Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!bch
From: bch@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: You gotta be kidding.....
Message-ID: <6013@unc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Oct-83 03:06:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.6013
Posted: Mon Oct 17 03:06:11 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Oct-83 20:17:38 EDT
References: drux3.838
Lines: 32

Before everybody gets too upset at the two Ray's articles, the "trans-
lations" in question are not a new translation of the bible, but a
lectionary for "voluntary, experimental use in services."  "The 
National Council of Churches, an organization of 30 Protestant and
Eastern Orthodox denominations, cannot require any of its members to
use the lectionary, but will promote the volume and ask churches to
report their experiences with it."  

"Members of the committee [charged by the NCC] do not believe the
new lectionary should completely replace the more traditional and
more literal translations of the Bible.  But the believe the use
of sexually inclusive language in public worship will undergird other
efforts for equality between men and women."

(the above quotations from an article by Charles Austin in the New 
York Times News Service printed in the Raleigh, N.C. News and Observer,
Sun. Oct. 16, 1973.)

--------------------
My opinion:  Since the King James Version of the Bible, that everyone
keeps swearing by, is anything but a wholly accurate version of the
original text I see no harm in an equally inaccurate translation
for conveying a more modernized spirit.  At least nobody is trying to
claim that these texts are accurate.  Biblical text is interpreted
as to meaning in Church services all the time with varying degrees
of effectiveness and accuracy in order to teach specific pieces of
dogma.  Why is this more or less wrong than that?


					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					decvax!duke!unc!bch