

2009-11-26T18:46:29Z

AdeleM: Formatting only

==Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective==

===The Problem===

Much of modern Christianity gets periodically torn apart by two main attitudes toward the "Inspiration of Scripture"- that is, in what way, and in to what extent, the Sciptures have been preserved or prevented from error so that the Church may be guided rightly in faith and living. One attitude stesses that there are no mistakes in Scripture, if not in the copies we now have, then in the originals, and it is this fact which gives the Church the confidence that we may, indeed, be guided rightly in matters of faith and living. The other attitude stresses that there are indeed historical, scientific, or other mistakes in Scriptures and so being guided rightly through Scripture, is indeed questionable.

What both of these positions have in common is the assumption that whatever is meant by "inspiration of Scripture", what we are to understand by this is "uniformity" of inspiration, that is, all of what is in Scripture is inspired, or not inspired in the same way, to the same extent, for all time or in all times, and independent of any other "participating" factor, or of usage - that is, Scripture is an independant "literary given".

But is this so, and has it always been thought to be so? And do the Scriptures themselves show us "another way"?

These questions are important to deal with in the light of a startling realization so contrary to what we have grown to accept and be comfortable with throughout the hundreds of years. Far from being an independant book standing outside of the people of God, guiding, directing, commanding them as they strove or did not strive to know and serve the Lord, most of what is in the Bible came as Words of God, messages, oral or literary prophetic pieces, and "historical" accounts, from within the people and, in most cases, at times contemporary with the people of God as they walked their walk through hundreds of years with (or against) the Lord, who had covenanted with them. This fact does not imply unreliability or untrustworthiness. Not having a Bible as we have nowadays, It was always, therefore, in the contemporary time of the event, both possible and necessary, to determine - was that word or words or written message just received,"from the Lord"in part or in entirety, and is that prophet a true prophet, now obedient (himself close to God) to have really heard from God, for God to have really spoken to him, and is God speaking to me now through him, through this writing from him before me, requiring me to do thus and thus? Living the life rightly was thus much more a matter of a seeking heart right with God receiving His word and guidance than a pre-given road map and an independent plan of God's will for mankind mentally qrasped and contained in a single Book. But now, in God's determination, we have both!

Before getting into the matter, it's good to consider, and perhaps to find out for the first time, what we really believe about inspiration of Scripture, and their authority over our lives, What we really believe, and not what we think we believe. Let's think about the following four questions:

#Do we believe that when reading the prophets, perhaps the Prophet Isaiah, that there is a difference when he just writes his words whatever, than when he prefaces His words by "Thus saith the Lord"? Did we belieeve that Isaiah makes such a distinction in his own mind - that some words from him and some from the Lord?

#Do we believe that, when reading the letters of the Apostle Paul, there is a difference when he tells us to do something, or refrain from doing something, when he writes that it is from him and "not the Lord", than when he says, it is "from the Lord"?

#Do we believe, with the Apostle Paul, that a woman is commanded to keep silent in the church, that it is shameful for her not to do so, and it is not permitted her to speak? If we think otherwise than the Apostle and do permit it, what is the reason for our belief and practice?

#In reading the Old Testament, without intending to "pick and choose", do we, nevertheless, tend to not apply things that are commanded to be done to our lives, for instance, putting to death our children if rebellious, and stoning the adulterous, and do tend to apply other things, such as, "to loose the bonds of wickedness", "to undo the heavy burdons", "to let the oppressed go free", "to deal...bread to the hungry"? Do we feel that the Old Testament Scriptures generally and in particular places has less authority in our lives than the New Testament? In what places and for what reasons do we feel this?

===The Discussion===

'''I.'''

Eastern Churches, like Judaism, do not have, and have no inner need for, a uniform level of "Inspiration" of Scriptures, as Scriptures themselves did not create or define the Churches or cause them to be distinct from other peoples or bodies. The sense of inspiration, and belief in the nature of inspiration, is directly dependent on the actual use of Scriptures in the formation by God in Christ Himself and in the stages of the Church being led by God. God is the real One and His deeds are indisputable, and the Scriptures testify to those deeds and His words spoken alongside the deeds. That is why, without much reflection because of having knowledge intuitively from living experience, that is, "from the inside", for Jews, the Law (Torah) is the most authoritative, rather than the Prophets and the Writings, athough all are "Tenakh" (Old Testament).There are three divisions with subtle differing authorities. The Jews were formed, in their own understanding, by the Law given to Moses, so that the Law by its more total application to living is the most authoritive practically. In worship, the Psalms are the most vital - as they are prayers, so their inspiration, that is, the sense that they are, and as they are, from God, is indisputable- but largly unconsciously so. In like manner, inspiration of Scripture for Easterners is directly related to the usage we make of it in all its modulations - and how those Scriptures are related to the primary formation - which is certainly not, as it is in Judaism, The Law, but rather, the Gospel. In this sense, it is entirely consistant, if one would wish to conceptualize it, to say that the Gospels, and especially at the time of the Gospel Reading in Church, is more inspired, and has more authority in our lives, than the Book of Leviticus. God is "more there" for those now who have had faith in the Son of God who has freed us precisely from the failures of the Law's ability save us, than He is when we turn to the Book of Leviticus which deals mainly with that Law which we have failed. This does not imply that the Leviticus has more errors than the Gospels but rather that the Gospels bear more of the message of God for those in Christ, more applicability, and more of the persuasion that God is speaking to us from the Holy Gospels. (If we did hold to "uniform inspiration", we would be counted as degraders of God's Word as, in comparison to the time we devote in various forms to the Gospels and Epistles, Christians devote hardly anything to various priestly and and sacrificial prescriptions of Leviticus.) But He is certainly more there with those in Christ, and with the words on the page, when we turn to the book of Leviticus than when we turn to "some of the phantastical portions of the Apocrypha". But the Protestant Church, generally, knows little of this "levels of inspiration" understanding. By going to the Jewish Masoretic Text, Protestantism follows the "Council" of Jamnia/Yavneh 90AD which jettisoned "levels of inspiration" by setting a canon for the purposes of both warding off Christian use of Greek Septuaginta to prove the truth of Christianity, and warding off Roman persecution because of the End of Days defiance to Rome understood to be in the "Greek apocrypha".

'''II.'''

This is not only an issue of the Old Testament. it also occurs for the New Testament. But the early Church never saw this issue as an intractable problem. That is why the various Scripture usages from different locals, some even from the same era - read: insipient "canons" - (containing the "disputable" books - 2 Peter, 2nd 3rd John, Jude, the Apocalpse, Letter of Hermes, Didache, etc.) never became a cause for schism. Only under Marcion, who excised Scripture to fit his faith, a faith seen as so at variance with the Apostolic teaching and testimony, were varying canons aligned with schism . But this proves the point. Marcion went against the deposit of faith and so he and his canon as a way of propagating this his heresy, were found wanting. Similarly, Luther tried to get rid of the Epistle of James, that "epistle of straw", because it went against his distinctive from the Catholicism he knew all around him. But prior to that, who ever got concerned, let alone went on Schism, because the Epistle of James was considered antithetical to, or, in some sense, conflicting with the emphasis of the epistles of Paul?

'''III.'''

It is important to see how criteria of "levels of inspiration" were understood by the Jewish sages at the time of Jamnia in the first centruy and shortly after. Some of the books that almost didn't make it into the canon of Scriptures: Esther - no name of God, Ecclesiastes - too philosphically pessimistic, Song of Songs- too erotic (needed to be spiritualized). One of them that almost did make it - Ecclesiasticus (ben Sirach)- probably would have been included if they had had it in its original Hebrew as did the "Dead Sea scrolls community" from the desert around Qumran. It is also instructive to note how canon defining in Judaism actually did take place. The Council of Jamnia Canon (which the Protestant Reformers went to, thus excluding the Apocrypha} considered those books only which they had before them in the Hebrew language as worthy for consideration (As it turned out, some of the non Hebrew books before their consideration, were originally Hebrew, as attested by the Dead Sea compilations. But they didn't know that.)

'''IV. The Dynamics of the Usual Conflict'''

During the higher critical vs. the evangelical polemical controversies, there usually is a devolving to something like this . The Higher Critic will point out "mistakes", inacurracies, in the various recensions of Scripture come down to us. They will point out that these faults can be found in all the early translations and texts and not only in the modern translations. The Evangelical will counter that all these are only apparent and seek to point out ways to reconcile them. Perhaps the Evangelical will admit to these errata but then counter that what is infallible are the "autographs" the original writings, conceding that what follows as far as translations, texts, etc. can indeed be faulty. This is an attempt to maintain the position that Scriptures must be without error otherwise we are all adrift without any surety in faith and about to be shipwrecked. The Higher Critic will then point out "What!... you maintain that there must be infallible 'autographs', that God will surely not leave the believers with a faulty road map to eternal life, and yet He allows errors to come in afterwards to plunge us all into uncerainty and doubt?!!"

There is no good answer to that. But, then, there need not be. The Higher Critical and the usual Evangelical position, in Eastern thought, are mistaken about the understanding of inspiration and that the mistake lies in unbiblical and unsupportable assumptions of "uniformity in inspiration" and the fallacy that our faith must find its shipwreck if there be but an error in the Scripture. It also goes against the very varied usages in Scripture of Scripture and it obviates the biblical understanding of Authority and the perpetuation of truth in the Church, healthy historical development, and a great deal of common sense.

'''V. How Inspiration of Scripture and levels of Inspiration really work : The Eastern Perspective'''

The Eastern approach to Scripture is very different from the Western. At best, the Western seeks to locate the Inspired documents of the Faith by going back to the originals, and considers any thing later as not being inspired. Those later translations and version, however beautiful and apt, like the King James Version, are not considered bearers of inspiration, nor borne by Inspiration - no matter how used of God for his purposes. But the Eastern view of things seem to suggest that the Inspiration of the originals, has somehow abundantly overflowed on and permeatingly into the traditional versions and translations used by the various Eastern Churches - Greek, Armenian, Amharic, Aramaic (Syriac), etc. Inspiration carries on! Similarly, in the East, there seems to be "no stopping Christ". He, too, overflows. There are no distinct lines where Christ is and where He is not. For clarification and by example, the West has Christ coming in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in much clearer deliniation than the East. It is at the time of the Consecration (emphasizing the "Words of Institution") of the Bread and Wine and then the communicants partake of Him. All of this irrespective of His presence elswhere or in other form. In the East, Christ, more biblically, appears and is present at the gathering of the communicants (where two or three are gathered together there am I) at the "church service", and also at the Consecration of bread and wine (emphasizing the "Epiclesis"). He pervades all, invades all as He did into the upper room, and, of course, the bread and the wine, and His presence transmutes, permeates, without destroying the elements, that is, without there being the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine as understood by the Latin West. The how of transmutation might well be called "assumption". He assumes the bread and wine, takes them up into Himself, and they are no longer merely what they were before. So we have here something analogous to the Incarnation. The Son of God assumes, or takes up into Himself humanity and we have, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ, the perfect union of God and Man, But note that Jesus Christ has, after the Incarnation, a fully human form with all it's weaknesses unobliterated , even those that were produced through His forebearers, though, of course, He had no personal sin, and, as is also true, an "immaculate" cut off by the Holy Spirit of the stain of inherited Adamic sin with which we are all infected.

