ARE THERE ANY "CORRUPT" ENGLISH VERSIONS

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by ArcticBound, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I have seen on this board thus far is that people "love" to attack those who use only the King James Bible and actually have enough faith (as silly as it may sound)to believe in Inspiration and Preservation.

    THIS FORUM IS NOT FOR BASHING THE KING JAMES BIBLE OR THOSE WHO USE IT.

    I am simply asking an honest question to those who Reject the King James Bible as being the Preserved Words of God in English without error.

    No need to point out the errors in the KING JAMES BIBLE, I've already heard many of them.

    I just want to know are there any other versions in English that you would stay away from??? Versions of the Bible that you would consider not real "good" translations?
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    New World Translation, and although I don't think it is as bad as the NWT I don't like the Living Bible. Still making up my mind about The Message.
     
  3. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure! The NIV. It regularly leaves out or mistranslates words like oun (Pronounced: Oon). John 11:5-6 is a good example. The NIV says: [5] Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus [6] YET when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

    THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The ESV has a much better translation:

    John 11:5-6 (ESV)
    Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. [6] So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.


    LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Verse 6. The greek word OUN is there. It means therefore! But then NIV translates it "YET"

    The verse actually says, according to the greek and the rightly translated ESV, that because Jesus loved them, THEREFORE (rendered "So") He stayed so Lazarus would die!

    WOW! That changes the meaning a bunch! What it means is found in v. 4:

    John 11:4 (ESV)
    But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it."


    Because Jesus loved them, He wanted to display His glory to them. He did this when He raised Lazarus. What more could we want as humans that to experience God's glory!!! Jesus gave the most unimaginably beautiful gift: To see His glory and Lordship and mastery of EVERYTING in action.

    Because He wanted to give this gift, Lazarus had to die. Because He loved them, He had to let Lazarus die. To fully display His magnificient glory, He had to let Lazarus die.

    Sorry, I got pretty worked-up over that. I didn't mean to preach....even though I did.

    However, this is but one example of why I do not like the NIV. To be sure there are much worse. For example, the Jehovah's Witness Bible is pretty messed up.

    Blessings,

    Archangel
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the umpteenth time, no one is attacking those who only use the KJV. We are opposing the idea that only the KJV is the Word of God in English.
    We believe more clearly in both concepts than do KJVO's. You all are simply wrong about how inspiration applies to the KJV and how preservation occurred.

    You are absolutely right. To say that the translation "God forbid" used repeatedly by the KJV in Romans is a bad translation is not "BASHING THE KING JAMES". It is simply stating a fact. To say that the evidence supporting the KJV at I John 5:7-8 is terribly weak is not "BASHING", it is simply the facts.

    The repeated pattern here is that KJVO's make charges against MV's then KJVO opposers show them how the same argument can just as credibly be applied to the KJV.

    You want to talk about translators? The KJV translators are then open game... and they provide some big targets with their theology and practices.

    Want to talk about minority readings? The KJV has several.

    Want to talk about contradictions? The KJV has a few.

    Want to talk about poor translations? Again the KJV has a few.

    You can't have a double standard. If you want to attack God's Word in MV's then you must be willing to see the same criteria applied to the KJV.

    Absolutely... in bunches! I agree that the proliferation of translations can produce problems. I believe that the NKJV, NASB, and ESV (as far as I have seen) are good translations in addition to the KJV. (I am speaking the versions in popular use not the LITV, WEB, YLT, ASV, etc. that you find on Bible software).

    I agree that the NIV uses an incorrect translational approach. The NWT is an atrocity. I don't use nor care for paraphrases... if I want a Bible story book, I want it to say "Bible Story Book" on the cover. If I want a Bible, I don't want someone's highly interpretive rendition of what they think the text means.

    I don't like what I have seen from or about the TNIV, NRSV, RSV, Holmans, and Message. I am sure there are others but by and large, I would rather affirm what I like rather than trying to list all the things I don't like.

    That said, I know people who are using Bible versions that I don't favor and growing spiritually. It is rather amazing how truly "mean" a translation can be and God the Holy Spirit still use it to sanctify a child of God.
     
