When did it become sin...

It ISN'T sinful to make these statements. They are statements of fact and telling the truth is not sinful.

 

Or to say something like "you have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . ." - not sinful at all. Well, maybe if the pastor is wrong about whatever he is speaking of, but that's a different subject.

 

No, not sinful, unless selectivity could become sinful. The speaker who does this is relying on the virtual fact that few listeners know the truth about 'how' and 'how else' a word or term could be translated; so, assuming no outright falsehood, he may use this support tactic if it does support the point he is making, but disregard a case which gives strength to a contrary view. Whether the use of unbalanced reasoning can be "sinful" is probably another, broader, debate.

 

It seems you're talking about lying by omission. This could be sinful in one way of looking at it. But if preachers start presenting every possible alternative in every sermon they will (1) considerably lengthen their sermons and (2) seem to be arguing with themselves. At times it may be better to simply present what supports your topic and move on.

One thing I really consider sinful is standing in the pulpit and blaspheming God's word. It is done quite frequently when preachers stand in the pulpit and call modern Bible versions some of the names that have been banned here at BB. If those terms are wrong for BB discussions they are just as wrong for sermons in our churches.

 

One author claimed that updating is all right if it is done as follows: "'This word means' is acceptable; but 'A better rendering would be' is not" (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 315).

 

But don't the definitions sometimes get confused?

 

Perhaps this author's statements before the quote indicate somewhat his reasons why.

"There are places that may need explanation, and it is the right for the teacher within reasonable limits to amplify, elucidate, and expound the English as well as the underlying text. But this must not be done in such a way to imply to the listener that errors exist. For example, 'This word means' is acceptable; but, 'A better rendering would be' is not" (WAY OF LIFE ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 315).

 

"Lying by omission" does not accurately describe this circumstance. But I don't like that tactic because it does assume listeners are ignorant and must accept anything the speaker says in that line... "sales talk" is what it compares to, without the acceptability of being allowed questions to examine further angles, unless it's a small Bible study class we're talking about. No, talking about the translation of a biblical word, or even how "better" it may be translated, is not lying, but the situation is like questioning a witness in court and the defense not being allowed to cross-examine. A lawyer will not bring up what may work against his client's case, and that's not lying either. But there should be another lawyer to emphasize what the first one doesn't tell the court.

 

It is never a sin to update an older version of the Bible to meet the level of the understanding of the hearers.

For instance:

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.​

NKJ 1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.​

KJV 2 Corinthians 6

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
​

NIV 2 Corinthians 6

11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.​

HankD​

 

Of course it isn't a sin to update the language to a more current understanding! The sin is in trying to keep the word of God a mystery to modern readers.

 

Yes and this kind of thing already has a historical precedent because this is what happened with the Latin Vulgate.

The Church of Rome refused to modernise the Vulgate as Latin turned into Italian and the people were left with a "mystery" book that only scholars could understand.

estote autem factores verbi et non auditores tantum fallentes vosmet ipsos​

HankD

 

Just goes to show what can happen when any version of onlyism is practiced. The Vulgate onlyists would rather have had the Scriptures a mystery to the average reader than to change anything. Doen't make a lick of sense!

 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

George Santayana

 

That seems very appropriate for some reason, Hank!

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

1-No they aren’t. What if the terms are accurately describing what some of the Modern Versions really are? Your reasoning is circular and therefore invalid on this point.
2-The Bible says not such thing.

Correct. Instead it has done much to create many IFBers to become BIBLE BELIEVERS. I’ll take that over having “scholars” any day.

To answer the thread starter question, the reasons why it is wrong is because 99% of the time, what follows those statements are either completely wrong or irrelevant, because grammar and context narrow the possibilites of a words meaning in a text. Citing all its possible definitions is absurd, for its use in a sentence automatically excludes the other meanings, and limits it to one—the one the author meant. Therefore correcting the Authorized Version in this way is often ignorance of basic grammatical understanding, not “scholarship”. How ironic.