In the Eastern view, all this is analagous to the mode of inspiration of Scriptures. As God was able to incarnate and, in all the weaknesses of the humanity He assumed, fulfill all His purposes which He intended, so God is able to assume the writings He has chosen, with all its weaknesses and imperfections of humanity, to fullfill all his purposes that He intends for that. As, at the time of the Eucharist, in the Eastern view, He makes bread and wine into what it is not naturally, ''but not by destroying what it is naturally'', so God at the time, place, circumstances of our "usage" - writing, translating, reading of the Holy Gospel, prayerful or scholarly study for godliness, etc. descends, safeguarding what is needed for His and our purposes - whether it takes straitening out, clarifying, causing us to pay attention, causing us to overlook - He even uses "lense and prism" to make the "crookeds" straight for our sakes. It is understood that he is capable and able for that and ones faith is sourced in another mode, that of the message handed down, first by his apostles, and then by those after, and all this in coordinate with His gift oft he Scriptures. This understanding of how things really were for the Church removes us from the superfluous war of words between the Higher Critics with much of their denial of the verities of Faith and the Guardians of Orthodoxy. The surety of our faith has nothing to do with which of the competing views of the Scriptures is true, and we are quite open to evaluate and accept. At the same time, we are immune from the vagaries and whims and scholarly defects of these Higher Critics because our criteria and sourcing of Truth and Authority in the Church is "wholly other",rather than the "latest and assured results of the most recent scholarship".

'''VI.'''

Because of this understanding, and practice, of what is entailed by "the Church", in the understanding of the Eastern church, the biblical teaching concerning the responsibilities of bishops, priests/pastors, and deacons, and the hows of the safeguarding and perpetuating the teachings concerning the Person and Work of Christ the Savior and concerning the Holy Trinity, Higher Critical theories have less power to shake up the churches than where there is little understanding of the Biblical thrust concerning Authority. This Authority is not "Papal", but, rather, the understanding that Christ has commissioned the Apostles and then they, those after them, to say it like it is, to speak (and write) the truth to be believed in, and to defend it.

Inspiration fo Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective

2009-11-26T18:40:46Z

AdeleM: Fixed misspelled title and redirected

#REDIRECT [[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]

Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective

2009-11-26T18:39:19Z

AdeleM: Created page with '==Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective== '''The Problem''' Much of modern Christianity gets periodically torn apart by two main attitudes ...'

==Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective==

'''The Problem'''

Much of modern Christianity gets periodically torn apart by two main attitudes toward the "Inspiration of Scripture"- that is, in what way, and in to what extent, the Sciptures have been preserved or prevented from error so that the Church may be guided rightly in faith and living. One attitude stesses that there are no mistakes in Scripture, if not in the copies we now have, then in the originals, and it is this fact which gives the Church the confidence that we may, indeed, be guided rightly in matters of faith and living. The other attitude stresses that there are indeed historical, scientific, or other mistakes in Scriptures and so being guided rightly through Scripture, is indeed questionable.

What both of these positions have in common is the assumption that whatever is meant by "inspiration of Scripture", what we are to understand by this is "uniformity" of inspiration, that is, all of what is in Scripture is inspired, or not inspired in the same way, to the same extent, for all time or in all times, and independent of any other "participating" factor, or of usage - that is, Scripture is an independant "literary given".

But is this so, and has it always been thought to be so? And do the Scriptures themselves show us "another way"?

These questions are important to deal with in the light of a startling realization so contrary to what we have grown to accept and be comfortable with throughout the hundreds of years. Far from being an independant book standing outside of the people of God, guiding, directing, commanding them as they strove or did not strive to know and serve the Lord, most of what is in the Bible came as Words of God, messages, oral or literary prophetic pieces, and "historical" accounts, from within the people and, in most cases, at times contemporary with the people of God as they walked their walk through hundreds of years with (or against) the Lord, who had covenanted with them. This fact does not imply unreliability or untrustworthiness. Not having a Bible as we have nowadays, It was always, therefore, in the contemporary time of the event, both possible and necessary, to determine - was that word or words or written message just received,"from the Lord"in part or in entirety, and is that prophet a true prophet, now obedient (himself close to God) to have really heard from God, for God to have really spoken to him, and is God speaking to me now through him, through this writing from him before me, requiring me to do thus and thus? Living the life rightly was thus much more a matter of a seeking heart right with God receiving His word and guidance than a pre-given road map and an independent plan of God's will for mankind mentally qrasped and contained in a single Book. But now, in God's determination, we have both!

Before getting into the matter, it's good to consider, and perhaps to find out for the first time, what we really believe about inspiration of Scripture, and their authority over our lives, What we really believe, and not what we think we believe. Let's think about the following four questions:

1. Do we believe that when reading the prophets, perhaps the Prophet Isaiah, that there is a difference when he just writes his words whatever, than when he prefaces His words by "Thus saith the Lord"? Did we belieeve that Isaiah makes such a distinction in his own mind - that some words from him and some from the Lord?

2. Do we believe that, when reading the letters of the Apostle Paul, there is a difference when he tells us to do something, or refrain from doing something, when he writes that it is from him and "not the Lord", than when he says, it is "from the Lord"?

3. Do we believe, with the Apostle Paul, that a woman is commanded to keep silent in the church, that it is shameful for her not to do so, and it is not permitted her to speak? If we think otherwise than the Apostle and do permit it, what is the reason for our belief and practice?

4. In reading the Old Testament, without intending to "pick and choose", do we, nevertheless, tend to not apply things that are commanded to be done to our lives, for instance, putting to death our children if rebellious, and stoning the adulterous, and do tend to apply other things, such as, "to loose the bonds of wickedness", "to undo the heavy burdons", "to let the oppressed go free", "to deal...bread to the hungry"? Do we feel that the Old Testament Scriptures generally and in particular places has less authority in our lives than the New Testament? In what places and for what reasons do we feel this?

'''The Discussion:'''

l. Eastern Churches, like Judaism, do not have, and have no inner need for, a uniform level of "Inspiration" of Scriptures, as Scriptures themselves did not create or define the Churches or cause them to be distinct from other peoples or bodies. The sense of inspiration, and belief in the nature of inspiration, is directly dependent on the actual use of Scriptures in the formation by God in Christ Himself and in the stages of the Church being led by God. God is the real One and His deeds are indisputable, and the Scriptures testify to those deeds and His words spoken alongside the deeds. That is why, without much reflection because of having knowledge intuitively from living experience, that is, "from the inside", for Jews, the Law (Torah) is the most authoritative, rather than the Prophets and the Writings, athough all are "Tenakh" (Old Testament).There are three divisions with subtle differing authorities. The Jews were formed, in their own understanding, by the Law given to Moses, so that the Law by its more total application to living is the most authoritive practically. In worship, the Psalms are the most vital - as they are prayers, so their inspiration, that is, the sense that they are, and as they are, from God, is indisputable- but largly unconsciously so. In like manner, inspiration of Scripture for Easterners is directly related to the usage we make of it in all its modulations - and how those Scriptures are related to the primary formation - which is certainly not, as it is in Judaism, The Law, but rather, the Gospel. In this sense, it is entirely consistant, if one would wish to conceptualize it, to say that the Gospels, and especially at the time of the Gospel Reading in Church, is more inspired, and has more authority in our lives, than the Book of Leviticus. God is "more there" for those now who have had faith in the Son of God who has freed us precisely from the failures of the Law's ability save us, than He is when we turn to the Book of Leviticus which deals mainly with that Law which we have failed. This does not imply that the Leviticus has more errors than the Gospels but rather that the Gospels bear more of the message of God for those in Christ, more applicability, and more of the persuasion that God is speaking to us from the Holy Gospels. (If we did hold to "uniform inspiration", we would be counted as degraders of God's Word as, in comparison to the time we devote in various forms to the Gospels and Epistles, Christians devote hardly anything to various priestly and and sacrificial prescriptions of Leviticus.) But He is certainly more there with those in Christ, and with the words on the page, when we turn to the book of Leviticus than when we turn to "some of the phantastical portions of the Apocrypha". But the Protestant Church, generally, knows little of this "levels of inspiration" understanding. By going to the Jewish Masoretic Text, Protestantism follows the "Council" of Jamnia/Yavneh 90AD which jettisoned "levels of inspiration" by setting a canon for the purposes of both warding off Christian use of Greek Septuaginta to prove the truth of Christianity, and warding off Roman persecution because of the End of Days defiance to Rome understood to be in the "Greek apocrypha".

ll. This is not only an issue of the Old Testament. it also occurs for the New Testament. But the early Church never saw this issue as an intractable problem. That is why the various Scripture usages from different locals, some even from the same era - read: insipient "canons" - (containing the "disputable" books - 2 Peter, 2nd 3rd John, Jude, the Apocalpse, Letter of Hermes, Didache, etc.) never became a cause for schism. Only under Marcion, who excised Scripture to fit his faith, a faith seen as so at variance with the Apostolic teaching and testimony, were varying canons aligned with schism . But this proves the point. Marcion went against the deposit of faith and so he and his canon as a way of propagating this his heresy, were found wanting. Similarly, Luther tried to get rid of the Epistle of James, that "epistle of straw", because it went against his distinctive from the Catholicism he knew all around him. But prior to that, who ever got concerned, let alone went on Schism, because the Epistle of James was considered antithetical to, or, in some sense, conflicting with the emphasis of the epistles of Paul?

lll. It is important to see how criteria of "levels of inspiration" were understood by the Jewish sages at the time of Jamnia in the first centruy and shortly after. Some of the books that almost didn't make it into the canon of Scriptures: Esther - no name of God, Ecclesiastes - too philosphically pessimistic, Song of Songs- too erotic (needed to be spiritualized). One of them that almost did make it - Ecclesiasticus (ben Sirach)- probably would have been included if they had had it in its original Hebrew as did the "Dead Sea scrolls community" from the desert around Qumran. It is also instructive to note how canon defining in Judaism actually did take place. The Council of Jamnia Canon (which the Protestant Reformers went to, thus excluding the Apocrypha} considered those books only which they had before them in the Hebrew language as worthy for consideration (As it turned out, some of the non Hebrew books before their consideration, were originally Hebrew, as attested by the Dead Sea compilations. But they didn't know that.)

