The NIV

Because I believe it is important to deal with facts and not speculation, especially when that speculation is used in character assassination.

 

No, I didn't forget anything. I deal in facts, and the facts are plain. The DNA does not prove that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Henning's children. It only proves that someone related to Thomas Jefferson did so. Personally I believe he did, but that belief does not constitute a fact, only an opinion. That opinion may be well supported by the available evidence, but it is, nevertheless, not a fact, but still an opinion.

 

If they are not facts then it is simply libel.

 

Man o Man are we way off base. Who cares what King James did? He was just a King, not a translator. Satan will introduce anything to keep a person from reading a Bible.

 

Two points. 1. Truth is important. 2. What in the world does insisting on facts have to do with Satan keeping someone from reading the bible?

 

What kind of spirit of ugliness could possess you to slander a man who has been dead for 350 years?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know. How many kinds are there?

It's interesting how one can find plenty of web sites indicating that Jimmy was a queer and many sites indicating that he was not. But most of the time in doing such a search, it's easy to predict what a particular site is going to say by the web address. If it includes "kjvonly" or "av1611" or "chick", he is going to be portrayed as a maligned saint. If the address contains the name of Jesus or of a study foundation, it's likely to present him as a faulty idiosyncratic powermonger.

 

He may have been a "faulty idiosyncratic powermonger" but that does not prove he was a sodomite, which is the point we are discussing.

Perhaps I am just a bit overly sensitive regarding people who are slightly different from what is considered "normal" by society. I was born with a deformed left leg which, eventually, necessitated it being amputated. I grew up being the butt of much mockery and mean-spirited name-calling. Just because I was different. I cannot begin to count the number of times I was called "queer" simply because I walked on a prosthesis, and could not run, play sports, or do other "manly" activities.

James I was also born crippled. (Most people who claim he was "queer" are not aware of that little fact.) That handicap was twisted into his "loving to roll in the blood of dead animals" because he, while hunting, slipped and fell beside the carcase of a dear he had just killed. He fell due to his handicap, but that was twisted by hate-mongers into a perversion peculiar to James.

Let's stick with the facts and leave the idle speculation to the KJVOs.

 

Man, with all of this type of language of Baptists using words like "queer," it's no wonder we as a denomination are utterly ineffective at reaching those who are dealing with homosexuality. Personally, hearing people call them that is no different from my hearing people call African-Americans the "n-word."

 

Your point is taken, and I actually agree with you. The facts I was referring to are the ones listed in my previous post. But the bottom line is that you're correct. The notion that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings is not 100% fact. However, it is likely to the point where it can be considered as being reasonably true.

 

Shakespeare: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!

Seems KJ was one of those people that his contemporaries either loved or loved to hate.

From an old "Global Insights" article:

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear."

When one checks more closely into this story, we find out a few FACTS. First, KJ was not in the best of health throughout most of his life. He had more than one episode of diarrhea or vomiting, which he couldn't control any more than we can today. It's widely believed that he was a partial diabetic & that this disease affected his legs & kidneys. I can't recall the source where I saw it, but I remember reading years ago that during the incident noted above, KJ was hurriedly seeking a place to properly deal with a diarrhea episode which was NOT brought on by fear, but by chronic illness.

Next, it's well-known that there were many who sought his life, both for his protestantism and his Scottish heritage.

Was he unsaved, or a coward?

James' comment to a sword-armed assailant "Are you after my life? You can get it, but you will NOT get my SOUL." (Letters of King James by G.P.V. Akrigg)



"I am no papist, as I have said before...", "Now FAITH is the free gift of God (as Paul sayeth)." "...white garments washen the blood of the Lamb (as St. John sayeth)...". "All that is necessary for salvation is contained in the scripture."(Basilicon Doron, by KJ himself)
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/basilico.htm

Rabid KJVO Teno Groppi has these, and similar statements on his website
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/index.html

And even though I disagree with his KJVO stance, he does sometimes present some facts from history correctly.

I would recommend "King James Unjustly Accused? by Stephen Coston as an accurate study of KJ's personal things.

However, it doesn't matter if KJ had been a warlock who sacrificed goats to Satan in his bedroom. He did NOT make the BV which now bears his name. Same with Mollenkott & the NIV. That's why I say, "Much Ado About Nothing".

 

I don't see the point of this discussion. The
reasons for NOT using the NIV have nothing to
do with these issues...The NIV leaves out over 100 scriptures and alters over 300, and THAT is
why I will not use it. It is not the WHOLE Bible.

Debbie

 

Sorry, debbie, but that's patently false. It's a typical KJVO lie that's oft repeated.

 

dcorbett:I don't see the point of this discussion. The
reasons for NOT using the NIV have nothing to
do with these issues...The NIV leaves out over 100 scriptures and alters over 300, and THAT is
why I will not use it. It is not the WHOLE Bible.

Debbie

Debbie, have you considered the possibility that the verses you say are OMITTED in the NIV weren't actually ADDED in other versions?

 

Debbie, I agree that the texts which underlie the NIV are, in my considered opinion, inferior, regional texts which have variants, many of which are omissions. However, with a few exceptions those omissions don't change, delete, or minimize any doctrine taught in the bible.

I also don't like the translational philosophy used in the NIV, and would not make it my version of choice. But, as a Christian I know it is the word of God for it contains the gospel and is able to "make thee wise unto salvation." If I had to choose between an NIV and no bible at all, I would grab the NIV in a heartbeat! I am eternally grateful I don't have to make that choice.

 

Skan, you made a remark that "with a few exceptions those omissions don't change, delete, or minimize any doctrine". Do you have specific verses that you are thinking about? I am not trying to put you on the spot, if you do not have this information handy do not worry about it.
Thanks

 

Amen to that! You are a great woman.

 

JohnV, I agree with Debbie because the NIV twisted 6,500 adulterated words.

That is your false answer.

The NIV contains the Word of God, but anyone can win the lost soul to Jesus Christ by using the NIV or MVs or KJV.

 

A case could be made that the elimination of Acts 8:37 (which the Byzantine text also omits) omits the only clear command of scripture that only mature believers are to be baptized.

 

Name one.

 

Askjo, have you read the NIV from cover-to-cover, or any MV?