The Word on the Street (yo.)

[USSRGirl]

A couple days ago I was browsing my local Christian bookstore for a KJV reference Bible, and I came across this wonderful little gospel adapation called "The Word on the Street." Now let me just say, that in my personal opinion, I dislike the whole "pop Christianity" movement. Christianity is about Jesus, not a social club. I get so sickened by looking at cleaned up 'Christian' death metal (I mean come on...DEATH metal. The basic teaching of Christianity is LIFE) and rap CDs. But anywho, please don't feel the need to debate me on this.

Back to the point, I had heard about this Word on the Street thing as being an easy-to-read paraphrase Bible meant to engage and interest teenagers. I heard it was silly...but I never knew quite how absurd it was until I opened the cover. If it had been written by an atheist as a spoof, I would have cracked up laughing in spite of myself. But the fact that it's propoting to be gospel is totally shocking.

For starters the NT is written in E-mail format, like Paul@RomanJail.net. The disciples, now known as the J-Team, have had their names changed to Petey, John-O, and other such homie titles. Jesus has been changed to "J.C." or "coach." I skimmed a bit of Genesis and it ran something like this "God created the sun, gave a thumbs up and said "YESSSSSSSS!" ....on the seventh day He decided it was time for a little R&R and declared the weekend..." The funniest would had to have been the verses that detail God doing a 'ribechtomy' on Adam to create Eve. Adam: "She's like me...only different! Oh boy! Oh boy! She's sexy!!!" Uh...ok. So now Adam's apparently lusting BEFORE he commited the first sin? Indeed. X.x

In anycase, has anyone else read this bizzare and downright blasphemous version of the Bible? I just wanted to get your thoughts on it. I only skimmed it in the bookstore, but from what I saw it was a complete joke. Yet at the same time the dust jacket tells you it makes a great witnessing tool for teens. If I weren't already a Christian and someone gave me that thing, I'd laugh my head off and convert to Buddhism! I mean...are youth really that stupid nowadays?? I never had any trouble reading the KJV NT completely through when I was like 11-12. If there was a word I don't know, I looked it up. I don't hold it as the actual one and only inspired translation either, it also has its flaws. NASB seems a bit better. But paraphrase or not, nothing comes close to "The Word on the Street."

[Icarus]

I mean...are youth really that stupid nowadays?? I never had any trouble reading the KJV NT completely through when I was like 11-12. If there was a word I don't know, I looked it up.[...]But paraphrase or not, nothing comes close to "The Word on the Street."

Yes, some of them are. One of the few times I watched MTv, on the show they had a story about a group of seniors, the 17 and 18 year old future of our country, that decided to pull a prank at school. One of the group took care of the animals at her neighbors farm. They took various poulty (chickhens, and I think a peacock) and rabbits from the farm. Somehow, they were surprised when the police arrested them for theft and cruelty to animals after they turned them loose in the halls.

Anyway, I haven't seen this]want[/i] to see this. I have problems with "The Message" Bible translating it into todays language, so I doubt this loose a paraphrase would sit well with me.

I just googled it, and one of the things mentioned in the better reviews is that this isn't meant to substitute for a Bible, but to lead to a better understanding. That said, I'd still take your route, and look up a word I didn't know.

[Nate]

I don't mind the Message so much, but I don't suggest reading it for say, Bible studies or the like, but mainly for just ease of understanding the VERY bare bones of something (no substitute for the real deal though). I remember hearing about this translation a while ago, by the way. I thought it was a joke...now I am saddened that it actually exists.

I could go off on a rant about the degradation of the English language and the poor state of education, but I'll withhold all that. XD All I will say is that the NIV, though it isn't the best translation (far from it), is pretty darn easy to understand. And even if you don't like that one, there's the NASB you mentioned, the NRSV that I use, I've heard good things about the ESV...I mean, this translation really wasn't necessary. It almost seems like some sort of cruel joke.

