While some of us have been distracted by the mass beheadings of Christians in Iraq and Syria, the Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island has kept its ever vigilant eye on what really matters: it is fearlessly battling a corn maze that has a “conflicted history of corporate interests”.
There are quite a few eco-maze zealots in the diocese. Much as a rotting log is crawling with woodlice, the diocese, apparently, is “crawling with environmentalists”:
Through a network format, Lucas-Jeffries drew the circle wide. Now more than eighty committed Anglicans from Nova Scotia and PEI “encourage and support each other around caring for creation,” she says. Lucas-Jefferies is thrilled with her new role and the abundance of committed Anglicans she meets along the way. “The church is crawling with environmentalists,” she exclaims.
As an example of both the pervasiveness of environmentalists and her skills as a networker, Lucas-Jefferies recalls a happenstance meeting in a corn maze in Truro, Nova Scotia. There, among the groomed rows of corn the environmentalist priest met a kindred Anglican woman from down the road in Dartmouth. The two forged a strong bond when they discovered, with dismay, that the maze had a conflicted history of corporate interests and genetically engineered corn.
It didn’t take long for Lucas-Jefferies to recognise the limited interest the rest of us have in the corporate contamination of corn mazes: she quickly moved on to the much trendier evil of fracking, a subject about which she confidently claims to know nothing:
Lucas-Jeffries spoke from the heart. She also spoke not as an expert, but as someone committed to listening and learning and discerning the movement of the Spirit in this space. With her time at the mic, she put to the room questions she thought essential for the fracking conversation, “Why do we need to do this? Who is going to benefit? What about the pitfalls?”
She ends on the high note of declaring Creation rather than Jesus as the reason for her relationship with God:
“It is because of the existence of Creation that I have this particular relationship with God—and with others—that is enhanced by the beauty of it.”
The “fields” still remain “white already to harvest” + John 4:35b as a direct result of a ‘genetically modified’ Gospel.
“Pray ye therefore The LORD of the harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest.” + Matthew 9:38.
The Reverend Dr. Billy Graham has to concur: were he to start all over, he would be “an evangelical Anglican”.
Yet another example of how the AcoC has been high-jacked by agenda pushing secularists disguising themselves as being religious (and perhaps even tricking themselves into thinking that they are). But if these special interest people were to actually open and read a Holy Bible (not one of the new age versions but instead an Authorized / King James Version) they would see this:
Genesis:1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Notice that nowhere does God say that we are to be environmentalists (not even implied). What God does say is that what He created is given to us as a source of food. Any attempt to portray this passage in any other way is to commit a lie against God, and that is heresy.
Depending on the translation, Genesis 1:28 is very clear about being good stewards of creation. Perhaps your definition of environmentalist is different than mine. I’ll use the Webster dictionary which says that it is ” a person who works to protect the natural world from pollution and other threats. Based on my reading of Genesis 1, this is exactly what God is calling us to do. Here is Eugene Peterson’s version from the Message. I would hardly call him “New Age”
Genesis 1:28The Message (MSG)
26-28 God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.”
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God’s nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them:
“Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.”
You comment really intrigues me. If we are not called to be good stewards, or environmentalists, then how as Christians are we to treat God’s creation? Are we then free to rape and pillage the world for our own personal benefit? I don’t see what the other alternative is than for us Christians to care for God’s creation.
Despite the errors in the editions of the Authorized (King James) version, I would prefer it to the Message. I don’t use the KJV now though. I have over the years used other translations, including the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard, the New King James, the New International Version (not the TNIV) and, more recently, the English Standard Version.
I suggest the Message has to be discounted as a translation one can rely upon for Biblical accuracy. Obviously, it was never meant to be a reliable literal translation. It appears to me to be beyond even paraphrase. It’s a great piece of work on the part of Eugene Peterson, helpful and fun to look at to see the ideas the editors came up with, but I find a translation such as the Good News Bible (aka Today’s English Version), even with its more liberal tendency to impute gender-inclusiveness to verses that could never historically and culturally have been inclusive, to be of more assistance in understanding the meaning of difficult passages one runs across in word-for-word, or hybrid, translations. The Amplified Bible is also a good reference. Add a good commentary. I find the websites, that have multiple translations and commentaries available, for comparison, are helpful.
