Is The Gay Bible Also God's Word?

I just took a look at her translation of Col. 1 with the Amazon preview function, and her translation is quite unfaithful to the original. She has "fellow believer" for adelfoV (brother) in v. 1, "trustworthy" for pistoiV (faithful) v. 2, "what's stored away" for elpida (hope) in v. 5 (that one is totally off the wall), etc. ad nauseum.

The problem is that a translator who does not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible is going to take unwarrented liberties with God's Word and translate it according to his or her own prejudices. This woman obviously fits that description, and furthermore has her own un-Christian agenda. No way in the world would I trust anything she translated.

 

Well said.
For those who are taking this as an opportunity to bash God's Word and exalt the KJV: maybe it's time for a hobby.

For those who are taking this as an opportunity to bash Biblical languages: Get over yourselves, honestly. This "translator" is not studied in Koine, so you're reaching (as usual). And John of Japan's superior work above is because of his knowledge, so it's a shame you malign his work.

For those who argue for/against the TNIV: let it go. It's dead. Well..until it resurfaces as the NIV 2011 :type:

 

Never say die. I'm stockpiling em'.

According to Bill Mounce, the translation team will meet for three weeks starting on July 27th.

 

Isn't it a fact that the KJV translators were not conversant with Koine Greek?

 

No.

Just one example: John Boys read 60 Greek grammars (The Men Behind the KJV, by Gustavus Paine, p. 67). I'd say the man was quite aware of the differences between 1st century koine and, say the Greek of Plato's Republic. Those guys conversed and wrote letters in Biblical Greek.

 

Thanks.

And just in case anyone doubts me on this point on verbal inspiration, it was the studied view of Eugene Nida, and I could give several quotes. Nida commented on one conservative translator who had been convinced of his dynamic equivalence that she had changed her theology, but just didn't know it yet!

By the way, not to derail the thread, but I finally read Moises Silva on semantics. (We talked about him, right?) All around pretty good, except for his existential view that "the context does not merely help us understand meaning--it virtually makes meaning" (p. 139).

 

Why do you think that makes a difference Rippon?

Scholarship of a dead language does not require conversational fluency and in many cases cannot.

To be sure the translation of a dead language requires as much art as science, however when it comes to the Koine Greek Scriptures of the NT, there are myriads of works from the first century onward to help translate it into a living language.

If one's background is in the study of Attic Greek then this could and probably would influence one's accuracy in the translation of Koine.


HankD

 

I disagree, I do not think you can change person and number in a text and remain faithful to the text. As well, the leaders of the translation had deceived when producing the translation, even agreeing not to produce the Bible all while producing the Bible. At best, they were deceptive and lied and at worse they significantly changed the Biblical text.

 

Is it not possible that we, too, can translate from our own evangelical or fundamentalist viewpoint? If it doesn't fit evangelicalism or even dispensationalism, it must be an incorrect translation.

If the verse doesn't fit my Calvinism, then there must be an incorrect translation of that verse, and I'll skip that verse for the one's that do fit.

(Note I am really arguing for argument's sake, but there is also an element of truth. This is how we get modified calvinism, the mythical age of understanding, and believing unto salvation as an definite act of man, despite the absolute sovereignty of God.

I much prefer the theology of Hodge's and Strong, but I do not accept infant baptism!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Sexual orientation would effect the level to which God would bless her to be able to interpret the bible. This is the main problem with an almost total reliance on scholarship, people forget where the knowledge of scripture comes from. I'm not going to blast people for knowing Greek and Hebrew. My point is, it isn't the ability to read languages that enables one to understand the bible, it is the Holy Ghost. If someone is engaged in homosexuality, or is engaged in justifying homosexuality, then I am not going to trust that person's view on the bible.

 

Jim,

Two items of note. First, this person is producing a Bible and marketing it as being for Gays. To that end, this is not about translation.

Secondly, there are aspects of translation whereas there are debates. No one who has studied Greek or Hebrew would deny such. However, I do not see Dispensational Bible Translations, I may see Dispensational Study Bibles. I do not see Calvinist Bible Translations, I do see Calvinist Study Bibles. For the most part, she is billing this as a person who translated the Bible to fit her gay beliefs. This is not my extrapolation of her translation, this is how she chose to market her translation. Rather than say, "This is a solid translation from a scholar in Classical Greek." She said, "This is a translation for the Gay Community."

