What would your opinion be of a Senator who said this?

[MadHound]

"Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know."

What with all the Rubio ruckus, I would like to know what you think.

[rgbecker]

1. This is a man who doesn't want to go to Hell.

The church has driven it into his head and he is afraid to say what he realizes is true...Wasn't 6 days 6000 years ago.

[Iggo]

2. My opinion would be "S/He's probably a christian."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. He'd have done it in five days, but fjords are very complicated. nt

[Justpat]

31. LOL.

[MineralMan]

58. Not so complicated if you use fractals.

I'm sure any deity worth its salt would use fractals a lot in creating a universe. Real timesavers, they are.

[louis-t]

4. Probably Sen. Obama. It sounds like someone

trying to explain what we had to learn as children, that creationism could go hand in hand with evolution. We knew the stories in the Bible were meant for people who didn't have a good grasp of science in a time that people rarely ventured very far from where they were born.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

86. +1 nt

[cali]

5. I would think that that's President Obama speaking. Cute of you to play this

little game. Only problem with it is that the President has made it clear that he does NOT believe that Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in Science classes.

[SidDithers]

8. Yeah, that was a pretty transparent attempt, wasn't it...nt

Sid

[Enrique]

53. except much of the criticism of Rubio

has nothing to do with education, but about how he answered that question. In fact NONE of the discussion that I have seen was about education.

[geek tragedy]

59. Rubio stated he supported teaching creationism without stating

that he believes in science or in scientifically proven phenomena like evolution.

That's kind of relevant to the entire discussion.

[Enrique]

64. the GQ interview had nothing about teaching

it was simply a question about his beliefs, which is what ignited all the criticism. Beliefs which are substantially the same as what Obama said.

[geek tragedy]

68. He mentioned the teaching of creationism in the GQ quote getting

circulation.

[Enrique]

76. I see that now, and of course that is problematic

but I will repeat, the gist of most of the criticism of Rubio (actually ALL the criticism I saw), is that Rubio's answer is WRONG.

For example the DU graphic yesterday, said "CORRECT ANSWER: 4.5 billion years." If one feels that way about Rubio's answer, then they should feel exactly the same about Obama's answer, where he also waffled on that correct answer. I'm very confident that a more nuanced look at Obama's and Rubio's views on evolution would yield big differences, especially about teaching, but that's not what happened with Rubio yesterday.

[geek tragedy]

78. Except Obama was talking about how to answer a 6 year old.

Rubio was addressing a GQ reporter.

[geek tragedy]

75. Compare Rubio in 2009 to Rubio in 2012:

2009:

The “crux” of the disagreement, according Rubio, is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?”

Rubio added, “And for me, personally, I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.”

Rubio, a Cuban-American, made a comparison to the strategy employed by the Communist Party in Cuba where schools encouraged children to turn in parents who criticized Fidel Castro.

“Of course, I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro,” he quickly added, while noting that undermining the family and the church were key means the Communist Party used to gain control in Cuba.

“In order to impose their totalitarian regime, they destroyed the family; they destroyed the faith links that existed in that society,” he said.

Although the evolution issue is “obviously” on a “much smaller scale,” both matters are related to the “fundamental question of who is in charge of the upbringing of children. Is it parents or is it the government? I believe it’s parents. And we should do nothing in government that undermines that relationship.

“And there are parents that passionately believe in this and they should be given the opportunity to teach that to their children without someone undoing it,” Rubio said.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34830_Karl_Rove_Endorses_Creationist_Florida_Candidate_Rubio

Rubio in 2012:

At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.

This is his talking point--that teaching evolution in public schools undermines parents' ability to raise their children.

And this kind of extremism is why it's completely daffy to compare him to Obama, who has expressed his belief in evolution because it's science.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. I'd be OK with that...

...especially since:

Obama then went on to state that he strongly believes in the principles of science and evolution, saying that they coexist alongside and even strengthen his religious views. That's very much in line with his early stated goals and subsequent successes in pushing for increased funding for scientific initiatives and promoting the importance of teaching evolution in schools.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/barack-obama-earth-creation_n_2170810.html

[SidDithers]

7. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[geek tragedy]

27. Breitbart is dead, but people are still imitating him.

Including some on the left.

[msanthrope]

71. You Better Believe It!!!! nt

[Cirque du So-What]

88. Another ironic avatar

Ever notice the amount of pure-D SHIT that pours forth from those with ironic avatars?

