Churches Use Halo To Spread the Word, Raise Eyebrows

The New York Times has a lengthy look at an unorthodox way to spread the religious word: Halo 3 multiplayer matches. Churches across the country have adopted 'Halo Nights' as a way to get kids together in religious centers and church basements. "The alliance of popular culture and evangelism is challenging churches much as bingo games did in the 1960s. And the question fits into a rich debate about how far churches should go to reach young people. Far from being defensive, church leaders who support Halo -- despite its "thou shalt kill" credo -- celebrate it as a modern and sometimes singularly effective tool. It is crucial, they say, to reach the elusive audience of boys and young men." Just the same, the use of the game is raising concerns among some onlookers. GamePolitics reports that many faith communities are heavily debating the issue.

Comments

Fight the false prophet

[IndustrialComplex]

In Halo3 you are fighting against what could easily be called a 'False Prophet'. Sounds like good justification for a Christian church.

Re:Thou shalt not kill?

[speaker of the truth]

I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do. Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.

Re:Wrong translation

[alan_dershowitz]

Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation?

Consider KJV:

1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.
2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation.
3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2.
4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.)
5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation.
6. English has changed since 1611.

I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."

Note: I am not an expert on ANY of this.