Latest NIV Bible Translation Clearer on Homosexual Sins, Says Theologian

Christian Post ^ | 01/05/2012 | Michael Gryboski

[RC51]

You gotta be kidding me, you call this specific?!

King James version:
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”

I think “Sex Toys” are unnatural. I think God was talking about that, or maybe this is about bestiality? Sounds pretty vague to me.

[arderkrag]

King James Version ONLY! No Westcott and Hort apostasy EVER!

Amen to that!

[aruanan]

King James Version ONLY! No Westcott and Hort apostasy EVER!

Amen to that!

You poor guys. Still hung up on Dean John Burgon. And still promoting a view of the Westcott/Hort Neutral Text that you are completely incapable of substantiating.

[arderkrag]

The KJV is the only accurate English version of the Bible. All others pale in comparison to its completeness, ease of use, and lyrical prose.

[aruanan]

The KJV is the only accurate English version of the Bible. All others pale in comparison to its completeness, ease of use, and lyrical prose.

The second sentence is at least 2/3 true. That has nothing, however, to do with accuracy, if by that is meant fidelity of translation into current standard English from the oldest and best attested Greek manuscripts. The New Testament Greek scholarship at the time of the KJV translation had already concluded that the so-called textus receptus was an inferior apparatus, drawing on late minuscule manuscripts (as well as back translation from Latin into Greek where no Greek manuscript was available--which then incorporated marginal notes into the text that weren't in the original, the Comma Johanneum being the best known example; or invented Greek words), and hastily assembled to beat others into print. There are many words that are simply mistranslated in the KJV (eg, the Greek drakon, meaning "serpent" translated by the KJV as "dragon" or the Hebrew word for "wild ox" being translated as "unicorn" (because someone in the Septuagint got the Hebrew wrong and the Vulgate translated it as unicornis) and so on. There are other idioms of 17th century English that are inconsistent with standard current English. There are examples of standard koine Greek use of which the KJV translators were not aware at the time, an example of which is Titus 2:13 (του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων χριστου ιησου), translated in the KJF as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" but actually should be translated as "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Much of what people consider to be enlightenment after reading the KJV is simply a feeling engendered by making some sense (and not always accurate sense) out of archaic English.

[circlecity]

Add verse 27 and use a better translation and you get:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. ESV Ro 1:26-27

There's no doubt what's being referred to.

[arderkrag]

The New Testament Greek scholarship at the time of the KJV translation had already concluded that the so-called textus receptus was an inferior apparatus, drawing on late minuscule manuscripts

Except that it doesn't. The so-called "older" manuscripts are plants and forgeries.

[prairiebreeze]

God is perfect, so sin is sin to Him. Jesus said that hating one’s brother is a murderer. It is not up to us to split hairs, it’s up to us to turn away from sin and strive toward righteousness.

[prairiebreeze]

It’s clearly addressed in Romans 1:26-27

Homosexual behavior is not condoned by the Lord, regardless of gender.

[Hot Tabasco]

The whole verse, New King James, is: Do you not know ..., nor homosexuals,

Where did the term Homosexual come from in the bible since that term did not come into actual practice until last century?

If I am going to be expected to believe the word of Jesus Christ as related to his disciples, I don't want those words to be re-interpreted over and over again by any Christian religion so as to suit their purposes.

I'm just saying that if I am expected to follow the teachings of the bible, the bible should be the actual teachings of Christ, not the constant re-writing and re-interpretation that seems to be going on constantly withing certain religious communities.

[aruanan]

Except that it doesn't. The so-called "older" manuscripts are plants and forgeries.

Like everyone else on this subject for as long as I've seen it, you assert, you don't document.

[arderkrag]

Don’t need to. The KJV was the definitive source of scripture for believers for centuries. God would not leave the only readily available source of His word during the Great Awakenings an incomplete version. Those who defend the corrupted texts have to turn to linguistic reasoning to defend their views of the texts - I need only faith. I don’t have to go digging through the scriptures in any other language than english to understand them.

[ReformationFan]

“I’m just saying that if I am expected to follow the teachings of the bible, the bible should be the actual teachings of Christ, not the constant re-writing and re-interpretation that seems to be going on constantly withing certain religious communities.”

