WOOD TV in Grand Rapids reports that Bradley Fowler is claiming 20 years of emotional distress because his family’s pastor used a translation of the Bible published by Zondervan which uses the word “homosexual” in its translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9. As a result Bradley claims his family considered him a sinner and he suffered.
Zondervan issued a statement saying that it doesn’t translate the Bible, it only publishes the Bible. The translations are determined by a committee of qualified scholars.
The suit was filed on Tuesday, July 7 in federal court in Detroit. Will a federal court actually go so far as to get involved in what words can be used in the translation of a sacred text?
Arthur,
This isn’t Gnosticism; to me it’s just more consistent with the understanding the Jewish early church had regarding the kingdom of God. What you are asserting is actually much newer, only several hundred years old. Again, you’ve got it backwards.
I grew up believing like you, went to churches and schools that taught what you still believe. It’s scripture itself that has convinced me otherwise. I know the words sound strange to you – they did to me when I first heard it – but it’s a much more consistent understanding of scripture that doesn’t require so much explaining away to fit things into a neat little system. There’s no way I’ll convince you…but maybe God will someday. 🙂
ColinSamul,
Assuming that creation itself is truthful revelation from God about Himself (Romans 1)…
And assuming that God also truthfully reveals/communicates Himself to our individual hearts in ways that are consistent with both His creation and with scripture (John 14:26; 1 John 2)…
And assuming that scripture, while not containing every truth in God’s universe, nevertheless is thoroughly true (John 21:25)…
I think we agree. 🙂
b,
In reference to your comment a while ago I just want to say that there was knowable truth before special revelation, but that truth was incomplete. What is knowledge but a relation of facts to other facts from which we infere meaning. And man being finite can never abstract from all of the particulars to achieve universals which give the particulars their meaning. So we can make observations, and general statements “the sun rises every morning”. But ‘truth’ in the real sense can only be provided by God’s self revelation. By the way, some men do confine God to a box, and worship a god which they create in their own head from sometimes even corect theology. However, this does not mean that we should not endeavor to find how God has revealed Himself. After all, HE has put Himself in a box, because he must express Himself in a finite way for finite beings to grasp Him. He can also do this accuractely without misrepresenting Himself (i.e. saying he is a Trinity when there is really more to it like 4 persons or what not). To assume that we can relate to an infinite God apart from His revelation is not only impossible but it is also rebellion.
b, I get what you are saying, I am just saying that you are incorrect.
Nancy, you’re asking good questions, and I appreciate that you are trying to understand. Let me quote Scot McKnight: ” The kingdom of God is…the society (i.e., the church) in which the will of God is established to transform all of life…it transforms relationships with God, with self, with others, and with the world…Jesus’ vision of kingdom and atonement are related; separating them is an act of violence. Atonement CREATES the kingdom.”
We are invited to enter this kingdom. The way has been paid. And the focus is not on God shoving down our throats how bad and unworthy we are (though we may be), but rather the GOOD NEWS that we – the poor, meek, persecuted, beat up, trampled on, losers in this world – have access into this incredible society. THAT is GOOD news. Certainly such people will have relationships FOREVER with God and each other, but getting into the afterlife is not Jesus’ primary focus, nor is it what “eternal life” means. It’s the kind of living that never gets old, never days, that starts now and goes on forever (unlike the American dream or the Hollywood life).
The here-and-now-though-not-fully-yet kingdom is the focus, and Jesus’ atoning death not only paid the way, it provided an example for us to follow, it made way for this new society/assembly of God’s people who in the book of Acts actually started DOING what Jesus taught back in the Sermon on the Mount. So much more I could say, but hopefully this at least clarifies more where I’m coming from.
Hmmm, seems to me that bo believes in the Kindgdom of God with Jesus’ sacrifice as the only door without whose sacrifice we can’t even see the Kinddom…And Arthur, believes reconsiliation with the Father which is obtained through Jesus’ sacrifice bringing us into positional relationship to receive life enternal…
View 1) The Kingdom is the Prize
View 2) Relationship with the Father is the Prize
Another Hmmm, what are we reaching for Guys???? Are these views basically the same???? You can’t have the Kingdom without the relationship….With the relationship you get the Kingdom….a bit of a twist IMHO…It’s kinda like marriage…
Ed, I’m with bo, on typos they don’t count if you have any imagination at all you can figure it out or just imagine what you want the words to say…It’s always worked for me. *: )
You guys just don’t get what I’m saying. No problem. God bless you all as you follow Him.
b,
“Ed, I used to retreat to the known, familiar, and safe, too. I understand. Maybe someday.”
