Why isn't the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

[Kurt The Baptist]

THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.


THE NIV

Deuteronomy 23:17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.

[HankD]

Dear kurtthebaptist,

The NIV uses the term "shrine prostitute" because that is the meaning in the context of the passage.
In fact the usual word for "whore" is ZANAH as in the very next verse.

The word in Deuteronomy is QEDASHA, and the word for sodomite is the male gender word QADESH.

Strangely enough the word QADESH simply means "separated unto" and the root is used for things or people dedicated to the service of the Lord (or some other deity). Obviously in Deu 23:17 it pertains to men and women dedicated to the Canaanite gods such as baal or molech.

Those men and women dedicated to baal were required to do immoralities of a scope wider than sexual practices.

I understand that the word cannibal derives from kahn-i-baal (priest-of-baal).
Canaanites practiced infant sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, incest, bestiality and other abominations.

The NIV attempts to widen the scope of the word in context. Neither version captures the full impact of what the readers-of-the-day knew to be the Canaanite practices.

HankD

[Dr. Bob]

The KJV does add more questions than answers to the inspired original with this word. I'm glad you brought it to our attention!

The residents of the ancient city of Sodom were called "enoshe cedom" (men of Sodom) and NEVER called "sodomites". And the word for "men" is not the usual "'iysh" that implies the male gender, but rather a general word that just says they were mortal. An interesting distinction for a homosexual!

'Sodomites' (in the archaic KJV) is used only 4 times and 'sodomite' only in the single verse you quoted to start the thread. As has been pointed out, it is a generic root that implies a cultic devotion to the Canaanite fertility religions, and implying much more than homosexuality. It has NO CONNECTION linquistically with the "men of sodom". Sorry you got that impression!

God's Word in the original Greek and Hebrew is much more exact and edifying. I would encourage everyone on the BB to get an interlinear Bible, a good Strong's concordance and a few other references that will help you understand what GOD said, not what any well-meaning English translator thought.

[PreservedWords]

Thanks for the post Kurt.
Perhaps the guy at this site can explain why certain 'intolerant' words are removed from today's PC Bibles: http://solascriptura-tt.org/Bibliologia-Traducoes/NIV-Woudstra-Homosexual-Penfold.htm
excerpt:
>>>
"I submit this research as I feel it has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend' by being 'active'; and this is the position of the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin Seminary, Evangelicals Concerned, and who knows, quite a few other members of the NIV Translation Committee other than the late Dr. Woudstra. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as such ethical condemnations do not apply today! ''A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit'' (Matthew 7:17)."
>>>

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PreservedWords:
By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is where you KJVO guys just don't get it. :rolleyes:

NO words have been "removed" from the "Old Testament", and no words have been "changed". That is nothing but deceptive propaganda.

First of all, the modern versions are NOT alternate versions of the King James! They are scholarly translations of Hebrew & Greek manuscripts into the English language -- just like the KJV was when it was first translated. With the possible exception of the NKJV, KJ21 and a few others, the KJV never was an integral part of their translation process. :eek:

Secondly, the translators of the KJV never intended for their work to be a standard by which all later versions are to be compared. The phrase "Authorized Version" merely means that King James authorized its publication for the people of England. Period.

To say that words have been changed or removed from the KJV is utter nonsense, and it only reveals ignorance on the part of he people who intentionally broadcast such myths. :rolleyes:

I'm no defender of the NIV, but to suggest that all modern versions are corruptions of the King James "Bible" is a lie that needs to stop.

&lt;end of tirade&gt; smile.gif

TLB

[John Wells]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PreservedWords:
By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend' by being 'active'. . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but I fail to find the words "offend" or "active" in 1 Cor 6 in the NIV, nor do I find an implication that supports your argument. I find the NIV to be quite anti-sexual immorality here. Am I missing something or are your reading into something?

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament (KJV), the language is changed and new ideas are introduced&gt;&gt;

"new ideas are introduced…" as well they should be, these KJV "sodomites" or NIV "shrine prostitutes" were far more perverted than the English word "sodomite" conveys. As previously stated they practiced ritual cannibalism of the sacrificed bodies of Canaanite children who were roasted alive. They also practiced bestial spring fertility rites and I won't go into detail. There is no single English word to describe these individuals, even the word "pervert" is weak. "monster" is the closest single word I can think of. They were models of "total depravity".
While the NIV phrase "shrine prostitute" is closer to reality is also very weak.
NAS, RSV "male cult prostitute" ditto.
NKJV "perverted persons" a little stronger.

The LXX uses either the word "initiate" (understanding the pre-hellenic mystery cult nature of Canaanite worship) or remains neutral and transliterates the word into KADASIM.

HankD

[Dr. Bob]

How many of us baptist preachers (been one for 30+ years) have come to the word sodomite in the archaic KJV1769 update and had to carefully choose other words to describe its root meaning -- in mixed company and ages of a typical congregation?

