pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I could understand this position even as little as 20 years ago when many did not have access to the information tools that are readily available to anyone who has a cellphone. But not now.
For those of us who are "more noble" and literate there is little excuse.


So we need to search the scriptures to see if these things are true.

If Paul who was probably one of the most highly qualified, experienced and person of his day on the subject, admired the Bereans for their diligent and studious attitude that did not simply accept a story because a respected and qualified person said it, then we who do not have people of this stature in our lives should by all means question the validity of what we are told.

If I had simply accepted a story on the grounds of respect, experience and qualification during my life I would now be an atheist and and evolutionist.
As it is I did not and so I have retained my faith in Christ, who is the same Lord who says "Come now, let us reason together".


The current Jewish world is one of the Western European culture and yet the Orthodox position maintains itself holy and miraculously apart from the culture. There is no reason to suppose that this was not the position a couple of thousand years ago as well.

Furthermore the Septuagint has been around since the 3rd century BC, but the only authoritative version of the Torah is one that is hand written in the original Hebrew.

Nevertheless the Jewish position on immortality and afterlife was one of Resurrection of the dead, not a floaty ghosty disembodied spirit heaven.

This observation is largely lost in translation.


"Yes and" not "no but".

We are talking about two different things now. Your original position as I understand it was that people should read the Bible in its source languages to discover "hidden meanings" for themselves. There is no question that such activity can easily lead to all kinds of errors. From a Jewish point of view, one respects the meaning given by the rabbi (even though at the last Bar Mitzvah I attended the rabbi was clearly distorting scripture.)

Now you're talking about the Bereans examining the scriptures to see if Paul's preaching was true, an entirely different subject. Everyone should do this (see the example above) to verify any preaching they hear but that is not the same as discovering hidden meanings in the source languages.

I'm not going to go into a third and fourth subject except to say that the Orthodox of the New Testament were the Pharisees who examined the scriptures and so missed the living Messiah. Also, the Jewish position on immortality and afterlife is irrelevant in this discussion.

Please try to stay with the subject from now on.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is to inform and is not meant to put anyone down. This is public information. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott is open on who she is and states that she is a lesbian openly. Im only stating truth, how you view this information is up to you. AGAIN this info is to inform not to RIDICULE anyone.
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott is a professed lesbian, says she is saved and does not believe that being lesbian is sin. Only God knows if she is really saved or not. That's not for me to stay. God does talk about sexual immorality in His word though that what I go off of.

1 Cor 6:9-10 K.J.V
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor ADULTERERS, nor effeminate, nor ABUSERS of themselves with MANKIND, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:9-10

Rom 1:27 K.J.V
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:27
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott was apart of the traslation of the N.I.V a.k.a New. Idiot Version. She was also on the committee as well.
(Deut 23:17) Virginia Ramey Mollenkott takes out the word sodomite.
Deut 23:17-18 K.J.V
17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Deut 23:17-18

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V
23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute 1 among the young women 2 of Israel nor a sacred male prostitute 3 among the young men 4 of Israel. 23:18 You must never bring the pay of a female prostitute 5 or the wage of a male prostitute 6 into the temple of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:18-19
Other translations have translators that are ATHLETES, on the committee for those other versons.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You know other versions take out the deity of God, so much more. The other versions have verses taking out.

The reason why is one so that these versions support there false doctrines. Like some catholic doctrines, there are others out there not just catholic doctrines.

Well do you even know where your versions come from? If not here's the easy logistics.

Do you even know anything about manuscripts?.
There are 3 manuscript trees.
Most early version and newer modern versions go off the (1.Ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts.)
People from Alexandra Egypt worship alot of false gods.
Ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts.
1.Papyrus
75
C.300 A.D
Codex B
4th century
2.Papyrus
66
C.300 A.D
Codex Aleph 4th century
The revised version 1881,
The American standard version 1946( also did you know that American means "Land of the plumed serpent". The serpent is Satan;its sad there is a version called American standard version. Well it fits though Satan inspires to change the word of THE TRUE LIVING GOD.
Also little more info about American equals Amerioca-pans in 1595. Also Amaraca pans.
Then the Revised standard version in 1946, next
the New English Bible in 1961.
Tree number 2.) Ancestor of western family.
The Jesuit version or versions.
1. Old Latin versions 2th century.
Codex D 5th or 6th century.
Codex E2 4th century.
2.Latin Vulgate 4th century.
Codex D2 6th century.
The Douai version. Which is later with vast changes becomes the catholic version; comes from this manuscript tree.
#3 manuscript tree.
Manuscripts of the Traditional text.
1.Gothic version 4th century.
Codex W Mathew 4th or 5th century.
The Vast Majority of EXTANT New Testament manuscripts.
2.Peshitta Syriac 2nd century.
Codex A (Gospels) 5thcentury.
This is the King James Version 1611
Then the King James Version 1629.
Also William Tyndale used this manuscript tree in 1528 first English translation.
Theses are the manuscript trees.