The important thing is that a person is actually reading one of the translations. At this point, I don’t care what version they are using.
As far as environmentalism is concerned, it appears to me that “dominion” is not inconsistent with stewardship and care for the environment. Yes, we use the plants and animals of the earth for food and for work, but I cannot see that God meant for us to exterminate entire species or pollute lands and waters and render them toxic.
I feel it necessary to state that these other versions that have been listed here have been translated from false documents such as the error ridden critical text of Westcott and Hort and the equally abominable Nestle/Alland New Greek Testament (both of which have been infected by the false manuscripts known as the Textus Vaticanus and the Textus Siniaticus). Additionally these other versions included on their translation committees individuals who were not even Christians!
Truthfully, the Authorized / King James Version (there is only one version that has had four major printings where spelling has become standardized) was translated by only Christians, and these Christians prayed for God’s Guidance, at the beginning of this great project and every time they set about doing any work on it. I believe that God answered these prayers and did guide the translation work so that the correct manuscripts that fulfilled God’s Promise of Him Preserving His Word for every generation were used (that being the Textus Receptus) and that with God’s Guidance the finished product was in Truth a 100% perfect Version of God’s Holy Word.
As you state in your own words, you believe this. The vast majority of Christians do not.
As someone who has studied both Hebrew and Greek, there can never be a perfect translation. Anyone who speaks more than one language knows that meanings of terms are not exactly the same from one language to another. As such, all translations are an approximation of the original language/text. As such, even the King James version falls short of a perfect translation.
I’m not exactly sure if you were calling the use of another translation as heretical (see your original and most recent post) but you hold a belief on translation that most Christians (and Biblical scholars) would not agree with.
You post seems to imply that you believe that all translations of God’s Holy Word (including the King James Version) are nothing more than the works of man and are without Divine Guidance. If that is so than I can understand how you feel as you do about modern translations.
However, as I indicated previously, it is my belief that God guided the translators of the King James Version, and thus with this Divine Guidance the result is perfect. Any scholars (be they secular or religious) may continue to argue until they are blue in the face that they know better. But from my perspective what I here them saying is that they know better than God.
You are correct. I do see all translations as works of man but I certainly think that many are guided by God. I guess the difference is that Divine Guidance does not necessarily mean that it is error-free. In a similar fashion, God can guide our leaders in government but this does not make them immune from making mistakes. I respect your opinion on the KJV but my belief is that to call it “perfect” is naive.
There seem to be a lot of studies and articles that rather convincingly discuss errors in the King James version. Besides, with changes in the meaning of words over time, changes have to be made at least to keep or approximate the meaning a passage may have had four hundred years ago. Also, there are lots of translations that are not in English at all.
Yes there are more accurate texts of the Bible. However, few contain the magical cadence and pure beauty of the word conjoined to the message of the King James.
When I need to go home, I still pick-up the King James.
No argument from me on that point. For example, the Lord’s Prayer from the KJV is still my favourite wording of it.
Studies and articles written by people with an agenda of promoting their own work and not God’s will. It does not matter how convincing these arguments are as they are founded upon false presumptions. These being that these men know better than God.
The proposition that the meaning of words changes over time is old, worn out, and tiresome. Yet it keeps cropping up. Sadly, it is woefully lacking as a justification for the numerous and serious changes that are inflicted upon Christian Churches by these new age versions. For example, will some please explain to me the changes in the meaning of these words “Male and female He created them”. Because if you are going to have homosexual marriages than the meaning of these words must change!
The meaning, spelling and pronunciation, and frequency of use, of English words changes greatly over time. Just try reading something in Old English as compared to modern English. Try even reading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in its original 14th century wording.
I was not aware there was some respectible version of the Bible that changed “Male and female he created them” to something referencing same sex relationships. Perhaps you could point me to that. I was referring more to something like the change in the common understanding of the word “charity” over the centuries.
