| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/03/2009 5:50:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 09/01/2009 10:44:10 PM PDT by pissant
ahh... a voice of reason.
I have never liked the NIV... at all. Back in the 80s, my Hebrew professor in seminary called it the "Nearly Inspired Version" because the translation is inaccurate in so many places. In its attempt to supply "dynamic equivalents" in its translation, it succumbs to the theological biases of the "translators." I put "translators" in quotes because they are not true translators since they imposed their own views upon the text.
I'm not a KJV-only nut, but the KJV in its 400 year-old style of English is STILL a better translation than the NIV, and most other translations as well. For those who are not able to translate the original languages for themselves, the KJV is still the translation of choice for those who are serious about studying God's holy, inspired word.
Sons is indicative of sex, family structure, traditional marriage and Judeo-Christian tradition and faith. The use of ‘children’, out of context from history, culture and tradition, delegitimizes all of the former from the new Biblical context desired.
There have been many revisions of the Bible, and, this, apparently, is the new socialist version, and the first one to omit ‘Sons’, and probably even subject to more frequent revision, if this one is accepted. With a socialist view, God, Yahweh, could become ‘IT’ in the not too far future, if not eliminated altogether by socially directed revisionists. A better result would ensue if the fever of focus for revision was redirected on Jihad related texts.
“and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand”
u r 2 b saved.
It bugs me to see a worldwide religious organization that says it is Christian and that supposedly stands for quite a few principles that are in accord with serious conservatives, just sitting and doing nothing about its local congregations in the USA flouting these principles. If there is any legitimate place at all for hierarchical church control to kick in, this would be it.
Isn't the NIV the best selling Christian Bible in the US?
I’d recommend Rogaine for that.
Flame away but the internet wasn't available to scholars for the current NIV version. Obviously, references to humans using gender specific terms like "man" amd "sons" should be changed where appropriate to "humans".
For those relying on the King James, I'm sorry but it has many errors.
Look at the actual doctrines they follow. Take out the syncretistic stuff and you see, for instance, an almost rabidly pro-life contingent.
u kant spel
The internet has nothing to do with faithful rendering of masculine forms in the Hebrew and Greek to an English equivalent. The internet didn’t change those original manuscripts.
There is a sizable contingent who likes the old KJV. God bless them, as long as they don’t make a fetish out of it. There is no major Christian doctrine — and no salvific doctrine at all — that depends on the KJV versus eclectic-text translations.
Too bad it is the hispanic catholics that overwhelmingly voted for Obama, not the white catholics. But even they are coming around.
Amen. God framed the KJV is Shakespearean English for a reason - it's the most beautiful and lyrical any language has been before or since.
Yes, if they are truly pro-life, why should they bow and scrape to a political party that is inimical to that?
There are good literal and interlinear translations that give a very close sense of the Hebrew and Greek to even a casual reader.
That's a lie.
Pew's numbers are based on non-random non-scientific polling.
I think you got the cart before the horse. William Shakespeare read the Authorised [sic] Version.
At least they aren’t extolling global warming in radio ads.
You got a more reliable survey that tracked the 2008 presidential votes of people who call themselves Catholics?
I respectfully disagree. I am old enough to remember what scholarly research was like before the internet. Take for instance Gen 6:6
"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."Do you not agree that in this verse God meant either humans or, that he regretted imparting select genetic traits to male humans?
There are NO reliable surveys on the topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.