'''lV. The Dynamics of the Usual Conflict'''

During the higher critical vs. the evangelical polemical controversies, there usually is a devolving to something like this . The Higher Critic will point out "mistakes", inacurracies, in the various recensions of Scripture come down to us. They will point out that these faults can be found in all the early translations and texts and not only in the modern translations. The Evangelical will counter that all these are only apparent and seek to point out ways to reconcile them. Perhaps the Evangelical will admit to these errata but then counter that what is infallible are the "autographs" the original writings, conceding that what follows as far as translations, texts, etc. can indeed be faulty. This is an attempt to maintain the position that Scriptures must be without error otherwise we are all adrift without any surety in faith and about to be shipwrecked. The Higher Critic will then point out "What!... you maintain that there must be infallible 'autographs', that God will surely not leave the believers with a faulty road map to eternal life, and yet He allows errors to come in afterwards to plunge us all into uncerainty and doubt?!!"

There is no good answer to that. But, then, there need not be. The Higher Critical and the usual Evangelical position, in Eastern thought, are mistaken about the understanding of inspiration and that the mistake lies in unbiblical and unsupportable assumptions of "uniformity in inspiration" and the fallacy that our faith must find its shipwreck if there be but an error in the Scripture. It also goes against the very varied usages in Scripture of Scripture and it obviates the biblical understanding of Authority and the perpetuation of truth in the Church, healthy historical development, and a great deal of common sense.

'''V. How Inspiration of Scripture and levels of Inspiration really work : The Eastern Perspective'''

The Eastern approach to Scripture is very different from the Western. At best, the Western seeks to locate the Inspired documents of the Faith by going back to the originals, and considers any thing later as not being inspired. Those later translations and version, however beautiful and apt, like the King James Version, are not considered bearers of inspiration, nor borne by Inspiration - no matter how used of God for his purposes. But the Eastern view of things seem to suggest that the Inspiration of the originals, has somehow abundantly overflowed on and permeatingly into the traditional versions and translations used by the various Eastern Churches - Greek, Armenian, Amharic, Aramaic (Syriac), etc. Inspiration carries on! Similarly, in the East, there seems to be "no stopping Christ". He, too, overflows. There are no distinct lines where Christ is and where He is not. For clarification and by example, the West has Christ coming in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in much clearer deliniation than the East. It is at the time of the Consecration (emphasizing the "Words of Institution") of the Bread and Wine and then the communicants partake of Him. All of this irrespective of His presence elswhere or in other form. In the East, Christ, more biblically, appears and is present at the gathering of the communicants (where two or three are gathered together there am I) at the "church service", and also at the Consecration of bread and wine (emphasizing the "Epiclesis"). He pervades all, invades all as He did into the upper room, and, of course, the bread and the wine, and His presence transmutes, permeates, without destroying the elements, that is, without there being the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine as understood by the Latin West. The how of transmutation might well be called "assumption". He assumes the bread and wine, takes them up into Himself, and they are no longer merely what they were before. So we have here something analogous to the Incarnation. The Son of God assumes, or takes up into Himself humanity and we have, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ, the perfect union of God and Man, But note that Jesus Christ has, after the Incarnation, a fully human form with all it's weaknesses unobliterated , even those that were produced through His forebearers, though, of course, He had no personal sin, and, as is also true, an "immaculate" cut off by the Holy Spirit of the stain of inherited Adamic sin with which we are all infected.

In the Eastern view, all this is analagous to the mode of inspiration of Scriptures. As God was able to incarnate and, in all the weaknesses of the humanity He assumed, fulfill all His purposes which He intended, so God is able to assume the writings He has chosen, with all its weaknesses and imperfections of humanity, to fullfill all his purposes that He intends for that. As, at the time of the Eucharist, in the Eastern view, He makes bread and wine into what it is not naturally, ''but not by destroying what it is naturally'', so God at the time, place, circumstances of our "usage" - writing, translating, reading of the Holy Gospel, prayerful or scholarly study for godliness, etc. descends, safeguarding what is needed for His and our purposes - whether it takes straitening out, clarifying, causing us to pay attention, causing us to overlook - He even uses "lense and prism" to make the "crookeds" straight for our sakes. It is understood that he is capable and able for that and ones faith is sourced in another mode, that of the message handed down, first by his apostles, and then by those after, and all this in coordinate with His gift oft he Scriptures. This understanding of how things really were for the Church removes us from the superfluous war of words between the Higher Critics with much of their denial of the verities of Faith and the Guardians of Orthodoxy. The surety of our faith has nothing to do with which of the competing views of the Scriptures is true, and we are quite open to evaluate and accept. At the same time, we are immune from the vagaries and whims and scholarly defects of these Higher Critics because our criteria and sourcing of Truth and Authority in the Church is "wholly other",rather than the "latest and assured results of the most recent scholarship".

Vl. Because of this understanding, and practice, of what is entailed by "the Church", in the understanding of the Eastern church, the biblical teaching concerning the responsibilities of bishops, priests/pastors, and deacons, and the hows of the safeguarding and perpetuating the teachings concerning the Person and Work of Christ the Savior and concerning the Holy Trinity, Higher Critical theories have less power to shake up the churches than where there is little understanding of the Biblical thrust concerning Authority. This Authority is not "Papal", but, rather, the understanding that Christ has commissioned the Apostles and then they, those after them, to say it like it is, to speak (and write) the truth to be believed in, and to defend it.

Inspiration fo Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective

2009-11-26T18:38:59Z

AdeleM: /* Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective */

==[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]==

'''The Problem'''

Much of modern Christianity gets periodically torn apart by two main attitudes toward the "Inspiration of Scripture"- that is, in what way, and in to what extent, the Sciptures have been preserved or prevented from error so that the Church may be guided rightly in faith and living. One attitude stesses that there are no mistakes in Scripture, if not in the copies we now have, then in the originals, and it is this fact which gives the Church the confidence that we may, indeed, be guided rightly in matters of faith and living. The other attitude stresses that there are indeed historical, scientific, or other mistakes in Scriptures and so being guided rightly through Scripture, is indeed questionable.

What both of these positions have in common is the assumption that whatever is meant by "inspiration of Scripture", what we are to understand by this is "uniformity" of inspiration, that is, all of what is in Scripture is inspired, or not inspired in the same way, to the same extent, for all time or in all times, and independent of any other "participating" factor, or of usage - that is, Scripture is an independant "literary given".

But is this so, and has it always been thought to be so? And do the Scriptures themselves show us "another way"?

These questions are important to deal with in the light of a startling realization so contrary to what we have grown to accept and be comfortable with throughout the hundreds of years. Far from being an independant book standing outside of the people of God, guiding, directing, commanding them as they strove or did not strive to know and serve the Lord, most of what is in the Bible came as Words of God, messages, oral or literary prophetic pieces, and "historical" accounts, from within the people and, in most cases, at times contemporary with the people of God as they walked their walk through hundreds of years with (or against) the Lord, who had covenanted with them. This fact does not imply unreliability or untrustworthiness. Not having a Bible as we have nowadays, It was always, therefore, in the contemporary time of the event, both possible and necessary, to determine - was that word or words or written message just received,"from the Lord"in part or in entirety, and is that prophet a true prophet, now obedient (himself close to God) to have really heard from God, for God to have really spoken to him, and is God speaking to me now through him, through this writing from him before me, requiring me to do thus and thus? Living the life rightly was thus much more a matter of a seeking heart right with God receiving His word and guidance than a pre-given road map and an independent plan of God's will for mankind mentally qrasped and contained in a single Book. But now, in God's determination, we have both!

Before getting into the matter, it's good to consider, and perhaps to find out for the first time, what we really believe about inspiration of Scripture, and their authority over our lives, What we really believe, and not what we think we believe. Let's think about the following four questions:

1. Do we believe that when reading the prophets, perhaps the Prophet Isaiah, that there is a difference when he just writes his words whatever, than when he prefaces His words by "Thus saith the Lord"? Did we belieeve that Isaiah makes such a distinction in his own mind - that some words from him and some from the Lord?

2. Do we believe that, when reading the letters of the Apostle Paul, there is a difference when he tells us to do something, or refrain from doing something, when he writes that it is from him and "not the Lord", than when he says, it is "from the Lord"?

3. Do we believe, with the Apostle Paul, that a woman is commanded to keep silent in the church, that it is shameful for her not to do so, and it is not permitted her to speak? If we think otherwise than the Apostle and do permit it, what is the reason for our belief and practice?

4. In reading the Old Testament, without intending to "pick and choose", do we, nevertheless, tend to not apply things that are commanded to be done to our lives, for instance, putting to death our children if rebellious, and stoning the adulterous, and do tend to apply other things, such as, "to loose the bonds of wickedness", "to undo the heavy burdons", "to let the oppressed go free", "to deal...bread to the hungry"? Do we feel that the Old Testament Scriptures generally and in particular places has less authority in our lives than the New Testament? In what places and for what reasons do we feel this?

'''The Discussion:'''

l. Eastern Churches, like Judaism, do not have, and have no inner need for, a uniform level of "Inspiration" of Scriptures, as Scriptures themselves did not create or define the Churches or cause them to be distinct from other peoples or bodies. The sense of inspiration, and belief in the nature of inspiration, is directly dependent on the actual use of Scriptures in the formation by God in Christ Himself and in the stages of the Church being led by God. God is the real One and His deeds are indisputable, and the Scriptures testify to those deeds and His words spoken alongside the deeds. That is why, without much reflection because of having knowledge intuitively from living experience, that is, "from the inside", for Jews, the Law (Torah) is the most authoritative, rather than the Prophets and the Writings, athough all are "Tenakh" (Old Testament).There are three divisions with subtle differing authorities. The Jews were formed, in their own understanding, by the Law given to Moses, so that the Law by its more total application to living is the most authoritive practically. In worship, the Psalms are the most vital - as they are prayers, so their inspiration, that is, the sense that they are, and as they are, from God, is indisputable- but largly unconsciously so. In like manner, inspiration of Scripture for Easterners is directly related to the usage we make of it in all its modulations - and how those Scriptures are related to the primary formation - which is certainly not, as it is in Judaism, The Law, but rather, the Gospel. In this sense, it is entirely consistant, if one would wish to conceptualize it, to say that the Gospels, and especially at the time of the Gospel Reading in Church, is more inspired, and has more authority in our lives, than the Book of Leviticus. God is "more there" for those now who have had faith in the Son of God who has freed us precisely from the failures of the Law's ability save us, than He is when we turn to the Book of Leviticus which deals mainly with that Law which we have failed. This does not imply that the Leviticus has more errors than the Gospels but rather that the Gospels bear more of the message of God for those in Christ, more applicability, and more of the persuasion that God is speaking to us from the Holy Gospels. (If we did hold to "uniform inspiration", we would be counted as degraders of God's Word as, in comparison to the time we devote in various forms to the Gospels and Epistles, Christians devote hardly anything to various priestly and and sacrificial prescriptions of Leviticus.) But He is certainly more there with those in Christ, and with the words on the page, when we turn to the book of Leviticus than when we turn to "some of the phantastical portions of the Apocrypha". But the Protestant Church, generally, knows little of this "levels of inspiration" understanding. By going to the Jewish Masoretic Text, Protestantism follows the "Council" of Jamnia/Yavneh 90AD which jettisoned "levels of inspiration" by setting a canon for the purposes of both warding off Christian use of Greek Septuaginta to prove the truth of Christianity, and warding off Roman persecution because of the End of Days defiance to Rome understood to be in the "Greek apocrypha".