[dionysus]

83. this was a particularly weak attempt.. he phoned this one in...

[geek tragedy]

9. This very meme was appearing on rightwing blogs this morning, and what a coinkydink

that it appears at DU from one of the anti-Obama diehards.

[Jamastiene]

10. Well, at least that Senator is not a fundy.

At least, not a fundy like the jerks in my area of the country. The ones in my area of the country would tell the kid absolutely six 24 hour days, and tell the kid never to question the Bible if the kid asked how God got that much got done in 6 days.

So, at least that Senator doesn't come off as one of these hard core idiot fundies near where I live.

[yesphan]

62. Perhaps he had this in mind.

http://www.indiaheritage.org/rendez/article1.htm#brama

[MadHound]

11. Well good, some of you figured it out,

The Senator was indeed Barak Obama, speaking in April 2008 speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College.

Now, let's compare his words with Rubio's interview in GQ:
"Q: How old do you think the Earth is?

A: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries."

Frankly, I don't see much different. Both men are walking a balance beam here, trying to express at least some of their belief system while also not trying to alienate their constituency and potential future voters.

But really, if you are so offended by Rubio's remarks, then you should be equally offended by Obama's remarks as well. Neither are science based, but rather are faith based. Both believe in religious nonsense that is unproven and frankly goes against scientific fact.

But I guess that once again, it is all good because one of these Senators has a D behind his name. Sad, the hypocrisy.

[geek tragedy]

12. That you don't see much difference between Obama and Republicans is well established.

Please troll better.

Funny that this part was omitted:

OBAMA: But let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith.

And I think that this is something that, you know, we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that.

In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html

[MadHound]

15. So tell me then, specifically, how one of these faith based statements

Is better than the other? Neither is based in scientific fact, both are based in the belief of some magic sky being. So why is one better than the other?

[geek tragedy]

20. Did Rubio say something like this?

OBAMA: But let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith.

And I think that this is something that, you know, we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that.

In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html

[Fumesucker]

22. They don't sound all that different to me

Trying to have it both ways and not upset anyone, just politician speak really.

I didn't see the point of the big flap over what Rubio said either.

[MadHound]

25. Neither did I,

And that's what I'm trying to point out with this post.

[cali]

63. The root of this argument is whether Creationism and ID should be taught

as alternative "theories" (of course they aren't scientific theories) to evolution in schools.

It's all about the wingnut xians trying to push their agenda. And it's an issue of vital importance. Rubio says in his GQ interview that Creationism and ID should be taught as alternative "theories"; The President is firmly against it. The President is clear that he believes in the ToE. Rubio says nothing of the sort.

Other than that, it's no big deal.

[Fumesucker]

67. So if Rubio waffles on how old the Earth is it's a plot?

He's a politician trying to play to multiple conflicting constituencies.

If Obama waffles on the age of the Earth it's perfectly understandable.

He's a politician trying to play multiple conflicting constituencies.

What the fuck are you worried about living up there in Lake Wobegon anyway?

Come on down here to red state hell and tell us all about how the damn fundies want to take over education because we don't know nothing about it .

[Sheepshank]

14. So if you are tyring to set up DU'ers to hate Obama as much as Rubio

...why is it that YOU seem to hate Obama no matter the circustances?

[MadHound]

24. Actually I'm trying to show that both Obama and Rubio

Are politicians being politicians, as slackmaster so aptly put it below. If you're going to make a big fuss over one politician issuing a faith based statement, why not another politician who makes an equally faith based statement.

Or perhaps we should just drop faith based statements from our politics

[geek tragedy]

29. You're running interference for Marco Rubio in order to express your disdain

for Obama.

In this case, it meant Breitbarting Obama's original quote to leave out this part:

OBAMA: But let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith.

And I think that this is something that, you know, we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that.

In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.

[MadHound]

36. Speaking of reading a lot into wasn't there.

But thanks for being around to prove my point, keep up the good work, I can always count on you.

[geek tragedy]

41. Just like we can count on you to defend Republicans if it allows you

a chance to get in a dig against the President.

[cali]

21. As my dear departed MiL would have told you: Phaw!

You really doh't see the difference? How about this? President Obama was explaining how he talked about this to his children. He also didn't say that it should be taught in schools. In fact, President Obama has made it crystal clear that it should not be. So if he's trying to walk a balance beam on the subject, why would he repeatedly say it should NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS?