Then I suggest learning the original Hebrew(for the Old Testament) and Greek(for the New Testament).

[aruanan]

Don’t need to. The KJV was the definitive source of scripture for believers for centuries. God would not leave the only readily available source of His word during the Great Awakenings an incomplete version.

This is a priori reasoning that has no necessary connection with reality. You could just as easily say that God would not leave the only readily available sources of his word in Greek and Hebrew for the intervening centuries until the 1600s or that he would have had everybody born learning Greek and Hebrew (though many back in Elizabethan England getting the best education, which you appear to eschew as though it was something opposed to faith, did grow up to be fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew before they entered what we would now call high school). The concept of inerrancy of scripture refers to the inerrancy of the autograph alone, not to copies or to translations or to translations of copies or to translations of assembled pieces of copies of different sources from different languages (such as the textus receptus). It certainly doesn't apply to the 1611 version of the KJV, regardless of how long it's been around or how many people have used or misused it, or to any other edition of it or any other translation of the Bible into any other language. When you enshrine any status quo as the sine qua non, you're heading for trouble. You may as well say that the fact that so much of the world languished in a horrible state of nutrition for millennia was evidence that God knew we didn't need to be fed any better than that and that that, therefore, was definitive nutrition.

Those who defend the corrupted texts have to turn to linguistic reasoning to defend their views of the texts - I need only faith. I don’t have to go digging through the scriptures in any other language than english to understand them.

Again, you're alleging "corrupted" texts but I've still seen no demonstration, only allegation (as is always the case with KJV-only folks I've seen over the years on FR). Well, if those translating them into 17th century English for the KJV screwed up because of incomplete knowledge of Greek and Hebrew (which they did in numerous instances), then that sort of puts you in the place of needing someone who does have a more complete knowledge of the languages of the autographs to be able to read the thousands and thousands of copies and figure out, from other languages they were translated into, and from shared features and from differences, which copies most closely represent the originals.

The fact is that there are thousands of copies and fragments and portions of the New Testament that have been produced over the past, now almost 2 millennia. There are many differences between these sources that arose in a number of different ways, some accidental, such as mistaking υμεις for ημεις and vice versa by scribes, some intentional, such as altering differences in verses between Gospel accounts to "harmonize" them or restating and paraphrasing in order to make for a smoother, more stylistically even prose. All of these things happened over the first four hundred years as the copies of the originals were disseminated throughout the civilized world by copying by different groups of scholars of different traditions in different places for different groups of people. The differences that arose in all these ways are what is referred to as "corrupt text." It is a technical term. It doesn't mean "evil text" or have any connotation of moral turpitude. Examples of such corrupt, late texts were the small handful of texts used by Erasmus to assemble the so-called "textus receptus" in 1516. That name came from an advertising blurb for this text that Erasmus was trying to get into print before the Complutensian Polyglot by Cardinal Ximenes, published in 1520, though Ximenes's New Testament Greek edition came out in 1514.

Against this there is the fideism of the KJV enthusiasts who say, a priori, that the Textus Receptus was the one true text that God brought down through the ages, well, until it was translated into the KJV. The only problem is that they have no way of demonstrating this and, thus, end up in the position of believing in belief and asserting that anything other than their belief is untrue because it is their belief that is true. This isn't faith. It's presumption.

To properly translate into a current form English in a way that will faithfully reproduce what the authors said in their own languages requires a great deal of linguistic skill and literary detective work along with intimate knowledge of the ancient languages both in the form of the scriptural texts themselves as well as other texts written in the same time and place. It also requires a knowledge of the thought forms and understanding of the cultures in which they were written and of their immediate, intended audience. It's this kind of scholarship that enables people to be able to say and to demonstrate why such things as the JW New World Translation are tendentious, dishonest crap and to point out that much of the Book of Mormon was lifted directly from an English source whose hastily assembled and badly edited Greek source didn't exist before 1516 or so and, therefore, that the assertion that it came from a translation of some other unknown language thousands of years old is also tendentious, dishonest crap.

Those who defend the corrupted texts have to turn to linguistic reasoning to defend their views of the texts - I need only faith.

Let's apply this attitude to some other area of life:

"Those who defend medicine have to turn to their poking around through dead bodies and looking through microscopes and PCR machines and turning to medical and scientific reasoning--I need only faith."

