The NIV

Name one. </font>[/QUOTE]The NIV omitted names of the Lord God in the New Testament alone almost 200 times!!!!

 

Askjo:The NIV omitted names of the Lord God in the New Testament alone almost 200 times!!!!

Know what "Bah!Humbug!" means?

 

I used the NASB for 10 years. I read it many times until I noticed something different then I checked it with the KJV and saw something incorrect between them. That's why I prefer the KJV.

 

I know what it means.

 

It means you are clueless and have to resort to innuendoes and spin.

 

Tee Hee.
KJBO reminds me of the High School hippies
-- they all dressed exactly alike to express
their independance and rebellion to
conformity.


-ed, dependant* fundamental Baptist

* dependant upon King Jesus

 

Askjo:I used the NASB for 10 years. I read it many times until I noticed something different then I checked it with the KJV and saw something incorrect between them. That's why I prefer the KJV.

But obviously it never occurred to you to see which one was incorrect, or if they were merely different between themselves, as the four Gospels are.

 

I do not think the NASB/NIV/MVs reverence God's name.

 

The
New King James Version (nKJV) honors
God by capitalizing even the pronouns
that refer to God.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
honors each Member of the Blessed Trinity
by capitalizing even the pronouns
that refer to said Member.

No, we do not accept your argument
that that MVs fail to reverence God's
name. Especially in light of the
three most popular version of the
King James Version still sold in the USofA
do not even capitalize the pronouns
which refer to the Deity.

 

Askjo:I do not think the NASB/NIV/MVs reverence God's name.

Despite the fact that they generally capitalize the pronouns used to refer to any Person of the Holy Trinity, a thing not done often in the KJV? And they certainly don't call the Holy Spirit "it".

I know, I know...different usages in 1611. But that was quite some time ago. WE don't use THAT style of English now.

And your statement didn't address the little subthread of whether the KJV or NASB had the better renderings.

 

You mean the way the Greek does?

 

You know, it's funny, really, that when you beat a dead horse it causes a foul odor...

 

As I said before, that's a patently false KJVO lie.

 

Now that's funny!

 

Pardon me for jumping in and resurfacing part of the discussion that has passed by a few days ago. However, I have been long absent from the BB for various reasons and am just trying to get back into the swing of things by reading a few days' worth of back posts.

In so doing, I discovered that my Web page about the tu quoques fallacy (and Virginia Mollenkott) has been posted, some time after which skanwmatos said:

Actually, history does not record James engaging in homosexual behavior. Speculation in that respect started over 25 years after his death, and can be traced to a disgruntled office seeker. Every such charge against James can be traced to that one very biased source.

Actually, there is at least one contemporary allusion to James' sexuality. The French playwright Théophile de Viau, a contemporary of James, once wrote a very vulgar poem, "Au Marquis du Boukinquan," about the relationship between James and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. It would be wholly inappropriate to link to it here; it's easy enough to find on Google.

Furthermore, the two books I cited on the subject, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire and King James and the History of Homosexuality, make their cases based not on hearsay from 25 years after his death, but his own personal correspondence, which is still extant and possessed by a British museum (I forget which one, unfortunately).

Anyway, just wanted to set that straight. My point on the Web page was that these are secondary considerations, and you cannot judge the NIV on the basis of Mollenkott's sexuality any more than you can the KJV's on the basis of James'.

 

de Viau's work was the sarcasm of a French patriot which was designed to vilify the English king. The animosity between France and England is a matter of historical record.

The other two books are commentaries on his correspondence which try to make his rather dandified writing style mean something it did not.

None of the works you cite specifically accuse James of homosexual conduct as witnessed or recounted by a contemporary.

 

True, there is no proof King James was homosexual. Finally, something on which we both agree!

 

Excuse me, but this whole arguement has moved into the sphere of silly.

OK, a lesbian was involved in the NIV. But had no input into the content thereof, and was dismissed as soon as her 'lifestyle' came out.

King James may (or may not) have been bisexual, and commissioned a bible translation. He had no involvement with the content (other than he had to sign off on the completed project).

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS???

Neither had any impact on the finished product.

Get over it, and move on.

In Christ,
Trotter