What manuscript tree does the version you use fall under?
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
also did you know that American means "Land of the plumed serpent

Quite false. Amerigo Vespucci (1454 – 1512) was an Italian explorer and cartographer who was the first to recognize that the "New World" was not an extention of Asia. The Americas are named following the Latin pronunciation of his name --- Americus.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This is to inform and is not meant to put anyone down. This is public information. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott is open on who she is and states that she is a lesbian openly. Im only stating truth, how you view this information is up to you. AGAIN this info is to inform not to RIDICULE anyone.
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott is a professed lesbian, says she is saved and does not believe that being lesbian is sin. Only God knows if she is really saved or not. That's not for me to stay. God does talk about sexual immorality in His word though that what I go off of.

1 Cor 6:9-10 K.J.V
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor ADULTERERS, nor effeminate, nor ABUSERS of themselves with MANKIND, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:9-10

Rom 1:27 K.J.V
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:27
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott was apart of the traslation of the N.I.V a.k.a New. Idiot Version. She was also on the committee as well.
(Deut 23:17) Virginia Ramey Mollenkott takes out the word sodomite.
Deut 23:17-18 K.J.V
17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Deut 23:17-18

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V
23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute 1 among the young women 2 of Israel nor a sacred male prostitute 3 among the young men 4 of Israel. 23:18 You must never bring the pay of a female prostitute 5 or the wage of a male prostitute 6 into the temple of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V

Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:18-19
Other translations have translators that are ATHLETES, on the committee for those other versons.

Perhaps you didn't mean to put anyone down but your post is clear in its intention: to vilify Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. FYI, she is the author or co-author of 13 books, including several on women and religion. She is a winner of the Lambda Literary Award (in 2002) and has published numerous essays on literary topics in various scholarly journals. Those are impressive credentials, but you ignore them.

If you apply the verses above then be complete and accurate. 1 Corinthians is a verse often used by anti-LGBT people, but if it's applied accurately then you must also criticize thieves, covetous people , drunkards, revilers, and extortioners by the same standards. Also, why did you capitalize ADULTERERS and ABUSERS of themselves with MANKIND? Do you consider lesbians fitting these descriptions?

The sin committed by those mentioned in Romans 1 was idolatry. They turned away from the living God to worship man-made idols, so God gave them over to their own behaviors: "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy." Do you condemn all those people in the same way you condemn lesbians? Are you again being selective, editing scripture to prove your point?

The verse you cite in Deuteronomy has the words "male prostitute" in the NIV (New International Version!) instead of "sodomite", which is probably more accurate. Also there is no justification or proof that Dr. Mollenkott personally removed those verses (she was part of a committee!). If you have such proof please produce it.

It is obvious that you are selectively choosing verses out of context to denigrate a recognized and accomplished scholar because of her sexual orientation. Do you know the personal habits of others on the NIV committee? Were any of then unfaithful to their spouses? Did any of them have a drinking problem?

If you need to discuss people's personal habits and not their contribution to the best-selling English translation, may I suggest that you go elsewhere?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
As a matter of interest, the NIV is consistently rated 4.5 - 5 stars on Amazon. People can sneer at the millions of people and churches that use the NIV, but the sales and rating make it the most popular version. If you personally don't like it then don't use it.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Brooke Foss Westcott (an Anglican bishop and professor at Cambridge University) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (also an ordained priest and professor at Cambridge) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek New Testament was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek New Testament and several other Greek New Testaments since (including the Nestle-Aland text).

Greek New Testaments such as these produced most of the modern English translations of the Bible we have today.

On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.

I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts. I just want to share the truth about these men. So, put on your seatbelt, and get ready for a quick ride through the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. . .

In order to give you an idea of what they REALLY believed and what their REAL intentions were when creating their Greek New Testament, I will let the men speak for themselves. I will tell you nothing. I will merely let these two men speak for themselves. The rest of this page will be only quotations. If this makes you angry, don't be angry with me...I'm just giving you the words of Westcott and Hort...

TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT

Concerning the Deity of Christ:

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

Concerning the Scriptures:

"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Concerning Hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Concerning Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Concerning the Atonement:

"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)

"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Concerning Man:

"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)

"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

Concerning Roman Catholicism:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)

Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:

"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is quite another to be a Darwinian theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, substitutionary atonement, makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother, and to openly admit that your "trifling alterations" with the Greek Text have begun a "new period in Church history"!! Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort!! This is UNBELIEVABLE!! No less significant is the fact that both men were involved with the occult and were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild), and both men supposedly "talked" to Spirits of the dead.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Brooke Foss Westcott (an Anglican bishop and professor at Cambridge University) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (also an ordained priest and professor at Cambridge) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek New Testament was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek New Testament and several other Greek New Testaments since (including the Nestle-Aland text).

Greek New Testaments such as these produced most of the modern English translations of the Bible we have today.

On one side, their supporters have heralded them as great men of God, having greatly advanced the search for the original Greek text. On the other side, their opponents have leveled charges of heresy, infidelity, apostasy, and many others, claiming that they are guilty of wreaking great damage on the true text of Scripture.

I have no desire to sling mud nor a desire to hide facts. I just want to share the truth about these men. So, put on your seatbelt, and get ready for a quick ride through the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. . .

In order to give you an idea of what they REALLY believed and what their REAL intentions were when creating their Greek New Testament, I will let the men speak for themselves. I will tell you nothing. I will merely let these two men speak for themselves. The rest of this page will be only quotations. If this makes you angry, don't be angry with me...I'm just giving you the words of Westcott and Hort...

TELLING QUOTATIONS FROM WESTCOTT AND HORT

Concerning the Deity of Christ:

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

Concerning the Scriptures:

"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Concerning Hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Concerning Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

Concerning the Atonement:

"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)

"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Concerning Man:

"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Hort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)

"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

Concerning Roman Catholicism:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)

Concerning the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Changes to the Manuscripts:

"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first. . . The difference between a picture, say of Raffaelle, and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences. . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked. . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol.I, pp. 138,139)

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is quite another to be a Darwinian theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, substitutionary atonement, makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother, and to openly admit that your "trifling alterations" with the Greek Text have begun a "new period in Church history"!! Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort!! This is UNBELIEVABLE!! No less significant is the fact that both men were involved with the occult and were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild), and both men supposedly "talked" to Spirits of the dead.

Thank you for sharing this objective, unbiased report.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
"The NIV Study Bible is the work of a transdenominational team of Biblical scholars. All confess the authority of the Bible as God’s infallible word to humanity. They have sought to clarify understanding of, develop appreciation for, and provide insight into that word."

Nothing more needs to be said.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There are evolutionist and atheists on the NIV translation committee as well.

So you don't think that there belief play apart on how they translate?

Look at Virginia she has publically said she is a lesbian, translated sodomite into prostitute. How is a prostitute a good translation for sodomite.

Sodomites were wicked group of people well know for there sexual immorality, best known for sodomy that's where we get the word from. So why would you use the word prostitute instead of sodomite.?

There is no reason other then that Virginia wanted to make the version she was translating to fit her own beliefs; because the version she was translating clearly stats that sodomy aka man with man and women with women is a sin and immoral.

Virginia believed that being a lesbian isn't a sin, there is not need to turn from her sin. This is not what God has told us.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There are evolutionist and atheists on the NIV translation committee as well.

So you don't think that there belief play apart on how they translate?

Look at Virginia she has publically said she is a lesbian, translated sodomite into prostitute. How is a prostitute a good translation for sodomite.

Sodomites were wicked group of people well know for there sexual immorality, best known for sodomy that's where we get the word from. So why would you use the word prostitute instead of sodomite.?

There is no reason other then that Virginia wanted to make the version she was translating to fit her own beliefs; because the version she was translating clearly stats that sodomy aka man with man and women with women is a sin and immoral.

Virginia believed that being a lesbian isn't a sin, there is not need to turn from her sin. This is not what God has told us.

I repeat...

"The NIV Study Bible is the work of a transdenominational team of Biblical scholars. All confess the authority of the Bible as God’s infallible word to humanity. They have sought to clarify understanding of, develop appreciation for, and provide insight into that word."

Your personal, unfounded rant against one of the translation scholars as well as the charge that there were "evolutionist [sic] and atheists" is entirely without merit.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is some books Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has written.
Is the Homosexual My Neighbor
"Omnigender"
The Divine Feminine
Transgender Journeys

Virginia translate sodomite to prostitute. Lol there not the same.