I constantly face words like that and must carefully update them to convey the meaning to the 21st Century limited vocabularies. This "correcting" and "amplifying" process is not nearly as necessary when done in the modern versions for me.

I think even the most active supporter of the archaic KJV1769 must admit to many times of upgrading to modern words to explain the old words.

Making the perfect more perfecter. tongue.gif

[Mike Hall]

I 'borrowed' this from a club post at yahoo.com. I thought it befitting for this thread. Good reading all.
Mike

&lt;&lt; The NIV and every other such version is relegated to a copyright, displacing the Bible as just another source of revenue. That bothers me right there, people attempting to make money off of the things of God. But anyway... &gt;&gt;

Not only is the NIV copyrighted, but the copyright is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who makes more money from his PORNOGRAPHY holdings than Hugh Hefner (Playboy) and Larry Flynt (Hustler). In fact more than Playboy's magazine, cable, and internet businesses COMBINED.

He also owns the copyright to the Good News version and the Amplified version. That's in addition to FOX TV, the raunchiest TV network on the air (Simpsons, Married With Children).

Can we trust such a person/company to provide us with an unadulterated Bible?

Why would a company with huge PORNOGRAPHY and heathenistic TV holdings be unafraid to promote the NIV, the Good News version, and the Amplified version? Do they know those versions are so watered down that they are no threat to their smut sales?

Knowing that there were three homosexuals (two documented, including the Chairman of the OT group) on the NIV committee, I suppose they are quite comfortable including the NIV with their (other) PORNOGRAPHY holdings.

When you buy an NIV, your money is going to help the Murdoch family invest in more PORN and other smut. It's ironic that the evangelical gang who does a lot of the boycotting of raunchy TV shows like those on FOX, and companies that sell PORN, use the Bible versions that SUPPORT Murdoch's business in the same endeavors they are trying to boycott! That is a case of shooting yourself in the foot while your foot is in your mouth! They would accomplish more to toss their perversions in the dumpster and get a King James Bible from a ministry that doesn't deal in porn (like Bearing Precious Seed).

[Pastor Larry]

Mike,

Another example of poor theology and poor reasoning. I quoted above a number of verses from the NIV that specifically and without reservation condemn homosexuality. I asked you then which of those verses did you not understand. I believe that I further asked where the KJV was stronger on the sin of homosexuality than the NIV. I do not remember an answer from you.

Then you cite the copyright as evidence of perversion. Yet every version is copyrighted, a fact well documented. Even the publishers of the KJV make money off of it. However, to blame Murdoch for the translation borders on absurd. When the NIV was originally published, I do not believe Murdoch owned Zondervan. That is a relatively recent acquisition by Murdoch. It is anachronistic to blame Murdoch for any translation. Notice the following quote from an article regarding some who want the NIV to change its translation on another issue (Jews).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "The NIV is a traditional translation that has enjoyed a lot of popularity," said Tim Beals, associate publisher of Bibles for Zondervan. But Zondervan has no authority to change the NIV text, he said.
In Colorado Springs, Colo., the International Bible Society, sponsor of the NIV translation team, declined to discuss the issue. "We are committed to accuracy and that's going to dictate what comes out in any rendering," said spokesman Larry Lincoln.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From

Zondervan could not change the text if they wanted to. They do not have the right. Your claim is patently false.

Then you repeat the ridiculous and refuted claim that there were homosexuals on the translating committee. Only the number keeps growing. It started as one (Mollenkott), went to two documented” (but the documentation was never cited) and is now three including the chairman of the OT. When will this stop? Will the whole team soon be homosexual?

You got your info off of Yahoo Clubs … perhaps you should try a credible source. It was save you from posting this kind of stuff.

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Dr. Bob]

KJVonlies argue the "copyright" issue over and over, without reason. I wrote some books. Some I own the copyright; others I signed over to a publisher.

EVERY Bible Version has a copyright. Get that through your heads! :rolleyes:

If one is owned by the British Monarchy or by Thomas Nelson or by an unbeliever, IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE at hand. Dr. Cassidy, a firm proponent of the KJV (but not an only), has dealt extensively with the copyright issue.

I'd encourage you to think more and copy less! :rolleyes:

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Yahoo...now there is a real Godly resource...the promoters of child porn...

Joseph

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I constantly face words like that and must carefully update them to convey the meaning to the 21st Century limited vocabularies. This "correcting" and "amplifying" process is not nearly as necessary when done in the modern versions for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear, hear!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I think even the most active supporter of the archaic KJV1769 must admit to many times of upgrading to modern words to explain the old words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but to them that's "explaining". If anyone else does it, it's "correcting". ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Making the perfect more perfecter. tongue.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said, Dr. Bob. I do like your posts! smile.gif

[Mike Hall]

A man convinced against his will,
is of the same mind still.

