- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Another Perspective
Is Your Bible Too Liberal?
Has "liberal bias" made its way into modern Bible
translations? According to certain individuals contributing to
the "Conservative Bible project" over at Conservapedia,
a "conservative family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia," the
answer is yes. And so these members have launched
a "Conservative
Bible Project" to combat the alleged liberalism to
be found throughout Scripture. A Bible translated by
conservatives, for conservatives.
The exact grievances of the translators can be found here. Should serious students of Scripture and professing believers be alarmed at the inherent liberalism of the Bibles in their homes and churches, and switch over to the Conservative Bible? The claims of the Conservative Bible Project notwithstanding, it's probably safe to say that sticking to mainstream translations won't turn you into a socialist anytime soon.
One complaint of the Conservative Bible proponents is that modern translations contain language that is problematic and can be interpreted as having "liberal" connotations. They express disapproval and displeasure at translations they accuse of reflecting an ideological agenda. Yet they also call for the removal or altering of terms that run counter to their own political and ideological agendas.
According to the post, “the conservative word ‘volunteer’ is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word ‘comrade’ is used three times, ‘laborer(s)’ is used 13 times, ‘labored’ 15 times, and ‘fellow’ (as in ‘fellow worker’) is used 55 times.”
When the Apostle Paul referred to Philemon as his "fellow-worker" (NIV) or "fellow-laborer" (KJV), it is highly doubtful anyone suspected he was promoting a sinister political agenda. While many on the political Left have tried to use Scripture to serve their own agendas, there has been no large movement of leftists citing Philemon 1:1 and Paul’s use of the phrase "fellow-worker" to support Marxist or socialist thought.
In the original Greek, and as conveyed through English translations, Paul is simply describing Philemon as a partner in the gospel. There’s no reason to find a political agenda here unless one is looking for it in a hypersensitive fashion. However, according to the Conservative Bible, the proper translation is "Paul, in prison for Jesus Christ, and our brother Timothy, say to our friend and fellow volunteer Philemon…" (Emphasis mine.)
What is their reason for using the word volunteer in place of "fellow-worker" or "fellow-laborer"? The translators explain, "Fellow-labourer is misleading today, and falsely connotes socialism.”
Also suspect are allegedly "liberal verses" that need to be purged from the Bible. One that is given honorable mention is Luke 23:34, where Jesus says during His crucifixion, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Now it is true that most early Greek manuscripts omit this saying in Luke’s Gospel. Almost every modern Bible translation indicates this in a footnote. But what evidence is there that this was inserted a couple of hundred years after the discovery of Luke’s Gospel for politically and theologically "liberal" purposes?
Regarding this passage, the Conservative Bible Project states, “This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.”
Whether or not a given passage belongs in Scripture has nothing to do with modern political ideology. While the existence of this passage in the original text is certainly debatable, the above critics are misinterpreting the verse and the spirit behind it. A normal reading of the text shows that Jesus' persecutors knew what they were doing in the literal sense. Christ’s alleged words, however, indicate they were operating out of spiritual ignorance.
Regardless of the authenticity of this passage, the theme of grace and forgiveness is found throughout the New Testament. This includes loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and being graceful towards people who have made clear mistakes (Matthew 21:23-27). Does this make the Bible and Christ Himself "liberal"? Should these passages also be viewed suspiciously by good Bible-believing conservatives? Time will tell, since the Gospel of Matthew has not yet been re-translated on the Conservative Bible page.
Authors of the Conservative Bible also declare they want to eliminate other "liberal" words like "government" and replace them with "more accurate substitutes." While a staple of modern conservative and libertarian thought is a belief in limited or minimal government, it is quite novel to want to purge the word itself from one's vocabulary, or from Scripture itself. This is especially puzzling when the best Bible scholars holding high views of Scripture in every single translation ever published have used the word and decided it is most faithful to the original Greek text.
However one defines conservatism, it has never been perceived as something to promote a reverse political correctness, or in this case "conservative correctness." The goal of any faithful modern translation is to stick closely to the Biblical text in its original languages.