As the English language Bibles we use are only one language the Bible has been translated into, I am not even sure how we would rate Bibles in other languages. I am sure translators prayed and did their best to translate the Greek, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew into those languages as well, but they are definitely not the KJV. Perhaps we should accept nothing but scripture in the original languages? We would still have a lot of disagreement, among those who can use those languages, as to what many of the words and phrases mean.
You’re making an extremely profound point here.
No disagreement that God’s Holy Word has been translated into many languages. The point that I am making pertains specifically to the English Versions. The King James Version is translated from the legitimate Textus Receptus (a virtual twin to the Traditional Text used by the Orthodox Church). It is these Manuscripts that have been preserved by God with the Christian Church since the very beginning of Christianity, and thus a fulfillment of God’s Promise that His Word would always be with us.
The new age versions are translated from false documents, such as the Textus Siniaticus (TS), the Textus Vaticanus, (TV), the Critical Text (CT), and the Nestle/Aland New Greek (NA) Testament. Documents that have not been with the Christian Church for long periods of time (TV missing for over 500 years, TS missing for over 1000 years, CT fabricated by Westcott and Hort in the 1800’s and the NA an even more recent imposter).
I’m not really sure what is profound about what I’m saying Vincent, but thanks for reading it.
If the call to be good stewards of GOD’s creation is to be valid, no less does it apply to the order that He established within that creation:”male and female created He them”; thereby, and only thereby, to “be fruitful and multiply”; this, according to whatever version one reads. With unsurpassed irony cum hypocrisy from a Nova Scotian cornfield, this is the very same Diocese which at the 2013 General Synod put forth covertly the surprise Motion (NS-PEI) to redefine this Divine creation and its inherent order: by entertaining even more “conversations” with a committee already of one mind only about rewriting Holy Writ even further by redefining human sexuality and its sacred covenant of marriage.
Our LORD, Co-Creator of His creation, Who also was wont to speak from cornfields, said no less in His Gospels.
+ “But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them male and female. For this cause, shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife…”.
+ Mark 10:1-16; Matthew 19:1-15.
I think it’s so funny that fracking has become such a cause. It was common – and unquestioned – when we moved to the Peace Country in 1972. it appears that somebody just woke up.
Stop the Presses!
I just discovered that an ANIC church is doing nearly the same thing. I guess that it is also full of eco-zealots and “crawling with environmentalists.”
Using the same logic as David, the founder appears to be “declaring Creation rather than Jesus as the reason for her relationship with God:”
I believe that gardening is one of the greatest tools to come to know our true identity and mission in life. – Ken Warren –
http://www.allnationscanada.ca/new-eden/
While many of you sneer, mock or call these kinds of “environmental” ministries heretical, I think that both the Nova Scotia and Eden ministries appear to be fantastic. I also support work like ANIC’s St Timothy’s or Church of Our Lord (Comox) who donate to Creation Care ministries
http://www.st-timothy.com/outreach/
http://www.coolcomox.ca/p/resources.html
We are called to worship God Not creation ,yes we are to care for it .The statement “It is because of the existence of Creation that I have this particular relationship with God” If you have any true relationship with God creation is irrelevant.It may enhance that relationship but the relationship is from God alone.
Most of us cannot read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek. We have to read the Bible in our own language. There are as many as 50 different English versions of the Bible. The differences between the translations can be a subject of great division within the church body.
Today’s Bible scholars have at their disposal resources which were unknown two or three centuries ago. It is difficult to say which English translation is the “best”. It is probably wise to have access to at least two or three of the major translations.
Personally I use the NIV Bible (1978). The NIV is the result of a transdenominational effort by 100 evangelical scholars, sponsored by the New York Bible Society International. The translation is free from narrow, sectarian bias. It is a balanced, scholarly, dedicated translation.
That is an inaccurate statement. The ESV and the NASB are the two most faithful word-for-word translations one can buy. There may be one or two more versions of similar value, but through research – and besides being able to speak Hebrew and Greek, a rather eye-rolling statement – these two are thought to be the best.