Mikey says: KJV vs, the other perversions.

Pastor Larry says: ehh, the're not perversions, mikey!

smile.gif

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Ransom]

cubbies_daddy said:

I 'borrowed' this from a club post at yahoo.com. I thought it befitting for this thread. Good reading all.

Translation: I just borrowed someone else's undocumented, un-well-thought-out rant on the subject so I could pass some basic criteria of "research" without having to THINK too hard about what I was posting.

Let's take a look at some of the claims in this rant:

Not only is the NIV copyrighted, but the copyright is owned by Rupert Murdoch,

Verdict: False.

The copyright of the NIV is owned by the International Bible Society, which you would have known had you actually looked at the copyright page of an NIV. Zondervan is licensed to publish NIVs. It does not own the copyright, and neither does Murdoch.

who makes more money from his PORNOGRAPHY holdings than Hugh Hefner (Playboy) and Larry Flynt (Hustler).

(etc.) This is nothing more than a bold-faced example of fallacious guilt by association.

The truth is, Zondervan has been a division of HarperCollins only since 1988, some 15 years after the NIV was first published.

Furthermore, HarperCollins has only been a subsidiary of Murdoch's The News Corporation since 1990.

Furthermore, The News Corporation is a public corporation and Rupert Murdoch is the CEO. He does not even have controlling interest in the company!

He also owns the copyright to the Good News version and the Amplified version.

Verdict: False.

Only the Old Testament copyright for the Amplified Bible is owned by Zondervan. The New Testament copyright is owned by the Lockman Foundation.

The copyright of the GNB is not owned by Zondervan in any wise; it belongs to the American Bible Society.

Can we trust such a person/company to provide us with an unadulterated Bible?

Neither Murdoch, News Corporation, HarperCollins nor Zondervan have any legal right to adulterate the text.

Knowing that there were three homosexuals (two documented, including the Chairman of the OT group) on the NIV committee, I suppose they are quite comfortable including the NIV with their (other) PORNOGRAPHY holdings.

The translation was done before Zondervan was acquired by a parent company, therefore the above is a chronological non sequitur.

Furthermore, with a committee of 100+ scholars working on the NIV, it is naive in the extreme to believe that two people (and one other alleged one as yet unproven) could hold so much influence over the translation as to override the objections of others. (Of course, a fair reading of the NIV shows that it is just as hard on homosexuality as the KJV.)

[remaining fearmongering cut - I trust my point is made]

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[Bob Landis]

I can probably tell you why the words sodimtes were probably deleted. There were two "scholars" on the NIV translation team. Drs. Marten Woudstra and Virginia Mollenkott. You see, the nasty secret is that they are practicing homosexuals. :mad:

[Pastor Larry]

Did you know that the KJV is soft on homosexuals? You can know this because they never use the word "homosexual." Not one time; not even a hint of it. In fact they don't even use the prefix "homo." Astounding facts for those who claim that the KJV so adamantly condemns homosexuals while the NIV doesn't. Is the KJV being soft on homosexuals because they don't use the word "homosexual"? After all, if you look up the dictionary definition of sodomy (Cassidy would be proud of me ... except I didn't have the OED so I had to use some inferior dictionary), you will find that a great amount of homosexual activity is not even included in the definition of homosexuality. I think the KJV translators were being soft on homosexuals by using the word sodomy because it allows for a lot of "interaction" between same sex couples without the committing of actual sodomy. (I asked someone to define "sodomy" in another thread, not because I needed information, but because I wanted to make this very point.)

Actually I don't believe that the KJV is soft on homosexuals but I say that to show the ridiculousness of the type of argumentation that is being used here. For someone to argue that the NIV is soft on homosexuals because it doesn't use the word "sodomite" shows a gross ignorance of Scripture and even of the dictionary definition of sodomy. It shows a willful misrepresentation of the facts.

Assuming that your post is not an ironic mocking of the people who actually believe what you posted, I comment that it is interesting Bob, that you post this apparently having read nothing previously in this thread the accusations have been long made and clearly shown to have no affect on the translating. The condemnation of homosexuality is not missing from the NIV. I listed a number of passages that you could read. Apparently you haven't. To assert that one or two people could change the translation is utter foolishness. If there was such a concerted effort, they did a bad job. Just read the earlier cited passages.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Chick Daniels]

Enough of these pointless threads on Homosexuality and Bible translation.

1) Show me one translation that did not have sinners on the translation committee.

2) If the ENTIRE committee of a Bible translation for a new version was to reveal themselves as homosexual, and yet translated an accurate English version faithful to the original languages, how does their personal sin of homosexuality discredit a faithful translation any more than the personal sins of the KJV translators discredit the KJV? Sin is sin, and unless that sin affects the translation strategy (i.e. JW's NWT) the translation should stand as a viable witness to the Scriptures. I recently heard a Baptist preacher say that if Baptists were in charge of the country, we would take care of the homosexuality problem right away. In context, you could tell he meant electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad, etc. How dispicable! These people need the gospel of Jesus Christ and to experience His grace. I am not being "soft" on the sin of homosexuality--it is a gross sin--but lets stop trying to polish our own depravity and realize that we are filthy sinners ourselves, just saved by God's wonderful grace.

