Getting to Know the NIV Translators

Sorry to tell you, the KJV HAS BEEN copyrighted. The information you provided is incorrect. There are also a lot of free NIV's, NASB being given away. Wow...wonder where those $$$ are coming from, then. Need to get your facts straight, Deborah.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
If Mollencott’s lesbianism somehow tainted the final product, the NIV translation, then did King James’ own homosexuality3 fatally spoil the translation named after him?
--------------------------------------------------


Fact: Mollencott is a lesbian - she has admitted to, and is very well established fact that can be proven today. She was involved intimately with that translation.


myth: King James was a homosexual - based upon information from only one source, who wrote it long after the death of the King, and was in effort to slander the king from someone who was his enemy. To believe this, is to believe rumor and speculation, not based upon FACT. King James was never intimately involved with the translation.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The real myth is that there is only one source of evidence for James' homosexuality. His own letters to his lovers condemn him.

 

I'm sorry AVL1984. I have been told the wrong information then. I even verified on the net before I posted. I retract my statement. My bad, AVL.

Because of Christ,
Deborah

 

Before you continue to spread these lies, I would strongly suggest you read the book "King James Unjustly Accused" which provides accurate information and not the spin that anti KJV liars have used for years.

 

No problem, Deborah. We all get bad info from time to time.

AVL1984

 

Since when is an English style consultant "intimately involved." That is an out and out lie that has been refuted by the head of the NIV translation committee. She did not play a role in the translation in any way. The NIV is very strong on homosexuality, even more clear than the KJV is.

The fact remains that attacks on the NIV are attacks on God's word. IT is a good and faithful, though not perfect, translation.

 

This Bible version/translation board is an endless debate. Nobody is ever going to sway from the Word that moves the Spirit in them. I personally do not like the division it is causing in us Christians. I will not be posting or reading this board because it brings negative feelings in me, which I do not want. A couple of times I have posted here I get slammed or someone tries to make me feel stupid. So, I encourage others to do the same unless you just like butting your head against a brick wall. We should get along and not continually bicker. This board is an argument waiting and begging to happen. So,,,, I'm off to the other boards where hopefully more helpful and informative debates are offered. See ya!

Because of Christ,
Deborah

 

Wrong again, Michelle. You need to get the facts straight. She was not "intimately" involved. Her duties were minimal at best. Really, dear, you do need to do more research before you post evidence.

AVL1984

 

Every one of these denominations is at least as theologically sound as the Anglicans that translated the KJV. In fact, you are "ecumenical" for compromising by using a Bible created by these men.

I suggest you pick up a "Baptist" Bible like the LITV, MKJV, or Holman Bible if you are concerned about ecumenicalism.

Where can I find that stamp? It isn't printed on mine.

In all seriousness, you cannot establish that God has stamped His approval on the KJV without establishing a standard that both the NASB and NIV meet. Namely, that God has used it to save and sanctify His children.

Yet you trust a group that believed in one set of incorrect beliefs. Read the 39 Articles of Religion. Read the beliefs and practices of the 17th century Church of England.

If your standard is that a translator must meet a Baptist standard for theological positions then the KJV translators fail miserably and stand out as the only group related to current English translations with direct ties to the persecution of Baptist.

You can't have it both ways. Let your balances be fair and don't employ double standards.

I believe that the KJV and NASB translators produced fine translations of the Bible. I believe that the NIV translators due to their preference for dynamic equivalency and possible theological biases didn't do as good of a job.

 

Please, don't confuse her with the facts. She will not accept them. There will be a bout of circular reasoning leading to a thousand roads going nowhere.

AVL1984

 

Thats for the mid morning laugh Scott. It is much appreciated.

 

Yes. It is easy to scoff when you can't refute.

Having read several of the recent threads after taking some time away, I note that you employ the debate tactics of social liberals. You refuse to a debate on objective facts and truth. Instead, you attempt to turn everything into a personal, emotion based, argument thus obscuring truth.

I posted things that are simple, direct, and verifiable. You don't have to get personal. You don't have to question my spirituality or salvation. All you have to do is look the information up for yourself.

 

Jim, amidst all of your guffaws (here and in other threads), do you think you could find some time to post something constructive (like evidence or proof of your statements & claims) from time to time?

 

This is a poor attempt at guilt-by-association. People who know and love the Word see through this.

 

Jim Ward said:

Before you continue to spread these lies, I would strongly suggest you read the book "King James Unjustly Accused" which provides accurate information and not the spin that anti KJV liars have used for years.

Yeah, right. Many of James' letters are still extant in his own handwriting. So are those of his lovers, including a particularly salacious billet-doux from the Earl of Buckingham about the head of the bed not being found between the dog and his master, which has been quoted here previously.

 

Since when is an English style consultant "intimately involved." That is an out and out lie that has been refuted by the head of the NIV translation committee. She did not play a role in the translation in any way. The NIV is very strong on homosexuality, even more clear than the KJV is.</font>[/QUOTE]That is exactly what I would say if I, like you, used the NIV in my church. Also, that is exactly what I would say if I were the head of the NIV translation committee.

 

Since when is an English style consultant "intimately involved." That is an out and out lie that has been refuted by the head of the NIV translation committee. She did not play a role in the translation in any way. The NIV is very strong on homosexuality, even more clear than the KJV is.</font>[/QUOTE]That is exactly what I would say if I, like you, used the NIV in my church. Also, that is exactly what I would say if I were the head of the NIV translation committee. </font>[/QUOTE]So you are calling the head of the NIV translation committee a liar? That's pretty serious. You should personally confront him instead of slandering him here.

If Mollencott did do some of the NIV translation, then would we not see the effect of that in the text somewhere? After all, that is what some here are saying is the problem with the NIV -- that Mollencott helped to translate. So where are the effects?

Maybe here?

Or here?

Or maybe here?

Seems Mollencott was not very effective in her supposed "influence" on the translation.

 

What you would say if you used the NIV in your church is irrelevant, just as what you would say if you were head of the translation commitee is irrelevant.

Do you have any evidence at all that what these two men (PL and the head of the NIV translation commitee) are saying is not true?

What evidence do you have that VM was a translator rather than a style consultant? What evidence do you have that she influenced the translation? What evidence do you have that the NIV is not strong on homosexuality?

No innuendo, no assuming motives just because that's what yours would be. Just the facts. Please.