This means you follow the text where it takes you, and the rendering of words must based on what the Biblical author meant, not what modern ideologues want to hear. It is not philosophically consistent for conservatives to lambaste feminists for playing fast and loose with the Biblical text and then commit the same kind of errors.
Liberals and conservatives have long been trying to claim Jesus as one of their own. Michael Moore's new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, devotes an entire segment to portraying Jesus as a spokesperson for liberal causes and interviews priests sympathetic to Moore's views. Others have attempted to make Jesus a spokesman for various right-wing causes.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus said and did enough to annoy both those reading on the left and right today. For conservatives, the best approach is letting the ancient Scriptures, properly interpreted, speak for themselves. The old and traditional approach of examining a given Biblical text, deciphering what the original author meant when he wrote it, and then applying it for today, still works.
It’s also, well, pretty conservative.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Podhoretz Method
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 6:42AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Is Your Bible Too Liberal? [spectato links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Appleby| 10.8.09 @ 7:07AM
First of all, there have been so many really pitiful re-writings of the Bible in the past 40 years, most of them in Jargon so that THEKIDS might be tempted to read them, that one more stupid translation isnt going to get us to replace our Bibles. (I use the International Study Bible and find it covers my bases pretty well.)
Second, what Jesus said on the cross was *...for they KNOW NOT what they do.* As you can tell, there is significant difference in stating that they DO NOT know and that they DO know.
If people would spend more time reading the Bible and less time editing it, the world would be a better or at least a more literate place.
Vern Crisler| 10.8.09 @ 11:40AM
I think leaving out "not" was just an oversight on Bill's part, as can be seen from the context. However, it does show that "copying" errors can creep into any text, not just the Bible.
Alan Brooks| 10.8.09 @ 8:06PM
get with it.
Have a go go dancer onstage at your New Church Of the Groovy Congregationalists.
Alan Brooks| 10.8.09 @ 8:08PM
You guys didn't read the Bible carefully enough:
it says 'Thou SHALT Commit Adultery'
Denver Todd| 10.8.09 @ 9:13AM
I had never heard that there were attempts to change the language of the Bible to make it more or less conservative, as we define conservative today.
However, a very real emergent issue is that major Bible publishers have been selling Bibles in which language was been neutered to appease a more feminist and egalitarian reader. Thankfully, these Bibles don't sell well. I don't have a list of these translations. Maybe another reader can add to my post.
Etiquette Man| 10.8.09 @ 9:14AM
Very good article. As much as I generally support using the left's tactics against them, the Bible is not an appropriate venue for political battles.
Christians know which versions are garbage, and avoid them. We also disagree among ourselves. E.g., I like the NIV, but I have seen some fairly compelling evidence against it (from Baptists touting the NKJV).
Anyone monkeying with Scripture for political purposes should read Revelation 22:18-19, for a bit of foresight into what is in store for them.
Tim| 10.8.09 @ 10:25AM
Seconded.
Ryan| 10.8.09 @ 9:20AM
Thus we find the need for expositional - not topical - preaching. It forces you to deal with passages you don't agree with.
I think many conservatives don't like the fact that there's very little about government in the NT - Paul writes on governmental authority a little and Jesus tells us to render unto Ceasar. That's about it.
And the left doesn't like to hear that there wasn't anything mandatory - Biblically speaking - about giving to those in need.
Ryan| 10.8.09 @ 9:21AM
Disclosure - NASB fan, reformed Baptist more or less in theology here. Best word-for-word translation, at least according to the guy who tried to teach me Greek.
Appleby| 10.8.09 @ 10:59AM
What they really don't like is that there's nothing about forcing OTHER PEOPLE to give to those in need.
Al Adab| 10.8.09 @ 12:07PM
Difficulties arise when we (of either political view) attempt to read into an individual ethical mandate any demand for government to act in like fashion.
Should I choose to follow the Kingdom of Christ- not of this world BTW- that does not obligate any government to do so. When we confuse the two trouble follows. Government should respect and encourage my ethical choice, but cannot and should not impose it on others.
Nick| 10.8.09 @ 11:24AM
I can't speak specifically to this "Conservative Bible" project. But Roman Catholics have been fighting bad translations and inclusive language since the Second Vatican Council.
ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) committees have been trying to remove the masculine forms for God from missals and prayers for decades. I think this is more pernicious than sneaking marxist "language" into translations. They are trying to change the nature of God to satisfy feminazis, themselves marxists.
Ryan| 10.8.09 @ 11:52AM
True enough. Most of the "objectionable" language has been in there since before Marxism. The real calamity is with the feminization and "de-sinning" types of interpretation.
Tom Knight| 10.8.09 @ 12:56PM
I would be interested in how our KJV Only friends would comment on this. They seem to maintain that the KJV is as conservative as you can get. Personally, I think we have available to us all the translations we need in the NIV, RSV and the KJV. Now we get into different people's perspectives as how they interpret a word or passage in today's world. Now matter what version you have the liberals are always going to have a different perspective.
Al Adab| 10.8.09 @ 1:07PM
Try the Geneva Bible translation or the Latin Jerome. Greek of course is the best, but actually the Jerusalem Bible translation is enjoyable for the poetic rendering. Fact is excepting the modern language or paraphrases they all remain essentially true to the original and complement one another.
Hank Archer| 10.8.09 @ 1:19PM
The title "Is Your Bible Too Liberal?" is misleading. A more accurate title would be "Is Your Bible's Translation Too Liberal?"
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 2:15PM
There's a "new" version of conservatism, that's for sure, and I've learned about it in here! It's probably the type being referred to in this article. Basically, they're Liberals calling themselves conservatives. (ie, Liberal Reader, Toddard types.) I'd venture to say communists.. anyway~ I agree with Appleby~this has been going on for decades with the constant re-translating, and what I call watering down. Even the KJV isn't perfect . But if you belong to Christ, I don't think it really matters which "version" you use. (As long as you believe the entire Bible). He judges the heart, as we all know, thankfully. I am fortunate to know of a wonderful Bible that has the KJV on one side of the page, the literal Greek in the middle, and on the right side a literal translation of the greek in English. And in Hebrew for the Old Testament. For anyone who may be interested it is: The Interlinear Bible Hebrew Greek English Coded with Strong's Concordance numbers J.P. Green, Sr. Sovereign Grace Publishers. It just makes me love the Bible even more to hear it so closely from it's original language.
PsychoDad| 10.8.09 @ 4:11PM
Try visiting a Greek Orthodox church. You will hear lots of Scripture actually spoken [or sung!] in Greek, by those who actually know the language, and aren't fumbling through some interlinear translation.
The service itself is called the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, and dates to the 5th century, and is also in classical Greek.
PS: The Liturgy itself predates the establisment of the canon of the New Testament.
Al Adab| 10.8.09 @ 4:36PM
Point taken. Perhaps as Conservatives we should all become Orthodox, or Roman Catholic alternativly. Darn that filioque anyway.
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 4:55PM
PsychoDad.. don't know why you'd want to call yourself that, but anyway.. :^/ thanks for the invite and I'm sure it is a beautiful thing even though I don't understand the language I'm sure I would love it. As far as "fumbling through some interlinear translation" goes, I don't mind, and actually I don't fumble through it. I read it in sheer awe.
Alex Greene| 10.8.09 @ 2:23PM
Isn't Barnwell a libertarian of sorts? I think I'd take the Conservative Bible over the libertarians.
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 3:51PM
My post was removed again. So much for freedom of speech! What I said was to Alex, and that is that "Libertarian" and the new "conservatism" are basically the same. Do not be fooled by the brand names. You have to listen to what they actually believe, and it isn't good~~they're both forms of Liberalism. Did I insult the author by saying this? Is that why you are removing my post?
Steve| 10.8.09 @ 3:56PM
Well, there's various forms of what is today called conservatism and libertarianism. Some good, some bad. There's some conservatives that are terrible. Some libertarians are left-libertarians and others are more right-libertarians. Some in whatever group are just a mixed bag. I think the thrust of this piece challenged those on the left and right that tinker with the bible for their own ends.