If a homosexual had a role in the NIV team, (I think the claims are dubious), so what! The bottom line is the NIV itself needs to be checked for faithfulness to the originals--as all versions should be.

Regards,

Chick

[HankD]

Greetings Chick,

You have a good point. As I thought about it the thought came to me that God chose David to write (in the original autographs at that) most of the Psalms, some even after his sins.

HankD

[Bob Landis]

Chick,

So what you are saying if a whole group of satanists translated the bible into a new version it would be hunkie dorie because God would be workink through them? What does evil to do with good? There is a big difference between repentant sinners and blatant sinners.

[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bob Landis ]

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob Landis:
Chick,

So what you are saying if a whole group of satanists translated the bible into a new version it would be hunkie dorie because God would be workink through them? What does evil to do with good? There is a big difference between repentant sinners and blatant sinners.

[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bob Landis ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob and Chick:

Mallencrodt (sic) had no involvement with the NIV translation; she was a stylistic consultant until her lesbianism was revealed. Then she was dismissed.

However, I do side with Bob on this issue: If an ENTIRE committee of a Bible translation for a new version was to reveal themselves as homosexuals, how in the world could they ever faithfully translate an accurate English version?

The character and beliefs of the translators does directly imapct their work. Luther said it requires godly men to translate Holy Writ.

[Barnabas H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple: The character and beliefs of the translators does directly impact their work. Luther said it requires godly men to translate Holy Writ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is very true. And for that reason, men of God were indeed translating the Bible - and they were not temple prostitues or sodomites either! smile.gif

[uhdum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Did you know that the KJV is soft on homosexuals? You can know this because they never use the word "homosexual." Not one time; not even a hint of it. In fact they don't even use the prefix "homo." Astounding facts for those who claim that the KJV so adamantly condemns homosexuals while the NIV doesn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pastor Larry, back in 1611 the word homosexual had not been invented. The KJV translators chose the word sodomite because it would be easily identified with the people of Sodom who practiced homosexuality.

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pastor Larry, back in 1611 the word homosexual had not been invented. The KJV translators chose the word sodomite because it would be easily identified with the people of Sodom who practiced homosexuality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was not about the derivation of the word. My point is that homosexuality as defined today is not condoned/permitted either by the KJV or the NIV. I was illustrating the absurdity of claiming that the NIV is soft on homosexuals because it doesn't use the word "sodomite." By the same reasoning, the KJV must be reasoned to be soft on homosexuals because it doesn't use the word. Of course, it is ridiculous to say that the KJV is soft on homosexuals; it is also ridiculous to say that the NIV is soft on homosexuals. The message that homosexuality is wrong is adequately communicated by both the KJV and the NIV.

"Sodomite" in common parlance is not limited to or descriptive of homosexuality per se. Therefore, that the KJV condemns sodomy does not necessarily mean that it condones all homosexual behavior if you follow the strict definition.

I was simply demonstrating the foolishness of a particular argument.

[bob walker]

they try to warn you that
the NIV is soft on homosexuals and you will you listen? why do the homosexual churchs almost all use the NIV as their Bibles?
HUH? why not the KJV? call the "churchs" in san francisco and ask what bible they use.I have been there to CA. a lesbian virginia mollencott in a taped radio interview bragged that she corrected the anti gay bias of the NIV bible. she was proud of her involvement in ther NIV, want a copy of the tape write me and i will get it for you. after all God made me gay she claimed.
she brags for 1 or 2 hours of this stuff.
that was not all she corrected.
2 devils named westcott and hort translated catholic vatican manuscripts and gave us the basis of the NIV. the KJV uses different manuscripts than the NIV. westcott and hort were occultic. read their own quotes and see if what I say is true. the scofield reference Bible was patterned after the work they did...read the preface.
do not listen to me or anyone else look it up for yourself. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[bob walker]

so why do queer gay sodomite churchs use the NIV for their services?? there must be a reason ??? they do not use the KJV! sodomite is a dictionary term of what they do and to delete it is a farce. do you want the taped interview or do you want to defend the gays? :confused: :confused:

[bob walker]

for your information the peshitta Bible is as old as any manuscript and it says sodomite and the traditional hebrew masoretic
text (jewish) bible also says SODOMITE
so you use the modern westcott and hort Bibles if you wish but i will stick to Gods word the KJV.


PS the NIV deleted sodomite and added shrine prostitute. so how would one know what type of sexual perversion a temple prostitute performed? HUH ? and is it ok to have sex in the shrine as long as one did not charge for services? or can one charge as long as it is not at the shrine?
sodomite is just fine...for a description

;) ;) ;) ;)

[bob walker]

Oh yes the king james was a pervert argument
he was a homo or was he? again why do Queer gay sodomite churchs not use his Bible? if he was gay he would never have been so hard on perversion? thank you for the compliment
as satan hates truth.

KJV is the hardest on perversion as a holy righteous God will be to unrepentant sinners.
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[HankD]

Dear Rockfort and Bob Walker,

Perhaps you shoud re-read the entire post and see that the word "sodomite" in the underlying Hebrew (word - QADESAH) is something different than "sodomite" or "homosexual". The scope of the word includes both of these terms and much more. As was already noted, these "QADESAH" were models of total depravity.

HankD

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
Oh yes the king james was a pervert argument
he was a homo or was he? again why do Queer gay sodomite churchs not use his Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have only been directly exposed to one 'gay church'. It was while we lived in Seattle. They came on the public access channel. The program was called Gay's for Jesus or something to that effect. Sorry to disappoint you but I am pretty sure that they used the KJV. How many gay churches did you survey to conclude that the NIV was their preferred Bible?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> if he was gay he would never have been so hard on perversion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The answer is that he wasn't. He had little if anything to do with the translation. In fact, I have never read anything suggesting that King James held strong doctrinal positions. However, I have read that King James hated the Geneva Bible because Puritans, Baptists, and others used it to deny prelacy and the divine right of kings. If he had any influence, it was to ensure that the Anglican doctrine making him the earthly head of the church would not be diminished. His main motivation appears to have been the consolidation of political power using the government and the church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> thank you for the compliment
as satan hates truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Satan does hate the truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>KJV is the hardest on perversion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt Satan has any problem with this statement since it is not true and it helps divide Christians.

With due respect, your tone does not demonstrate the love we are to have for the lost.

I hate homosexuality. It is a sin CHOSEN by its practitioneers. Therefore, I make an even greater effort to be kind to them. The goal is to be in a position to offer them the Truth to replace the lie they have believed. They consider themselves homosexuals. I consider them unredeemed sinners just like I was once. If you "hate queers" then you are also deceived by Satan since your attitude will preclude you and others from reaching them with the Gospel. They will inherit the same hell as any unsaved but 'moral' person. Since we deserved the same fate, we should be humbled not antagonistic. "For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."

[MikeJ]

Dear Friends:

The last several posts illustrate something for which we must be vigilant, urban legends. The most infamous of which is the "O'hair Christian Radio Ban" which has been circulating for years. We are called to be wise as serpents and as discerning as doves. The internet allows such a free exchange of information that misinformation can be spread around the world in minutes. Some of these tidbits are calculated to make the faithful look like fools.

Always double check your information. Look for confirmation, and if it comes from a shady or untrustworthy site, just don't spread it.

Thanks,

[Pastor Larry]

Bob Walker,

Did you know ...

... that the NIV uses the term "Homosexual" more than the KJV does? (1 to 0). The NIV even says that these homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

... that the term "sodomite" in contemporary usage does not mean homosexual activity per se. There is much homosexual activity that does not fall under the definition of "sodomite"? I would quote it here but it might be inappropriate considering the forum.

... that churches that adamantly condemn homosexuality as sinful before God use the NIV?

... that the NIV has the following verses:

Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Ransom]

bob walker said:

a lesbian virginia mollencott in a taped radio interview bragged that she corrected the anti gay bias of the NIV bible.

Who interviewed her? Was the interviewer unbiased? Or was he trying to push a particular viewpoint about the NIV? Would he have had a vested interest in having Virginia Mollenkott [sic] say exactly that?

In any case, is it reasonable to believe that one single person on a large committee, and an English stylist at that, as opposed to a translator, would have trumped the entire committee when it came to this subject?

2 devils named westcott and hort translated catholic vatican manuscripts and gave us the basis of the NIV. the KJV uses different manuscripts than the NIV. westcott and hort were occultic. read their own quotes and see if what I say is true.

I have read their own quotes. What you say is flatly false, and those published authors who have accused Westcott and Hort of occultism have distorted their words, probably intentionally.

I am referring, for example, specifically to Sam Gipp and Gail Riplinger, who have both had a considerable amount to say about Westcott and Hort. I believe both Gipp and Riplinger to be deliberate liars.

[bob walker]

A christian Pastor taped the avowed lesbian virginia mollencott. do you want the taped interview or will you just talk.you read westcott and hort you say...well here are their quotes. go to a library and check your facts...do you agree with these quotes?

In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be.
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus "vile and villainous" (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the 'restorers of the true text', should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.

What they said about............

The Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p.vii).
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)
Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, "Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2 Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," (KJV).

The Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created."(Hort, Revelation, p.36).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38 "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him." which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator." (thus calling Christ "a creature.")

I trust gail riplinger and samual Gipp
but you.......?
go to the library and see if this is true.
these occultists translated your "MODERN BIBLE" and you trust them?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[bob walker]

Westcott and Hort more quotes:

Creation:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Romanism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).

I suppose someone will say these are quoted out of context or a fabrication...
oh he that has ears to hear let him hear.

these are the Occultists who did your modern Bible translations, that Scofield liked so well in his preface

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Pastor Larry]

I for one am not all that interested in what Westcott and Hort believed because we do not use their text. We are way past that. Westcott and Hort were right that for the purpose of textual criticism Scripture should be treated like any other text, by comparing the extant manuscripts and coming up with sound text critical principles for determining the most likely original reading. They were not infallible, just like Erasmus, Stephanus, the KJV translators, and you.

You are covering old worn out ground that has long been answered by reputable sources. At least try a new argument or something here. Humor us a bit why don't you.

BTW, since this thread is about homosexuality in the NIV, did you consider my post above. I noticed you appear to have ignored it. Too hard to answer??

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Westcott and Hort were right that for the purpose of textual criticism Scripture should be treated like any other text, by comparing the extant manuscripts and coming up with sound text critical principles for determining the most likely original reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately their "sound text critical principles" were not all that sound. If you would like I would be glad to discuss Hort's "pillars" with you and examine the evidence against all 5 of them. Now that would be an interesting discussion. Just the facts. No ad hominem, name calling, bombastic arguments, just the facts. It might even catch on here on the BB! smile.gif

[bob walker]

The occultic duo westcott and hort laid the basis for the NIV a tree is known by its fruits...and why do the homosexual churchs use the NIV as their primary Bible? also there are a couple of negative references to homosexuality in the NIV, but rest assured they too will be deleted like the word sodomy. every new edition of the NIV deletes more words.the traditional jewish text says sodomite and the eastern text the peshitta so quit blowing smoke. it is a corrupt text.
it is from the same tree as the watchtower jehovah witness Bible. i will pass. I am glad I did not go to Bible school to learn to defend occultists, and their Bible.
I will stick with the KJV. ;)

[Dr. Bob]

Rockfort, I hope I am taking that last comment in the spirit of eternal damnation (KJV) or more graciously put condemnation (NIV).

If meant any other way, I'd ask you to carefully restrain your language.

Which leads me to an interesting question: Do you think the AV1611 translators are in hell?

[bob walker]

Dr. Bob I would like to answer that last question? are any of the KJV translators in Hell? I can almost hear Jesus saying to them
"enter thou faithful servent, into the joy of the LORD". I will not waste any of my time looking for westcott and hort. I will look for G.Riplinger and a few others.

:D :D :D

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unfortunately their "sound text critical principles" were not all that sound. If you would like I would be glad to discuss Hort's "pillars" with you and examine the evidence against all 5 of them. Now that would be an interesting discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be profitable to lay out the arguments and the different views on them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just the facts. No ad hominem, name calling, bombastic arguments, just the facts. It might even catch on here on the BB! smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are pushing it with this one. smile.gif

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
The occultic duo westcott and hort laid the basis for the NIV a tree is known by its fruits...and why do the homosexual churchs use the NIV as their primary Bible? also there are a couple of negative references to homosexuality in the NIV, but rest assured they too will be deleted like the word sodomy. every new edition of the NIV deletes more words.the traditional jewish text says sodomite and the eastern text the peshitta so quit blowing smoke. it is a corrupt text.
it is from the same tree as the watchtower jehovah witness Bible. i will pass. I am glad I did not go to Bible school to learn to defend occultists, and their Bible.
I will stick with the KJV. ;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this supposed to be a response to anything posted here or just an attempt to spew your own ideas. No one here is defending occultists. We are talking about the Word of God in its various translations specifically on the issue of homosexuality. Feel free to stick with the issue at hand.

Clear evidence has been presented that the NIV is not soft on homosexuality. You have not addressed that. Since that is the topic of this thread, either address or lay off. Skip the occult stuff.

BTW, I notice you have mentioned G.A (God and) Riplinger a few times. Take a look at this link: New Age Bible Versions: Review Article (http://dbts.edu/DBTS%20Journal--Fall1997/SchRev.pdf). It will save you from a lot of embarrasment in defending her.

[Rockfort]

&lt; are any of the KJV translators in Hell? I can almost hear Jesus saying to them
"enter thou faithful servent, into the joy of the LORD". &gt;

If that is true, Boob, are you a member of their church? Do you practice infant christening and believe in purgatory, as they did? There is preponderant evidence they believed in transsubstantiaion of the elements of communion, and failing to take them was a damnable offense.

If you are of their thinking, you will join them no matter where they are. Thankfully, I don't where they are. But it is plain scripturally that the vast majority of people anywhere of any time are damned, no matter who likes that word (which is likely to get these last 2 posts erased) or not.

Nevertheless, you idea of Jesus saying to them "enter thou faithful servent, into the joy..." is a pile of crud. They were just the type of snobs who dressed in fine clothing and wanted the 'important' seats that James warned about (James 2:1-6).

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
Dr. Bob I would like to answer that last question? are any of the KJV translators in Hell? I can almost hear Jesus saying to them
"enter thou faithful servent, into the joy of the LORD". I will not waste any of my time looking for westcott and hort. I will look for G.Riplinger and a few others.

:D :D :D<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Riplinger claimed to have gotten some direct inspiration for her book. This book has several known "untruths" in it. It also attacks godly people...perhaps the voice you can "almost hear" comes from Riplinger's source.

I would also ask you to consider that Archbishops Bancroft and Andrewes (who led the KJV translators) persecuted people who believed as we do, calling them heretics. They also held theology which was closer to the Roman Catholics than to Baptists.

If corrupt theology necessarily leads to corrupt scholarship then you have some problems. Erasmus was a Catholic, who sought approval for his work from the pope, and corrected his work based on the criticisms of the RCC. In fact, the "Christian" world was dominated by the RCC and Gr. Orth. churches while most of the Byzantine type mss. were being copied. So, I suppose you would want a Bible which favors textual evidence from prior to the catholic domination and translated into English by evangelical scholars... Fortunately, one is a available, the NASB.

Back to the topic at hand: where is your response to my earlier post? Where is your proof that homosexual churches use the NIV? How do you explain away the fact that some homosexual churches use the KJV? The one I know of uses the KJV. They aren't just compromised on homosexuality like so many churches of our day. They are avowed, out-of-the-closet, in your face homosexuals. Go figure. Maybe they are King James fans for their own reasons...maybe they believe the KJV is easier to distort on the issue.

BTW, the KJV was the official Bible of the JW's. They then went to the ASV. Being satisfied with NEITHER, they created their own which can rightly be called a perversion.

[Dr. Bob]

Ad hominem attacks try to infer that the truth or untruth of a publication rests upon the character of the individual.

Rather than attack the issues we substitute the individual.

I have no idea if ANY of the AV1611 translators are in heaven. They were all baby-baptizing, Anglicans whose doctrine and erroneous views of grace we loudly condemn in our Baptist pulpits. I am a skeptic about heaven for folks like that. I try to WIN people to the Lord who believe like they did!

I have no idea if Wescott or Hort or Ruckman or Riplinger were demon possessed to come up with some of the garbage they have come up with. Whether Mariolatry or KJVolatry, it is still idol worship.

OK. We cannot know. We cannot judge. But we can look at the empirical evidence of the versions, texts, books, etc and we can debate the issues at hand. redface.gif

[Chet]

bob walker,

Pastor Larry pointed out in one of his post the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did you know ...

... that the NIV uses the term "Homosexual" more than the KJV does? (1 to 0). The NIV even says that these homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

... that the term "sodomite" in contemporary usage does not mean homosexual activity per se. There is much homosexual activity that does not fall under the definition of "sodomite"? I would quote it here but it might be inappropriate considering the forum.

... that churches that adamantly condemn homosexuality as sinful before God use the NIV?

... that the NIV has the following verses:

Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I have been watching this thread, and others, you have not answered to this. You did say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>there are a couple of negative references to homosexuality in the NIV, but rest assured they too will be deleted like the word sodomy. every new edition of the NIV deletes more words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the response? This is no answer. And are you giving us prophecy that the NIV will delete these in the future?

Thanks,

Chet

[Jude]

I find the accusations that the NIV is of the devil to be quite ridiculous. Millions are in bondage to the devil. Thousands upon thousands die every die without salvation and hope. Thousands upon thousands are in bitter poverty and suffer deeply. I wonder what the Lord would say to those who spend so much energy degrading a Bible version translated by Godly folk, all-the-while the world is going to hell. The Devil isn't behind the NIV. But he sure as heck is behind much of this passionate talk. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jude]

That should be "die every DAY". Sorry. One more thing. A recent Gallup Poll stated that there was little lifestyle difference between evangelical Christians and the secular people of America. Perhaps we would see a glorious wave of revival in this country if those in the CHURCH would spend more time and energy seeking the Lord's grace to become HOLY PEOPLE and sharing HIS GOSPEL and less time degrading the NIV/NLT/NRSV etc.,etc. :eek:

[BarbiSaved]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:


This is where you KJVO guys just don't get it. :rolleyes:

NO words have been "removed" from the "Old Testament", and no words have been "changed". That is nothing but deceptive propaganda.

