BEN J. writes:

A publishing company owned by the United Methodist Church doesn’t think the Bible is inclusive or readable enough. The new $3.5 million Common English translation contains shorter sentences, shorter words, and, for the first time ever, contractions. Gender neutrality is emphasized throughout, while God still remains He. Instead of the Son of Man, the term the ‘Human One’ is used.  Abingdon Press also believed that it was wrong that past translations were done by white men. One-third of their translators were women and fifteen percent people of color. One of the goals was to bridge the gap between so called conservative (what I would call orthodox), moderate (what I would describe as ‘sliding down hill’) and liberal (what I describe as apostate) denominations.

Laura writes:

Judging from the passages quoted, the new translation is an abomination. When Jesus calls on the apostles to leave their fishermen’s nets and follow him, he exhorts them, in other translations, to be “fishers of men.”  The Common English translation has Jesus say, “From now on you will be fishing for people.” Can you imagine following someone who said that?

The Lord’s Prayer is rendered in this clunky fashion:

Our Father who is in heaven, uphold the holiness of your name. Bring in your kingdom so that your will is done on earth as it’s done in heaven. Give us the bread we need for today. Forgive us for the ways we have wronged you, just as we also forgive those who have wronged us. And don’t lead us into temptation, but rescue us from the evil one.

“Accessible” Scriptures have replaced the prayerful, poetic petition with prickly demands. When God is an everyday “you” instead of a formal and majestic “thou,” when he isn’t worth a few extra letters to avoid bossy contractions, it’s only a matter of time before he’s someone who should be actively ordered around.  The next translation, following the logical progression, might be:

Our Father who is in a really nice place, remember us. Uphold our holiness. We’d like to be in a really nice place too, especially if you expect us to do something for you. Give us bread. A new house would work. If you think we’ve done something wrong, we forgive you. But, if you’re going to lead us into temptation, could you not blame us? It’s sick and childish. You’ve got a lot of work to do. 

                                               — Comments —

Amanda writes:

I just have a small correction. “Thee” and “thou” are actually the ancient informal pronouns. “You” is historically more formal. I would say that the new translation is therefore mirroring the original intent quite well, though it is very jarring to read when one is used to the traditional version.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the correction. The formality that surrounds “thee” and “thou” today is a result of their archaic usage, not their actual meaning in earlier times. 

Jeff W. writes:

One major problem with these colloquial translations is that Jesus is the High Priest, Redeemer, and King. When he speaks in the Bible, it should sound like it is coming from a High Priest, Redeemer, and King. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets. The prophets should sound like the Holy Spirit is speaking through them; the tone should be that of one who speaks with the greatest possible authority. In the letters of Paul, the style and tone should reflect Paul’s great learning, his keen intelligence, and his unique conversion experience.

To put colloquialisms into the mouths of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Paul is to show disrespect. One of the merits of the King James Version is that it uses the language of the educated. In the KJV everybody speaks like a well-educated seventeenth-century gentleman. Because well-educated people of that day worked hard to speak and write expressively and beautifully, the King James Version is still unmatched, in my opinion, in striking the right tone.

Laura writes:

In the case of “thee” and thou,” we are only familiar with them in the context of what seems to us formal language, the language used by the highly literate. This is where they gain their aura, why they seem more respectful than “you,” which is used indiscriminately.

Alissa writes: 

These situations and groups are one of the main reasons why I only buy older translations like KJV (King James Version) or NKJV (New King James Version). I also don’t know why some Bibles seem almost too “useless fancy.” (Too many decorations because of marketing? I don’t know how to explain it).

D. from Seattle:

You provided the new translation of the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father who is in heaven, uphold the holiness of your name. Bring in your kingdom so that your will is done on earth as it’s done in heaven…” 

I have a question, as a non-native English speaker. How can it be “who is in heaven” (third person singular) when addressing the Father, when in all other instances “you” (second person singular) is used? This is baffling to me. How can they mix third person and second person even in the same sentence when addressing the same person? This is so horribly grating to my ears, not to mention grammatically wrong, at least the way I understand English grammar. 

I wouldn’t probably even bother asking if not for a sad fact that the church I attend started using (only sometimes, thankfully) a very similar construct: “Our Father, Who is in the heavens, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come, …” (and the rest is fine). I’ve argued with native English speakers that this is just plain wrong grammatically, not to mention that they shouldn’t be changing the text of the prayer, and I got in reply some explanation that was so unconvincing I didn’t even bother to remember it.

Laura writes:

“Our Father” is a form of address in that sentence. So yes, it should be, “Our Father who are in heaven” as in the older, “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…”

I have no idea why they chose the ungrammatical third person singular.

Please follow and like us: