The Word on the Street (yo.)

[USSRGirl]

XD I read ya Peanut. This debate has become a futile thrust and parry of random verses and to no real purpose. I'm not gonna post any more about it. If anyone wants to PM me for further discussion feel free to do so.

Lemme just point out that it may not be an outright blasphemy...but it is certainly too silly to ever draw anyone to Christ. Also, in the original text, Adam never really comments on Eve's pyshical appearance. I think there's a real reason for that and it should not be changed.

Your Comrade in Christ,
Temulin

[uc pseudonym]

After leaving this thread yesterday, I realized that I have read an interview with Rob Lacy (the man who wrote The Word on the Street). I will share some parts of it here because I think they are very revelent to the original topic. First, look at what he has to say about why he wrote the book:

"Frankly, I'm not trying to be hip. I'm just trying to be me. I love the Bible; the Bible has been a crucial lifeline for me. While I'm having fun with the Bible, I'm not messing with it in terms of I want it to still mean what it means so much that I'm willing to go out on a line and possibly take some hassle by bringing it alive."

Also, I think many of you might be interested in the following exchange.

Interviewer: What would you say to someone who says, "The Word on the Street is my new Bible"?
Lacy: Please get a proper Bible. The Word on the Street is only a bible in the sense of a small "b." If it became a pew Bible, I would be quite upset because it's not. To me, anyway, it's so obviously not the Bible. It's at the very other end of the spectrum - it's a dynamic meaning translation.

Unfortunately, I cannot cite an internet source for those. They were taken from the March/April issue of the Wittenburg Door, but this interview was not made available in their online edition.

[mitsuki lover]

The Wittenburg Door the infamous publication that gave us The Theologian of the
Year and the Purple Weenie Award!

[USSRGirl]

The Wittenburg Door the infamous publication that gave us The Theologian of the
Year and the Purple Weenie Award!

ROFLOL!! XD

[uc pseudonym]

Oh, it's quite true (though the Purple Weenie Award was apparently before my time). Don't take the Theologian of the Year thing very seriously, as past winners have included Xena, Warrior Princess. However, the interview I posted is among the parts of the magazine that are completely serious.

[mitsuki lover]

They try hard to combine theological seriousness with a bit of MAD style humor hence the two sections I mentioned.They even gave a Purple Weenie once to
a youth minister who got an idea for this outrageous stunt from reading material from Youth Specalities and then realized that was themselves so they ended up
giving the weenie to themselves,which was hysterical!

[USSRGirl]

-_O Hmm... how does one get nominated for the Purple Weenie award??

[Animus Seed]

Sorry, unintentional post.

[uc pseudonym]

I should defer the proper response to that to mitsuki lover, who evidently has actually seen one. However, I believe that they no longer give that award. It is also very likely that it is only given to people who claim to be Christian and do highly unwise things.

Also, let me point out that we are off topic. So following the response, I'd appreciate no further discussion except on topic.

[mitsuki lover]

Ok.
Back on topic:I don't understand why people feel the need for 'special eidtion'
type of Bibles to attract teens in the first place.I mean when I was a kid I was excited to get my first KJV when I was in 5th or 6th grade.

[dyzzispell]

Ok.
Back on topic:I don't understand why people feel the need for 'special eidtion'
type of Bibles to attract teens in the first place.I mean when I was a kid I was excited to get my first KJV when I was in 5th or 6th grade.

I have to agree there. Why do we need to make other versions of the bible that are, but somehow aren't, the Bible? It seems these days everyone wants to make their own version of it, and hope people will read it. Why can't we just go read the real thing?
My mother told me about a book - Finding God in Harry Potter - and all I could think was, why do you NEED to find God in Harry Potter? Or the Lord of the Rings for that matter? How about, "Finding God in the Bible"? Or is that too brazen?
Now, mind you, there is plenty of allegory to find God in the Chronicles of Narnia - but C.S. Lewis wrote them with that intention. The others did not. (Some say Tolkien DID intend that, but I don't know that for sure.)
And on a side note, I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the Harry Potter movies weren't that bad, but that's because I grew up with the fantasy stuff and never had too much of a problem with it. Although as Harry Potter goes on, it just gets darker and darker, and that I'm not liking so much.