Definition of prostitute
prostituted
; prostituting
transitive verb
1: to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money.
2: to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes
: debase •prostitute one's talents

prostitutor
play \-ˌtü-tər, -ˌtyü-\ noun

How is prostitute the same as sofomite?
Definition of sodomite
: Someone who practices sodomy

Definition of sodomy
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also
: copulation with an animal—
sodomitic
play \ˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik\ or
sodomitical
play \ˌsä-də-ˈmi-ti-kəl\ adjective
This is just the worlds definition of the words prostitute and sodomite, they dont mean the same thing.

Lets look at bible definition of these words.
KJV Dictionary Definition: PROSTITUTE
prostitute

PROS'TITUTE, v.t. L.prostituo; pro and statuo, to set.

1. To offer freely to a lewd use, or to indiscriminate lewdness.

Do not prostitute thy daughter. Lev.19.

2. To give up to any vile or infamous purpose; to devote to any thing base; to sell to wickedness; as, to prostitute talents to the propagation of infidel principles, to prostitute the press to the publication of blasphemy.

3. To offer or expose upon vile terms or to unworthy persons.

PROS'TITUTE, a. Openly devoted to lewdness; sold to wickedness or to infamous purposes.

Made bold by want and prostitute for bread.

PROS'TITUTE, n. A female given to indiscriminate lewdness; a strumpet.

1. A base hireling; a mercenary; one who offers himself to infamous employments for hire.

No hireling she, no prostitute to praise.

prostituted

PROS'TITUTED, pp. Offered to common lewdness; devoted to base purposes.

prostituting

PROS'TITUTING, ppr. Offering to indiscriminate lewdness; devoting to infamous uses.

prostitution

PROSTITU'TION, n. L. prostituo.

1. The act or practice of offering the body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men; common lewdness of a female.

2. The act of setting one's self to sale, or offering one's self to infamous employments; as the prostitution of talents or abilities.

KJV Dictionary Definition: SODOMITE
sodomite

SOD'OMITE, n.

1. An inhabitant of Sodom.

2. One guilty of sodomy.

Again even the biblical definitions of the words prostitute and sodomite are not the same.
Know that you know what the words mean sodomite and prositutite; lets look at (Deut 23:17)
(Deut 23:17) Virginia Ramey Mollenkott takes out the word sodomite.
In the K.J.V in (Deut 23:17) the word sodomite is referring to an inhabitant of Sodom. In verse 18 it has the word "harlot" well what's the biblical definition of "harlot"
KJV Dictionary Definition: harlot
harlot
harlot, n. Hore. G. The correct orthography is hore. A harlot; a courtesan; a concubine; a prostitute.
harlot, v.i. supra. To have unlawful sexual commerce; to practice lewdness.
harlot, v.t. To corrupt by lewd intercourse. Little used.
Know the word you could use the word " prostitute" for the word "harlot".
harlot and sodomite are not the same but "harlot" and "prostitute" are more similar.
That's why in verse 17 it say "nor". The word nor is used to let you know that harlot and sodomite's are different and not the same.

Deut 23:17-18 K.J.V
17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Deut 23:17-18

In the N.I.V the word sodomite is gone, is missing instruction.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V
23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute 1 among the young women 2 of Israel nor a sacred male prostitute 3 among the young men 4 of Israel. 23:18 You must never bring the pay of a female prostitute 5 or the wage of a male prostitute 6 into the temple of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V
So because the N.I.V leaves out the word sodomite. You now DON'T know that the Israelites were not to mix with sodomites to have children with them or mix there beliefs.
The only way to know is to read the K.J.V.
Personally I dont believe that God would want Virginia Ramey Mollenkott to translate His word.
The thing is God says to test the spirits to see whether they be of God or not of God.
Rev 22:18-19
K.J.V
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:18-19

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1
God bless you all and i will be praying for you all even for Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Please pray for me as well. I'm a sinner as well I'm not God, only God is with out sin. I repent for my sins daily; with God and the Holly Ghost help and I turn from my sins and sin no more. I strive to be like Christ, yes I DONT desire to be God. Only God is God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh also I you think that women are oppressed you need to watch a movie called "the red pill".

Where do I stand well. I'm all for women to have equal rights. The thing is though is God gave men authority over women because; women were the first ones to fall Adam and Eve.

God did not give men the authority to oppress women.

God gave men the responsibly to lead women in a Godly manor, to protector and to love women. Love is not forceful or self seeking.

My though are I want women to do what is right for them, they are safe. Also be all they can be.

Only one problem though when unGodly women have to much rights they start to think that they dont need to be lead by a unGodly man or Godly man; so a Godly man would not be married to a unGodly women.

If a women truly be a Godly women she will be submissive to there Godly men as long as the man are being lead by God and not lead by there own unloving desires. This goes for un married and married men and women.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You know other versions take out the deity of God, so much more. The other versions have verses taking out.

The reason why is one so that these versions support there false doctrines. Like some catholic doctrines, there are others out there not just catholic doctrines.

Well do you even know where your versions come from? If not here's the easy logistics.

Do you even know anything about manuscripts?.
There are 3 manuscript trees.
Most early version and newer modern versions go off the (1.Ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts.)
People from Alexandra Egypt worship alot of false gods.
Ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts.
1.Papyrus
75
C.300 A.D
Codex B
4th century
2.Papyrus
66
C.300 A.D
Codex Aleph 4th century
The revised version 1881,
The American standard version 1946( also did you know that American means "Land of the plumed serpent". The serpent is Satan;its sad there is a version called American standard version. Well it fits though Satan inspires to change the word of THE TRUE LIVING GOD.
Also little more info about American equals Amerioca-pans in 1595. Also Amaraca pans.
Then the Revised standard version in 1946, next
the New English Bible in 1961.
Tree number 2.) Ancestor of western family.
The Jesuit version or versions.
1. Old Latin versions 2th century.
Codex D 5th or 6th century.
Codex E2 4th century.
2.Latin Vulgate 4th century.
Codex D2 6th century.
The Douai version. Which is later with vast changes becomes the catholic version; comes from this manuscript tree.
#3 manuscript tree.
Manuscripts of the Traditional text.
1.Gothic version 4th century.
Codex W Mathew 4th or 5th century.
The Vast Majority of EXTANT New Testament manuscripts.
2.Peshitta Syriac 2nd century.
Codex A (Gospels) 5thcentury.
This is the King James Version 1611
Then the King James Version 1629.
Also William Tyndale used this manuscript tree in 1528 first English translation.
Theses are the manuscript trees.

What manuscript tree does the version you use fall under?
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Here is some books Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has written.
Is the Homosexual My Neighbor
"Omnigender"
The Divine Feminine
Transgender Journeys

Virginia translate sodomite to prostitute. Lol there not the same.

Definition of prostitute
prostituted
; prostituting
transitive verb
1: to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money.
2: to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes
: debase •prostitute one's talents

prostitutor
play \-ˌtü-tər, -ˌtyü-\ noun

How is prostitute the same as sofomite?
Definition of sodomite
: Someone who practices sodomy

Definition of sodomy
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also
: copulation with an animal—
sodomitic
play \ˌsä-də-ˈmi-tik\ or
sodomitical
play \ˌsä-də-ˈmi-ti-kəl\ adjective
This is just the worlds definition of the words prostitute and sodomite, they dont mean the same thing.

Lets look at bible definition of these words.
KJV Dictionary Definition: PROSTITUTE
prostitute

PROS'TITUTE, v.t. L.prostituo; pro and statuo, to set.

1. To offer freely to a lewd use, or to indiscriminate lewdness.

Do not prostitute thy daughter. Lev.19.

2. To give up to any vile or infamous purpose; to devote to any thing base; to sell to wickedness; as, to prostitute talents to the propagation of infidel principles, to prostitute the press to the publication of blasphemy.

3. To offer or expose upon vile terms or to unworthy persons.

PROS'TITUTE, a. Openly devoted to lewdness; sold to wickedness or to infamous purposes.

Made bold by want and prostitute for bread.

PROS'TITUTE, n. A female given to indiscriminate lewdness; a strumpet.

1. A base hireling; a mercenary; one who offers himself to infamous employments for hire.

No hireling she, no prostitute to praise.

prostituted

PROS'TITUTED, pp. Offered to common lewdness; devoted to base purposes.

prostituting

PROS'TITUTING, ppr. Offering to indiscriminate lewdness; devoting to infamous uses.

prostitution

PROSTITU'TION, n. L. prostituo.

1. The act or practice of offering the body to an indiscriminate intercourse with men; common lewdness of a female.

2. The act of setting one's self to sale, or offering one's self to infamous employments; as the prostitution of talents or abilities.

KJV Dictionary Definition: SODOMITE
sodomite

SOD'OMITE, n.

