Why do people attempt to modernize scripture?

[Tranquillity]

A lot of Christians, including many people I've seen on these forums, interpret the Bible in a modern light. I saw the tattoo thread, and there are attempts at justifying our modern actions because certain things in the Bible are outdated in today's society. This happens all the time. I don't think it's right. Society is the way it is today because of a steady decline and drifting from the Bible and Jesus. Because of this, it becomes easier for Christians to justify themselves and assimilate themselves into today's world. We have to be careful in today's world.

 

[Philosoft]

Do you read English translations of the Bible or are you fluent in ancient Hebrew?

 

[The Bellman]

Society is the way it is today because of a steady decline and drifting from the Bible and Jesus.

Sorry, not in evidence.

 

[seebs]

When Jesus explained to the disciples that what Moses had taught them about divorce was a compromise, not the original intent, it showed that even very holy men may fall short of the truth.

Christians have spent two thousand years justifying slavery, abuse, torture, genocide, and all sorts of other things. Some amount of "modernization" is perhaps in order; moving, not away from Jesus, but away from some of His followers.

The notion that some of the rules given to the Hebrews may not have been universal was a hard notion two thousand years ago, and is still a hard notion today... But it's still true.

 

[Why?]

Every time the Bible is translated it is 'modernized'. Sometimes you have to look pretty hard to find out what the original really meant before it was 'modernized'.

 

[Johnnz]

There are three issues here.

1. Resulting from new information and recognising changes in the English language itself necessitates new translatations from time to time.

2. Partly arising from 1 new understanding of the meanings of the ancient texts can aid further and sometimes more acurate understanding of biblical teachings.

3 A changing intellectual environment can give rise to further research and study of the biblical text. One example is the issues arising from the modern scientific approach. This was not the issue in NT times as it is today. Another example is the re-examination of slavery and the role of women that has taken place. Significant fresh biblical exegesis arising from 1-3 above is now available.

However, there is a tendency, evidenced by some responses to this post, to subject the biblical record to accusations of cultural bias, outdated historical principles and historical distortion by the church over the centuries. This approach reflects a post modern mentality. There is some truth in the allegations nevertheless, as implied by the above points.

The battle then is between three parties a) the postmoderns, who essentially discard Biblical authority; b) fundamentalists, who ignore much modern biblical scholarship in favour of 'traditional teachings'; and c) those who genuinely take into account any changes, yet always seek to sustain a biblical basis for any belief.

I belong to group c).

John
NZ

 

[The Bellman]

There are three issues here.

1. Resulting from new information and recognising changes in the English language itself necessitates new translatations from time to time.

2. Partly arising from 1 new understanding of the meanings of the ancient texts can aid further and sometimes more acurate understanding of biblical teachings.

3 A changing intellectual environment can give rise to further research and study of the biblical text. One example is the issues arising from the modern scientific approach. This was not the issue in NT times as it is today. Another example is the re-examination of slavery and the role of women that has taken place. Significant fresh biblical exegesis arising from 1-3 above is now available.

However, there is a tendency, evidenced by some responses to this post, to subject the biblical record to accusations of cultural bias, outdated historical principles and historical distortion by the church over the centuries. This approach reflects a post modern mentality. There is some truth in the allegations nevertheless, as implied by the above points.

The battle then is between three parties a) the postmoderns, who essentially discard Biblical authority; b) fundamentalists, who ignore much modern biblical scholarship in favour of 'traditional teachings'; and c) those who genuinely take into account any changes, yet always seek to sustain a biblical basis for any belief.

I belong to group c).

John
NZ

EVERYBODY claims to belong to group c). They might admit to membership in groups a) or b) (though they might dispute your encapsuled definition of those groups), yet they would also maintain that their group is, in fact, group c) as well.

 

[Tranquillity]

John, when you talk about recognizing changes in the English language, are those changes made in the KJV or is it just all of the other translations?

 

[ChristianMuse]

Liberal leanings... some good and some bad? Changing values bringing about a new vision? A need to justify the current disposition to sin? When led by the Spirit brings true freedom. When led by the carnal mind new avenues to bind and overthrow the soul. Modernizing isn't the problem. What or who is motivating the change... that's where the blessing or the problem lie.

