Extremely biased article about naturism from Conservapedia
September 7 2007 at 7:48 PM
Jonathan (no login)
Conservapedia is so hypocritical. They accuse bias of Wikipedia. I'll admit, I am sure Wikipedia can be biased. Yet how is Conservapedia any better? They are just as biased as Wikipedia. Take a look at this article on naturism. They could have shown both viewpoints, those who oppose and those in favor of naturism, and yet they only show one side. They cannot possibly claim to be balanced. Here is a link.
There is a place for posting comments. That may help provide balance for those with the intellectual honesty to explore the issue from other vantage points.
I couldn't figure out how to add a comment. Someone had, as noted in the "discussion" tab. I KNEW that people were taking Lev. 3:18 wrongly. The KJV should be burned.
I must admit Ralph, I am agains book burning or banning. The KJV should not be burned. In fact I find it to be a very beautiful rendition of the Bible.
However, with that said, I must agree with you Ralph, that they have taken Leviticus out of context. In this case, "uncovering nakedness," doesn't mean walking around naked. It's a euphamism for having sex with close relatives. It's not talking about nudity, but sexual immorality. I feel those writers of Conservapedia have greatly misinterpreted those verses in Leviticus.
Well, I'm certainly not going to jump in that site and try to put my opinion there. They would find us out and waste this board in no time at all!
Apparently, they have no idea what the bible really says about nudity. Nor do they understand the euphemisms of the bible.
Besides, they are not conservative at all with these ideas. They seem to be a bit too liberal with their interpretations. Can being clothed all the time be "conservative"? Or is it an extremist idea?
While the KJV may have some translation errors, it is still quite possible the oldest and closest translation to the original texts. It also has a flavor to it that modern translations have lost.
While I do not use the KJV in normal study, I do use it comparitively, and would never think that it needed to be burned. Some of the modern "translations", like "modern-day lanuage" versions and amplifieds and paraphrases? Sure. They don't even try to keep to the original meaning of the texts.
The New King James version addresses the changes in language without sacrificing the grandeur of the text nor the quality of the source (Textus Receptus).
That translation of "do not uncover the nakedness of.." was not changed in NKJV. I'd burn it, too.
I've read 6 to 8 translations all the way through from Gen-Rev (well, skipping Rev the last 2 to 3 times; never got anything from it). NEVER could get through the KJV. It doesn't belong in today's world. If you want to read it, PLEASE don't read it in public. The rest of us don't want to hear it.
"If you want to read it, PLEASE don't read it in public. The rest of us don't want to hear it."
Hey, speak for yourself! I love the old language! But then, I also love Shakespeare and Chaucer and Tolkien and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." lol
Seriously, the KJV, from what I've read, is not the oldest English translation; that honor goes to Tyndale's, if it is still available. And the KJV was made for a purpose just as "political" as any modern translation: James I was pro-Church of England and wanted to have a translation to counter both the Catholic Douay Bible and the Geneva Bible from the Reformed churches. But even so, translators in those days had an ethic of scholarly faithfulness that few modern translators have; that is why this is still one of the best translations around. And it's not King Jimmy's fault that the language has changed some in four centuries.
... speak for yourself. I'll make my own decisions, thanks, and leave you to yours.
We can do that, remember? Romans 14 tells us to not hold a man's heart-felt convictions against him. If one wants to use the KJV, that's between him and God; your choice of translation is likewise between you and God.
As far as I'm concerned, any translation that has been made from the original texts (so not paraphrases or amplifieds...) is God's Word, and therefore "...given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16. Some of them just require a little more work than to just read; knowledge of the language and culture of the times when they were written, and understanding of who it was who wrote, and who it was written to.
Understanding of the scriptures takes both study and prayer. You can't just surface-read two-plus thousand year old manuscripts that have been translated into modern language and expect the words to mean the same thing now as when they were written. Language changes...
Kevin you wrote: "While the KJV may have some translation errors, it is still quite possible the oldest and closest translation to the original texts."
This statement has no bearing with reality, since the time that the Kings James was translated there have been many older parchments that have been found that the newer translations are taken from. So in reality the opposite of what you wrote would be true. Now don't get me wrong, I was raised on the King James and still study that translation most of the time, but I feel that the newer translations are propably closer to what the original texts of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek said.
As far as flavor goes, it all depends on the individual readers bent to what he reads, much like peoples preference to music, not everybody enjoys listening to the same kind of music. Different music speaks differently to differnt people, so different flavors of translation speak differently to different people as well. As long as they are translated so that the truth shines forth, I see no reason to state that one translation is better than another. But it's the oldest parchment available to make the comparison to, not the KJV.
I agree that older parchments of scripture have been discovered than the Textus Receptus (that was used as the source document for the King James Bible, but many scholars suspect corruption in the older parchments (Gnostic and other heretical influences) and they assert that the Textus Receptus was not tainted by these first century spin doctors.
Some have made the argument that Jesus and the disciples used and approved of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Compare the gospel of Luke for instance with the Old Testament passages that it cites, and you may see that it parallels the Septuagint very closely and may actually be identical to the autographs (the actual documents first hand written by the apostles).
I have several translations in my home and I have no wish to push one translation on you over another. Please consider what I have said and make up your own mind.
Re: Older document may deviate from autographs more
September 10 2007, 11:52 AM
"...many scholars suspect corruption in the older parchments (Gnostic and other heretical influences) and they assert that the Textus Receptus was not tainted by these first century spin doctors."
Why would you spend time deciphering a 400 year old language written from a translation of material 2000 years old if you can use a translation that has already done this for you? Doesn't make sense that we're still using a translation that is not the same language as what we use today. It wasn't even translated from the original. The KJV was from the Latin vulgate.
Many other translations are from the original Greek. Other copies of Greek manuscripts have been found since the KJV was done.
While my preferences are for newer versions (my current "favorites" are the New Living Translation and Today's NIV), the KJV has it's place.
First off, it is the standard from which others are measured.
Second, until recently, it was the only version that had references back to the original Greek through Strongs concordance.
Both these facts make it essential for study.
Now for just reading, I prefer The Message but when you get a "revelation" into something while reading, it is best to check it out in other versions.
BibleGateway is an excellent resource for checking out different versions. Also, check out The BlueLetterBible for referring back to the Greek.
Finally, if you are looking for a different way of taking in God's word, check out the The Daily Audio Bible which is a free podcast, reading the Bible through in a year. Each week is a different version.
"It wasn't even translated from the original. The KJV was from the Latin vulgate."
That's not my understanding, nor does it agree with the claim on the title page: "Translated out of the original tongues". I thought that the King James translators had Greek and Hebrew manuscripts--maybe not the oldest and best ones, but still agreeing substantially with the ones available now.
Re: Extremely biased article about naturism from Conservapedia
September 7 2007, 9:41 PM
As soon as you see someone using the American flag as a part of their logo, you know they're wrapping themselves in it, too. Just a quick glance and scan tells me they're an EXTREMELY conservative, Christian group promoting a slanted agenda of their choosing with absaolutely no thought of fair, unbiased coverage in their stories. Go to the home page. Any group defending the psyco Senator Joseph McCarthy, who ruined many, many lives stealing the constitutional freedoms from people in this country has got to have a different attitude that's waaaaay to the right of any balanced writing.
I had to stop reading after a few paragraphs because I knew it would just piss me off more and I didn't want to ruin my evening with my wonderful wife.
Would these be the same people that also noted Jesus wearing a heavy duty High Quality Sequined and Red Sashed White Robe while coming out of the tomb? And saying God made a Law of all laws that we must be clothed at all times, even in bed, just because he made some coverings for Adam and Eve?
Funny, they also say that they ate an apple, but would still eat apples themselves! No wonder they are still hiding from God!
These same people call Gods creation of his own wonderful image sin and shameful!
Jon-Marc, remember your friend at Turtle Lake who you saw my nephew
and I visit you there, this is he who loves your
comments.
Yes, If you are already uncovered, how are you going
to uncover?
Nudity is not about uncovering anything.
Nudity is about acceptance of what God gave us all.
Nudity, or nakedness, or unclothed, had nothing to
to do with disobedience of God's commandments, which
are to love, the Lord God above all, with all your
heart, will, might, mind, and strength, and to love
your neigbor as your self.
Love is unconditional, tells you to love no matter what
those who are clothed or unclothed, and we place
too many times judgement, especially when it comes to
clothing, which is our number one enemy to understanding
just what mercy is all about.