1. An inhabitant of Sodom.

2. One guilty of sodomy.

Again even the biblical definitions of the words prostitute and sodomite are not the same.
Know that you know what the words mean sodomite and prositutite; lets look at (Deut 23:17)
(Deut 23:17) Virginia Ramey Mollenkott takes out the word sodomite.
In the K.J.V in (Deut 23:17) the word sodomite is referring to an inhabitant of Sodom. In verse 18 it has the word "harlot" well what's the biblical definition of "harlot"
KJV Dictionary Definition: harlot
harlot
harlot, n. Hore. G. The correct orthography is hore. A harlot; a courtesan; a concubine; a prostitute.
harlot, v.i. supra. To have unlawful sexual commerce; to practice lewdness.
harlot, v.t. To corrupt by lewd intercourse. Little used.
Know the word you could use the word " prostitute" for the word "harlot".
harlot and sodomite are not the same but "harlot" and "prostitute" are more similar.
That's why in verse 17 it say "nor". The word nor is used to let you know that harlot and sodomite's are different and not the same.

Deut 23:17-18 K.J.V
17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Deut 23:17-18

In the N.I.V the word sodomite is gone, is missing instruction.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V
23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute 1 among the young women 2 of Israel nor a sacred male prostitute 3 among the young men 4 of Israel. 23:18 You must never bring the pay of a female prostitute 5 or the wage of a male prostitute 6 into the temple of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 N.I.V
So because the N.I.V leaves out the word sodomite. You now DON'T know that the Israelites were not to mix with sodomites to have children with them or mix there beliefs.
The only way to know is to read the K.J.V.
Personally I dont believe that God would want Virginia Ramey Mollenkott to translate His word.
The thing is God says to test the spirits to see whether they be of God or not of God.
Rev 22:18-19
K.J.V
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:18-19

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 John 4:1
God bless you all and i will be praying for you all even for Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Please pray for me as well. I'm a sinner as well I'm not God, only God is with out sin. I repent for my sins daily; with God and the Holly Ghost help and I turn from my sins and sin no more. I strive to be like Christ, yes I DONT desire to be God. Only God is God.

Why can't you understand that the NIV was created by a committee?? Under the committee rules Dr. Mollenkott couldn't make a change on her own. Your charges against her are completely unfounded. If have proof to the contrary then produce it.
 
Upvote 0

rich rio

Active Member
Jun 12, 2017
39
1
40
New bren
✟15,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well understand that but. The thing is the committee was not inspired by God is the real problem. Also the copyrights as well.

Posters can only use so meant verses from the N.I.V or there in danger of copyright infringement.

The whole N.I.V is not to be copied by anyone. Is a copyright infringement.

Why does the N.I.V have these restrictions and more. Answer so they can make money, change words to fit there own believes and false doctrines.

2 Tim 3:16 K.J.V
ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Tim 3:16

The K.J.V can be quoted from cover to cover no copyright infringement, also you can copy the K.J.V cover to cover with NO copyright infringement.




(Romans 16:16)
We understand that it was the original autographs or writings of the apostles and prophets which were inspired (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 14:37). However, for centuries men have been translating the original Scriptures (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) into their native vernacular. Each time a translation is produced there is the hope that it will be the perfect one. It never is! Why? Because translations, unlike the original autographs, are not inspired. Translations are the productions of fallible men, and “to err is human.” Thus, every Bible translation has its strengths and weaknesses. Those who translate ought to translate, not mistranslate, omit, add to, rewrite, paraphrase, and offer personal commentary.

We are not opposed to a new version per se. But the need for a new version has been grossly exaggerated, and many of those which have been produced are truly perversions rather than versions. They are for the propagation of denominational and theological error under the guise of a Bible. Such deception and lack of integrity ought never to be dignified by faithful brethren. Some degree of subjective interpretation is woven into the fabric of any Bible version. Admittedly, though, some translations are better than others. Some "translations" couldn't be farther from accurate translations. There are the so-called paraphrases which include The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man. Very little reliability can be found here, since men have put into their own words what THEY think the text says.

Then, there are translations such as the NIV, which in many instances are reliable, but have a publisher’s bias which must be recognized. The NIV was translated by a group of Greek scholars who are Calvinistic and premillennial in theology. Thus, one can find elements of Calvinism in it. For instance, Romans 8 in the NIV reflects the Calvinistic tenet that man has a "sin nature." Yet, Romans 8 does not use such words in the Greek text. The translators became interpreters and commentators in this case.