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 4:18PM
True Christians don't tinker with the Bible. They seek to understand it, and follow it. They don't add to it, nor remove anything from it. The Left likes to try and say that "those on the "extreme Right" or "fringe" are the ones who kill abortion Dr.'s, as an example. But the truth is that this is Leftist behavior. Just as the Left tries to categorize Hitler as being part of the "Right extreme Wing," when in truth this is Leftist Communism. Today we have the new so called "Conservatism." It is no more conservative than Hitler or Stalin was on the Right!
Jeff| 10.8.09 @ 6:19PM
What does allegedly being a libertarian have anything to do with the column and the points it makes?
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 6:39PM
Because the column is talking about the new brand of "conservative" and fact they are changing words in the Bible to suit themselves. Alex, above made a comment that there are different versions if you will of conservatives, Libertarians, etc. I thought I'd add to that. Libertarianism has everything to do with being lineral. And the new conservatism has everything to do with it as well, which has everything to do with this column.
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 6:40PM
*typo~lineral should be Liberal.
Kevin, Meath| 10.8.09 @ 7:05PM
Thank you Margie a sound comment ' True Christians don't tinker with the Bible' we can all play with words to support our own bias (we are all biased to a degree) and the King James Version is a 16th century translation into English of earlier Latin texts of earlier Greek texts etc which were earlier edits by earlier scholars. The central christian theme on the whole stays. So do you describe Peter (etc) as 'a friend' ( you mean they were quakers?) a comrade -- which to me is the fella you share a fox hole with--- but means communist to many here, but is it a follower, a pupil, student a fisherman or disciple? does it really matter?
Language especially english always changes
the message shouldn't. My favourite 'quote' from 'Christ' was on a comedy British TV series was 'Hey fellas can't we all try and be nice to each other for a change'
I wish
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 8:54PM
Kevin, Meath,
Mock all you want. What I said is the truth. True Christians do not tinker with the Bible. They study from the original languages and translate as honestly as possible. That is why an interlinear Bible is your best bet. Individuals who choose to change words or phrases to suit their own likings are not true Christians, and contrary to Liberal belief, will not go unpunished. Rev. 22:18&19; and 1 Tim. 4:3, which goes to this article's concerns- "For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own lusts, they will heap up to themselves teachers tickling the ear."
Kevin, Meath| 10.9.09 @ 5:27AM
Margie, sorry I did not realise I was mocking you and thought on the whole I was agreeing with you. Getting hung up on individual words, their exact translation and context eg does it mean friend, comrade, fellow etc is not what being a christian but rather trying to understand Christ's message which I read as roughly try and be a 'good' person and you will not go far wrong.
Sorry again if you thought I was mocking you.
Margie| 10.9.09 @ 3:43PM
Kevin, Meath,
I didn't mean mocking me.. and I take no offense personally, but do you think you take His word seriously? After posting last night I really got into reading the preface to my Bible. I was totally blown away. I realized that I take God's word way too lightly. That it DOES really matter which Bible I read, and that if I really care I will seek to make sure I am reading the one that is as closely translated from the original languages as possible, nothing added, nothing taken away, to the best of the knowledge of the men translating it. That means serious, honest Christians, godly people, men who have the Holy Spirit living within them. I highly recommend this Bible to all: The Interlinear Bible Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers J.P. Green, Sr. Sovereign Grace Publisher's. It is a gift from God. The translaters studied each word in the original languages and on one page you will see the N.T.), word in Greek with the english word underneath it, the Strong's number, and then on the right side of the page those words put together to make sentences as best as possible without adding or taking away words, and then on the left side of the page there is the KJV. They chose the KJV. To see the actual real words that these men wrote, men that had the Spirit of God breathed on them, is truly amazing. This isn't a "new version" but word for word translated as God intended, as close as humanly possible. If you are wanting to be close to God, to know what He says this will surely help you.
As far as being a "good person" goes, the Bible says that we are all in a fallen state, "..for all sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rms. 3:23), and that we can't make ourselves good, "All turned away, became worthless together, "not one doing kindness, not so much as one."" Rms. 3:12, Psa. 14:3. So, none of us are "good", that's the bad news. The Good News is: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jn. 3:16. So, how then, are we saved from sin? "For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves; (it is) the gift of God; not of works, that not anyone should boast; for we are (His) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God before prepared that we should walk in them." Eph. 2:8-10. "Because if you confess (the) Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with (the) heart (one) believes unto righteousness, and with (the) mouth (one) confesses unto salvation." Rmns. 10:9&10;.