The major modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, and NKJV) have had people of differing theological views on the same committee. They worked and challenged each other through the process. She (the author of the Gay Bible) seems to have been a committee of one with no checks and balances and with a clear agenda--to produce a Gay friendly Bible and market it as such.

I think I would be against the "Calvinist" Bible Translation, the Dispensational Bible Translation, or the like. I am for a Bible translation which tries to remain as close to the original text as possible in a translation while keeping an agenda out of the translation.

 

Ruiz,

I must confess, I have no argument with what you wrote above.

Using classical Greek to understand the koine Greek text would be like trying to converse with a Greek person...and I did try it once or twice... would be no different than trying to speak French with him.

I just wouldn't want someone condemning her scholarship because she was gay. The very nature of original sin can blind the most brilliant person, let alone individual sins.

Cheers, and bless,

Jim

 

How does this bible deal with the Sodom and Gamorah incident? Or how about the Benjamin Incident in the book of Judges? How does it deal with the Torah calling that practice Abominable? Or the NT claim that people went after unnatural desires of women laying with other women and men laying with other men as a man would with a woman?

 

I confess that I know next to nothing about Dr. Nyland. I do, however, understand her to be a recognized scholar of New Testament Greek and a published author of books about New Testament interpetation, and about horses!

I expect she simply follows the teaching that flowed out of German rationalism as did the likes of Karl Barth, clothed in accepted New testament terminology, but including their own understandings. So, the word becomes the Word as we experience it and not just because we understand it.

I need to read more and not sure I am that interested, to be very honest.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't care how knowledgable she is concerning the Greek language, so long as she is an advocate of sodomy and is so irresponsible with the word of God, I don't trust any of her views on the bible. For one to understand the bible that person must be blessed by the Holy Spirit. I don't think the Holy Spirit blesses people that justify wickedness, particularly when God has clearly declared such wickedness to be an abomination to Him.

 

You're right Rip. In Alister McGrath's book :In The Beginning :The Story Of The King James Bible And How It Changed A Nation, A Language, And a Culture he makes some legit points.

"The Koine Greek of the New Testament is the 'everyday' Greek language of working people rather than of self-conscious literary scholars and poets.The King James translators were not aware of this fact. Their location in history denied them access to this knowledge. The result has important implications for the tone and style of those passages in the King James Bible that translate this form of Greek. The language of the workplace and the market is thus subtly changed into the high cadences of the palaces of Westminster and the high tables of Oxford and Cambridge. Many readers of the King James Bible often comment on its elegance and excellent style -- yet the considerations we have just set out mean that, on occasion, the style and elegance will be those of the translators, rather than those of the passages they translated." (pages 238,239)

 

Well said....

 

The TNIV translators significantly changed the Biblical text?! Proof please.

And if you mean they significantly altered the text of the NIV you are also wrong.

 

Right as rain again Rip. Here is what D.A. Carson has said on the matter in his book :The King James Version Debate : A Plea For Realism.

"The translators of the KJV, as accoplished as they were, were totally unaware of the differences between Hellenistic (or Koine) Greek and the classical (usually Attic) Greek of earlier centuries. The relevant manuscripts had not yet been discovered. As late as 1886 Joseph Henry Thayer could list 767 distinctively 'New Tesament' words with no parallels in any known Greek literature. The list is now considerably under 50 and still shrinking. Moreover in 1611 translators followed the syntax of classical Greek; but now we know that the Greek of the New Testament corresponds syntactically to Hellenistic Greek.This makes a significant difference in, for example, the connecting phrases of the Johannine epistles." (p. 95)

 

Sorry, I don't agree with your source. I suspect that McGrath has never studied extensively the literature of a foreign language or he would not make this statement.

Anyone who has studied the various documents of a language from different eras can immediately tell the difference. I think it is uninformed to say that the KJV translators couldn't tell the difference between 3rd century BC Greek and 1st century AD Greek. I can look at a Japanese document and immediately tell if it is modern colloquial Japanese, classical Japanese of the 1940s (as compared to the classical Japanese of 1880), colloquial Japanese of the 19th century (such as Gutzlaff's Gozaru Yaku of some books of the NT), Kansai dialect of the 20th century, etc.

As for the assertion of McGrath that "The Koine Greek of the New Testament is the 'everyday' Greek language of working people rather than of self-conscious literary scholars and poets," this also is in error. Josephus, the LXX, the Didache and any other document of the NT era is written in the same koine. Classical Greek documents--the great Greek historians, dramatists and poets--are generally from well before the time of Christ.