ll. This is not only an issue of the Old Testament. it also occurs for the New Testament. But the early Church never saw this issue as an intractable problem. That is why the various Scripture usages from different locals, some even from the same era - read: insipient "canons" - (containing the "disputable" books - 2 Peter, 2nd 3rd John, Jude, the Apocalpse, Letter of Hermes, Didache, etc.) never became a cause for schism. Only under Marcion, who excised Scripture to fit his faith, a faith seen as so at variance with the Apostolic teaching and testimony, were varying canons aligned with schism . But this proves the point. Marcion went against the deposit of faith and so he and his canon as a way of propagating this his heresy, were found wanting. Similarly, Luther tried to get rid of the Epistle of James, that "epistle of straw", because it went against his distinctive from the Catholicism he knew all around him. But prior to that, who ever got concerned, let alone went on Schism, because the Epistle of James was considered antithetical to, or, in some sense, conflicting with the emphasis of the epistles of Paul?

lll. It is important to see how criteria of "levels of inspiration" were understood by the Jewish sages at the time of Jamnia in the first centruy and shortly after. Some of the books that almost didn't make it into the canon of Scriptures: Esther - no name of God, Ecclesiastes - too philosphically pessimistic, Song of Songs- too erotic (needed to be spiritualized). One of them that almost did make it - Ecclesiasticus (ben Sirach)- probably would have been included if they had had it in its original Hebrew as did the "Dead Sea scrolls community" from the desert around Qumran. It is also instructive to note how canon defining in Judaism actually did take place. The Council of Jamnia Canon (which the Protestant Reformers went to, thus excluding the Apocrypha} considered those books only which they had before them in the Hebrew language as worthy for consideration (As it turned out, some of the non Hebrew books before their consideration, were originally Hebrew, as attested by the Dead Sea compilations. But they didn't know that.)

'''lV. The Dynamics of the Usual Conflict'''

During the higher critical vs. the evangelical polemical controversies, there usually is a devolving to something like this . The Higher Critic will point out "mistakes", inacurracies, in the various recensions of Scripture come down to us. They will point out that these faults can be found in all the early translations and texts and not only in the modern translations. The Evangelical will counter that all these are only apparent and seek to point out ways to reconcile them. Perhaps the Evangelical will admit to these errata but then counter that what is infallible are the "autographs" the original writings, conceding that what follows as far as translations, texts, etc. can indeed be faulty. This is an attempt to maintain the position that Scriptures must be without error otherwise we are all adrift without any surety in faith and about to be shipwrecked. The Higher Critic will then point out "What!... you maintain that there must be infallible 'autographs', that God will surely not leave the believers with a faulty road map to eternal life, and yet He allows errors to come in afterwards to plunge us all into uncerainty and doubt?!!"

There is no good answer to that. But, then, there need not be. The Higher Critical and the usual Evangelical position, in Eastern thought, are mistaken about the understanding of inspiration and that the mistake lies in unbiblical and unsupportable assumptions of "uniformity in inspiration" and the fallacy that our faith must find its shipwreck if there be but an error in the Scripture. It also goes against the very varied usages in Scripture of Scripture and it obviates the biblical understanding of Authority and the perpetuation of truth in the Church, healthy historical development, and a great deal of common sense.

'''V. How Inspiration of Scripture and levels of Inspiration really work : The Eastern Perspective'''

The Eastern approach to Scripture is very different from the Western. At best, the Western seeks to locate the Inspired documents of the Faith by going back to the originals, and considers any thing later as not being inspired. Those later translations and version, however beautiful and apt, like the King James Version, are not considered bearers of inspiration, nor borne by Inspiration - no matter how used of God for his purposes. But the Eastern view of things seem to suggest that the Inspiration of the originals, has somehow abundantly overflowed on and permeatingly into the traditional versions and translations used by the various Eastern Churches - Greek, Armenian, Amharic, Aramaic (Syriac), etc. Inspiration carries on! Similarly, in the East, there seems to be "no stopping Christ". He, too, overflows. There are no distinct lines where Christ is and where He is not. For clarification and by example, the West has Christ coming in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in much clearer deliniation than the East. It is at the time of the Consecration (emphasizing the "Words of Institution") of the Bread and Wine and then the communicants partake of Him. All of this irrespective of His presence elswhere or in other form. In the East, Christ, more biblically, appears and is present at the gathering of the communicants (where two or three are gathered together there am I) at the "church service", and also at the Consecration of bread and wine (emphasizing the "Epiclesis"). He pervades all, invades all as He did into the upper room, and, of course, the bread and the wine, and His presence transmutes, permeates, without destroying the elements, that is, without there being the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine as understood by the Latin West. The how of transmutation might well be called "assumption". He assumes the bread and wine, takes them up into Himself, and they are no longer merely what they were before. So we have here something analogous to the Incarnation. The Son of God assumes, or takes up into Himself humanity and we have, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ, the perfect union of God and Man, But note that Jesus Christ has, after the Incarnation, a fully human form with all it's weaknesses unobliterated , even those that were produced through His forebearers, though, of course, He had no personal sin, and, as is also true, an "immaculate" cut off by the Holy Spirit of the stain of inherited Adamic sin with which we are all infected.

In the Eastern view, all this is analagous to the mode of inspiration of Scriptures. As God was able to incarnate and, in all the weaknesses of the humanity He assumed, fulfill all His purposes which He intended, so God is able to assume the writings He has chosen, with all its weaknesses and imperfections of humanity, to fullfill all his purposes that He intends for that. As, at the time of the Eucharist, in the Eastern view, He makes bread and wine into what it is not naturally, ''but not by destroying what it is naturally'', so God at the time, place, circumstances of our "usage" - writing, translating, reading of the Holy Gospel, prayerful or scholarly study for godliness, etc. descends, safeguarding what is needed for His and our purposes - whether it takes straitening out, clarifying, causing us to pay attention, causing us to overlook - He even uses "lense and prism" to make the "crookeds" straight for our sakes. It is understood that he is capable and able for that and ones faith is sourced in another mode, that of the message handed down, first by his apostles, and then by those after, and all this in coordinate with His gift oft he Scriptures. This understanding of how things really were for the Church removes us from the superfluous war of words between the Higher Critics with much of their denial of the verities of Faith and the Guardians of Orthodoxy. The surety of our faith has nothing to do with which of the competing views of the Scriptures is true, and we are quite open to evaluate and accept. At the same time, we are immune from the vagaries and whims and scholarly defects of these Higher Critics because our criteria and sourcing of Truth and Authority in the Church is "wholly other",rather than the "latest and assured results of the most recent scholarship".

Vl. Because of this understanding, and practice, of what is entailed by "the Church", in the understanding of the Eastern church, the biblical teaching concerning the responsibilities of bishops, priests/pastors, and deacons, and the hows of the safeguarding and perpetuating the teachings concerning the Person and Work of Christ the Savior and concerning the Holy Trinity, Higher Critical theories have less power to shake up the churches than where there is little understanding of the Biblical thrust concerning Authority. This Authority is not "Papal", but, rather, the understanding that Christ has commissioned the Apostles and then they, those after them, to say it like it is, to speak (and write) the truth to be believed in, and to defend it.

Fetalcide

2009-11-25T01:49:56Z

AdeleM: Redirected page to Feticide

#REDIRECT [[Feticide]]

Fetalcide

2009-11-25T01:49:42Z

AdeleM: Redirecting to feticide

#REDIRECT [[Fetalcide]]

Feticide

2009-11-25T01:49:03Z

AdeleM: /*fixing mis-redirect*/

'''Feticide''' is a term to describe the homicide of an unborn child, usually in conjunction with the homicide of the child's mother. The person in the womb, with rights known as [[personhood]], has a right to live and feticide ends that chance. The military court system is trying to charge [[Nidal Malik Hasan]] with 14 murders, this includes the [[unborn]] that perished in the [[terrorist]] massacre. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BU59V80&show_article=1 Army: Fort Hood suspect charged with murder, Breitbart.com, November 12, 2009]</ref>

Other instances of feticide include a pregnant mother ending her own unborn child's life by gunshot. <ref>[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?news/view.php&newsid=1515 Mother Who Shoots Her Unborn Child Can't Be Prosecuted, christianliferesources.com, October 31, 1997]</ref> Also, feticide could be the motive when a man assaults his pregnant girlfriend and subsequently the child dies.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Crimes]]

Fetalcide

2009-11-25T01:45:35Z

AdeleM: Undo revision 723520 by AdeleM (Talk) - oops!

'''Fetalcide''' is a term to describe the homicide of an unborn child, usually in conjunction with the homicide of the child's mother. The person in the womb, with rights known as [[personhood]], has a right to live and fetalcide ends that chance. The military court system is trying to charge [[Nidal Malik Hasan]] with 14 murders, this includes the [[unborn]] that perished in the [[terrorist]] massacre. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BU59V80&show_article=1 Army: Fort Hood suspect charged with murder, Breitbart.com, November 12, 2009]</ref>

Other instances of fetalcide include a pregnant mother ending her own unborn childs life by gunshot. <ref>[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?news/view.php&newsid=1515 Mother Who Shoots Her Unborn Child Can't Be Prosecuted, christianliferesources.com, October 31, 1997]</ref> Also, fetalcide can explain when a drunk boyfriend assaults his pregnant girlfriend and subsequently the child dies.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Crimes]]

Fetalcide

2009-11-25T01:44:47Z

AdeleM:

'''Fetalcide''' is a term to describe the homicide of an unborn child, usually in conjunction with the homicide of the child's mother. The person in the womb, with rights known as [[personhood]], has a right to live and fetalcide ends that chance. The military court system is trying to charge [[Nidal Malik Hasan]] with 14 murders, this includes the [[unborn]] that perished in the [[terrorist]] massacre. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BU59V80&show_article=1 Army: Fort Hood suspect charged with murder, Breitbart.com, November 12, 2009]</ref>

Other instances of fetalcide include a pregnant mother ending her own unborn childs life by gunshot. <ref>[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?news/view.php&newsid=1515 Mother Who Shoots Her Unborn Child Can't Be Prosecuted, christianliferesources.com, October 31, 1997]</ref> Also, fetalcide can explain when a drunk boyfriend assaults his pregnant girlfriend and subsequently the child dies.