Guilty as charged, whenever I need direction I turn to the safe and familiar, the Word of God. I find my Savior and my Lord there, and He is sufficient. I am sure you believe you have some “new” knowledge, Gnosticism still lives on today!
b.,
I am not even sure how to respond to that sort of assertion. There is no truth to be found in Islam. Accepting Jesus as a historical figure but not as the very Son of God blasphemes His name. The Romanist “priesthood” takes Christ out of His unique office as High Priest on our behalf. And on and on. Saying He was a learned man, or a swell teacher, or a 1st century hippie or even a prophet denies the Son of God.
Lots of other religions, including many under the guise of being Christian churches, claim to worship Jesus but when they deny the divinity and unique nature of Christ, they deny Him. An example from Scripture (which I occasionally do read BTW):
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-17)
Why is Peter blessed? Because he recognized Christ for who He is. Jesus didn’t say that the others were sort of blessed because they thought He was a prophet. It is the declaration of Christ as the Son of God that He built His church on, not on some sort of amorphous declaration that Jesus was somehow more than a regular guy.
And may I suggest that you read “Pierced for our transgressions” the recovery of penal substitutionary atonement. The Kingdom was restored by Christ and through His death for His sheep on the cross.
Ed, I used to retreat to the known, familiar, and safe, too. I understand. Maybe someday. BTW, spelling was never my problem – just leaving critical words out as my fingers try to keep with my brain, that’s all. 🙂
Arthur, let the games begin! You have laid down the gauntlet masterfully.
b, You only serve to drive me away from whatever camp you reside in. I am buying Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” in you honor. Pls take some satisfaction in this. Paul’s example at cbcwaterford.com is my kind of study.
On my computer typo’s are discovered with the right click of the mouse over underlined words as I type. What is your excuse?
God Bless!
Ed
HOLD THE PRESSES – MAJOR typo earlier. I meant to say:
“BTW, I would NOT consider him, ColinSamul, d, or you “the enemy”; it’s a family disagreement.”
In other words, I think we ARE all in the same spiritual family and not enemies, and I think a lot of this is just like families squabbling at the dinner table. VERY VERY VERY sorry for that typo.
Anthony & Nancy, that would make us Bo and Do, which is a very good start… 🙂
d, oh that “thou art ever with me”.
Arthur, there are a number of things wrong with what you assert.
Regarding truth in other religions, Islam acknowledges Jesus as a holy prophet (though not divine). But it IS TRUE that He is a prophet, which is the connecting point to discussing Him with them, which may lead them to realize that He was much more than just a prophet. Roman Catholics acknowledge the truth of the death, burial, and resurrection, which provides common talking points for why all of that happened and was necessary. You just have to learn to look for the parts that are true, cling to them, converse about them, and maybe you’ll have more opportunity to share and watch God work. Jesus took people from the known (bread, vines, water, seeds) to the unknown; we should follow his example.
Regarding the forest and tree metaphor, how I wish I could help you see that it’s the other way around – you’re focusing on one tree (i.e., the vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement on the cross), which is indeed true. But there is a whole forest of things that were accomplished at the cross, and unfortunately you can’t see that yet.
You seriously need to study the word “kingdom” and “gospel/good news” throughout the whole of scripture, and perhaps check out Scot McKnight’s excellent work “A Community Called Atonement” (one of many books on the subject, but one that is both scholarly and readable at the same time). Perhaps you’ll start to see that the Kingdom of God is actually the overarching theme of scripture.
I’ll buy the “O” but then someone has to guess the rest. Your turn to spin Anthony. *: )
The “b”s and “d”s are confusing me here, can I buy a vowel to help keep them straight?
b, The message of the Scripture from beginning to end is the working of God to redeem His fallen, sinful people to Himself through the substitutionary death of His Son Jesus Christ. It covers lots of topics, but the overarching central theme of Scripture is to expose the holiness of God, the sinfullness of man and the gracious death and resurrection of Christ. You are missing the proverbial forest for the trees. There is no truth to be found in any other religious system because they fail to recognize the Son of God for who He is, and since He is the source of all truth anything that opposes Him is by default a lie.
Maybe not b…but if the facet you have your eyes on is out of the “box” and the book isn’t with it…better watch out! It could be a zircon!
b
Thou never gavest me a fatted calf.