First of all, the modern versions are NOT alternate versions of the King James! They are scholarly translations of Hebrew & Greek manuscripts into the English language -- just like the KJV was when it was first translated. With the possible exception of the NKJV, KJ21 and a few others, the KJV never was an integral part of their translation process. :eek:

Secondly, the translators of the KJV never intended for their work to be a standard by which all later versions are to be compared. The phrase "Authorized Version" merely means that King James authorized its publication for the people of England. Period.

To say that words have been changed or removed from the KJV is utter nonsense, and it only reveals ignorance on the part of he people who intentionally broadcast such myths. :rolleyes:

I'm no defender of the NIV, but to suggest that all modern versions are corruptions of the King James "Bible" is a lie that needs to stop.

&lt;end of tirade&gt; smile.gif

TLB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The REAL problem today is that NO one wants a Final Authority. The King James Bible is The Final Authority. The Word of God that has changed lives and started sweeping revivals. The King James is the most HATED or LOVED book of all time. Jesus said, Man shall not live by bread alone BUT by EVERY Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The NIV leaves out "Every Word". Hmmmm! Wonder why...cause it is NOT the Word of God. &gt;&gt;&gt;Things that are different are NOT the same&lt;&lt;&lt;

[Wayne Rossi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Jesus said, Man shall not live by bread alone BUT by EVERY Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The NIV leaves out "Every Word". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not true, actually. Compare KJV Luke 4:4 to NIV Luke 4:4.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Luke 4:4 KJV:
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Luke 4:4 NIV:
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might say that "every word of God" has been taken out, but you would be mistaken. Let us look in Matthew 4:4 now:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Matthew 4:4 KJV:
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Matthew 4:4 NIV:
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, the important thing is that the fuller quote of Deuteronomy 8:3 does exist in all of the MVs. If we were to assume a conspiracy to "remove words" from the Bible, then Matthew 4:4 would logically have to lack the second part of what our Lord said as well as Luke 4:4. However, it is there. The more realistic possibility is that in copying, one of the Syncoptic Gospels was "corrected" with another, intentionally or accidentally (picture a scribe who knows these lines by heart, and seeing the first half of the quotation finishes it without really reading). This is believed to be a very real occurrence, and when the diversity of manuscripts don't testify to it, we can chalk it up to a scribal error. (It's funny, but these scribal errors never seem to get anything of importance, or that is not duplicated elsewhere...)

As to the issue of final authority, my friend, final authority is in the words of God and not in any translation. It's funny...no matter how many different manuscripts you appeal to, the translated product will look 98% the same and will have 100% the same message. God's words are powerful, my friend, and we need not underestimate them by chaining them to one language or set of manuscripts. We must simply do what we do in faith, and God will provide the accuracy and correctness.

-Wayne

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BarbiSaved:

The REAL problem today is that NO one wants a Final Authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?...I know a group of people, primarily Baptist, who want one so badly that they will go to virtually any lengths to demonstrate that a 400 year old Anglican translation is just that...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The King James Bible is The Final Authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and your proof is? History? Scripture? ...or maybe just your feelings?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Word of God that has changed lives and started sweeping revivals.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really...I would actually give credit to the Holy Spirit. In addition, the greatest growth of the church was probably within the first 2 or 3 hundred years following the ascension. And not only was this prior to the KJV, it was probably prior to the first collation of the complete NT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The King James is the most HATED or LOVED book of all time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you can cite some objective source for this conclusion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Jesus said, Man shall not live by bread alone BUT by EVERY Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you have a little problem don't you? The English language did not even exist when God stopped speaking directly to man. The inspired words of God were recorded in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Therefore, by your own definition you do not have the Word of God...things that are different are not the same and English is certainly different from the biblical languages.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The NIV leaves out "Every Word". Hmmmm! Wonder why...cause it is NOT the Word of God. &gt;&gt;&gt;Things that are different are NOT the same&lt;&lt;&lt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? I just read Matthew 4:4 in the NIV, NASB, KJ21, NKJV, & NLT and the words are there.

The basic problem with what you write is that you don't seem to understand the difference between the words of God which were given by inspiration to the writers of scripture and the Word of God which is the substance of what God chose to reveal directly to mankind. I am not a fan of the NIV myself however all versions of the Bible which accurately convey the character and the will of God as recorded in the originals can rightly be called the Word of God.

[ August 23, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The King James Bible is The Final Authority. ... &gt;&gt;&gt;Things that are different are NOT the same&lt;&lt;&lt;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming for the sake of argument that both of these statements are true, which KJV will you choose as the final authority? The original or one of the many revisions that contain clear "different things." The Cambridge or the Oxford? After all, only one can be the Word of God. Which one do you choose?

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;The King James is the most HATED or LOVED book of all time.&gt;&gt;

Just to be clear about one issue and dispel a KJVO myth...

Many Christians who believe that the KJV has some translational flaws, love the Book in spite of what they know to be true.

just for a test...

How many Christians here at the BB Forum who use MVs hate the KJV?

HankD