[ShiroiHikari]

I personally think these kinds of "translations" are ridiculous, I don't care if it is meant as a joke. Joking around about the Word of God isn't very funny to me.

As for legitimate translations, I like the NIV and the New Living Translation.

[Linksquest]

Well... both Peanut and MSP purchased this book finding it to be hilarious. I found it as you all have, a very odd "translation" that borders on being blasphemous

[Cap'n Nick]

Juvenile and irreverent, sure, but you have yet to show me why it's blasphemous. The creators seem genuinely interested in increasing exposure to the word of God, and the excerpts you posted were amusing, insightful, and completely true to the intentions of the original. It's biblical, even if it's not Bible-flavored.

When it comes to studying the Bible, works like this will never be a replacement for serious, scholarly translations. But, they should not be ruled out as a way to get a fresh look at old words.

[USSRGirl]

Again, I have only read the small part in the bookstore. I gotta say I thought it was hilarious...but it sounds like an atheist spoof. I mean...how much more demeaning and mocking can you get than God talking like the homie 14-year-old across the street? As for blasphemous...I found it a bit disturbing that Adam is lusting over Eve from the minute he sees her. They were not concerned with bodily lust, until AFTER they ate the fruit and realized the were naked. Even if it was done to get laughs, I still think it's outright blashpemy, as it is still pretending to be a tool for witnessing.

[mitsuki lover]

They had a version of the NT back in the late 1960s/early 1970s during the height of the Jesus Movement called Letters To Street Christians or something like that had the same idea of using the then current street talk.The translators used words like 'dig' and 'groovy' a lot.So the idea is not new.Personally though I agree that
versions like The Word on the Street are going a bit too far.I especially hate the way that they try to turn the Bible into something like YM for girls and Sports Illustrated for boys.

[FarmGirl]

It's already been said somewhere in this thread, but this book is not intended to replace the Bible. It states this in the book itself.
To paraphrase on something my dad said (he may have been quoting the author at the time...), "for those who have never read the Bible, or those who have read it a lot."
The Word on the Street is a different perspective, geared toward the youth of today (if something made you laugh while remaining intelligent, would you put it down or continue reading?).
I read the thing through- it's not blasphemous.

[Nate]

I never said it was blasphemous, just ridiculous and a sad comment on the state of the English language.

[USSRGirl]

FarmGirl, if I were a non-Christian teen...someone gave me the book as - let's just be fair and call it a 'tract' since it is only proporting to be a paraphrase Bible - and it made me laugh (it did), I probably would read the whole thing then go right on laughing into atheism about how nutty these Christians are. What's so special about Jesus if he's talking and acting like the homie kid down the street? Maybe completely braindead teens might get the impression that Christianity is 'cool and pop' from it, but any inteligent person would think Christianity is incredibly silly and groundless.

[Cap'n Nick]

Regarding Adam's lust, do note that the corresponding "regular" text describes why men and women are joined in marriage - they are made for each other. Any desire Adam may have had for his wife would have been perfectly blessed and natural. Sex and sexuality were part of the original picture, not diseases born of the Fall.

[Nate]

I agree with Nick. Sexual desire is not horrible or evil, it was created by God and proclaimed good by Him. It's the world that has twisted and perverted this wonderful gift of God, not the least of which being desire outside of marriage, which is sinful. But since Adam and Eve were man and wife, any desire Adam felt would have been acceptable.

[USSRGirl]

That wasn't what I was saying. Nick, I agree with you that, as it states in Genesis, man and woman were created for each other and given blessed union and sexual desire for one another. But that isn't the same thing as bodily lust. They were not aware of the fact that they were naked in Eden until after eating the fruit. Saying "Hey she's sexy!!" implies a vain and fleshy desire, not the kind God had intended. It's just like "She's good looking, I want her." Looks would not have mattered to them...they had no idea they were even naked. It takes the original text would was pure God-given union and love, and turns it to an immature wordly equivalent - lust.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

they had no idea they were even naked

Actually they did. They just didn't care, nor did they feel shameful.