Loved ones, our humble lips cannot clearly express to you the danger of promoting the use of the NIV and ESV. The devil is sooooo smart. For approximately six thousands years he has put up with men reading the Bible. He has done his best to get man away from the Bible by giving them other books (Qur’an, Book of Mormon, etc.). However, this tactic has worked for him only in a limited way (he has a few million Mormons and maybe a billion or so Muslims). He now has become so smart that he has devised a way to give man a Bible to read that is NOT really a Bible.



The devil has given man a Bible that is NOT a Bible because it takes man, sin, and God out of the Bible (NIV/ESV). Below are a few errors (FALSE TEACHINGS) from the NIV and ESV that brethren have fought against for years (see Ephesians 5:19 in the NIV – “sing and make music” instead of “sing and make melody”). But before you go to them, just do a quick verse by verse comparison of two chapters from the NIV/ESV. The NIV/ESV is attractive to many because of its readability; however, please notice what these versions say compared to what the KJV says. Notice how they take God, man, and sin right out of the Bible. Use Ecclesiastes chapters 5 and 6 for the comparison. Notice especially 5:8 (the "high official" vs the "highest"), 9, 12 ("full stomach" vs "abundance,") 14 and 6:3, 4 (“it” vs “he” – man), 9 ("appetite"- play on verse 7 vs "desire," also "wind" vs "spirit") 10, 11.



The NIV is very much a paraphrase in many places. It is impossible to take the NIV and translate from its English back into the original languages. Friends, please imagine what the world is going to be like 100 years from now because our children have been brought up using a Bible which is NOT a Bible (NIV/ESV). Ohooo, that scares me (us) to the bone…



The NIV & ESV Downgrade the Deity of Christ

They say the spotless Son of God had to be purified! "...their purification" (Luke 2:22). The KJV says, "...her purification." 1 Timothy 3:16 omits "God," and replaces it with "he." Acts 8:37 is omitted even though 95 % of the evidence demands it. The ESV renders the present participle, hyparchon (“being” KJV; “existing” ASV), in Philippians 2:6, as a past tense form – “was in the form of God” – which could leave the impression that Jesus was not deity while in the flesh. The Lord always existed, and continued to exist, as deity, even though incarnate (Fee, 1995, p. 203; Vine, 1991, pp. 279-80). R.C.H. Lenski noted that Jesus never existed apart from the nature of deity (p. 774). There is no reason not to give the participle its full, present tense flavor. Philippians 2:7 (NIV & ESV), Jesus "made himself nothing." The KJV, "But made himself of no reputation." If something is nothing, then it does not exist. Jesus is made to be a non-entity. How could a self existent being cease to exist? This is an absurdity and is evidence of poor scholarship. 1 Peter 2:8 (NIV) says, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that causes men to fall." The NIV teaches that Jesus causes men to stumble, and makes men fall. Jesus is the stone, but He does not cause or make men stumble; it is man's own disobedience. Here, the translators are guilty of paraphrasing, not translating. The KJV reads, "...which stumble at the word, being disobedient..."



The NIV & ESV Contradict the Bible

Mark 1:1 (KJV), "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark 1:1 (NIV), "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." The KJV involves the gospel Jesus preached and the NIV is what one believes about Jesus. Mark 1:2 (KJV), "As it is written in the prophets." Mark 1:2 (NIV & ESV), "It is written in Isaiah the prophet." They say Isaiah and then quote Malachi 3:1. Hebrews 11:17, Abraham sacrificed "his one and only son" (NIV); “only son” (ESV). The Bible says Abraham had TWO sons (Galatians 4:22). "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." These versions refer to Jesus as God's "one and only Son" or "only Son” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But 1 John 3:2 (KJV), "Beloved, now are we the sons of God..."



These versions teach that a non-Christian cannot understand the Gospel, thus contradicting Romans 1:16. 1 Corinthians 2:14 (NIV), "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot (is not able to - ESV) understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." They teach that Christ did not come to abolish the law. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill" (KJV). They say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." But Christ did abolish the law. “By abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” (Eph. 2:15 – NIV). Thus, these versions contradict themselves as well as the Bible. Hebrews 10:9 (KJV), "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”


The NIV & ESV Teach Premillennialism

Matthew 19:28 (NIV), "at the renewing of all things," “in the new world” (ESV), rather than "in the regeneration" (KJV). This accommodates the literal 1000 years reign as does Acts 3:21 (which says) "restore everything" (NIV), and “restoring all the things” (ESV). The KJV reads, "Times of restitution." However, both passages refer to the Christian age. Ephesians 1:10 (NIV), "to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment." This teaches a future state rather than one fulfilled in Christ. KJV, "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." Galatians 4:4 (KJV) settles it, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”



