Editing literature to conform to current custom

[cindysphynx]

Amanda wrote (explaining why the N-word should remain in the text 
exactly as the author wrote it):

>But the point is, I don't think any changes to an author's work are
>acceptable if made by other than the author; they are the only ones 
>who are (sorry) authorized to do so.

<snip>


>But that was what he wrote. Let it stand. Otherwise you set a
>dangerous precedent. Other equally reasonable changes to other 
>works suggest themselves to ease understanding or to avoid offense, 
>and as I said, we begin our march to Orwellian editing.
 

Well . . . 

Amanda's remarks do raise a quick question in my mind, so I think 
I'll go ahead and ask it.  

As I understand it, there are many English-language versions of the 
Bible.  Many of these versions exist solely as an attempt to make 
the text more accessible for today's reader (translating arcane 
phrases into modern slang and usage and such), and these versions 
were written to attempt to convey the ancient text in a way that 
makes sense in light of how much the world has changed.  I actually 
prefer these versions, myself.

So, uh, if it is OK to tinker with what Christians believe to be the 
*Word of God,* why is it not OK to make changes in a children's 
story to reflect that times have changed and the world is now a very 
different place?  Under Amanda's argument, shouldn't all copies of 
the New Testament, for instance, contain the books Paul wrote 
exactly as Paul wrote them because Paul didn't authorize any of 
these changes to his words?

Just wondering.

Cindy