Jack, the statement is not inaccurate. I have to agree with Michael. The NIV is indeed respected for being a balanced, scholarly, dedicated translation. That is why it is one of the most widely used English translations in the world today. I agree it may not be quite as much of a formal equivalence translation as the ESV (which is based on the Revised Standard Version) or the NASB, but both those have been criticized as well, and Michael did not say it was a strictly formal equivalence translation. I personally think it has the finest wording of 1 Corinthians 13 of any translation I have read. I also think the Amplified Bible gives a very good, expansive, interpretation of Bible passages, although it is hard to use as your primary Bible.
I maintain that just about any good translation, be it word-for-word or thought-for-thought, or some mix of the two, will get the message across, and I would rather have people reading an NLT or a TEV or even a Message than nothing. Biblical illiteracy is reaching a critical point in our society. With few exceptions, if people are actually reading a translation then that is the best translation for them.
Biblical illiteracy at a critical point? Type those words into Google and see what you come up with.
I agree that ESV is a major translation. There are different translation methodologies for how to best render the original languages into English. Some Bible versions translate as literally (word-for-word) as possible, commonly known as formal equivalence. Some Bible versions translate in more of a thought-for-thought method, commonly known as dynamic equivalence. The King James Version would be to the far end of the formal equivalence, while the Living Bible would be to the far end of the dynamic equivalence side. The best Bible version is likely produced through a balance of the two methodologies.
While we’re on the subject, let’s not leave out these wonderful translations (as follow, with samples):
EBONICS BIBLE (supposedly inner-city black dialect):
[1] In da beginnin’ Big Daddy created da heaven an’ da earth.
[2] And da earth wuz widdout form, an’ void; an’ darkness wuz upon da face o’ da deep. And da Spirit o’ Big Daddy groved upon da face o’ da waters.
[3] And Big Daddy enunciated, Let dere be light y’all: an’ dere wuz light.
[4] And Big Daddy seen da light, dat it wuz fine ass: an’ Big Daddy divided da light from da darkness.
COTTON PATCH BIBLE:
Now during the fifteenth year of Tiberius as President, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Georgia, and Herod was governor of Alabama, his brother Philip being governor of Mississippi, and Lysanias still holding out over Arkansas; while Annas and Caiaphas were co-presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, the word of God came to Zack’s boy, John, down on the farm.
AUSSIE BIBLE:
When Libby was six months gone, God sent the same angel’this Gabriel bloke’to a backblocks town called Nazareth, in the Galilee shire, to a nice young girl who was engaged to the local carpenter, Joe Davidson. Her name was Mary.
The angel said to her, ‘G’day Mary. You are a pretty special sheila. God has his eye on you.’
Mary went weak at the knees, and wondered what was going on.
HIPPIE BIBLE:
At 3 PM Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “Daddy, Daddy, why have you bailed on Me?
PIDGIN ENGLISH BIBLE:
Dis letta from me, Paul. I one worka fo Jesus Christ, da Spesho Guy God Wen Send. God wen tell me fo come be his guy, cuz he like send me all ova da place fo talk fo him. God wen make me one spesho talka fo tell peopo da Good Kine Stuff From Him.
LOLcat Bible
a kitteh who duzzent haz nollege iz a bad kitteh, a kitteh who iz ina hurrei will get dey bukkit stoled but stewpid kitteh go bad and then try and blame it on Ceiling Cat. Srsly, wtf?
ZOMBIE BIBLE
1:6 There was a man sent from Pittsburgh, whose name was George Romero. 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Zombies, that all men through him might believe.1:8 He was not a Zombie, but was sent to bear witness of them Zombies.
I’m still waiting for the “Texting Bible”. I am sure it would be something like
“n d bging wz d wrd n d wrd wz wd G n d wrd wz G.” Forgive me. I am sure I got that texting all wrong. I am not very good at text messaging, but that was fun.
I am glad that the original autographs no longer exist. Otherwise, humans would worship them instead of the triune God. Our understanding of the Bible is fallible. In 1987, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy met to produce ethical guidelines for the church’s public life. According to Kenneth S. Kantzer (Christianity Today, February 20, 1987, pp. 14-15), no one in this group of Christians seemed to agree with anybody. Every issue became a battleground, even though all of them believed in an inerrant Bible. There was no agreement on the issues on war and peace, abortion, marriage and the family, and others. Kantzer believed that disagreements among like-minded Christian believers should not surprise us. He wrote: “From the beginning of Christianity, the church has arrived at no mutual agreement over many doctrines….” (Ibid., p. 14). But, no conservative Christians support same-sex marriages.
Wonderful discussion that places God’s word (and our relationship to it) front and centre.
On September 9, I wrote: “Personally, I use the NIV Bible”. In his reply, Jack S. Pratt wrote: “The ESV and the NASB are the two most faithful word-for-word translations one can buy”. This morning, I came across Philippians 2:7 in my daily reading. Many Bible versions (e.g. ASV, CEB, CJB, ESV, NABRE, NASB, NET, NRSV, RSV, WEB, etc.) translate the phrase “He emptied himself”, while the NIV translates it “but made himself nothing”. Different translations may lead to different understanding of the same phrase. “He emptied himself” may mean that Jesus gave up some of His divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, while He was on earth as a man (The kenosis theory). “But made himself nothing” probably mean that Jesus gave up the status and privilege that was His in heaven. He humbled Himself for our sake and came to live as a man. Most Christians do not accept the kenosis theory. If this theory were true, then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while He was here on earth. My point is that reading the wrong translation of the Bible may be dangerous to our spiritual health.
Hello Michael,
I notice that you neglected to include in your list the Authorized / King James Version, which I believe to be the is the Divinely Guided English Version and thus the only English Version that is 100% accurate and correct.
In the Authorized / King James Version the passage Philippians 2:7 is worded:
“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:”
So it can be clearly seen within the correct and accurate version there is absolutely no diminishment of Christ’s Devinity.
Hello AMPisAnglican:
May I share with you some quotes from Professor J. G. Vos’ “Bible, English Versions”, in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopaedia of the Bible, Volume 1, pp. 571-582.
“The English language continues to change. Since the earliest Bible translations into English, the language has changed so much that the versions of 600 years ago are barely intelligible to the ordinary reader today…. As long as English continues to be a living language there will be a need for new and improved translations of the Bible in English” (pp. 571 & 573).
“New manuscripts have been discovered, giving a truer text as a base for translation. Since the King James Version (1611) was produced, there have been three great discoveries of previously unknown manuscripts which have greatly increased the available resources for reconstruction of a thoroughly accurate and trustworthy text of the Bible in the original languages, thus making possible more accurate and faithful versions” (p. 573).
“Scholars of the present day have at their disposal resources which were unknown two or three centuries ago” (p. Ibid.).
Reading two or three excellent major Bible versions at the same time can help us understand God’s word better.
Hello Michael,,
The arguments presented by the representative of Zondervan Publishing (the profit motivated business that claims ownership over God’s Word by means of copyrights is has in place for its products such as several of the versions you mention earlier) are old and untrue. These arguments amount to nothing more than a “sales pitch” that attempts to discredit the competition. You should notice that the sellers of the new versions fail to provide any examples of words that are in the Authorized / King James Version whose meanings have changed. The reason for this is simple. Contrary to their sales pitch, the meanings of words have not changed.
Also, that recently discovered materials are being included in the sources for the new versions is rather disturbing. I am sure that you are aware of the Promise that Jesus Christ has given us that His Word will always be with us. It is obvious than that these recent discoveries cannot be a fulfillment of that promise, and thus this question must be asked. If the recent discoveries are not the preserved Word of God than what are they? Or to put it another way. If these recent discovers are of older manuscripts, and presumably more reliable because older is closer to the author, than to which author are these closer to???? The true Word of God, or one of the imposter / false writings that we are warned about in 2 Peter 2:1-3.
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”
Thanks for your interesting remarks! But I am not going to throw away any books published by the Zondervan Publishing House.