[[Feticide]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Crimes]]

The parable of the wheat and the tares

2009-11-17T23:00:28Z

AdeleM:

<blockquote>24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 

25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 

26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 

27. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 

28. He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 

29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 

30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 

36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 

37. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 

38. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 

39. The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 

40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 

41. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 

42. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. <blockquote>

The parable of the wheat and the tares

2009-11-17T22:48:57Z

AdeleM: Added text from Matthew 13

<blockquote>24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 

25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 

26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 

27. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 

28. He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 

29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 

30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 

36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 

37. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 

38. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 

39. The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 

40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 

41. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 

42. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. <blockquote>

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican

2009-11-17T22:42:47Z

AdeleM: /* Text */

The [[Biblical Parables|parable]] of '''The Pharisee and the Publican''' is a parable of Jesus recounted in the [[Gospel of Luke]]. In it, the Publican's shame at his own sin is held higher than the Pharisee's gratitude for his own virtue. This teaches us the value of humility over pride.

== Text ==

From the Gospel of Luke, chapter 18 (King James Version):

<blockquote>
9. And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 
10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 
11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 
12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 
13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 
14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.</blockquote>

The Roman ''publicanus'' was a public contractor and tax-gatherer rather than a publican in the modern sense, and other Bible translations, for example the New International Version, call him a tax collector rather than a publican.

[[category:Jesus]]

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-08T23:59:31Z

AdeleM: /* Luke 3:23 */

==Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι==

απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html writings of Josephus], it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.

But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:34-35 ==

Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:

Cause:
(A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites

Immediate Consequence:
(1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is
(2B) Mary will be deeply grieved

Ultimate Purpose"
(C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people

In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).

I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.

Just a thought. God bless. [[User:MBack|Michael Back]] 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Luke 3:1==
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Chapter 3 Verse 12==
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::"Mentor" is the most accurate that comes off the top of my head. Perhaps even "guide" or something along those lines? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:39, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
:::::"Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
:::::"And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
:::::"...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
:::::19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::::I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!

::::::One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the [[NASB]] and [[ESV]] to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)

==Gender-Neutral Language==
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's fine, but I can't imagine ''any'' of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

==Chapter 3, Verses 18-20==
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.

19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.

20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.[[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.

:In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.

:In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.

::On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.

::On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.

:::More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".

::::I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.

:::::I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 3:23 ==

I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as." This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)

::But our version is not dumbing things down. In fact, that is one of our objections to the [[NIV]], which some say is written at only the 4th grade level.

::"Being known as" is not accurate. Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, John the Baptist and perhaps others always knew he was the Son of God. And "being known as" is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek either. Finally, why should anyone care what others may have thought? "Being known as" just doesn't fit the point of the passage.

::Ostensibly does not imply deceit in English. I saw that nowhere in its definition in the dictionary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::Well, if I said that you are ostensibly here to translate the Bible, I'd be implying that you were really here to do something else. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensibly I know that's not the *only* meaning, but I'd like to avoid *any* possible misunderstanding on this point.
:::Presumably Mary and others didn't "suppose" (KJV's word) Him to be the literal son of Joseph, either.
:::Another option might be to say that He *seemed* to be or that he was *apparently* the son of Joseph, which is probably no further from the original and reads a little better.
:::I'm not trying to dumb this down-- replacing complex language with simple would be dumbing down, and I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to hang on to some of the plainness of the KJV verse. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-08T23:59:12Z

AdeleM: /* Luke 3:23 */

==Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι==

απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html writings of Josephus], it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.

But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:34-35 ==

Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:

Cause:
(A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites

Immediate Consequence:
(1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is
(2B) Mary will be deeply grieved

Ultimate Purpose"
(C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people

In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).

I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.

Just a thought. God bless. [[User:MBack|Michael Back]] 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Luke 3:1==
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Chapter 3 Verse 12==
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::"Mentor" is the most accurate that comes off the top of my head. Perhaps even "guide" or something along those lines? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:39, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
:::::"Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
:::::"And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
:::::"...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
:::::19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::::I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!

::::::One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the [[NASB]] and [[ESV]] to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)

==Gender-Neutral Language==
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's fine, but I can't imagine ''any'' of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

==Chapter 3, Verses 18-20==
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.

19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.

20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.[[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.

:In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.

:In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.

::On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.

::On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.

:::More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".

::::I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.

:::::I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 3:23 ==

I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as." This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)

::But our version is not dumbing things down. In fact, that is one of our objections to the [[NIV]], which some say is written at only the 4th grade level.

::"Being known as" is not accurate. Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, John the Baptist and perhaps others always knew he was the Son of God. And "being known as" is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek either. Finally, why should anyone care what others may have thought? "Being known as" just doesn't fit the point of the passage.

::Ostensibly does not imply deceit in English. I saw that nowhere in its definition in the dictionary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::Well, if I said that you are ostensibly here to translate the Bible, I'd be implying that you were really here to do something else. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensibly I know that's not the *only* meaning, but I'd like to avoid *any* possible misunderstanding on this point.
:::Presumably Mary and others didn't "suppose" (KJV's word) Him to be the literal son of Joseph, either.
Another option might be to say that He *seemed* to be or that he was *apparently* the son of Joseph, which is probably no further from the original and reads a little better.
:::I'm not trying to dumb this down-- replacing complex language with simple would be dumbing down, and I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to hang on to some of the plainness of the KJV verse. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-08T23:50:38Z

AdeleM: /* Luke 3:23 */

==Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι==

απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html writings of Josephus], it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.

But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:34-35 ==

Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:

Cause:
(A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites

Immediate Consequence:
(1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is
(2B) Mary will be deeply grieved

Ultimate Purpose"
(C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people

In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).

I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.

Just a thought. God bless. [[User:MBack|Michael Back]] 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Luke 3:1==
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Chapter 3 Verse 12==
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::"Mentor" is the most accurate that comes off the top of my head. Perhaps even "guide" or something along those lines? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:39, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
:::::"Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
:::::"And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
:::::"...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
:::::19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::::I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!

::::::One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the [[NASB]] and [[ESV]] to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)

==Gender-Neutral Language==
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's fine, but I can't imagine ''any'' of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

==Chapter 3, Verses 18-20==
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.

19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.

20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.[[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.

:In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.

:In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.

::On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.

::On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.

:::More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".

::::I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.

:::::I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 3:23 ==

I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as." This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)

::But our version is not dumbing things down. In fact, that is one of our objections to the [[NIV]], which some say is written at only the 4th grade level.

::"Being known as" is not accurate. Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, John the Baptist and perhaps others always knew he was the Son of God. And "being known as" is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek either. Finally, why should anyone care what others may have thought? "Being known as" just doesn't fit the point of the passage.

::Ostensibly does not imply deceit in English. I saw that nowhere in its definition in the dictionary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::Well, if I said that you are ostensibly here to translate the Bible, I'd be implying that you were really here to do something else.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensibly I know that's not the *only* meaning, but I'd like to avoid *any* possible misunderstanding on this point.
Presumably Mary and others didn't "suppose" (KJV's word) Him to be the literal son of Joseph, either.
Another option might be to say that He *seemed* to be the son of Joseph, which is probably no further from the original and reads a little better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-08T22:40:30Z

AdeleM: /* Luke 3:23 */

==Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι==

απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html writings of Josephus], it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.

But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== 2:34-35 ==

Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:

Cause:
(A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites

Immediate Consequence:
(1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is
(2B) Mary will be deeply grieved

Ultimate Purpose"
(C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people

In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).

I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.

Just a thought. God bless. [[User:MBack|Michael Back]] 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Luke 3:1==
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. [[User:Cambrian|Cambrian]] 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Chapter 3 Verse 12==
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
:The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::"Mentor" is the most accurate that comes off the top of my head. Perhaps even "guide" or something along those lines? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:39, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:::::I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
:::::"Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
:::::"And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
:::::"...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
:::::19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)

::::::I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!

::::::One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the [[NASB]] and [[ESV]] to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)

==Gender-Neutral Language==
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)

:Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::That's fine, but I can't imagine ''any'' of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

==Chapter 3, Verses 18-20==
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.

19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.

20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.[[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.

:In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.

:In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.

::On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.

::On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.

:::More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".

::::I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.

:::::I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)

::::::Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)

:::::::OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)

== Luke 3:23 ==

I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as. This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-08T19:51:59Z

