Unintentionally, of course.
Perhaps he could make a class-action suit joined by liars, hypocrites, rapists, murderers, false teachers, adulterers, women "pastors," thieves, pro-aborts, and the like.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
He should bring his suit to one of the "human rights commissions" in Canada.
He might actually have a chance of winning the case there.
excuse my ignorance, I'm new to your blog, but why do you include women pastors among the list of haneous acts?
I think the Contemporary English Version expresses my thoughts on this topic better than most other translations.
I wish that everyone (particularly Bradley LaShawn) who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more! Galations 5:12
No problem, James. Because the Bible flat forbids it; that may make some of them feel bad. It certainly makes them look bad.
What's with Zondrevan's response?
-Don't blame us, blame the translators-
a little - we must obey God rather than men- would be nice dontcha think?
since the topic of this post isn't dealing with women pastors, I'm going to continue this dialogue at my blog, so that the conversation here does not stray.
As you wish. But the point of my remark isn't the heinousness of the sins listed. The point is the motivation of the suit: the Bible says I shouldn't do something I want to do, and that makes me feel (and look) bad... so I'll sue the publisher.
I see, understand, and agree with your point. The dialogue I have now taken to my blog is a separate topic.
Blessings,
James
Please tell me that there's more to their argument than: "Different translations use slightly different words that mean the same thing so they must be wrong."
Actually... less.
I don't mind Zondervan's response about the translators; it's couched in language that lets everyone know it's not like someone just decided to use word X when Y fits better. It's a scholarly effort.
It bothers me when people think that translating the Bible is no big deal. We take it for granted far too often that we have a Bible in our own language.
Ironic that 1 Cor. 6:9 occurs in a passage that counsels against lawsuits.
There is no general "loser pays" law in the United States, but a court can award attorneys' fees to the winner when the Complaint is legally "frivolous," and this one is as frivolous as they come. Expect a quick dismissal.
Dr.Caligari,
I pray that you're right. Up here in Canada the courts see it the other way.
Thankfully it hasn't led to any witch hunts...so far.
jmb — Ironic that 1 Cor. 6:9 occurs in a passage that counsels against lawsuits
You know, that raises a possible conundrum.
He could sue them for making him feel guilty about suing them.
This makes me wonder how much time we really have before our Bible publishers will not be allowed to print the Bible because it will be considered too inflamatory. I can see that one coming on the horizon. If so, we would be joining the ranks of those who have gone before us.
I had a look at the bloke's website. It looks utterly silly. Here's a sample:
"In 1526 William Tyndale was met with heavy sanctions given the widespread belief that he changed the bible as he attempted to translate it. He was jailed in 1535 for translating the Old Testament without permission, and a year later was strangled and burnt at the stake. See Wikipedia "Bible Translations"
Todays translations attempt to convey a message of clarity that has dervied solely from the interpretation of 13 comittee members, who general soceity has no idea who these 13 members are. Unfortunately, like all other historical documents translated and revised by man, words have been omitted and added. Since the first translations were conducted in 383 A.D. by Saint Jerome, the bible has undergone more than 30 revisions."
Right. Wikipedia's a great source for solid historical information. "more than 30 revisions?" what on earth does he mean? What's more, Jerome was BY NO MEANS the first Bible translator! Jerome was in fact producing a translation to replace the Old Latin translation, which was not terribly good. Even the Wikipedia article says there were translations before Jerome!
'Historical facts'? The man hasn't even read the source he cites on his own site.
"With so many translations, which seems to have become the in-thing for today's bible scholars, why are these scholars continously revising the scriptures? Shouldn't these scholars have come to a final conclusion on the translations by now? Its 2008."
Language changes, sir. English did not even exist in the first century, and modern English is different from that which John Wesley spoke in 1782, not to mention what was spoken in 1611. Has he never tried to conduct a conversation in Shakepeare's English? Thus, because English is a living language, revised and new translations are occasionally called for.
If what he has on the web will be presented in court, the jury will have to be very careful. Laughing in court can be viewed as contempt.
I noticed that you haven't mentioned slanderers, Daniel. Innocent mistake, I guess?
Did I suggest the list was exhaustive? I guess I could have included slanderers, the arrogant, the stiff-necked, the unrepentant, gossips, those squishy on the authority of the Word, champions of doubt and compromise, the worldly, and so on. Anyone who finds the Bible uncongenial to his darling sins.
Did I suggest that you claimed that the list was exhaustive? I just found it a rather interesting and convenient omission.
Well David, I hadn't thought that your well-earned reputation for missing (attempting to evade?) the point of a post was in need of any further burnishing. Perhaps you felt otherwise.
If so: mission accomplished.
You also forgot wielders of meat chubs. Tsk Tsk.
There oughta be a law. An exhaustive one.
Chris - I too loved Zondervan's response. To me, it sounded like a nice way of saying, "Hey here's an idea; why don't you go sue the original translators of the KJV, too?" Awesome.
And the man's publishing a book. self-publishing, I suspect, since his level of English on the blog is poor even for an American!!! :)
I doubt it will reach any best-seller lists. Actually, I hope not!!!
You know, it's good you earlier provided us with the critical exegetical key that "!!!" is British for "I'm just having a wee chuckle, ya dumb Yanks!", or we'd be all hurt and offended.
(c;
mesa mike - He might have a chance of winning with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal? It would be a slam dunk! The tribunal has a record of 100% conviction rate on these kind of complaints.
I LIKE THE BOLDNESS!!!!
Post a Comment