It has zip and zilch and nada to do with the fact that President Obama is a democrat. It has to do with employing critical thinking. Do try it sometime, hon.

[MadHound]

28. I do employ critical thinking, all the time,

Hence this post. Apparently a lot of people don't employ it though when they start trying to parse faith based statements on the basis of their political affiliation.

[MineralMan]

30. The President's first name is "Barack," not "Barak"

Please at least spell it correctly when you attack him. That'd be the polite thing to do, don't you think?

[SidDithers]

37. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

84. there's something here that's sad, alright.

[Whisp]

13. fail

you never give up, do you?

[slackmaster]

16. I'd say it sounds like a politician behaving like a politician

Trying to appease everyone without really taking a stand on anything.

[MadHound]

18. Thank you,

You get it. Do you also get that is exactly what Rubio was doing as well, a politician being a politician.

Thank you, glad somebody gets it.

[geek tragedy]

23. The original poster Breitbarted Obama's full quote.

Here's the part the OP didn't want you to see:

OBAMA: But let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith.

And I think that this is something that, you know, we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that.

In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/13/se.01.html

[MadHound]

32. Question, can you show me where Rubio's full quote was ever posted?

I certainly didn't see it, just paraphrasing that Rubio believed the Earth wasn't 4.5 billion years old.

In both cases, it is politicians being politicians, why can't you accept that?

[geek tragedy]

35. So now you're actively trying to deflect criticism from Rubio.

Making it seem like his remarks were taken out of context, just because you got caught Breitbarting Obama's comments.

I guess since you got this talking point from Republicans, might as well go all in and imitate their propaganda techniques as well.


Take your apologism for that rightwing hack and shove it.

[MadHound]

42. So your answer is no, you can't show me where Rubio's full quote was posted

Thank you, again, for helping prove my point. All of this with Rubio, Obama, and the countless politicians in this country who issue faith based statements all the time in election years, they are all politicians being politicians.

But by all means, keep on having that snit fit, you're proving my point so well.

[geek tragedy]

44. Spinning on behalf of Marco Rubio--you really are going the full Breitbart.

First you misrepresent what Obama said by intentional omission, and then you turn around and act like Marco Rubio is being treated unfairly.

Dishonest and trollish. But not unexpected.

[The Straight Story]

45. Note the difference in Rubio:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

RUBIO: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

[The Straight Story]

49. A quick search, full interview

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012?printable=true&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitte

[cali]

66. You know how to google, right? Google Rubio

GQ interview and you can read it. Easy peasey, hon. And it's amusing that you're trying to equate the President's position on evolution with Rubio's when you haven't done your due diligence and actually read the GQ article or delved into the President's position. And oh so typical of you.

[surrealAmerican]

17. I would think that this is a parent ...

... who wants to raise their child in their religion. It's not the same choice I would make (or have made) , but this is a thinking person's way of addressing the conflict between provable scientific fact and religious dogma.

[treestar]

19. I'd say that Senator was

definitely a Muslin.

[MineralMan]

26. I'd say that Senator might be President someday.

What a person says to their young daughters about things like that may not reflect that person's actual beliefs or knowledge.

Did you really think we wouldn't recognize that quote? Really? If so, I guess your opinion of your fellow DUers isn't that high.

[geek tragedy]

33. He also didn't think that the context of the remarks was important.

Like how with his very next breath, Obama stressed that he believes in evolution and science.

[MadHound]

34. No, I figured some people would get it right away,

Especially those who peruse RW web sites

[MineralMan]

39. I beg your pardon.

I got it right because I remember it from 2008. I even remembered the gist of the rest of what President Obama said that time. I suppose you're attempting to make some sort of dig at me, but I don't actually even visit any right wing sites. I stopped doing that years ago. Please try to keep up.

Oh, and it's "Barack," not "Barak."

[MadHound]

50. Nope, when I am going to dig at a person, I'll do it up front,

You show know that by now, as much as we clashed over the years. But you know as well as I do that there are busy little beavers on this site who scour the RW blogosphere for the latest outrage or simply for laughs. That is who I was referring to. If you want to think that I was referring to you specifically, then I would say you're being overly sensitive(though given your history, I can understand why).

And yes, I made a spelling mistake, shoot me Like spelling always invalidates anything else that is said

[MineralMan]

54. OK, then. Whatever you say.

[elleng]

38. No problem, trying to be rational about essentially non-rational matters.

I DON'T understand the 'Rubio ruckus,' we've got enough problems without raising attempted rationality to irrational heights.

