The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 3)

True patriots, whose understanding's on track:
It's time to take America back!
-- Mimi Evans Winship

POPPYCOCK
Re: Bill Barnwell's Is Your Bible Too Liberal?:

What a bunch of poppycock. What gives anyone the right to "reinterpret" God's Holy Word to suit a particular political agenda? (example: The Jesus Seminar, which has the audacity to definitively say that in their opinion and by the vote of their colored beads, whether Jesus actually said or did not say certain things -- that is positively breathtaking in its arrogance) One treads upon dangerous territory when one tries to tilt the gospel toward anything but the truth inspired by God Himself. Bible translators have for generations attempted to translate or paraphrase Scripture with the best scholarship and resources available. Certainly there are Bibles that show a bent to one direction or the other, and what is more dangerous to me, are the current efforts to use politically correct and/or inclusive language so as to avoid "offending" anybody's sensibilities. Good grief! If you are offended by the Truth and don't know any of the history of Scripture and its writing, then you will fall into the trap of thinking as the short-sighted ones who are trying to sell Bibles and not really concerned with the integrity of God's Word. Nobody is more conservative than I on matters theological and political, but this goes too far. No conservative in his right mind and no liberal who is honest would endorse such drivel as this. These people have too much time on their hands.
-- Richard B. Miller
Harrisonburg, Virginia

I read the translators manifesto. Of course, it seemed appealing. Then I went to part of the Scripture being translated. I started with Matthew -- I got as far as Mary becoming pregnant by the "Divine Guide." Divine Guide replacing the King James Version "Holy Ghost." Why they chose "Divine Guide" instead of "Holy Spirit" is beyond me. Sorry for them, to my ears "Divine Guide" sounds awfully liberal! In fact it sounds "New Age." I am afraid I might laugh at the rest of it like I do the "Living Bible." I think I will stick to the Geneva, KJV, RSV, NIV, or NASB. I sympathize with what they are trying to do, but after your article and my brief encounter I am suspicious of the outcome.
-- David Bartlett

NOT NEARLY AS TOUGH
Re: Quin Hillyer's Pentagon in the Tanker:

Some of the article by Quin Hillyer baffled me. It read like a press release from Air Bus and seemed out of touch with what has gone on in American defense.

First, I do know split contract production. Nobody who knows the first thing about the split of Submarine production between Electric Boat Corp and Northrop for the Seawolf and Virginia class would stand for doing it with something as dynamic as an Airplane contract. Second the description of the Northrop plane that they won the bid contract is mystifying: "...more versatile...?" "not nearly as tough" would be my description. There certainly will be politics involve but there always will be in a Government bought item.
-- Gregory Franke

THE MINIMUM
Re: Wayne Crews' and Ryan Young's Price Fixing:

I am very curious to know if the writers were referring to Minimum Advertised Pricing agreements in their references to "Minimum Pricing." Minimum Pricing and Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) are two very different things. Since many readers have probably encountered MAP during online shopping, this should be clarified.
-- Dan B. Yntema, Jr.

UN-PATRIOTISM
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's O-lympics:

How about "Oh-limpics"?

By the way, whatever the apologizer-in-chief has been doing, it's not lecturing about patriotism. It continues to be in-our-faces, here and abroad, a display of un-patriotism.

The White House occupant has no idea of what patriotism means, unless he thinks it's complete deconstruction of America, or fiscal collapse and movement into second- or- third-world status.
-- C. Kenna Amos Jr.

JOINED AT THE HIP
Re: Matthew Vadum's SEIU Divorces ACORN?:

Well, not likely. This so-called "divorce" is more like those cases where a couple divorces, but continues to live together in order that both parties receive their Social Security, Medicare, whatever, while had they remained married, their benefits would have been slashed.