It all depends what the definition of "sexy" is. Sure Adam was all "wooah *drools*" Is that BAD? Eve was Adam's wife. God made Eve to be physically attractive to guys. Why else do guys find girls attactive? (And vice versa)

[Azier the Swordsman]

That wasn't what I was saying. Nick, I agree with you that, as it states in Genesis, man and woman were created for each other and given blessed union and sexual desire for one another. But that isn't the same thing as bodily lust. They were not aware of the fact that they were naked in Eden until after eating the fruit. Saying "Hey she's sexy!!" implies a vain and fleshy desire, not the kind God had intended. It's just like "She's good looking, I want her." Looks would not have mattered to them...they had no idea they were even naked. It takes the original text would was pure God-given union and love, and turns it to an immature wordly equivalent - lust.

'Sexy' means different things to different people. Not just the "steorytype" that society likes to give. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is NOTHING wrong with having a fleshly attraction toward one's mate, and, in my opinion, it is actually essential. I really don't believe that someone should marry anyone he is not completely physically attracted to. Doing so can cause a lot of problems later on. (And remember, 'sexy' to somebody can mean fat; "ugly"; girls with beards; anything generally considered a "fetish" by society; ect.) The point is, if one is to marry, they themselves should be completely attracted to their spouse. Remember, God created fleshly desire. It is part of his plan. It is NOT blashphemous for Adam to think his wife is "sexy".

[USSRGirl]

But this book is using the wordly stereotype. MSP, then why does it say 'and they realized they were naked and became ashamed?' Looks did not seem to have any meaning to them. 'Sexy' does not really imply a Godly attraction...it implies immature wordly lust.

Given that it's irrevent at best, I still say that any sane, intelligent teen or adult (whether given to them as a tract or Bible) would completely give up on Christians. For one thing, it makes us look incredibly silly. For another, there is absolutely nothing that sets God, Jesus, or Christians apart from everyone else in the world. Going by that book, Jesus was just some homie dude who got killed by a gang of angry Jewish leaders.

[mitsuki lover]

I have to totally agree with USSRGirl here.
Even a paraphrase of the Bible must be done with respect to the material that one is handling,however what they appear to have done with the Word on the Street certianly would seem to go beyond the Pale.

As far as Adam and Eve goes,lust didn't exist until Adam sinned so they would have had no concept of sensuality.Eve was the perfect mate for Adam,yes,but
there was no lust or negative sex involved.

They didn't know they were naked simply implies that they had no real concept of
sexuality until after they ate the fruit.All you have to do is watch a toddler.Toddlers
love to go around naked as jaybirds,but they're also totally unconcious of any distinct difference between the sexes.This is what the passage in Genesis is saying about Adam and Eve,they were as innocent about sex as a toddler.

Now if someone had come out with a similiar treatment of the Koran there would be a lot of fuss going on about it.This is because Moslems respect their holy book more than we Christians,apparently,respect our own.

If you really want to reach a non-Christian with a good paraphrase of the Bible my recommendation is that you get something like The Living Bible instead.

[Nate]

'Sexy' does not really imply a Godly attraction...it implies immature wordly lust.

Sorry, but if I were to ever get married, I would call my wife sexy, because I would find her sexy, and that is not against God at all whatsoever.

By the way, you DO realize that lust doesn't mean just sexual attraction, right? I can lust for power, I can lust for wealth. Lust is a word that just means desire. In a biblical sense, lust means ANYTHING that causes you to fall away from God.

"And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful." - Mark 4:19

While it is true that sexual desire for my wife COULD cause me to fall away from God or destroy my faith in Him, I sincerely doubt it would. I can find my wife hot, sexy, beautiful, gorgeous, and everything else and there is not a single thing wrong with that.