Ed, I know Paul pretty well; he and I go back to high school and we have talked somewhat recently about some of these things and will yet again (hopefully in a few weeks). Waterford is a ways from Farmington, too (though I did get there for Jessica’s wedding). 🙂 Paul seems at least willing to have a conversation with me rather than a polemic, which I DEEPLY appreciate.BTW, I would consider him, ColinSamul, d, or you “the enemy”; it’s a family disagreement.
It’s like the function early creeds which didn’t answer every little doctrinal question, but did at least say where the boundary lines were for heresy. Unfortunately, nowadays people want to draw those boundary lines smaller and smaller around their pet theological positions without listening to others and simply brand them as “heretics” without understanding them. That’s unfortunate.
b – just so you know, you are trafficking in the enemy’s camp. Paul studies systematic theology with his “Faithful Men” at his church, see the bottom of this link:
http://www.cbcwaterford.com/
I don’t think you will get him to post, but you are on sacred ground. It is too far for me to drive to Waterford, but I would be attending if it were closer.
ColinSamul,
You don’t get it. Vicarious penal substitutionary atonement is a FACET, not the whole diamond. And the Holy Spirit is promised to guide us into “all truth” as we test everything and cling to what’s good. There was knowable truth before there was ever scripture. We don’t need to systematize our theology, we need to KNOW Him who IS truth, and that is not an intellectual, head-based, logic-based kind of knowledge; it’s much deeper, heart-based, for which we need a new heart (fleshy, not the old one of stone). Yes, that kind of knowledge of God and Truth may indeed destroy certain man-made epistemologies, but good riddance – God will not limit Himself to our little box for Him.
b,
If you deny the vicarious penal substiutionary atonement, you are holding to a different religion than Christianity. Period. By the way how do we define truth, is it by the worlds own standards or presuppositions, or by God’s as we see it in His Word? I believe the statement “all truth is God’s truth” can end up destroying any Christian epistemology.
ColinSamul,
The key, I think, is to embrace the truth wherever you find it and use that as the connecting point of the conversation (rather than taking the traditional confrontation of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and you need to change right now” approach). It’s like some people want to harvest the seed as soon as they plant it in the ground!
Anyway, ALL truth is God’s truth (or else it isn’t true). So if emergents, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc. speak truth, I embrace it because God made it to be true. However, that doesn’t mean that I automatically embrace all of their error, too.
Putting the good news of the Kingdom of God in terms people can understand based on their culture and its meta-narrative (i.e., contextualizing) won’t result in a mix of paganism and Christianity – that’s silly. But it could result in a whole different expression of it that, when viewed through a traditional reformed American lens, might be frighteningly misunderstood and wrongly reacted to. That’s part of what I think is happening here. The other big part that I think is happening is another thread entirely… I’ll wait for the “vicarious penal substitutionary atonement is the sole correct view” thread for those remarks. 🙂
b,
I used to think that the emergents had some ‘good things’ to say. THe problem is, no one can avoid the truth (Rom. 1) so we will always finds bits of it everywhere. But that in no way means we should be amening everyone. I used to really like people like Driscoll (which I still do) for their attempts to contextualize. We must do it in some ways obviously, but we have to recognize as I believe Dr. Cornelius Van Til pointed out, that culture is the final expression of a civilizations religious views. So in our attempts to contextualize, we may end up mixing paganism with Christianity.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Even Brad!
b – Brad knows what it says, he got the point, it has bothered him for 20 yrs!
The family of the redeemed.
d,
Kind of depends on which family you’re referring to – the one we used to be in together or the one we still are?
b
As I stated, I don’t disagree. The gutless reference was for Mike’s benefit. That one Was smug. Just a note, sometimes I post on several sites just to stir things, that get a bit dry.
Bottom line is we are kin (a Tennessee term) in a great family, but unfortunately we do not communicate that well in argument.
The family was once more closely aligned but seems very fragmented these days.
d
Paul,
Unfortunately you TOTALLY misread me and missed my points.
FYI, I don’t believe scripture is ambiguous about homosexuality (a point I did not make earlier). Unlike the role of women and the use of slaves (for which the scriptures bring more and more freedom, justice, and equality), the scriptures have moved in a more restrictive direction regarding sexuality. The rampant sex of any kind that was common in Moses’ time was restricted, not liberated, by the word of the Lord so as NOT to include homosexuality, incest, adultery, etc. Later scripture was even more restrictive (one wife, for example). But like Mr. Waturi in Joe vs. The Volcano, “I wasn’t arguing that with you.”