[cali]

40. Chew on this: Obama on evolution in his own words- and some commentary about his viewpoint

<snip>

Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

A: “I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.

But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.“

While I disagree with Obama a bit (obviously, I wouldn’t put faith on equal footing with science), his attitude is pretty good, and for a politician running for President it’s phenomenal. Clinton was clear on this issue as well. And both are far, far better than the mealy-mouthed equivocating McCain made on this topic.".

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/04/01/obama-on-evolution/

Your OP is distasteful, dishonest and majorly ironic. Is President Obama a politician? No duh. Does he phrase things for public consumption? Again, no duh, but he's been fucking clear as can be about his position on evolution and how it should be taught and that creationism and ID should NOT be taught as an alternative.

So what's ironic about your post? You're sneering at President Obama and trying to equate him with Rubio whilst you play dishonest little games that you faux eschew.

Lame, dear. Majorly lame.

[MadHound]

43. Another one who is continuing to make my point for me,

In their own inevitable way.

Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

48. Except that Rubio said he favors teaching creationism whereas Obama affirmatively

stated his belief in evolution.

Marco Rubio's #1 fan on DU is a very low honor for you to be seeking.

[cali]

57. Reading comprehension appears to be a problem for you along with

being, er, straightforward or addressing salient point that are inconvenient for you.

What I wrote does not bolster your dishonest claim that there's little difference between what Rubio said and what the President said.

The crux of this matter is whether Creationism or ID should be taught as an alternative "theory" to evolution. Rubio says yes. President Obama emphatically says no.

How he chooses to address the religious/biblical issue with his (then very young children) is a red herring.

[SidDithers]

46. You forgot to put "lesser of two evils" in this thread somewhere...nt

Sid

[Tikki]

47. This person is a Christian...that is this person's explanation based on faith.

I am not a Christian so I have a different explanation, mine is based on ever changing science.

This person is firm in their belief. I am forever excited about the changes that appear with new evidence.

If this person can decide for me how I should think and doesn't allow me the chance to change and grow
in my knowledge than this person has lost me.
But, I didn't read anything in the OP that says that person is correct and that I have to be wrong.


Tikki

[Enrique]

51. great point

whoever dug that quote up, they scored a point with it.

[geek tragedy]

52. Well, only under Andrew Breitbart scoring rules.

If you leave out the part where Obama states that he believes in evolution, and ignore the fact that Rubio thinks that it's acceptable to teach creationism.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. As long as it is not his policy to ligislate his belief's, I respect his individual choice...

to believe.

[maxrandb]

56. I would say "Here's a guy that doesn't have to pander to the crazies in his party"

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. The perfect follow-up question to this statement ...

Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know."

Would be: So why do you presume that your understanding of the Bible's text is anymore exact on other issues that directly affect people's lives?

[graham4anything]

61. Marco Rubio is a made man who will never be President, because he is Jeb's creation. Nuff said.

and yet Obama haters go on and on.

this thread is worthy of Rush Limbaugh.

[MineralMan]

65. If you can't tell the difference between Rubio and Obama,

you might be a _______________ (please fill in the blank with your choice of words.)

[Fumesucker]

69. And if you completely miss the point of an OP you might be a

?w=450&h=337

[MineralMan]

72. Too much time in front of the mirror, I think, there...

[Fumesucker]

74. I'm rubber and you're glue your words bounce off me and stick to you..

Same semantic content as what you wrote but a bit less childish.

[dawg]

70. That Senator seems to have beliefs similar to mine.

I'm a Christian, and I believe the Book of Genesis contains a wonderful symbolic account of the creation of the universe. I don't think it's science. I don't think it was ever intended to be science.

The takeaway from the creation story is that God set creation into motion. That is an article of faith, so of course many people choose not to believe it. But I believe the President sincerely believes what he said.

Ultimately, the existence or non-existence of a Creator is a matter of faith. It is not provable, not is it disprovable.

The age of the Earth is a whole other thing, however. It is a false equivalency to compare one man's faith that God was involved in creation to another man's willingness to pander to young-Earth creationists.

[Initech]

73. Anyone who takes that long to answer that question should have their head examined.

[RandySF]

77. My reply to that would be

"What I tell my kids is none of your business."

