Enkidu wrote:

P.S. Scott, are you related to Genieve?

But the answer is, ‘No’… much to the relief of both John (her husband) and Debby ( my wife).

In response to your post in general, Enk, I guess the question I want to ask is: When is Scripture no longer Scripture? Is Scripture still Scripture when it has been paraphrased almost beyond recognition?  Is it still Scripture just because the name of Jesus or some other Biblical character is retained?

I wonder, how far can we tinker with the text before it actually loses its God intended, Spirit inspired purpose - as say, the corrupted Old and New Testament stories about Moses, Jesus, Mary and the crew that appear in the Koran.  Are they still Scripture?

I am absolutely certain that Kel Richards’ intentions and motivations are entirely godly and Christ honouring - but I was always taught (and have found) that the Scriptures are entirely relevant to life - they do not need to be made relevant.

I guess I’m just asking… Where is our doctrine of Scripture in all this?
Enkidu wrote:

To carry Goldsworthy’s objection to its logical conclusion, we should only use the Greek or Hebrew text lest we undermine the “full exegetical and doctrinal potential of the text.”

Yes!  That is Graham’s point exactly… and any rendering of the Word of God (into English or any other language, or dialect) that does not honour these basic foundations of Scripture, must be considered suspect.  I agree with him.

[quote author="Scott Blackwell"]In response to your post in general, Enk, I guess the question I want to ask is: When is Scripture no longer Scripture? Is Scripture still Scripture when it has been paraphrased almost beyond recognition?  Is it still Scripture just because the name of Jesus or some other Biblical character is retained?

I wonder, how far can we tinker with the text before it actually loses its God intended, Spirit inspired purpose - as say, the corrupted Old and New Testament stories about Moses, Jesus, Mary and the crew that appear in the Koran. Are they still Scripture?

These are good questions to raise, and it does come back to our doctrine of Scripture. Is it more important to preserve the words of Scripture or the meaning of Scripture? (This is why I don’t think that your Koran reference is particularly relevant--the meaning and words differ from the Bible.)

If the words are more important, then any translation is illegitimate. If the meaning, then the best translation is the one which best renders the original meaning into the target language. As I said before, the Aussie Bible is not a candidate here, but it is a serious issue when debating the merits of (for example) the ESV. The marketing extolls its accuracy. But is a translation which is difficult to read and understand accurately rendering the meaning of the original text, or obscuring it?

As I recall, the NT writers sometimes quote the OT pretty loosely, but still treat it as Scripture.

[quote author="Scott Blackwell"]I am absolutely certain that Kel Richards’ intentions and motivations are entirely godly and Christ honouring - but I was always taught (and have found) that the Scriptures are entirely relevant to life - they do not need to be made relevant.

Which is why I said it was a gimmick and so the fact that Goldsworthy raises the issue of dynamic equivalence is really irrelevant (one cannot legitimately describe any loose paraphrase as a dynamic equivalence translation). Which was, after all, really my point.

Nonetheless, I think there remains a difference between making Scripture relevant and making it clear.

I agree with Enkidu on this one. It seems to me a moot point whether Kel, or Southern Cross writers, have followed agreeable translation theories. The Aussie Bible isn’t really an attempt to translate the bible at all, it’s more an attempt to retell the Jesus story in a way that catches people’s attention - a gimmick, as Enkidu says. Apparently it doesn’t even stick with the one gospel account, chopping and changing a bit.

When preaching, Scott, do you try to rephrase the propositional passages for people to help them sink in? If you’re preaching narrative, do you summarize it by retelling the story in your own words? It’s all part of the attempt to get people to internalize and grasp the message by hearing the same message in various expression. And that, as far as I can tell, is where the Aussie Bible fits in - another attempt to draw people’s attention to Jesus, not a text to be studied in detail, but one with an impact which may be just right for introducing someone to Jesus, like “A Fresh Start”. Indeed, a friend of mine was telling me recently how perfect it was as a Father’s day present - it would be the only way she could get her Father to read about Jesus, and she was confident it would work.

The more I find out about it the more I repent of my initial scepticism…

As far as I can see, the Southern Cross competition is just in the same spirit. Get people to internalise and rewrite bible stories in creative ways. This is not about translation theory. It’s just about people enjoying reading the word of God - the process may be more important than the results.

OK, so here’s what happened,

Today I read the Aussie Bible and laughed my stoopid little head off.  Infact, the more people you read it with, the better and funnier it is.. at first, but then when you get to the business end of the book, the gospel is still there, still clear, still serious and still very moving (as, of course, I knew it would be - as this is the case with everything Kel Richards does).

So, even though I still stand by my agreement with Graham Goldsworthy, I now understand what Kel has done, his intentions and - having seen the outcome - find myself really appreciating his work, humour and creativity.  As such, I am not ashamed to unreservedly RECANT my initial dismissal of this little book.

I had heard, but now I have seen… therefore I repent in dust and ashes.

Cheers, Kell.  Thanks Cobba!

I’ve just finished reading the “Aussie” Bible so here are some comments
1.  Sure none of us actually talk like that
2.  Its very readable (its not the whole Bible) and you could probably read it all in a session if you have an hour or two free
3.  From time to time its good for us to use a different translation - this one will really make you think!
4.  I’d be happy to give the “Aussie” Bible to a non-Christian friend as a non-threatening way of introducing them to God’s Word.
5.  Don’t criticise the book until after you have read it!

Finally the minor off-topic conversation re, “Struth”.  It is an abbreviation of “God’s Truth”.  Knowing this will affect the way you use this word from now on (if at all).

Regards

JD

I had to hunt around for a bit to find this thread again <g>. 

I gave The Aussie Bible as a Christmas present yesterday.  It went down beautifully.  The guy I gave it to is a truckie & unit manager on films etc, etc, and he was absolutely stoked (<-- note Sophie’s token bit of Strine) and has promised to read it cover to cover.  Everyone else was commenting on “Oh, Kel Richards, that’s the Radio National guy”. 

Would you all be so kind as to pray for Mick, and my parents to whom I also gave evangelistic stuff yesterday. 

Thanks a bunch,
SJK.

PS - when he opened it, he actually went straight outside to start reading it!  Was v. encouraging.

Bonza, Sophie! ;-)

Thank you for sharing that: a wonderful and encouraging story.  My prayers are with Mick and your parents…

Ian, amazed that Kel Richards is not only on that FM Christian radio station and NewsRadio, but Radio National as well!!!