[Angel37]

I have to agree there. Why do we need to make other versions of the bible that are, but somehow aren't, the Bible? It seems these days everyone wants to make their own version of it, and hope people will read it. Why can't we just go read the real thing?
My mother told me about a book - Finding God in Harry Potter - and all I could think was, why do you NEED to find God in Harry Potter? Or the Lord of the Rings for that matter? How about, "Finding God in the Bible"? Or is that too brazen?
Now, mind you, there is plenty of allegory to find God in the Chronicles of Narnia - but C.S. Lewis wrote them with that intention. The others did not. (Some say Tolkien DID intend that, but I don't know that for sure.)
And on a side note, I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the Harry Potter movies weren't that bad, but that's because I grew up with the fantasy stuff and never had too much of a problem with it. Although as Harry Potter goes on, it just gets darker and darker, and that I'm not liking so much.

Well I heard rumors that Lewis and Tolkein decided to see who could make the best Christian allegory and out came Narnia and LotR. I think it may b true too b/c Lewis and Tolkein WERE great friends (Lewis dedicated Screwtape Letters to him and wrote a stunning review for LotR that's on the back cover of my very old Two Towers book). I even heard Tolkein led Lewis to Christ!
Anyway, back on topic, I agree with u. Ppl try to find God in alot of things nowadays...they forget that He's in the Bible!

[Puritan]

Nope, Tolkien insisted vehmently to his dying day that he intended NO allegory in LotR, and that he disliked allegory. While Tolkien and Lewis were good friends (and did decide to compete to write a SciFi story, which led to Lewis' SciFi trilogy and a never finished story by Tolkein), and Tolkien was part of C.S. Lewis' conversion, my understanding is that Tolkien wrote LotR as a story in a universe he created, one that is Christian in tone and makeup (hence the allegations of allegory, as he uses lots of Christian themes and imagery because that was what he, as a Christian, thought of in constructing a world), but one never intended to be an allegory. However, when you take a deep-thinking Christian man with a gift for literature and world-building who fought in the first World War and wrote the book during the second, you would tend to get themes that resonate and seem to be allegories due to their deep connection with who Tolkien was and the times he was in.

Anyway, while I can understand the desire to update the Bible to new editions based on sound scholarship and true changes to scholarly English (The KJV version was, in fact, partially an update of the Geneva Bible with more modern English, for the time, and the removal of the Calvinist study notes), I think editions like this really need to be dealt with carefully. They may be useful for some people as an aid to understanding scripture, but, as the author of this version states, they should never superscede a truly scholarly and unabridged translation of Scripture. So, while I don't dislike this necessarily, I think this should be used carefully where it actually aids understanding and no more. However, with many versions of the Bible available that use truly scholarly approaches to translation while trying to keep the English to an understandable level (take your pick of the ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NAB, an I don't see why this would need to be widespread.

[Nate]

*tries not to veer TOO far off topic here*

As far as Lewis goes, he didn't use allegory either. At first he only set out to write a fantasy story as well, but found himself incorporating Christian concepts.

Narnia is not an allegory, however, as allegory uses figurative concepts to strengthen or represent literal ones. This is not the case in what Lewis wrote, as he distinctly meant for Aslan to BE Christ. Quote from Lewis:

"If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."

[mitsuki lover]

Well since this has veered off to a discussion on Lewis and Tolkien I would like to point out that in his last years Tolkien changed his view on Lewis and their friendship mainly because of the fact that he felt that Lewis should have entered the Catholic church when he converted to Christianity.The fact that Lewis remained a member of the Anglican communion rather upset Tolkien.Of course the Lewis brothers latent anti-Catholicism that they learned from being raised in Protestant
Belfast may have aided and abetted this problem.