[patrice]

79. I think MR is liketoo many who call themselves Christians & have mistaken The Bible for Christianity

[liberalmuse]

80. That's what I used to say when I was a Christian.

There's no way I believed that the world was created in 6 days as we know it. I figured 1 day in the Bible probably equaled close to a billion years. But there's no way I ever believed the world was 6,000 years old, either, even in my fundie day. I don't think that is what Obama is saying here at all. Apples and Oranges.

[Poll_Blind]

81. K&R for holding up a mirror here to everyone for the commentary over the last couple days. nt

PB

[cali]

87. That is not even remotely what the op does.

He's setting up a false equivalency with lies of omission.

Illustrated here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021863319

[kentuck]

82. "Day" sounds like a word created by Man...

If there is a God, and if you believe so, a "day" might be three-quarters billion years? Which means He rested on the Seventh Day.

[solara]

85. I just never know to which version of the Bible people are referring....

American Standard Version (ASV)
The American Standard Version, also known as the Standard American Edition, Revised Version, is a revised version of the KJV ( King James Version). It was completed in 1885 and newly edited by the American Revision Committee in 1901.

Common English Bible (CEB)
The Common English Bible is a translation of the scriptures intended to be a comfortable reading level for over half of all English readers. It attempts to substitute more traditional biblical terminology with more natural wording.

Douay-Rheims (RHE)
The Douay-Rheims is the translation upon which nearly all English Catholic Bible versions are based. It includes the seven Deutero-Canonical books (also known as the Apocrypha).
word-for-word from Latin Vulgate

English Standard Version (ESV)
The ESV Bible is a relatively new Bible translation that combines word-for-word precision and accuracy with literary excellence, beauty, and readability.
word-for-word

GOD'S WORD Translation (GW) accurately translates the meaning of the original texts into clear, everyday language. Readable and reliable, GW is living, active, and life-changing.
thought-for-thought

Good News Translation (GNT)
The Good News Translation was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society in a "common language." The simple, everyday language makes it especially popular for children and those learning English.
thought-for-thought

Holman Christian Standard (CSB)
The HCS is a highly readable, accurate translation written in modern English. It is published by Holman Bible Publishers, the oldest Bible publisher in America.
word-for-word

King James Version (KJV)
The KJV is the first version of Scripture authorized by the Protestant church and commissioned by England's King James I.
word-for-word

Lexham English Bible (LEB)
The LEB complements your primary translation with it's transparent design and literal rendering. It helps you see the text of God’s Word from another angle.
literal

New American Standard (NAS)
The NAS is written in a formal style, but is more readable than the King James Version. It is highly respected as the most literal English translation of the Bible.
word-for-word

New International Version (NIV)
The NIV offers a balance between a word-for-word and thought-for-thought translation and is considered by many as a highly accurate and smooth-reading version of the Bible in modern English.
Combination word-for-word and thought-for-thought

New King James Version (NKJV)
The NKJ is a modern language update of the original King James Version. It retains much of the traditional interpretation and sentence structure of the KJV.
word-for-word

New Living Translation (NLT)
Using modern English, the translators of the NLT focused on producing clarity in the meaning of the text rather than creating a literal, word-for-word equivalence. Their goal was to create a clear, readable translation while remaining faithful to original texts.
thought-for-thought

New Revised Standard (NRS)
The New Revised Standard is a popular translation that follows in the traditions of the King James and Revised Standard Versions. It was written with the goal of preserving the best of the older versions while incorporating modern English.
word-for-word and thought-for-thought

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Revised Standard Version is a revision of the King James Version, the Revised Version, and American Standard Version. This text is intended for both private reading and public worship.
word-for-word using modern American language

The Message (MSG)
The Message is a paraphrase from the original languages written by Eugene, H. Peterson. The Message provides a fresh and unique Bible-reading experience.
thought-for-thought; paraphrase

And there are many, many more...

I don't get it. If the Bible is the absolute word of God, then why are there so many different translations? Who revised and translated them? What were their motivations when they revised the 'absolute word of God'? Who did they think they were to do that? Why did they do that? The Bible has been re-written so many times through the ages that it is a wonder anyone can agree on any of the essential story lines, like say.. The Creation.

No doubt there are, in every version of the Blessed Book, reflections of the translators' ideas, revisions of thoughts, and personal agendas from the Aramaic, to the Hebrew, to the Greek, to the Latin, to the English, to the Lutheran, to the revised and paraphrased American versions.

Just askin'

[lunatica]

89. Making deals with both God and The Devil

Buttering both sides of the bread. Wearing both a belt and suspenders. Hedging his bets.