I was objecting to Ed’s comment that “THE (read solitary, exclusive, sole) point” of scripture is to show that I’m a sinner in need of salvation. That is what I said “POPPYCOCK” to. Certainly, that is one of the many things revealed to us in scripture, I just objected to the notion that it was the SOLE point. Certainly scripture judges the thoughts and the intents of the heart, certainly it is a light that exposes our inner darkness, and unrepentant people HATE that. I’m clear on all of that – no worries.
Are you so totally against the emergent, emerging and missional folks that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge some of the good they are doing? They are dead on right that we must be able to have a humble conversation with the world (not a self-assured polemic) in a language it understands; they may sacrifice certain things you hold as precious in order to do that, but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about contextualizing the good news of the Kingdom of God made available to all by the blood of Christ.
You’ve got to get over that hump, dude, otherwise you’re missing an awful lot of what God is doing in this age through people who see through the past failures of evangelicalism and are asking good questions. You’ll just end up entrenching yourself in “rightness” of the reformed position much like other phases you and I have both been through in the past, and you KNOW that isn’t what you need to be doing.
d,
If it took those terms to communicate to a particular subculture, then by all means go for it. Perhaps godliness with chillaxing is great gain (though I do confess that chillaxing is probably not the most accurate translation of the Greek there – but it wouldn’t be as bad as “lovest” and “love” in the KJV’s John 21 where several different Greek words were in the text and yet the translators didn’t use different words or phrases to do them justice). 🙂
Regarding gutless, I’m just distancing myself from my previous identity for what I believe are good reasons (probably much like you); however, it’s obvious who you are because of your use of the words “Jesusist” and “Armenian” (which is a nationality) instead of “Arminian” (which is doctrinal position).
d…Chicken Head…one of my favorite words…I remember a cartoon where the wife is stopping out the door with her suitcase and says to her husband sitting in the livingroom chair, “And, I might add, Ralph, you have the head of a chicken!”…and he did.
Mike,
Thank you. I wonder how many “Mike’s” there are? I miss the motive behind your attack.
Nancy,
Gracious.
b,
I don’t disagree. For your consideration, should we also include the words “creeping, chicken head, chilllaxing, pushing a ride” into the Word of God, as these also are now contemporary terms? How about the words dung and harlot? Again I don’t disagree with you, I am less tolerant of this particular group and it shows in my comments.
I guess we both should be considered gutless. Perhaps we all are, as most do not give full identities.
Mr. Edwards,
Precisely!
If it not for the silver on your roof top I would comment as Paul once did about Timothy.
gutless d
Hey Bradley,
If Revelation 22:18 means what you say it does, the only way out is to do what the Muslims do and study and cite the New Testament solely in Greek, as to translate is to traduce.
You go first.
b,
I beg to differ. Scripture is pretty clear that God’s word is a judge.
David in Psalm 51: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.”
Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
The emergents are committed to ambiguity, denying an authoritaive word from God that clearly defines the behavior of human beings. Bradley’s “suffering” is not emotional distress. It’s Holy Spirit conviction induced by his reading the word of God – an authoritative word tha JUDGES the thoughts and attitudes of his heart.
Let’s not quench the Spirit, which is obviously working through His word to indict this man’s sinful behavior. And let’s not be so wishy-washy and ambiguous that we are afraid to say that God is convicting the man by His Word. It’s anything but POPPYCOCK and cerainly not a localized interpretation depending on what group you run with. That God’s word is a judge is a universal truth, a fact emergents can’t get their heads around.
Pingback: Un-fabulous « Likelihood of Success
Oops – my “Brad” comments were intended for “Ed in Eastpointe” – Sorry! I wish there was a way to edit my old posts; it’s not the first mistake I’ve made, and doubtless won’t be the last.
Brad,
The POINT of scripture is to show that I’m a sinner in need of salvation? God’s word in judgment over me? Really? That might “preach” in some churches, but… POPPYCOCK.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not denying that scripture exposes us as sinners nor am I denying that it records the means to reconciliation with God and a new order of life in His Kingdom. But that is not the sole and central “point” (as if it could all be boiled down to a single point).
