slandering the Word of God

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by tinytim, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. tinytim

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

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    My Question is this:

    Is slandering a particular translation, whether it be the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc., the same as sladering the Word of God?

    IOW, suppose I was KJVO and made a statement that the NIV was just a book that Satan was using to steer people from the true Word of God, the KJV.

    Is that slandering the Bible, or just slandering a particular translation?
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) cited where
    Gregory Martin (a Roman Catholic who wrote a
    book in 1582 entitled A DISCOVERY OF THE MANIFOLD CORRUPTIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES BY THE HERETICS OF OUR DAYS) claimed that "books which were so translated by Tyndale and the like, as being not indeed God's book, word, or scripture, but the devil's word" (A DEFENCE OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO THE ENGLISH TONGUE, p. 228).

    Fulke responded by noting that Martin's "blasphemy in calling it the devil's word [cannot] be excused for any fault in translation which you have discovered as yet or ever shall be able to decry" (p. 229).
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds EXACTLY like what KJVO's say about any translation that is not KJV.

    Yes, when a KJVO says it, he/she is doing several things:

    1 - Slandering scripture
    2 - Adding to scripture
    3 - Promoting false doctrine
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I wonder if many KJVOs or other one-versionists are actually intending to slander God's word when they point out what they feel are mistakes in other versions. I think we all know of one member here, who doesn't post much any more, who likes to sit down with a box full of different BVs and compare them while using the KJV as a "standard"...and that we've often found that some other version has a better translation at some given passages.

    And when we see a BV that's CLEARLY full of error, I.E.the NWT, I don't believe it's slander to heap aspersions upon it.

    While a cop, I sat in on many trials, both criminal and civil, hoping to learn things, as for a little while I toyed with the idea of becoming an attorney. I learned that the perfect, non-appealable defense for a slander charge is THE ALLEGATIONS' BEING TRUE. However, this is NOT often the case in the BVs discussions.
     
  5. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    roby, I can't say that they are intentionally libeling God's word by saying MV's are something other than they are. I believe they have been so brainwashed and battered into believing KJV Onlyism is correct, and even scriptural by the misinterpetation by their pastors or themselves of Scriptures. NOWHERE does the Bible promote one version onlyism. Some, indeed may be doing it with the purpose of being divisive, but I don't believe a majority do.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And such attack/slander of God's Word gets posts "snipped" by the moderators. Continued attack earns suspension of posting privileges.

    I recognize that many of the only sect do believe that the NIV/NKJV et al ARE satanic and evil and should be eschewed. They have the right to hold that view AND try to defend it.

    But they do NOT have the right to attack God's Word on the BaptistBoard. Warning to all to be careful NOT to denigrate or cast aspersion on the Word of God - whether in a translation you agree with or not.
     
  7. tinytim

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

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you all so far, to me the NIV along with the KJV, and any other faithful translation is the Word of God. So when someone says something negative about a translation it bothers me.
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Without stepping off into the KJVo pool of water; It is my opinion that a translation can be discussed without slandering the Word of God at all.

    I don't have a problem with someone saying:

    "I'm not as happy with the NIV as the ESV (for example) because the style of translation is less literal."

    or

    "I think the HCSB is a little weak in its rendering of Daniel 3:17 and that could be improved somewhat."

    In the reality of today's world of many translations, if we discuss them in this fashion, I do not believe that we are slandering God's Word at all; simply making a personal observation on the "style" and "accuracy" of the translation.

    For example, if we have a problem with the New NIV gender issue. That can be discussed. Is it right to change gender and/or was it changed for political correctness, or was it changed because English has changed so much that it is actually closer to what the original Greek or Hebrew says.

    These type of statements are referring to methods and practices of the TRANSLATORS and do not slander God's Word in any shape, form or fashion.

    This is real world, not KJVonlyism arguments.
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me test my theory:

    Tinytim, would you have a problem if I were to say that I prefer my ESV to the NIV because the translation is less dynamic?

    Am I slandering your Bible by making this statement?
     
  10. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Slander, by its definition, is sinful, whether it's about the word of God or another person.

    Slander (legally) is willful misrepresentation (often called lying by the less squeamish among us) or not taking the care to learn whether what you're saying is actually true. (These are the two pillars of modern libel/slander law and constitute "actual malice," in legal jargon.)

    Expressing a preference for a version does not constitute slander; accepting flimsy stories and even fables — and perpetuating them ad nauseum — without a shred of verifiable evidence is slander.

    In the versions debate, it's disconcerting to see how these commonsense principles are so overlooked. If I claim that Hort and Westcott were heathens or heretics or the NIV translators are hell-bent upon corrupting the Bible — based upon some disjointed fragments picked up on the Internet — it's somehow my right to my opinion. However, if I were to spread a rumor — based upon similar evidence — that my neighbor is having an affair with a congressman and had an abortion to prevent a scandal, I could be (and should be) hauled into court.
     
  11. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would it be wrong for a Jew to have said in the 1st century, "I believe in the Messiah, but this man Jesus is not the Messiah"? Would that be an attack on the Messiah?
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes

    Regardless of our legal definitions, and it is true that it requires a "falsehood" and "intentional malice" for a Tort to occur, slander in this aspect is not based on the US legal systems definition, IMHO.
     
  13. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really hate to see/hear anyone slandering the Word of the Most High.

    Problem for KJVOism is that it relies upon slander and conspiracy theories to stay above the water. Without distortions and double standards KJVOism can not exist. KJVOism so called "proof" can be turned on the KJV family thus making the KJV guilty of the same things that they:the KJVOist claim that other translations do. This is a dangerious tactic that profits no one.

    I prefer the NASB 1995 but I will never say that it is the only English bible.

    It really bothers me how some people can call the Word of God perverted and/or satanic. I just wish they would say we prefer or we like such and such. There is no need to slander and lie.

    Just my thoughts...

    David J.
     
  14. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the difference between saying "such and such" manuscripts are "perverted" and saying "corrupted"?

    Pervert; to overturn, corrupt, to twist the meaning or sense of, misinterpret
    Corrupt; to alter from the original or correct form or version

    Why is it ok to use "corrupted" and not "perverted"?


    In His service;
    Jim
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    In this context, 'corrupt' would not imply purposeful alteration nor sinful intent while 'pervert' would.
     
  16. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    -------------------------------------------------
    Why not? Are you so naive to believe that there were never any "scribes" in the Catholic church, beginning in Alexandria to the present, who would fit your description? That my friend is laughable. [​IMG]

    And of course you are aware fo the fact that the two words are interchangable?
    In His service;
    Jim
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    -------------------------------------------------
    Why not? Are you so naive to believe that there were never any "scribes" in the Catholic church, beginning in Alexandria to the present, who would fit your description? That my friend is laughable. [​IMG]

    And of course you are aware fo the fact that the two words are interchangable?
    In His service;
    Jim
    </font>[/QUOTE]Are you so naive to believe that the Anglican church was not truly Catholic and hunted down Puritans and that the translators were not Catholic indoctrinated? Why else would the apocrypha appear in your letter-perfect KJV?
     
  18. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    What on earth have your comments got to do with what I said?
    :rolleyes: Puhleeze!

    My My but you do have an axe to grind don't you?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA lolroflmho.

    In His service;
    Jim
     
  19. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have quote a talent for deflecting, don't you. [​IMG]
     
  20. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Deflection is something that many KJV onlyists (the extremists of the sect, usually) are good at. They've been taught well by their mentors.
     

Share This Page

Loading...