'that's my boy!'

[bluegreen17]

via metaphorge:

(from a new version of the bible)
Mark 1:10-11
Authorized version: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from the heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

New: "As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God's spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, 'That's my boy! You're doing fine!'"
Matthew 23:2

(more info here)

definitely an add to my mental 'books to check out' list.
but,why the pigeon instead of a dove?

Comments

[ranunculus.livejournal.com]

Probably because in some places pigeons are called Rock Doves.
It is an odd thing to change though!

[bluegreen17]

i didn't know that. thanks!

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

Would've posted about that to my LJ yesterday if LJ had let me on! But yeah, I was discussing elsewhere my reactions to this new version. Personally, I ended up laughing off and on all during the day just thinking about "John the Dipper" or Simon being nicknamed "Rocky."

You can see more at http://one.gn.apc.org/Translation.htm

[allogenes.livejournal.com]

Does anybody know what this "One" community for Christian Exploration is? I haven't heard of them. I looked through the one.gn.apc.org site a bit but they are not exactly giving a history of their group there. They clearly have an interesting agenda--even in just that short quote above. Given the current status of the CofE, I am surprised to find a group even more far out of the so-called Christian mainstream! (NOT that I am necessarily a supporter of the Christian mainstream...)

I mean every translation that has ever been written is also an interpretation and a vehicle of some agenda, but the quotes I have been able to pull from the citations on this one are downright funny! :-) I mean: "Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!" That might count as a modern English gloss under the assumption that (i) it is 1952 and (ii) we assume that Jesus is still dressed the same way he is usually depicted dressing in art, but is walking around NYC today. Who talks like that? (And yes, I know it is a British translation--who talks like that in London?) :-)

And people got on my ass for seriously reading/considering Andy Gaus' translations in The Unvarnished New Testament back when that came out. This new mishmash makes Gaus' look downright canonical! I wish the "One" people would actually try to defend their translation on technical grounds--their pages seem to just say it is a valid way to translate it without saying why they think that! Sheeesh.

Hmmm...Hope I'm not too much of a downer, but on first glance I remain unimpressed. And I'm easily impressed!

[bluegreen17]

i didn't get a notice about this comment from lj-which shouldn't be surprising considering how wonky it's been.
i'd never heard of the gaus translation. hmmmm. i don't know...i think they're just trying to get at the spirit of the thing,but it's sooo different that one can wonder if it's all just a prank.

[allogenes.livejournal.com]

Prank is a good word--this does look like some long-winded prank to me, I mean...it is awful! And I am pretty liberal! But I have only seen a couple of quotes, so I should hold back my judgement. But still--those quotes are really messed up.

[orionpath.livejournal.com]

I read this same article the other day. I think it is sick to alter the bible like that.

[bluegreen17]

i feel that they were following the spirit of the thing,and i think god has quite the sense of humor as well. that's just my opinion of course,and it is good that you have yours too.

i'm sorry if you found this post offensive. it was not my intention.

[orionpath.livejournal.com]

No, I actually think they are trying to water down the bible.

I do have a great sense of humor and sometimes joke with religion, but I don't believe in messing with the bible like that. The bible is serious, not a joke. That is where I draw the line.

[allogenes.livejournal.com]

But since everything is a translation, save for the Greek text (which exists in at least two critical editions) how do you know what is exactly the right translation? (Not that I am defending *this* translation. I don't like it. But I like the Andy Gaus translation which came out a few years back and many people said the exact same thing about it.)

I am legitimately curious as to how you, personally, decide what you think the bible really says. I am not trying to pick a fight or anything.

[orionpath.livejournal.com]

Go back to the very early writings of the christians from the 1st centuries and see what the early church fathers taught. Then trace it through history. That is how you know. See what things stayed consistent over history. There are traditions passed down even through the symbolism in the art of the church. Go view some of the art. That is why it is protected by the church. We have a whole language of symbolism.

[allogenes.livejournal.com]

Well, I have read the earliest Church writings and have found a lot of inconsistency--the earliest Church fathers were often at odds with each other. So that is a challenging way to go. But thank you for answering my question.

[orionpath.livejournal.com]

They were at odds on some things, and so were the apostles who wrote the new testament. They argued back and forth in the letters.

But as a whole the things that remain consistent are the things that have lasted until the present day. These are the precious stones. The things that don't stay are the 'wood, hay, and stubble'.

There has to be some standards. People can't just write new bibles and interpret it anyway they want without even consulting the church to fit their own agenda.