God bless you, Kevin, Meath!
Liberal Reader| 10.8.09 @ 7:40PM
Nice piece, Mr Barnwell.
I'm relieved that on this topic at least American Spectator is on the side of the angels.
The notion that the story of the adultress is a "liberal" addition to the Gospel is so deliciously absurd that I am grateful to the nitwits who came up with this idea for presenting it.
What's concerning is once again we have an example of people who claim to be conservative who DO NOT UNDERSTAND their own philosophy.
They just think going around knocking any talk about forgiveness is what conservatism is.
After all, if Jesus said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do, then you never know: maybe Texas will stop executing mentally retarded teenagers.
To be fair, a "liberal" mindset has produced ludicrous translations of the Bible: not just the pronouns issue, but the whole movement to dumb down the text.
And Jesus said, "Hey man. Be cool."
Truth to Power| 10.8.09 @ 8:12PM
"... I am grateful to the nitwits who came up with this idea for presenting it. "
Just as we are grateful for you.
"... maybe Texas will stop executing mentally retarded teenagers."
I wouldn't move to Texas if I were the Liberal Reader. Stay out of Arkansas also. I remember when President Clinton made a special trip home to watch one of these.
This could be a plot by liberals to alow them to commit murders and get away with it. Their average voters could be mistaken for mentally retarded teenagers.
Liberal Reader| 10.8.09 @ 8:27PM
Sorry, Truth to Power.
It is simply IMMORAL to execute people of diminished mental capacity.
I am opposed to the death penalty in general, but there are arguments to be made in favor of it in some circumstances.
Executing mentally retarded people, particularly teenagers, is downright bloodthirsty wickedness, and on this THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.
But we're off topic now.
Richard D'Ippolito| 10.8.09 @ 7:56PM
Before we concern ourselves with what translation to use, we need to see what Koine manuscripts are being used. The KJV uses the worst - the Majority or Byzantine text. Although these comprise about 80% of the mss, they are corrupt. I suggest starting with the NA27 and learning the Greek yourself. Before you buy a Bible, read the preface to see.
Liberal Reader| 10.8.09 @ 8:05PM
For those of you not ready to learn Greek and Hebrew: the Harper Collins study Bible is very good for anyone who wishes to read an accurate translation that has reliable scholarly (not devotional) commentary.
The King James version is one of the glories of the language -- possibly the most beautiful translation in English -- but Mr D'Ippolito is correct: it's not always the most accurate.
Margie| 10.8.09 @ 9:02PM
Funny coming from you, LibRead. As I recall you recently told me where to put a Bible verse I had quoted, and in a most profane manner. Have you suddenly had a change of heart?
Liberal Reader| 10.8.09 @ 8:08PM
Harper Collins is a NRSV.
Richard Baker| 10.8.09 @ 8:34PM
Remember, the end of Revelation speaks about adding to or taking away from God's word. Tread lightly, my bretheren and sisteren.
Wilfred| 10.8.09 @ 10:49PM
At first I thought this article was satire. Liberals have a history of bumbling about, trying to produce a new Bible more their liking (the Jesus seminar; versions without "sexist" language & imagery; and who knows, maybe without all those miracles and pesky commandments about morality?) I thought this was just an attempt to show how stupid this is, by imagining what conservatives would do, if they attempted the same thing from their angle.
And I am sure our Lord did say, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do", for the simple reason that nobody - NOBODY - could have made this up. Given the circumstances under which these words were spoken, this has got to be the most astonishing thing ever said.
UpChuck.Liberals| 10.8.09 @ 11:18PM
You all realize that we'll soon be reading the King Of the Known Universes (KoKu) scripture soon don't you?
Richard D'Ippolito| 10.8.09 @ 11:24PM
The "Father forgiver them..." text is known not to be in the earliest manuscripts which are Category I, the highest: P75 from the 3rd cent and Aleph1 and B from the 4th. It should be eliminated completely.