Sex was created by God, and He proclaimed it good. Satan has twisted sexual desire to become one of mankind's greatest stumbling blocks. This does NOT make sexual desire a sin, I repeat, it does NOT make sexual desire a sin. The devil probably dances with glee every time a Christian thinks sex is a horrible sinful thing. Because it isn't, within the context of a loving marriage.

That said, Adam and Eve were MAN AND WIFE. Therefore, it would have been ridiculous, even ludicrous to believe that he would not have found his wife attractive. Since they were man and wife, Adam finding his WIFE sexy would not be a sin at all.

As far as Adam and Eve goes,lust didn't exist until Adam sinned so they would have had no concept of sensuality.

I don't believe that, and think it has no Biblical basis. I firmly believe God created sex to be pleasurable. Now don't misunderstand me and say I believe sex is only for pleasure, because it's not. It's the process by which children are born. However, I believe in addition to it being a means for reproduction, He wanted it to be a wonderful act which further reinforces that the man and woman are one.

Remember, God CURSED Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit. Making sex feel good wouldn't be much of a curse, would it? And in addition, we see all the terms of the curse laid out in Genesis.

For the man, his part of the curse is that work sucks..."by the sweat of your brow you will toil." For the woman, He greatly increased the pain of childbirth..."with pain you will give birth to children." That's the extent of the curse, besides what happened to the snake, but that isn't really important.

They didn't know they were naked simply implies that they had no real concept of
sexuality until after they ate the fruit.

I also see no biblical support for this view either. God wouldn't create man and woman with no idea on how to have children. Now for toddlers, they're like, two years old. They don't understand much. Adam and Eve were full grown adults. They would have known how to have children, I'm sure God didn't "forget" to program in reproduction instincts into humans...otherwise, that would be a flawed creation, and God doesn't make mistakes.

Further, part of the curse was that God said He would increase Eve's pain in childbirth...if Eve hadn't known what childbirth was, it wouldn't be a very effective curse, now would it? Adam knew what work was, so when he heard his part of the curse, he probably was very saddened. Would it make sense for Eve to be puzzled when she heard her part of the curse? I doubt it. She hadn't actually HAD children, but the fact is that God cursed what each one of them held most precious...work for Adam, children for Eve. Eve had to have known what childbirth was; and by that logic, we can deduce she knew HOW to have children as well.

[USSRGirl]

Nat, don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be the one who is mixing up God-given sexual desire, and wordly desire. No, it most certainly would not be wrong to call your wife sexy. She's your wife, you love her, and because we have fallen so far bodily love - sensuality - is the only way we know how to express that.

I partially agree with Mitsuki. Adam and Eve were like little children - pure and completely dependant on God. Remember 'theirs is the kingdom of heaven?' It says in the scripture that we are going to be as little children in heaven. In my opinion, itsays this because children is the only thing that we could compare them to. Because we're born of a corrupted race, we all inevitably grow up to be sinful. But you're right that Adam and Eve were not children. They were pure, unblemished adult creations - something we have no concept of. They weren't ignorant on how to give birth. If they had not sinned, we can reasonably deduce that God had intended them to give birth to children in joy and happiness. However, I strongly believe that bodies and sensuality had nothing to do with it. God gives Eve to Adam as his wife, tells them to multiply and have kids, till the land, be happy. Sex was just one of his commands. No more joyful than any other. In that sense they were ignorant that sex was something to be desired, lusted for. Everything was given to them. They had no desire, no lustful yearning for power, money, or anything else. There was no 'taboo' or anything perverted about it yet. It was like breathing, or tilling the land - just a part of a perfect life. I don't think Adam was aware that Eve was cute, beautiful, hot, or sexy. How could he be? He had no one to compare her to! He loved her because God gave her to him, God commanded him to love and care for her as God loved and cared for the both of them. This is real love as it was meant to be. He didn't even know she was naked (as much as a two-year-old would know someone was naked). They had no concept of beauty or lust, everything was beautiful, everything was God's command and law. Vainity is something of Satan's creation. Looking at themselves is where all evil starts. Before that, they didn't matter at all, they were only children of God with no pride, vanity, or desire. Thinking of oneself as 'sexy' is a fleshy and humanistic thought. Flesh was totally meaningless.