I’m sure it’s natural for us finite humans to want to box in God and His word like that, but His thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways not our ways, and His full purposes are ultimately known only to Him. Sure, He reveals some of that to us since He now calls us “friends”, but come on…
This really gets into a whole discussion of what “inspired” means and what role the authors played, and that’s probably outside the scope of this thread.
d,
Word meanings can and do change over time, and there is nothing evil with choosing a current word that conveys the original intent better than the archaic word. “Have yourself a Merry little Christmas / make the yuletide gay…” was only written a few decades ago, yet it’s already archaic. That’s not bad or evil, it just is what it is.
The solution is not to argue for the “good old days” when gay meant happy; it’s to find the appropriate words that correctly communicate to the culture that now exists. It’s what missionaries have always done, contextualizing God’s word for the target audience; we MUST do the same thing here in the USA because like it or not, it IS a foreign mission field that uses a different language and has a different culture than what you grew up with (I assume the KJV).
This is one of the GOOD things emergent, emerging, and missional churches are trying to do (regardless of whatever other beefs folks may have with them). It’s simply good missiology and adheres to Paul’s example in Jerusalem, Athens, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc.
Brad, that is silly, the words of Revelation 22 apply to the revelation given to John, not the other books of the Bible.
Brad,
You are missing the point of scripture, it is intended to show you that you are a sinner in need of salvation, which Christ came to offer. The Bible is God’s word in judgment over you, not the other way around. You don’t have to carry that burden of sin and guilt, Christ will take it for you.
He said in Matt 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
The remarks on this page are remarkable and I thank eacha nd evryone of you for your insightful view points. However, in translating the scriptures, our scholars neglicted to read the scripture in Revelation 22:18 & 19 which opposes any changes be done to the bible period. In II Peter 1:20 it reads: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. So while our scholars are constantly trying to figure out what the book says and how it should be said, they are going against the sacred law itself by implementing their own opinions. Learn what it says verbatim, not from what you think it says.
Ditto on the post Ed!
However, whats with the reference to Reformed Theology? It looks like it has nothing to do with Calvanism to me. Just some good, solid biblical reasoning.
Great post Ed!
I think many times people try to explain the Word by their experience, while in actuallity…the Word explains the experience.
Mike…d doesn’t post anonymously…if I were to start posing as n…would you not be able to identify me…simply by my words????…Though if I actually used spell check at times it might provide a bit of cover..*: )
This is where Reformed Theology comes to the rescue. Jesus pulled me out of the mire of the world to be His child before I knew much about His word. He loved me before I knew what salvation meant. I trust in His word the Bible because of what He did for me. My faith in His word is wrapped up in my faith in Him, and really is the same faith that God gave me to get saved! I cannot seperate the two, the same God who in the Bible says He saves sinners is faithful to do that. How can I be saved and doubt His word? I would have to be doubting my own salvation at the same time. The world can fight and bicker over it, try to discredit it, but I will still believe it because He saved me!!
This is not the first time someone was offended by the Bible, only the emergents think it should not offend. I am glad someone is reading it, it should offend them! Perhaps God will use this offense to save the guy.
Wow
I wonder if anyone is going to sue whoever publishes the Q’uran in english because it uses the word “infidel.” This crap is nuts.
Oh–and “d” – get some guts and don’t post anonymously.
This is just another case of homosexual activism. I wonder how many from the emergent movement are going to call out for sympathy for this guy? Especially out here in Grand Rapids, where every single whiner who has been hurt at church despises historical Christianity and runs to Rob Bell for the rescue. We definitly need to get ready for mild persecution in this country, as it appears to be coming and we definitly need it. I thank God that we are having a revival of reformed and puritan theology in America, because it seems to be filling in the vacuum that the dying seeker friendly conservatives and ultra-liberal/heretical emergents are living within American Christianity. Only a faith and hope in a God who is actually in control and who saves us apart from our own efforts will sustain us through this, as it will give us the courage and the assurance to move forward knowing that God will still be at work, rather than biting his finger nails up in heaven hoping someone follows him so that his sons sacrifice isn’t wasted.
Paul,
By the way you should look to see if there are any activists behind this guy, and if there is you should expose it on the radio. Just a thought, not that I’m telling you what to do :).
Maybe Zondervan can hire a lawyer, that will help him to understand that if he feels he has suffered due to his family’s reactions… that their publication, of the explicit translation might actually, in the eternal picture, save him from increased and extended suffering.
A correct assessment. I personally never had any difficulty understanding the term “effeminate”. Why change it. Was it not clear?