[Nate]

I'm pretty sure Lewis wasn't anti-Catholic. In fact, I KNOW he wasn't. He believed in the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin, and was a strong believer in Purgatory.

EDIT: However, you are correct in that Tolkien was disappointed that Lewis chose to be Anglican instead of Catholic.

[Angel37]

Ok guys let's move this discussion. We're WAY off topic.

[uc pseudonym]

Quite so. Fortunately, I have no need to continue the tangent, because the issues on which I would have commented have already been dealt with (thank you, Puritan and kaemmerite). Now I'll attempt to say something on the main subject.

Why can't we just go read the real thing?

Because it is in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and there thousands of manuscripts that, while extraordinarily similar, do contain textual variances.

Don't take that as making light of your point, as I do understand it. But what I mean is that any English translation of the Bible is only an attempt by various humans to make the Bible accessible to the culture. That is why the Bible is today being translated into hundreds of languages and indeed why it was translated in the first place. However, language changes, and translations no longer communicate as well as they once did. Therefore, it is necessarily to again translate from the original text in order that new generations might read and understand.

Now, I do think that the proliferation of translations today is going overboard. I especially don't like it when translations are written by non-scholars who are reading from an already translated text. Perhaps those are alright for personal devotions in order to make one look at scripture in a new way, but as a good translation they fall short.

My mother told me about a book - Finding God in Harry Potter - and all I could think was, why do you NEED to find God in Harry Potter? Or the Lord of the Rings for that matter? How about, "Finding God in the Bible"? Or is that too brazen?

This is a trend that I really don't like. I suppose it should all be blamed on the original "Finding God in Peanuts" and the over-culturalization of today's church, but that accomplishes nothing. Really, though, many of these books seem desperate and say fairly little.

However, I will defend the authors to a certain degree. They aren't saying "Harry Potter is my new Bible." Rather, they think that when a person does read Harry Potter (or whatever else may be the case) they can find elements of wisdom that can be beneficial.

[Nate]

But what I mean is that any English translation of the Bible is only an attempt by various humans to make the Bible accessible to the culture. That is why the Bible is today being translated into hundreds of languages and indeed why it was translated in the first place. However, language changes, and translations no longer communicate as well as they once did. Therefore, it is necessarily to again translate from the original text in order that new generations might read and understand.

This is basically what the translators of the King James Version said, that the Bible should constantly be translated into the contemporary language I found this while surfing around, it's the introduction to the 1611 KJV Bible, the notes by the translators. They very much supported modern translations...it's kinda hard to read (being older English), but you can kinda piece it together.

Now through the Church were thus furnished with Greeke and Latine Translations, euen before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire : (for the learned know that even in S. Hieroms time, the Consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnicks, and about the same time the greatest part of the Senate also) yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to haue the Scriptures in the Language which themselues vnderstood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselues, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might prouide for themselues) but also for the behoofe and edifying of the vnlearned which hungered and thirsted after Righteousnesse, and had soules to be saued as well as they, they prouided Translations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, insomuch that most nations vnder heauen did shortly after their conuersion, heare CHRIST speaking vnto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Minister onely, but also by the written word translated.

If you'd like to read the whole intro (I couldn't, it's 11 pages long and an absolute nightmare to understand), here's the link:

http://www.locksley.com/6696/pages.htm

[TurkishMonky]

have any of you ever seen the cotton patch version? It was written i nthe 60s, but it is another horribly translated (but funny) new testament... it changes al lthe names, all the places, and is worthless for any kind of spiritual backing awhatsoever. the ony problem with it is that there's a good deal of words that have become swear words in it.. b* n* etc.

anyway, i use ESV, NASB, KJV (because of the enormous amount of reference materials written for it) NIV, and the message for an occasional change of pace, about in that order.