 

[Talmidah]

Do you read English translations of the Bible or are you fluent in ancient Hebrew?

Exactly what I was wondering.

 

[Johnnz]

John, when you talk about recognizing changes in the English language, are those changes made in the KJV or is it just all of the other translations?

I had in mind translations since the KJV.
Examples Gen 2:20 an help meet for him KJV Meet once meant suitable for; now a help meet has servant connotations.

Gen 2:20 no suitable helper NIV

Gen 2:20 a helper comparable to him. NKJV

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Do you read English translations of the Bible or are you fluent in ancient Hebrew?

Most people don't. That's why we need good translations and good scholars. Also, many computer based bible programmes have original language search facilities, greatly expanding the availability of the underlying language for users.

John
NZ

 

[Philosoft]

Most people don't. That's why we need good translations and good scholars. Also, many computer based bible programmes have original language search facilities, greatly expanding the availability of the underlying language for users.

Nevertheless, all the work is done by humans, each of whom have their preferences, inclinations, biases, what have you. There's simply no way to justify a claim that one translation is more accurate than another unless one is intimately familiar with the source. Even then, translating idiomatic speech and text can often be little more than educated guesswork.

 

[Jetgirl]

Society is the way it is today because of a steady decline and drifting from the Bible and Jesus.

Just an observation:

It seems that in ANY generation of people this claim is made that society is in moral decline.

I've read personal accounts from the 50's, 20's, 1890's, even as far back as the 1700's that bemoan the steady decline of "today's" morals.

Was there any time, in your opinion, that we weren't in moral decline? Because I can guarentee you that there was a religious subgroup at the time that thought we definitely were.

Or have we just been in decline forever?

 

[Jetgirl]

Nevertheless, all the work is done by humans, each of whom have their preferences, inclinations, biases, what have you. There's simply no way to justify a claim that one translation is more accurate than another unless one is intimately familiar with the source. Even then, translating idiomatic speech and text can often be little more than educated guesswork.

But, you see, we don't have to worry about that, since God directly influences each and every translation of His Word to mean exactly what He wants it to.

[/apologetics mode]

 

[Tranquillity]

I think we've been in the decline for a long long time. Each generation gets progressively worse.

 

[Philosoft]

I think we've been in the decline for a long long time. Each generation gets progressively worse.

Yeah, I mean the racism, sexism and vigilantism of the 1850s is nothing compared to today.

Oh, wait...

 

[seebs]

Just an observation:

It seems that in ANY generation of people this claim is made that society is in moral decline.

I've read personal accounts from the 50's, 20's, 1890's, even as far back as the 1700's that bemoan the steady decline of "today's" morals.

Was there any time, in your opinion, that we weren't in moral decline? Because I can guarentee you that there was a religious subgroup at the time that thought we definitely were.

Or have we just been in decline forever?

There is a claim, but I don't know whether or not it's true, that one of the oldest known pieces of writing is a lament about the "moral decline" of society. About 4000 years old.

Hmm. Okay, I was wrong, 4,800 years old, and almost certainly apocryphal:

http://www.bartleby.com/73/456.html

Still... This is a recurring theme, and there's simply no evidence of a "moral decline". Indeed, by most standards, and certainly by Christian standards, the world is gradually and generally improving.

 

[Tranquillity]

What about today's glorifying of premarital sex, abortions, gay marriages, religious tolerance, politcal correctness, interracial marriages, super high divorce rates, drug use, music promoting the degrading of women, violence and drugs, girls dressing more provocatively at much younger ages, and the attempts to take God out of America?

 

[Jetgirl]

What about today's glorifying of premarital sex, abortions, gay marriages, religious tolerance, politcal correctness, interracial marriages, super high divorce rates, drug use, music promoting the degrading of women, violence and drugs, girls dressing more provocatively at much younger ages, and the attempts to take God out of America?

Er. Since when is interracial marriage immoral?