AdeleM: /* Chapter 3 */ Had a go at vs. 23 + minor edits to begats

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
|Though many have endeavored to write accounts of our most cherished beliefs,
|
|-
|2
|Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
|and have given these accounts to us, of eyewitnesses and chosen ministers of Christ,
|
|-
|3
|It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
|it seems fitting that I should write an account as well, to you, Theophilus, for I have had a perfect understanding of all these things since the beginning of the Church
|
|-
|4
|That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
|so that you will know the certainty of all these things you have been told of.
|
|-
|5
|There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
|During the reign of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias in the tradition of Abia, who was married to Elisabeth, a descendant of Aaron.
|See 1 Chron. 24:10, which refers to the different courses of Jewish priests.
|-
|6
|And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
|These two were both good and just people in the eyes of God, keeping all the commandments and all the laws of the Lord.
|
|-
|7
|And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
|Elisabeth was infertile, and so they grew old without having a child.
|
|-
|8
|And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
|Zacharias, in his capacity as a priest,
|
|-
|9
|According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
|was required to burn incense in the temple of the Lord.
|
|-
|10
|And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
|Crowds of people were praying outside the temple at this time,
|
|-
|11
|And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
|and there appeared to Zacharias an angel of the Lord, on the right side of the altar.
|
|-
|12
|And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
|Upon seeing him, Zacharias was very afraid.
|
|-
|13
|But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
|But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias. Your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elisabeth shall be pregnant with a son, and you shall name him John.
|
|-
|14
|And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
|And you will feel great joy, and many shall rejoice at your sons birth.
|
|-
|15
|For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
|He shall be great in the eyes of the Lord, and shall not drink alcohol of any kind, and he will be filled with the Divine Guide, even in the womb.
|
|-
|16
|And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
|And he shall witness to many Jews and convert them.
|
|-
|17
|And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
|And He will go with him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to bring families together and bring the wisdom of justice to the unjust; to prepare the people for the coming of the Lord."
|
|-
|18
|And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
|Zacharias said to the angel, "How shall I know this? I am an old man, and my wife is also old."
|
|-
|19
|And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
|The angel answered him, saying, "I am Gabriel, who has stood before God, and have been sent to speak to you, and give you good news.
|
|-
|20
|And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
|Because you have doubted my words, which shall soon be shown to be true, you shall be unable to speak until all I have said has occurred."
|
|-
|21
|And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
|The crowds outside waited for Zacharias, surprised that he took so long in the temple.
|
|-
|22
|And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
|When he came out, he could not speak, and they could tell that he had seen a vision in the temple, for he gestured to them, but remained speechless.
|
|-
|23
|And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
|As soon as his duties as a priest were complected, he went to his home.
|
|-
|24
|And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
|And his wife Elisabeth became pregnant, and hid for for five months, saying,
|
|-
|25
|Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
|"The Lord has cured me of my infertility, and taken away my shame among men."
|
|-
|26
|And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
|In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Nazareth, a city near the Sea of Galilee,
|
|-
|27
|To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
|to a virgin named Mary, who was engaged to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David.
|
|-
|28
|And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
|The angel came to her, saying, "Hail, Mary, for the Lord favors you and is with you. You are blessed among women."
|
|-
|29
|And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
|When she saw him, she was trouble, unsure of the manner of this news.
|
|-
|30
|And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
|And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, for you are favored by God.
|
|-
|31
|And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
|And you shall become pregnant, and bear a son, and his name shall be Jesus.
|
|-
|32
|He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
|He shall be great, and shall be called the the Son of the Lord, and the Lord shall give him the throne of his ancestor King David.
|
|-
|33
|And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
|And he shall reign over Israel forever, and his kingdom shall have no end."
|
|-
|34
|Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
|Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have not been with a man?"
|
|-
|35
|And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
|The angel answered, saying, "The Divine Guide shall be alight on you, and the power of the Lord will overshadow you, so that the holy child you shall bear will be called the Son of God.
|
|-
|36
|And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
|Your cousin Elisabeth, who was called barren, is also pregnant in her old age, and has been for six months.
|
|-
|37
|For with God nothing shall be impossible.
|With God, all things are possible."
|
|-
|38
|And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
|So Mary said, "I shall be the servant of the Lord; let his will be done to me." And the angel departed.
|
|-
|39
|And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda,
|That day, Mary went into the hills to the city of Juda
|
|-
|40
|And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
|and went to the house of Zacharias, and greeted Elisabeth.
|
|-
|41
|And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
|When Elisabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby jumped in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the Divine Guide.
|
|-
|42
|And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
|And she said in a loud voice, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is your infant son.
|
|-
|43
|And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
|Who am I, that the mother of my Lord should visit me?
|
|-
|44
|For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
|For as soon as I heard your greeting, the baby jumped for joy in my womb."
|
|-
|45
|And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
|She was blessed, because she believed.
|
|-
|46
|And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
|And Mary said, "I praise the Lord with all my heart,
|
|-
|47
|And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
|and my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
|
|-
|48
|For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
|For he haw seen the low fortune of his servant, but now all future generations shall call me blessed.
|
|-
|49
|For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
|He who is mighty has done a great thing for me, and his name is holy.
|
|-
|50
|And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
|He is merciful to those who have feared him for generations.
|
|-
|51
|He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
|He has done mighty deeds with his arm; he has brought down the self-centered.
|perhaps "brought down" could be improved
|-
|52
|He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
|He has brought down the mighty, and exalted the humble.
|
|-
|53
|He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
|He has fed the hungry with the best foods, and the miserly he sent away empty-handed.
|
|-
|54
|He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
|He has aided his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,
|
|-
|55
|As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
|as he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham, and to his descendants for all time."
|
|-
|56
|And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
|Mary lived with Elisabeth for three months before returning to her own house.
|
|-
|57
|Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
|It was then that Elisabeth came to term, and delivered a son,
|
|-
|58
|And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
|and her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shown mercy upon her, and they rejoiced with her.
|
|-
|59
|And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
|On the eighth day, the time came to circumcise the boy, and they wanted to name him Zacharias, after his father.
|
|-
|60
|And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
|But Elisabeth answered, "No, he shall be called John."
|
|-
|61
|And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
|Her neighbors said to her, "None of his family is named John.
|
|-
|62
|And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
|So they called for Zacharias his father, and asked what he would have the child be named.
|
|-
|63
|And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
|He called for a tablet, and wrote, "His name shall be John." And they all were amazed that he should choose this.
|
|-
|64
|And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
|Immediately, his mouth was opened, and he could speak again, and he praised God.
|
|-
|65
|And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea.
|And all of their neighbors were awed, and they spoke of these things all throughout the hills of Judea.
|
|-
|66
|And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.
|And all who heard these things pondered them in their hearts, thinking, "What kind of boy shall this be? For the hand of the Lord is with him."
|
|-
|67
|And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
|His father, Zacharias, was filled with the Divine Guide, and prophesied, saying,
|
|-
|68
|Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
|"Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for he has come and redeemed his people,
|
|-
|69
|And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
|and has raised up a trumpet-call of salvation for us descended from his servant, David.
|
|-
|70
|As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
|As has been prophesied by his holy prophets, who have come since the world began:
|
|-
|71
|That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
|that we should be saved from our enemies and from all those who would hate us;
|
|-
|72
|To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
|to perform the mercy promised to our ancestors, and to remember his holy covenant;
|
|-
|73
|The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
|that oath which he swore to Abraham,
|
|-
|74
|That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
|that he would grant us deliverance from out enemies, so that we could worship him without fear,
|
|-
|75
|In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
|in holiness and righteousness all the days of our life.
|
|-
|76
|And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
|And you, my boy, shall be the prophet of the Highest, for you shall prepare the way of the Lord,
|
|-
|77
|To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
|giving knowledge of the salvation to come to his people, by the remission of their sins,
|
|-
|78
|Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
|through the tender mercy of our God, from which all blessings flow forth to us from heaven,
|
|-
|79
|To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
|to give light to those us mortals who are in darkness, to guide our feet along the path of the just."
|
|-
|80
|And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.
|The child grew into a man with strong spirit, and went into the desert until he again returned to Israel.
|
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
|At this time, Caeser Augustus sent out a decree that all the world should be counted in the census.
|ἀπογράφεσθαι refers to a capitation tax here, more like a census than a pure tax as people were required to be counted as they paid it in person.
|-
|2
|(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
|This was after the first census, made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
|
|-
|3
|And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
|And every man went to be counted, each to the city of his birth.
|A word for word translation would be, "to his own city," but the city of one's birth is precisely what this means.
|-
|4
|And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
|So Joseph left Nazareth in Galilee and went into Judea, to Bethlehem, the city of his ancestor David,
|
|-
|5
|To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
|to be counted with his fiancée Mary, whose child was nearly ready for birth.
|don't dilute reference to unborn child here
|-
|6
|And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
|And so it was that she came to term while they were there, and entered labor.
|
|-
|7
|And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
|She gave birth to her first child, a son, and wrapped him in soft blankets, and laid him in a trough for animals, because there was no room for them in the inn.
|
|-
|8
|And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
|Near the city, there were shepherds tending their flocks in the field at night.
|
|-
|9
|And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
|The angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shined around them, and they became frightened.
|
|-
|10
|And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
|But the angel said to them, "Do not fear, for I bring good news, which shall bring joy to all the world.
|
|-
|11
|For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
|For this day a child has been born among you, in the city of David, a savior, Christ the Lord.
|
|-
|12
|And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
|And you shall know him when you find the infant wrapped in blankets lying in a trough for animals."
|
|-
|13
|And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
|And suddenly, there was with the angel a great many other angels praising God, and saying,
|
|-
|14
|Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
|"Glory to God, in the highest, and on Earth, peace and good will among men."
|
|-
|15
|And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
|After the angels left, the shepherds talked among themselves and decided to go to Bethlehem to see the child.
|
|-
|16
|And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
|And quickly they found Mary, and Joseph, and the infant lying in the animal trough.
|
|-
|17
|And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
|And when they saw him, they made it known to all what the angel had told them in regard to the child.
|
|-
|18
|And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
|All who heard these things the shepherds said wondered at them.
|
|-
|19
|But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
|But Mary pondered these events silently.
|
|-
|20
|And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
|The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for everything they had heard and seen.
|"As it was told unto them" is unnecessarily repetitive.
|-
|21
|And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
|Once eight days had passed and the time had come to circumcise the infant, they named him Jesus, as the angel had foretold before he had even been conceived.
|
|-
|22
|And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
|And once Mary had been purified according to the laws set forth by Moses, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.
|
|-
|23
|(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
|(For the law of the Lord states that every firstborn male shall be holy to the Lord;)
|
|-
|24
|And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
|and to give thanks with a sacrifice as prescribed in the law of the Lord: "A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
|"give thanks" to explain the sacrifice?
|-
|25
|And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
|Fortunately there was a man named Simeon in Jerusalem who was just and devout as he awaited the Messiah for Israel; Simeon had divine guidance.
|Holy Ghost here -> had divine guidance? Also, is the reference to the Messiah in English supported by the Greek?
|-
|26
|And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
|And the Divine Guide had revealed to him that he would not die until he had seen the Messiah sent by the Lord.
|Using Divine Guide for Holy Spirit/Ghost as suggested elsewhere.
|-
|27
|And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
|The Spirit led Simeon into the temple. When Jesus's parents brought him in according to the religious custom,
|use triangulation to fuller convey the meaning: translate "Divine Guide" for the first reference, "Spirit" for the second
|-
|28
|Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
|Simeon took Jesus in his arms, praised God and exclaimed,
|
|-
|29
|Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
|"Lord, now let your servant pass away with peace of mind, as You command.
