Ping
Leviticus 18:22 - Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Romans 1:27 - And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 - Women should learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.
"Our gender decisions were made on the basis of very careful and significant research ... and the decisions we've made about gender have no motivation of not offending people," Moo said
"Moo urged Christians to decide for themselves..."
What significant research needs to be initiated to determine the identification between:
AND
If these "great" men, e.g., Douglas Moo, need "significant research"; then I must laugh in their face regarding their ignorance. I suppose that they needed to carefully research translating "Him" [God] with "Her" [god - blasphemy!]
As my KJV Pastor-Teacher often said: "today's scholars are children in the playground". And "with translations errors like ["he" to "she", etc], these men simply are not qualified to translate anything, let alone the Holy Bible"
It has been said that the KJV scholars [real Godly men] were able to defend their word translation choice with 10-20-30 significant research examples why they did choose to translate a word the way in which they did in the KJV Bible.
This "gender" neutral translation business should NOT AT ALL EXIST in any Bible - it's inclusion is unauthorized from GOD's thinking and HIS HOLY SPIRIT, who was the transmitter of the Words of God.
Scholarship like this "gender" neutral translation IS SIMPLY BLASPHEMY!
P.S. I decide to choose the KJV Bible: a Bible I can hold in my hands for the Words which my Father has made available to me to read and learn from.
I have learned that a Bible publisher requires something like 40,000 or 30,000 word changes from a previous published Bible before the publisher will allow the printing of a "new" translation!
Therefore, it does not take a genius to figure it out that accounting for all the "new" translations, a successive accumulating and degrading of successive 40,000 upon 40,000 word changes, until we maybe have 120,000 word changes in the "newer" translations...it's no wonder that "new" translations are completely unrecognized from the earlier accomplishments.
What a complete shame to God that we have men and publisher's that require 40,000 or 120,000 word translation changes for a chain of Bible version "new" "newer" "more newer" translations...
This is the problem with dynamic equivilence translations. It gives the “translator” too much license to inject their own opinions. Ultimately they are commentaries NOT translations. As they have become more widespread they have increasingly radical and this trend will continue. Avoid them and stick with a literal translation. The “new” NIV is just the TNIV without the “T”. There are plenty of fine literal tranaslations out there. KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV are all good translations you can’t go wrong with.
I like the 1599 Geneva Bible, The Tyndale and the 1611 King James Version.
The “NIV” and ANY other “(per)Versions” of it are APOSTATE! Geneva Bible 1599 or at least King Jim ONLY! Texus Receptus ONLY!
The Southern Baptist Convention meets next week. More about this to come, no doubt. . . . .
Baptist ping (BETTER LATE THAN NEVER)