Uh, huh. We'll see how you feel when you get a kidney stone and want some relief.

[chesley]

EVen one tiny little sin is wrong in God’s sight. That’swhy He provided you an ‘out’, if you will take it. Although, frankly, I don’t thinkindulging in an occassional snort is a sin, myself. “Drunkeness”, on the other hand, can be extremely foolish, depending on the where, when, and what you do under the influence

I leave the sin part to God’s judgment.

[arderkrag]

1. Inerrancy applies to Textus Receptus manuscripts and the KJV. The KJV says quite specifically not to add to or take away from it, but the pro-Papal Westcott and Hort did. If faith doesn't convince you of this, no amount of so-called "evidence" will.

2. There's plenty of supposed "evidence" that the earth is millions of years old, but it isn't. The KJV is inerrant, regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary.

3. "Corrupted" in the language I'm using means EVIL. The non-Textus Receptus texts are plants and forgeries by evil men.

4. I don't really go to doctors. Doctors don't really have any control over what happens to you. You're going to be well or sick and live or die as your destiny demands. The doctor is simply an illusion of choice.

[NELSON111]

Really? Complete with The Apocrypha?

[NELSON111]

The KJV was the definitive source of scripture for believers for centuries.

Which edition of the AV is the definitive source of scripture? The 1611 or the 1760 or 1769?

[aruanan]

1. Inerrancy applies to Textus Receptus manuscripts and the KJV. The KJV says quite specifically not to add to or take away from it, but the pro-Papal Westcott and Hort did. If faith doesn't convince you of this, no amount of so-called "evidence" will.

Then you've come up with a novel idea of inerrancy hitherto unknown before the beginning of the KJV-only movement. As far as the KJV saying "quite specifically not to add to or take away from it" this would be effective in the KJV only because the original said that and would apply only to that original manuscript in which it was found, in this case Revelation. You could extrapolate that to the entire KJV, but that wouldn't be what the actual text was talking about. And the original KJV included the Apocrypha, so I guess by your analysis any KJV now that doesn't contain the Apocrypha is a corrupted and evil text.

2. There's plenty of supposed "evidence" that the earth is millions of years old, but it isn't. The KJV is inerrant, regardless of any amount of evidence to the contrary.

Then you've come up with a novel idea of evidence that provides no way at all for you to discover whether you are in error or in truth.

3. "Corrupted" in the language I'm using means EVIL. The non-Textus Receptus texts are plants and forgeries by evil men.

Again, you haven't demonstrated this, as is par for the course for the KJV-only enthusiasts. You make a pronouncement about something that is supposed to have an objective reality but then won't demonstrate in an objective way that your pronouncement actually comports with that reality. But then, since your entire rationale is to disregard any evidence that your beliefs are out of touch with reality, it's understandable that you wouldn't offer any evidence about your pronouncements about anybody else's beliefs, just assertions that they are wrong, presumably demonstrated because they differ from yours. Their beliefs, differing from yours, demonstrate that yours are right and theirs are wrong and your beliefs, differing from theirs, demonstrate that yours are right and theirs are wrong. Have you ever seen a hand shaking itself? Heads I win, tails you lose?

4. I don't really go to doctors. Doctors don't really have any control over what happens to you. You're going to be well or sick and live or die as your destiny demands. The doctor is simply an illusion of choice.

So the doctor who applies pressure to a severed artery and prevents a bleed-out that would lead to death within a few seconds doesn't "really have any control over what happens" to the patient. And a doctor who sets a multiply fractured femur that otherwise would leave someone with a crippled leg is simply an "illusion of choice" standing outside the mandating stream of destiny. And all appearances to the contrary, experienced by many millions of people over thousands of years, are illusions with no objective reality because of your inner certainty to the contrary?

And if doctors "don't really have any control" over your health, then I suppose that work, effort, planning, and education "don't really have any control" over your wealth. Whether you're rich or poor or in between don't depend upon anything else but as your destiny demands. And governments and voting and who you elect "don't really have any control" on your welfare and liberty and type of freedom. Whether you're free or a slave don't depend upon anything else but as your destiny demands.

How sad.

[Manic_Episode]

The HIV Translation?