Including it is actually worse, because after the resurrection, no sinner can claim ignorance.
Steve Hansmann| 10.10.09 @ 2:48AM
Christ, if you'll excuse an atheist taking the lord's name in vain. These superstitious fools may as well rewrite the whole damn thing to more accurately mesh with their own savage and ignorant beliefs and practices. Way to go; republicans and their bible-literalists first killed the republican party, now they're working overtime to kill christianity......excellent.
Margie| 10.10.09 @ 7:02PM
Steve:
1. If you are an athiest and do not believe in the existence of the Lord, have you ever wondered why it is that when things go badly for you, you use His name?
2.Superstition is actually what Darwinists teach~ it is all a theory, made up by a man who himself says that he made it up, ie., "I'll be a monkey's Uncle." Now THAT is what I call a superstition.
3. Savage and ignorant beliefs are such that teach that we are all animals, born to be caught and killed, or to do whatever we please since there aren't any consequences. On the other hand, God tells us that we were born in His image, and are higher than the animals, have a mind with which to reason and logic, and have a real purpose in life, which is to glorify Him. In behaving in this way, man is at his happiest, and has no need to curse God, or those who love Him.
4.Bible literalists didn't kill the republican party. In fact, Liberal Leftists are destroying the party because of their ungodliness and corrupt ways. True conservatives who are Bible believing, are the core, or base of the party and the republican establishment knows that by shutting us out they are losing swiftly.
5.The above article has nothing to do with true conservatism. There are Liberal Leftisits who are trying to call themselves "conservatives", and these are the ones rewriting the Bible to suit themselves and their Liberal leanings. So, don't be fooled.
I hope this has helped you out.
Richard Baker| 10.10.09 @ 5:00AM
Steve:
Practice your arguments for the Day of Judgement. See if you can convince God. Good luck with that.
Wilfred| 10.10.09 @ 1:23PM
Richard D'Ippolito:
How do we know the earliest manuscript we have today is the actual original penned by St Luke? When manual copying was the only way to reproduce documents, it is easier to see how something could have been accidently left out, than for something to have been put in.
But even if St Luke had left this out in his first draft, it does not prove that Christ did not say it. There existed within the Church an oral tradition, from eye-witnesses to events, and older than the written gospels, which provided much additional detail.
Have you never hear your grandfather tell a family story, without someone saying, "Grandpa, you left out the part about...."?
Richard D'Ippolito| 10.10.09 @ 2:48PM
Wilfred:
(1) We have no originals, i.e.,autographs. I stated that the earliest manuscripts were 3rd and 4th century and of Category I, and that these lack the subject text.
(2) An inadvertent omission of a word, phrase, or line is called haplography, and usually easy to detect. Its opposite is dittography where the copyist restarts back with a word used in consecutive phrases, so the part of the text occurs twice.
(3) It is a known principle of textual criticism that the shortest and most difficult texts are closer to the originals. The term for this is "Lectio difficilior probabilior."
(4) One can follow the history of certain texts and see that spelling and grammar are 'corrected', marginal notes explaining the text get inserted, text from other traditions gets interpolated, 'conflicting' gospels have been harmonized, and texts are expanded for theological reasons. Later version is usually longer.
(5) The subject words do not appear in the oldest papyrus mss of Luke or in other early Greek mss of and ancient versions of wide distribution.
(6) The flow of Luke's description of the mockery is interrupted by this, and Jesus's words in v43 to the repentant outlaw lose their impact.
At this point, you can take it or leave it
Blessings and peace.
Richard D'Ippolito| 10.10.09 @ 4:30PM
Wilfred, by "take it or leave it", I didn't mean to sound sarcastic - I only meant make your own decision.
Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 7:38AM
Observations » Blog Archive » Is Your Bible Too Liberal? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mystery Mann| 10.17.09 @ 10:31AM
I think everyne would best be served to heed the warning from God concerning " false prophets" i.e. heretics and try to be more understanding of just what the Bible is saying. I do know right and wrong. And what was right (and wrong) for our forefathers is still right (and wrong) for us. We need to focus on doing the right things and distancing ourselves from the wrong.