So whether it is blashpemous or not, 'Word on the Street' is a faulty representation of scripture.

[USSRGirl]

AslaveofChrist, I read your post. ^_^ Personally, I like the KJV for casual reading because I grew up on it. I'm not a purist...it has its errors as well. NASV is closer to the original Hebrew OT. My Messianic Jewish Rabbi uses it.

As to the beautiful thing...that would have been just as bad, though milder at least. There's a REASON why Adam never comments on Eve's body in Genesis. It was irrelevant. What was he comparing her to? A squirrel?!! Everything had a body, it didn't matter. He loved her because God gave her to him.

[Nate]

It says in the scripture that we are going to be as little children in heaven.

Do you have a reference for that? The only verse I can remember that's even close to that says we will be like the angels in Heaven, but angels and children are two different things.

You may be mixing verses...you may have meant the one that says we must be like children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But we will be as angels once we have entered.

Sex was just one of his commands. No more joyful than any other.

I still don't see any biblical evidence for that. With no biblical evidence, I have no choice but to resort to what I can observe, which is that 1) sex feels good presumably (never had it, but that's what people say XD) and it is reasonable to deduce that 2) God made it that way.

The only way to know for sure is to know if Adam and Eve had sex before the Fall. The Bible however says nothing of this, because it isn't something God deemed important for us to know, so I guess in the end, neither one of us can prove our points. XD]So whether it is blashpemous or not, 'Word on the Street' is a faulty representation of scripture.[/QUOTE]
I'll agree with you on that one, though again, that has a bit to do with the fact of it being a paraphrase.

[Angel37]

Guys this is borderline debate. Be careful lest a mod find ye!
As for my opinions, I don't think this version of the Bible or whatever is useful. It really isn't. Atheist youth aren't going to take it seriously and Christians can learn more from better translations. Some say it'll b easier for youth to comprehend a version like that. My reply is schoolbooks aren't written that way and youth comprehend those. The Bible's suppossed to be mind stimulating and this just isn't. It's funny, but useless.

[Peanut]

Well... both Peanut and MSP purchased this book finding it to be hilarious. I found it as you all have, a very odd "translation" that borders on being blasphemous

Um...I didn't John...that was MSP...I did think it was funny and I didn't really view it as blasphemous (of course I tend to do that with a lot of things that many of you might consider to be blasphemous) As for the whole sexual thing, might I note a passage from Song of Solomon...

Your breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle, which feed among the lilies.

If you have a problem with what was said in the passage from "Word on the Street" then why don't you have a problem with this passage?

[Nate]

If you have a problem with what was said in the passage from "Word on the Street" then why don't you have a problem with this passage?

Some people (not me though) see Song of Solomon as being a allegory for God's love for the church. In that regard, the verse there isn't talking about actual breasts on a woman, it talks about um...like...towers...on a building or something?

Someone who thinks it's an allegory, help me out...because I can't interpret that verse any other way. ^^;;

[PigtailsJazz]

Again, I have only read the small part in the bookstore. I gotta say I thought it was hilarious...but it sounds like an atheist spoof. I mean...how much more demeaning and mocking can you get than God talking like the homie 14-year-old across the street? As for blasphemous...I found it a bit disturbing that Adam is lusting over Eve from the minute he sees her. They were not concerned with bodily lust, until AFTER they ate the fruit and realized the were naked. Even if it was done to get laughs, I still think it's outright blashpemy, as it is still pretending to be a tool for witnessing.