|the English word "peace" now means "anti-war"; this reference to "peace" really means "peace of mind" so translate it that way
|-
|30
|For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
|for my eyes have seen Your salvation,
|
|-
|31
|Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
|which you prepared for everyone to see;
|
|-
|32
|A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
|a light to enlighten the non-believers, and the glory of the people of Israel.
|
|-
|33
|And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
|Joseph and Mary marveled at what was said about Jesus.
|
|-
|34
|And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
|Simeon blessed them, telling Mary, "Listen: this child is destined for the fall and rise of many Israelites, and will become the object of scorn;
|"Behold" is ignored by many modern translations, as is the basic mockery and scorn,
|-
|35
|(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
|causing your heart will ache with pain over it, and the hatred towards Him will expose the hearts of many.
|
|-
|36
|And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
|And a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Aser, was quite elderly, having been married for seven years after her virginity
|avoid feminist rendition of "prophetess" and its erasure of "virginity"
|-
|37
|And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
|She was an 84 year old widow, who had not strayed from her faith, and daily observed all of the customs.
|
|-
|38
|And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
|And she gave thanks to the Lord and spoke of him to everyone who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
|
|-
|39
|And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
|When they had done everything according to the Lord's laws, they returned home to Nazareth in Galilee.
|
|-
|40
|And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
|The child grew and became strong in spirit and filled with wisdom; the grace of God was with him.
|
|-
|41
|Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
|His parents went to Jerusalem every year for passover.
|
|-
|42
|And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
|When he was twelve years old, they went to Jerusalem as was customary for the holiday.
|
|-
|43
|And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
|When they returned a few days later, the child Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph did not know about this.
|
|-
|44
|But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
|They thought he was traveling with the group, and at the end of the first day's journey, they looked for him.
|
|-
|45
|And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
|When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him.
|
|-
|46
|And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
|After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the priests, both listening to them and asking questions.
|The KJV term "doctors" is archaic - "priests" is more appropriate to the modern audience.
|-
|47
|And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
|Everyone that heard him was astonished at his understanding and answers.
|
|-
|48
|And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
|When his parents found him they were amazed, his mother asking, "Son, why did you do this to us? Look at how your father and I have been worried sick in looking for you!"
|
|-
|49
|And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
|Jesus replied, "Why did you panic? Didn't you realize that I must be tending to my Father's work?"
|or "Father's house"? "panic" rather than "search"?
|-
|50
|And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
|And they could not understand what He was saying.
|
|-
|51
|And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
|Jesus left with them, and came to Nazareth, where he obeyed them, as His mother stored in her heart all he said.
|
|-
|52
|And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
|Meanwhile Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, favored by both God and man.
|"man" ... or "mankind" here? "Mankind" does not usually "favor" something. NRSV: "human favor"; REB: "men"; NJB: "people". "Man" is a general term.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
|In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of Ituraea and the region known as Trachonitis. Lysanias was the tetrarch of Abilene.
|"tetrarch" is an obscure term for the modern reader, governor captures the meaning better than king
|-
|2
|Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
|In the time when Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the Living Word of God inspired John, the son of Zacharias, in the desert.
|Wasn't it a "desert"? Also, use "Living Word" here as in John 1:1
|-
|3
|And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
|All through the Jordan valley he preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;
|
|-
|4
|As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
|As it is written in the Book of Isaiah, a voice cries out in the desert, 'Prepare a route for the Lord and straighten his path.'
|say a "man" rather than he gender-neutral "one"?
|-
|5
|Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
|Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be leveled; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough paths shall be made smooth;
|
|-
|6
|And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
|And all flesh will see the salvation of God.
|
|-
|7
|Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
|Then he said to the crowd that came to be baptized, 'Oh you wicked people, who warned you to run away from the fury that will come?'
|
|-
|8
|Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
|Prepare a worthy token of your repentance, and do not make the excuse that we have Abraham as our forebear: for I will say to you, that God could make children from these stones.
|Lithos (λίθος) - stones - may refer to Christ being made by God as a son of Abraham. John is hectoring the crowd here, reminding them that God has given them the ability to seek redemption.
|-
|9
|And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
|And now also the ax is laid into the root of the trees: every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and cast into the fire.
|
|-
|10
|And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
|And the people asked him, 'what should we do then?'
|
|-
|11
|He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
|He answered them: 'he who has two coats, let him donate to he who has none; and he who has food should do the same.'
|
|-
|12
|Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
|Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, "Sir, what should we do?"
|modern translations use "teacher" instead of "master", but "teacher" today has a liberal connotation. Also, avoid gender-neuterizing. Suggestions welcome.
|-
|13
|And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
|And he told them, "Demand no more than the law requires."
|
|-
|14
|And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
|Soldiers likewise asked Him, "what should we do?" And he told them, "Do no violence to anyone, nor make false accusations; be satisfied with your wages."
|note: here the older manuscripts seem to capture what the KJV's later manuscripts missed: John was talking about taking ''money'' by undue force
|-
|15
|And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
|As the people were in anticipation, they wondered in their hearts whether or not John might be the Christ.
|
|-
|16
|John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
|John replied to them all, "I do baptize you with water, but a man mightier than I will come; I am unworthy to untie His sandal strap. He shall baptize you with fire and the Holy Spirit."
|note the gender neutralizing by the KJV. Also, break the sentence to emphasize the last point.
|-
|17
|Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
|Whose winnowing fan is in His hand. He will clean the threshing floor, gathering the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff will be burnt with unquenchable fire
|Note the interesting KJV spelling: "throughly purge his floor." Some modern translations refer to "threshing floor" but that is imprecise as this verse is not describing the separation of seeds.
|-
|18
|And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.
|He admonished many things in his evangelizing to the people.
|modern translations sugarcoat this and turn it into comfort (e.g., "good news") rather the exhortation it was
|-
|19
|But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
|Herod the governor, having been reprimanded by John for his immoral marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip's wife and for all the other evils he had done
|immoral better than "unlawful", since Herod set his own laws
|-
|20
|Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
|Added an even greater sin by shutting John up in prison.
|
|-
|21
|Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
|When all the people were baptized, and Jesus was also being baptized and praying, the heaven was opened,
|
|-
|22
|And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
|And the Holy Ghost descended to him in the shape of a dove, and a voice came from heaven saying, You are my beloved Son and I am pleased with you.
|
|-
|23
|And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
|Jesus himself reached the age of about thirty years, being known as the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,
|tricky here ... Jesus was the actual son of Joseph legally and in terms of childrearing
|-
|24
|Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
|Who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Janna, who was the son of Joseph,
|
|-
|25
|Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
|Who was the son of Mattathias, who was the son of Amos, who was the son of Naum, who was the son of Esli, who was the son of Nagge,
|
|-
|26
|Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
|Who was the son of Maath, who was the son of Mattathias, who was the son of Semei, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Juda,
|
|-
|27
|Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
|Who was the son of Joanna, who was the son of Rhesa, who was the son of Zorobabel, who was the son of Salathiel, who was the son of Neri,
|
|-
|28
|Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
|Who was the son of Melchi, who was the son of Addi, who was the son of Cosam, who was the son of Elmodam, who was the son of Er,
|
|-
|29
|Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
|Who was the son of Jose, who was the son of Eliezer, who was the son of Jorim, who was the son of Matthat, who was the son of Levi,
|
|-
|30
|Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
|Who was the son of Simeon, who was the son of Juda, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Jonan, who was the son of Eliakim,
|
|-
|31
|Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
|Who was the son of Melea, who was the son of Menan, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son of Nathan, who was the son of David,
|
|-
|32
|Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
|Who was the son of Jesse, who was the son of Obed, who was the son of Booz, who was the son of Salmon, who was the son of Naasson,
|
|-
|33
|Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
|Who was the son of Aminadab, who was the son of Aram, who was the son of Esrom, who was the son of Phares, who was the son of Juda,
|
|-
|34
|Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
|Who was the son of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, who was the son of Thara, who was the son of Nachor,
|
|-
|35
|Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
|Who was the son of Saruch, who was the son of Ragau, who was the son of Phalec, who was the son of Heber, who was the son of Sala,
|
|-
|36
|Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
|Who was the son of Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxad, who was the son of Sem, who was the son of Noe, who was the son of Lamech
|
|-
|37
|Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
|Who was the son of Mathusala, who was the son of Enoch, who was the son of Jared, who was the son of Maleleel, who was the son of Cainan,
|
|-
|38
|Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
|Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God.
|
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
|
|
|-
|2
|Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
|
|
|-
|3
|And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
|
|
|-
|4
|And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
|
|
|-
|5
|And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
|
|
|-
|6
|And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
|
|
|-
|7
|If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
|
|
|-
|8
|And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
|
|
|-
|9
|And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
|
|
|-
|10
|For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
|
|
|-
|11
|And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
|
|
|-
|12
|And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
|
|
|-
|13
|And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
|
|
|-
|14
|And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
|
|
|-
|15
|And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
|
|
|-
|16
|And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
|
|
|-
|17
|And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
|
|
|-
|18
|The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
|
|
|-
|19
|To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
|
|
|-
|20
|And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
|
|
|-
|21
|And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
|
|
|-
|22
|And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
|
|
|-
|23
|And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
|
|
|-
|24
|And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
|
|
|-
|25
|But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
|
|-
|26
|But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
|
|
|-
|27
|And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
|
|
|-
|28
|And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
|
|
|-
|29
|And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
|
|
|-
|30
|But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
|
|-
|31
|And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days.
|
|
|-
|32
|And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.
|
|
|-
|33
|And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
|
|
|-
|34
|Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
|
|
|-
|35
|And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not.
|
|
|-
|36
|And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out.
|
|
|-
|37
|And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.
|
|
|-
|38
|And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
|
|
|-
|39
|And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.
|
|
|-
|40
|Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.
|
|
|-
|41
|And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
|
|
|-
|42
|And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them.
|
|
|-
|43
|And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
|
|
|-
|44
|And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
|
|
|-
|2
|And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets.
|
|
|-
|3
|And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship.
|
|
|-
|4
|Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
|
|
|-
|5
|And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.
|
|
|-
|6
|And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake.
|
|
|-
|7
|And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink.
|
|
|-
|8
|When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
|
|
|-
|9
|For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
|
|
|-
|10
|And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
|
|
|-
|11
|And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.
|
|
|-
|12
|And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
|
|
|-
|13
|And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
|
|
|-
|14
|And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
|
|
|-
|15
|But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.
|
|
|-
|16
|And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.
|
|
|-
|17
|And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
|
|
|-
|18
|And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him.
|
|
|-
|19
|And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.
|
|
|-
|20
|And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
|
|
|-
|21
|And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
|
|
|-
|22
|But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
|
|
|-
|23
|Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?
|
|
|-
|24
|But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.
|
|
|-
|25
|And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.
|
|
|-
|26
|And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day.
|
|
|-
|27
|And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
|
|
|-
|28
|And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
|
|
|-
|29
|And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
|
|
|-
|30
|But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
|
|
|-
|31
|And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
|
|
|-
|32
|I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
|
|
|-
|33
|And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
|
|
|-
|34
|And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?
|
|
|-
|35
|But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
|
|
|-
|36
|And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
|
|
|-
|37
|And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
|
|
|-
|38
|But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
|
|
|-
|39
|No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
|
|-
|2