[HisaishiFan]

Since this thread has been resurrected again: I like Word on the Street. It is funny and poignant and and sincere. I like reading it. I also enjoy the British slang which makes me laugh. But more importantly, Word on the Street makes me pause and think. Perhaps its language will become dated, but that doesn't lessen its value: many things become dated - praise songs, approaches to worship - it doesn't mean that there is no value in them when God brings them to do his work for a time. Word on the Street isn't a replacement Bible or even a paraphrase like The Message (which I don't care for); it is more of a way to help people hear the Word, maybe for the first time, may after reading it the hundredth time.

Some of you may know that Rob Lacey recently lost his battle with bladder cancer. He got the dx that his cancer had returned a week after he was commissioned to write Word on the Street. The next few years for him were frought with great pain (chemo, a raw bladder, cancer spreading to his bones) and great joy (the birth of his first child). He said that writing The Word on the Street was his lifeline to sanity.

Here's how he paraphrased Psalm 23:4 in reflecting on his battle with cancer:

I crawl the the alley of the shadow of cancer,
I know you know the answer,
And the battle won't rattle me.
You're around, and I've found
There's something about your empathy
Your symphony of sympathy
That comforts me.
Your with me.
You comfort me.


By the way, the actual passage from The Word on the Street that started this thread goes like this:

"So God puts the man under some sort of divine general anaesthetic, carries out a ribectomy, then closes up the gap in his side. God works on the rib until he's sculpted it into woman-shape, then he presents her to Adam."

"'Whoa! Now we're talking!' says Adam. 'She's like me . . . only not. Same bones, same skin, same shape . . . only not. She's . . . uh . . . sexy. If I'm a 'man', she's . . . uh . . . 'woman.' (Which is why when people get married they leave their parents behind and set up their own family unit. Sex makes them one person: you can't tell where one stops and the other starts.)"

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I don't see what people have against The Message. No, it's not really for Bible studies but nor is it blasphemous. Hmm...

[HisaishiFan]

COG, just to clarify, I don't have anything against The Message, I just don't care for the style in parts. I don't think it works very well in the poetic books, for example. But sometimes I do read it, and I gave one to an English-speaking French friend since there don't seem to be any contemporary French translations or paraphrases.

[mitsuki lover]

The qoutes cited are rather bland sounding.
Ken Taylor's The Living Bible is still about the best paraphrase of the Bible around.

[uc pseudonym]

This is close to on topic, so I'll allow it.

I don't see what people have against The Message. No, it's not really for Bible studies but nor is it blasphemous. Hmm...

Let me see if I can help you understand my perspective, because I am definitely among those who dislike The Message. I dislike it most strongly on two accounts.

One is that even though it is not meant to be an actual translation, it is being treated as just that. I cannot count the number of times I have heard/read "The Message translation." There are many who use it exclusively. Furthermore, I disapprove of the manner in which its publishers continue to package it as if it is the Bible. I am less harsh with Eugene Peterson, because he seems to view his work for what it really is.

But more importantly, I have a lot of problems with the actual text of The Message. There are many times when I feel it severely distorts the message of the passage. Any translation (and even original-language copies) carries vestiges of the translator's theology, but in a good translation this will be kept to a minimum. If The Message only attempted to put the Bible in modern language that would be acceptable, but it forces a specific interpretation in many different cases.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I use the NLT - New Living Translation - It's a Life Application Bible to help you walk the talk.

UC, I may not agree (I've found The Message to have the same 'message' but just worded differently). But then again I don't own a copy and have only read parts. Thanks for clarifying.

[mitsuki lover]

Besides The Living Bible I would recommend Philips translation and Good News For Modern Man as good modern English language versions.

[HisaishiFan]

I use the Contemporary English Version (easy readability, meant to be read aloud and easily understood by those who are listening, too.)

For those of you who'd like to hear him, visit Rob Lacey's site. You can also click on three links at the bottom of the page to hear the Word on the Street Theatre Company.