Well, I don't have much of an opinion on this one way or the other (because if I actually read it, I suppose I would either begin laughing or crying hysterically), however, keep in mind that Jesus went after those whom society considered the lowest of the low...like the prostitutes and tax collectors. So......for us to assume that the Bibles wouldn't seem like someone speaking in Old English to us (just as the KJV is awesome, but kind of hard to understand), it may be the same way for kids on the streets, and ones who don't really have much of an education. So....yeah. I don't know what I think about this, really, but that's just food for thought....

[USSRGirl]

Peanutter, I agree with Nat's comment that the Song of Solomon is an allegory. However, even if it was not, it's pretty obvious that both Solomon and David had their share of 'girl troubles.' The point is that that was after the Fall. I don't think bodily lust existed before then.

As for Nat's comment, how do you know that it was any more pleasurable than any of God's other commands? There's no real Biblical evidence either way. However, we do know that simply obeying God, depending completely on Him, and living in His very presence is the very essence of true love and joy. We don't have that now, and until we get to heaven we'll have nothing to compare it to. Any atheist can get married and experience sensual joy. But I think Adam and Eve would have cherished all God's commands equally. Eden was paradise...how could one God-given joy outweigh another? Yeah, the verse I was refering to was Mathew 18:3 "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Where does it say we will become angels?

Angel makes two very good points. 'My reply is schoolbooks aren't written that way and youth comprehend those.' So true. Also that we're getting into the 'debate' zone so maybe we should just cool it.

[Cap'n Nick]

EDIT: People have made all my points already. No sense rehashing this. Though, I do wonder if people have read all of those posts toward the front...

[uc pseudonym]

Though this discussion has remained fairly civil, I would like to ask everyone to reign it in slightly. Partially because there are many potential debates that would fall under CAA's rules against theological discussion, partially because I'd urge you all to consider how (un)important some of these points really are.

Where does it say we will become angels?

I'll answer this so that the discussion doesn't have to continue on this account (though it could certainly be taken to PM). The passage in question is Matthew 22:23-33, and I believe there is a parallel in Luke.

When it comes to studying the Bible, works like this will never be a replacement for serious, scholarly translations.

This is particularly true because slang changes rather quickly. So this one will soon go the way of any paraphrase that used words like "groovy" or "swell."

Personally, I think this translation is rather silly.

[Peanut]

Some people (not me though) see Song of Solomon as being a allegory for God's love for the church. In that regard, the verse there isn't talking about actual breasts on a woman, it talks about um...like...towers...on a building or something?

Someone who thinks it's an allegory, help me out...because I can't interpret that verse any other way. ^^]
I had a feeling that you would miss what I was heading towards...but that's my fault...you see...I had to go to work before I could finish what I was saying so perhaps I should of waited to post but I did...and yeah...anyway, yes, I do realize that people could interpret those verses as a allegory but there is one thing that statement has in common with the statement from Word in the Street. First, it should be noted that in the context of the Song of Solomon, the person being described is a bride (either the church or a Schulamite women...the point is she is a bride). The second thing that must be noted is that this verse is a complement to her beauty. The comment Adam makes in "The Word on the Street," I am relatively sure...honestly I can't remeber if the book had the whole paraphrase of "Therefore a man shall leave his father...etc..." before Adam called Eve "sexy", is essentially the same thing. Adam is complementing his wife's beauty in a very modern way, in fact when I read it, I interpreted it as if Adam was essentially saying that his wife was beautiful. Is there really anything wrong with telling your wife that she is beautiful? Also, since they were married, he wouldn't of been lusting anyway (Nat already said it...Lust is wanting something you can't have and well...I don't think I need to say anything else...).

Though this discussion has remained fairly civil, I would like to ask everyone to reign it in slightly. Partially because there are many potential debates that would fall under CAA's rules against theological discussion, partially because I'd urge you all to consider how (un)important some of these points really are.

Yeah...perhaps it would be a good idea to either stop talking about this subject all togethere or (if you really want to continue this discussion) move it somewhere off of the forums before this does turn into yet another silly debate...