The commentary, including substituting English words for English words, should be in the margins. Leave the approximate 1952 version for old testament as is. For example, grace is such an aesthetic expression. Inspired original writers, or uninspired but lofty modern scholars and editorial committees?

zankaon, zanville,

Mr. Romaine is at least disengenuous when he writes, "believers of all faiths need to ask themselves whether reverence for ancient verses should be allowed to override the need for better relationships between all of God’s creatures," suggesting that God's word could somehow be opposed to God's creatures. What "God" is Mr. Romaine talking about? The Christian's reverence is not for "ancient verses," but for the unchanging word of the unchanging God, Yahweh, the God who keeps covenant, the God who is. Mr. Romaine apparently doesn't want to come right out and say it, but his suggestion is not really that we adopt new texts, or even merely a new hermeneutic (religious discrimination legislation). He wants us to find new gods more congenial to our appitites.
Could Mr. Romaine please explain, what anyway is the chief end or purpose of humanity? Have we one?

James T. Griffin, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

No wonder Europe is on the decline! (But the gentlemen from Ireland does give hope of a green tint to Heaven). Change the very Word of God just because it might run afoul of some man-made laws? Have the Brits lost their minds? If we took out those things that offended us, then what would we have left? Instead, let us first seek to understand the proper text and context. The Apostle Paul said: How can they hear without a preacher. Maybe the preachers, instead of being State employed, perhaps they should just be God-called and teach the people what is actually meant.

God have mercy on our Mother Country.

J. L. Watts, Charleston, West Virginia

Yep you are right, when things get tough to explain lets ignore and change them. Come on that is spiritually and intellectually week. You have an allie in the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. He wants to change Holy Schripture so that people opposed to and for homosexuality can read the same verse and be happy with it. Boy when he is judged I will be interested to see hou our Lord deals with him if his watering down and manipulation of Holy Scripture causes one person to lose their eternal soul. Of course Hell is a hard and unpleasent teaching to so maybe we should change that in the spirit of everybody feeling good about everything they do.

Are you serious that "One of the great puzzles today is why there is so much turmoil associated with faith.". The reason is the rejection of faith that you and many like you propose.

David Orrino, Denver, CO

This is one of the most idiotic passages of text committed to print in recent history.

Tim, Denton, USA

The Jewish religious leaders of of Jesus day rejected the evidence that he was the Messiah as was found in the hebrew scriptures.They also went beyond the Law with their taditions and commands of men, making life hard for the people.When Jesus called the Jewish leaders ''offspring of vipers'',He was showing them up for their hypocritical ways.The holy scriptures are there to refine and show up what is wrong and ungodly so we can have Gods approval.We cannot water down these requirements and expect Gods approval.If the politics of the day bring in religious discrimination acts and the scriptures are changed it seems that Dr Romain will go with the politicians.I personally would stay with what the scriptures teach and follow Christ's command to love, and not change what God had written deliberately for our benefit.As Peter and the other apostles said''We must obey God as ruler rather than men''

Jonathan King, Tullamore, Ireland

Who has the authority to ditinguish which parts of the Holy Bible should be removed because they offend another faith? Who is qualified, and may I say, bold enough to assert that certain parts of the Scriptures should be blotted out because they are an offence to a part, or all of humanity? At no time did Christ, who is the Author of Scripture decide to ommit certain parts because they were offensive. We might as well stop applying the Moral Law(10 Commandments) to the laws of our nation. Maybe we should turn a blind eye to murder, stealing and adultery; we already have the Lord's name legaly blasphemed in this country. Morality and social/civil order is totaly dependant on holding forth the moral law as contained in the Bible. We neglect it at outr peril.

Donald Morgan, stornoway, Scotland

So in Rabbi Romain's view, any passages in the world's scriptures that "fall foul of" current British law are to be repudiated or expurgated? I wonder how Britain's lawmakers managed to become unassailable arbiters of moral excellence -- it's a trick we certainly haven't managed here in the States. In any event, there is a great deal of teaching in the Hebrew Bible as well as in the Christian scriptures about, say, the proper use of money, the proper treatment of the old and the infirm, and hospitality towards strangers -- to cite just a few topics -- which are flatly inconsistent with current British law. Some of those commandments have annoyed me for years by their demands, so I look forward to their excision in the New Regime Rabbi Romain hopes for.

Alan Jacobs, Wheaton IL, USA

I don’t think it is desirable to meddle with historical texts; errors, mistranslations, misinterpretations, manipulations, appropriations, warts and all, they are what have come down to us. They are the rock on which churches are built.

An atheist, I have a lot of sympathy with the Talmudic tradition, but I wonder whether the rabbi is not being a little mischievous in expecting Christians and especially Muslims to question their ‘sacred’ texts, let alone amend them.

Personally, I consider fundamentalism is religion’s death rattle. The rational and the reasonable are no longer engaged in their religions. For most, their religion survives through cultural inertia, it is a part of their identity, a cement that holds a community together. At best they believe there is still some figurative worth in the scriptures. The intelligentsia have abandoned religion to those who recoil from the modern world, the disaffected who seek to use it as a shield or a prop. Fundamentalists are intellectual teenagers and religion is their rock music.

Jeremy In Oz, Perth,

To judge that a religious work is 'offensive' you have to have a position from which to reach that judgement. That position is your religion - the thing that rules your life and determines your judgement. All Jonathan Romain has done is shift the centre of gravity from, in this case, Hebrew Scripture to modern 'sensitivities'.

John Richardson, Elsenham, UK

The brackets around the offensive dross is a great idea !
Liturgical psalters ahve done this for years, so it's a good precedent.

Revd Laurence Roberts, London, Britain