|And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
|
|-
|3
|And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
|
|-
|4
|How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
|
|-
|5
|And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
|
|-
|6
|And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
|
|-
|7
|And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
|
|-
|8
|But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
|
|-
|9
|Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
|
|-
|10
|And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
|
|-
|11
|And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.
|
|-
|12
|And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
|
|-
|13
|And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
|
|-
|14
|Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
|
|-
|15
|Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
|
|-
|16
|And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
|
|-
|17
|And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
|
|-
|18
|And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.
|
|-
|19
|And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.
|
|-
|20
|And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
|
|-
|21
|Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
|
|-
|22
|Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
|
|-
|23
|Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
|
|-
|24
|But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
|
|-
|25
|Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
|
|-
|26
|Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
|
|-
|27
|But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
|
|-
|28
|Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
|
|-
|29
|And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
|
|-
|30
|Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
|
|-
|31
|And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
|
|-
|32
|For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
|
|-
|33
|And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
|
|-
|34
|And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
|
|-
|35
|But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
|
|-
|36
|Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
|
|-
|37
|Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
|
|-
|38
|Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
|
|-
|39
|And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
|
|-
|40
|The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
|
|-
|41
|And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|
|-
|42
|Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
|
|-
|43
|For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
|
|-
|44
|For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
|
|-
|45
|A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
|
|-
|46
|And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
|
|-
|47
|Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
|
|-
|48
|He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
|
|-
|49
|But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
|
|
|-
|2
|And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
|
|
|-
|3
|And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
|
|
|-
|4
|And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
|
|
|-
|5
|For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
|
|
|-
|6
|Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
|
|
|-
|7
|Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
|
|
|-
|8
|For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
|
|
|-
|9
|When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
|
|
|-
|10
|And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.
|
|
|-
|11
|And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people.
|
|
|-
|12
|Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
|
|
|-
|13
|And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.
|
|
|-
|14
|And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.
|
|
|-
|15
|And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.
|
|
|-
|16
|And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
|
|
|-
|17
|And this rumour of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.
|
|
|-
|18
|And the disciples of John shewed him of all these things.
|
|
|-
|19
|And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
|
|
|-
|20
|When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
|
|
|-
|21
|And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
|
|
|-
|22
|Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
|
|
|-
|23
|And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
|
|
|-
|24
|And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
|
|
|-
|25
|But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts.
|
|
|-
|26
|But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.
|
|
|-
|27
|This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
|
|
|-
|28
|For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
|
|
|-
|29
|And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
|
|
|-
|30
|But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
|
|
|-
|31
|And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
|
|
|-
|32
|They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.
|
|
|-
|33
|For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
|
|
|-
|34
|The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
|
|
|-
|35
|But wisdom is justified of all her children.
|
|
|-
|36
|And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
|
|
|-
|37
|And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
|
|
|-
|38
|And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
|
|
|-
|39
|Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
|
|
|-
|40
|And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
|
|
|-
|41
|There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
|
|
|-
|42
|And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
|
|
|-
|43
|Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
|
|
|-
|44
|And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
|
|
|-
|45
|Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
|
|
|-
|46
|My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
|
|
|-
|47
|Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
|
|
|-
|48
|And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
|
|
|-
|49
|And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
|
|
|-
|50
|And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
|
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
|And Jesus then traveled through many cities and villages with His twelve best students, preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God.
|Is ‘disciple’ too archaic? Perhaps; alternatives include "followers", "students", other suggestions?
|-
|2
|And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
|Also with Him were several women He had sent The Devil out of and healed: Mary Magdalene, from whom He had expelled seven devils,
|
|-
|3
|And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
|And Joanna, who was the wife of Chuza (a man who managed Herod’s affairs), and Susanna, and several others.
|
|-
|4
|And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
|And when a crowd of many people from the cities came to hear Him, He told them this parable:
|
|-
|5
|A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
|"A man went out to plant his crops, and he threw the seeds onto the field. Some of the seeds fell on the edge of the field: this was stepped on and eaten by birds."
|
|-
|6
|And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
|"Some seeds landed on rocks, and so the shoots withered from lack of water."
|
|-
|7
|And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
|"Some seeds landed in patches of weeds, which grew with the crops until the weeds choked the plants."
|
|-
|8
|And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
|"But the rest of the seeds landed on fertile ground, and grew well, providing a harvest of one hundred times more than the farmer had planted. And when Jesus said this, He said: If you have ears, listen!"
|
|-
|9
|And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
|The students of Jesus asked Him to explain the parable to them.
|
|-
|10
|And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
|And Jesus answered, "You disciples already know all about the Kingdom of God, but to these other people I tell parables so they might understand better"
|I think I've failed to do justice to this verse.
|-
|11
|Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
|”The parable means this: The seed is the Truth of The Lord.
|
|-
|12
|Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
|The seeds on the edge of the field are the people who hear the Truth, but The Devil comes and stops them believing, to stop them from being saved.
|
|-
|13
|They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
|The seeds on the rock represent those people who, having heard the Truth, are happy, but do not let the faith become established. And so they only believe for a little while, and when they are tested they lose faith.
|
|-
|14
|And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
|The seeds that tried to grow in the weeds are the people who heard the Truth, but were distracted by the everyday trivia of life and self-indulgence.
|
|-
|15
|But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
|But the seeds that fell on the fertile ground are the honest and moral people who hear and constantly remember the Truth, and so these people persevere, and achieve their potential.
|
|-
|16
|No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
|No man lights a candle and hides the flame by covering it with a pot or putting it under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a candlestick, so that people can see the light.
|Is candlestick appropriate here?
|-
|17
|For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
|For there is nothing secret that will not be revealed, and nothing hidden that will not be seen.
|
|-
|18
|Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
|Therefore, listen carefully to me: whoever has this will have it given to him, and whoever does not will have whatever he seems to have taken away."
|An attempt at a complex verse
|-
|19
|Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
|Then the mother of Jesus, and His brothers, came looking for Him, but they could not get through the crowd.
|
|-
|20
|And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
|And someone told Him, “Your mother and brothers are outside, waiting to see you”
|
|-
|21
|And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
|And He answered, saying, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the Truth of the Lord, and obey”
|
|-
|22
|Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with his disciples: and he said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side of the lake. And they launched forth.
|Now one day, Jesus and his best students got into a boat, and He said, “Let us sail to the other side of this lake.” So they launched the boat and set sail.
|
|-
|23
|But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled with water, and were in jeopardy.
|But as they sailed, Jesus fell asleep, and a gale blew up, which filled the boat with water, putting it in danger of sinking.
|
|-
|24
|And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.
|And His students awoke Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we will drown”. Then He stood up and reprimanded the wind and the waves, so that the wind stopped blowing and the waves calmed.
|
|-
|25
|And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.
|And Jesus said to his students, “Where is your faith?” And they were in awe of this, and said to each other, “What kind of man is this? When He commands the winds and the waves, they obey!”
|’Wonder’ now often means ‘speculate’
|-
|26
|And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.
|And so they arrived in the country of the Gadarenes, which borders on Galilee.
|
|-
|27
|And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
|And when Jesus stepped onto the land, He was met by a man from the city, who had been possessed by devils for a long time, and had no clothes, and lived in the graveyard rather than in a house.
|
|-
|28
|When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
|When he saw Jesus, he fell down in front of him, crying in a loud voice, “What have I go to do with you, Jesus the Son of God? I beg you not to hurt me.”
|
|-
|29
|(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
|(For Jesus had ordered The Devil to come out of the man, because the man had been possessed so often that he was kept restrained with chains, but when possessed, he would break the chains, and The Devil would drive him out into the wilderness.)
|
|-
|30
|And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
|And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion” because he was possessed by many devils.
|
|-
|31
|And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
|And the devils begged Him not to send them to Hell.
|
|-
|32
|And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
|And there was a herd of pigs feeding on the mountain, and the devils begged Jesus to permit them to enter the pigs, and He gave them permission to do so.
|
|-
|33
|Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.
|Then all of the devils left the man and possessed the pigs, and the herd of pigs jumped off a cliff, falling into the lake and drowning.
|
|-
|34
|When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.
|When the pig farmers saw what Jesus had done, they ran away, and went and told the story in the city, and throughout the country.
|
|-
|35
|Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
|So then the inhabitants of the city went out to see what had happened, and when they found Jesus, the man from whom He had expelled the devils was sitting at His feet, properly dressed and sane, and the people were afraid.
|
|-
|36
|They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.
|The eyewitnesses told the people how Jesus had healed the possessed man.
|
|-
|37
|Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.
|Then the crowd gathered from the region nearby begged Jesus to leave, because they were afraid of Him, so He got back into the ship and returned across the lake.
|
|-
|38
|Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
|The man from whom Jesus had expelled the devils asked if he could follow Him, but Jesus sent him away, saying,
|
|-
|39
|Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.
|”Return to your own house and show the amazing things the Lord has done to you.” And the man went away and reported to the whole city what Jesus had done to him.
|
|-
|40
|And it came to pass, that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received him: for they were all waiting for him.
|Now when Jesus returned, the people were waiting for him, and welcomed him.
|
|-
|41
|And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would come into his house:
|Then a man called Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, came and knelt before Jesus, and asked Him to come to his house
|
|-
|42
|For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.
|because his only daughter, about twelve years old, was dying. But as Jesus went with him, the crowds of people impeded his progress.
|
|-
|43
|And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
|And a women in the crowd had been suffering from a blood disorder for twelve years, and had spent all her money on doctors, but they could not heal her,
|Blood disorder seems a little awkward here, maybe 'constant bleeding'?
|-
|44
|Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
|came up behind Him, and touched the hem of His coat, and immediately was healed.
|
|-
|45
|And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
|And Jesus said, “Who touched me?” Everyone denied it, and Peter said “Teacher, the crowd is thick, and presses against you, and you ask, ‘Who touched me?’”
|
|-
|46
|And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
|And Jesus replied, “Someone has touched me, because I have noticed that virtue has gone out of me.
|I cannot think of a substitute for virtue, which no longer holds the meaning here.
|-
|47
|And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him and how she was healed immediately.
|And when the women saw Jesus had noticed, she fell down at His feet, trembling, and said in front of the whole crowd that she had touched Him and had been healed.
|
|-
|48
|And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.
|And Jesus said to her, “Daughter, do not be afraid, your faith has healed you, go in peace.”
|
|-
|49
|While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
|And while he spoke, someone came from the house of Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, saying, “Your daughter is dead, don’t bother the Teacher.”
|
|-
|50
|But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.
|But Jesus heard, and answered, “Do not worry, have faith, and she will be healed”
|
|-
|51
|And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.
|And when He arrived at the house, he did not allow anyone to enter, except Peter, James, John and the parents of the girl.
|
|-
|52
|And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
|Outside, the crowd were mourning for the girl, but Jesus said, “She is not dead, but sleeping.”
|
|-
|53
|And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.
|And they laughed at Him, knowing that the girl had died.
|
|-
|54
|And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
|But He took the girl by her hand, and said, “Girl, get up.”
|
|-
|55
|And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
|And her soul re-entered her, and she got up immediately, and Jesus ordered them to give her meat to eat.
|
|-
|56
|And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.
|And her parents were amazed, but Jesus ordered them not to tell anyone what He had done.
|
|}

[[Luke 9-16 (Translated)]]

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-07T23:46:51Z