  5. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    ScootJ,
    Was that really necessary? :(

    I appreciate the honest posts.
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I understand what "that" is then yes it was necessary. You attempted to establish certain premises. Before answering "honestly", I believe it was necessary to deal with the false premises/foundations first.
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott said:
    if I want a Bible story book, I want it to say "Bible Story Book" on the cover.

    AMEN!! Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  8. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the NIV is at the top of my avoid list. I wonder why they have removed the word homosexual? Does anyone know where the translators of the NIV are right now and how they live their lives?
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't. The NIV *contains* the word "homosexual". It's the KJV that doesn't. ;) Now do you "wonder why the KJV removed the word homosexual"? No, of course you don't, because that would be fair and we can't have consistency when promoting KJV-onlyism, right? ;)

    No. Does it matter? I know how some of the KJV translators lived their lives though. Wanna hear about it? ;)

    On topic: the NIV is certainly not perfect, but I think it's one of the best versions out there. The only well-known English translation I would call "corrupt" is the NWT.

    God bless,
    Brian
     
  10. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you insinuating here? Is this something you know of for sure, or would words like these be possibly libelous?
     
  11. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you insinuating here? Is this something you know of for sure, or would words like these be possibly libelous? </font>[/QUOTE]I do apologize for saying that in a confusing way. I am not out to slander anyone. But, I am curious if you know where the translators of the NIV are today. I am interested in knowing this.
     
  12. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homosexual is too nice of a word. [​IMG] The "sodomites" and "sons of Belial, etc." would prefer to be called homosexuals, gays, or lesbians. I like to call it what God calls it.
     
  13. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry, but the words left out are Sodomite. I know nothing about them personally. I was wondering if some of you scholars do.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Call didn't call them sodomites or sons of Belial. Get our your Greek and Hebrew texts to see what God called them.

    You did start with some very bad premises which prejudiced the discussion from the beginning. Having said that, the NWT, NLT, the Message, the NCV, are all versions that I do not recommend for various reasons.

    Contrary to what Archangel said, I believe the NIV is a very good translation. As well as Archangel knows Greek and the issues involved, he should be aware of BAGD, p. 593 (4th edition), bottom left hand column where it says "Oun seems also to be used adversatively." Listed as evidence are John 9:18, Acts 23:21; Acts 25:4; Acts 28:5; Rom 10:14. All of these are verses where "therefore" is not an appropriate translation.

    The reality is that for most of the translations in teh NIV, there is very good reason for them. We might not agree with them (as I don't on occasion), but there is good support for it.

    All in all, the NIV is a very good translation and should be regularly used in conjunction with other good translations.
     
  15. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not a scholar. The words Sodomites are used in the King James Bible because the first time we see the sin of Sodomy is found in Gen. with the city of Sodom.

    This is what I've heard, correct me if I'm wrong. Virginia Mollenkot was a Sodomite who worked with the NIV translation. It may have nothing to do with it.

    I too would like to know why they changed it?

    The Sodomite crowd will tell you (I've talked to a few on door-to-door visitation) that God only condemns two men having a relationship when it is a lustful relationship and not a meaningful one. The people of Sodom were not having a meaningful relationship therefore it was sin. (This is not my Belief and this is clearly not the belief of the Bible.)
     
  16. ArcticBound

    ArcticBound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    Could someone give me the NIV translation of this verse. I've heard that it has been changed to mean something different than being a "Homosexual."

    I would appreciate some light shed on this verse.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    None of the homosexuals I have ever seen like it when you condemn what they do regardless of what you call it. God calls it sin... anyway we express it so that homosexuals know that God calls it sin is fine.
     
  18. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    None of the homosexuals I have ever seen like it when you condemn what they do regardless of what you call it. God calls it sin... anyway we express it so that homosexuals know that God calls it sin is fine. </font>[/QUOTE]What does the NIV call it?
     
  19. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here it is:

    Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
     
  20. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here it is:

    Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
    </font>[/QUOTE]I am glad to see that is does address the topic of homosexuality and I stand to be corrected. Thanks for sharing, Russell55.
     

Share This Page

Loading...