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

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Kurt The Baptist, Jun 29, 2001.

  1. Kurt The Baptist

    Kurt The Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  4. PreservedWords

    PreservedWords
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    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)."
    >>>
     
  5. Terry Burnett

    Terry Burnett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    <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; [​IMG]

    TLB
     
  6. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    <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?
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    &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
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    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. [​IMG]
     
  9. Mike Hall

    Mike Hall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  10. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    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:
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yahoo...now there is a real Godly resource...the promoters of child porn...

    Joseph
     
  13. Terry Burnett

    Terry Burnett
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    <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. [​IMG]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well said, Dr. Bob. I do like your posts! [​IMG]
     
  14. Mike Hall

    Mike Hall
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2000
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!

    [​IMG]

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

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  16. Bob Landis

    Bob Landis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  17. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  18. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
  20. Bob Landis

    Bob Landis
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...