The NIV & ESV Teach Salvation by “Faith Only”

Romans 10:10 (KJV), "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." They say, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." THIS IS FALSE, for it teaches CALVINISM - that is - a sinner is saved before he puts Christ on in baptism. Salvation is found only in Christ (2 Tim 2:10). God teaches that one gets into Christ at the point of water baptism (SEE Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:21). The NIV includes one in Christ WHEN he hears the word (Eph. 1:13). In 1 Peter 3:21 (NIV), a saving baptism is merely a "pledge of a good conscience toward God," rather than an appeal to God. Romans 1:17 (KJV), "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith..." Romans 1:17 (NIV), "a righteousness that is by faith from first to last..." In Romans 3:27 the NIV takes "the law of faith" right out of the text and replaces it with just the word "faith."



The NIV obliterates the subjunctive mood. In John 3:16 it makes the text say exactly opposite what the original text says. It changes the word "should" to "shall" (Once saved Always saved). "Should be saved" gives hope but does not give a guarantee. "Should" reflects the subjunctive mood of the original text but "shall" puts the translation into the indicative mood which indicates a statement of fact. If this condition were true only in a case or two, it might not make so much difference, but the NIV has eliminated the subjunctive mood throughout the New Testament.


The NIV & ESV Teach that Miraculous Gifts Continue

In 1 Corinthians 2:12, the NIV and ESV have the Holy Spirit enabling us to "UNDERSTAND what God has freely given us." They equate "seizures" or “epilepsy” with demon possession in Matthew 17:15. Here the translators did not translate but interpreted by saying the boy was an epileptic. The KJV reads, "Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed..." Demon possession is not epilepsy. First Corinthians 13:8-10 (NIV) has miraculous gifts ceasing when PERFECTION comes...rather than "that which is perfect" (KJV). In Ephesians 4:13 (NIV), we are waiting for unity IN the faith rather than unity OF the faith (KJV) before miracles will cease.



The NIV & ESV Add Doubt and Deception in the Footnotes

Mark 16:9-20, the NIV states, "The most reliable early Manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20." This is very misleading. Mark 1:1, they say, "Some early MSS omit the Son of God." Luke 22:43-44, they say, "Some early MSS Omit verses 43-44."



Acts 2:38, the NIV Study Bible says, “Not that baptism effects forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness comes through that which is symbolized by baptism.” Acts 22:16, the NIV Study Bible says, “Baptism is the outward sign of an inward grace. The reality and symbol are closely associated in the New Testament.”



The NIV Teaches the church was Built on Peter

Matthew 16:18 (NIV), "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Then the footnote says, "Peter means rock." But Jesus says Peter is a pebble, and the great confession Peter made concerning the Deity of Christ (vs. 16) is the “ROCK” foundation upon which the church is built (1 Cor. 3:11). The NIV translators did what the Catholics have wanted to do for years but did not have the nerve to do.


The NIV Teaches Total Hereditary Sin (Original or Inherited sin)

Psalm 51:5 (KJV), "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 (NIV) says, "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, Sinful from the time my mother conceived me." However, the NIV is incorrect because this contradicts other clear Bible statements. Ezekiel 18:20 (KJV), "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son..." Matthew 18:3 (KJV), "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 1 John 3:4 (KJV), "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." The KJV teaches that a man is born into a sinful world, not born sinful. This Calvinistic idea is carried over into the New Testament by rendering "flesh" (KJV) as "sinful nature" (Rom. 7, 8, 9; Gal. 5 - NIV). Human nature is not sinful because we were made in the image of God and after His likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). Men "go astray," they are not "born astray."



The NIV suggests that if an unbeliever leaves his Christian mate, the Christian “is not bound” to the relationship any longer (1 Cor. 7:15). This is at variance with Matthew 19:9.


In the preface to the NIV the church of Christ is listed as a "denomination."

The ESV removes the fact that God Hates Divorce
Malachi 2:16 (KJV), God "...hateth putting away." ESV - "For the man who hates and divorces, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts." This is inexcusable. The idea expressed in the ESV is not that GOD HATES DIVORCE, but that the man who HATES AND DIVORCES is guilty of violence.

The ESV places a Time Element in 1 Thessalonians 2:16
"By hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved - so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last." The words "at last" express a time element. While the Greek word can express time fulfillment, the primary word is QUANTITATIVE. The KJV captures the force, expressing God's wrath coming upon them to the "UTTERMOST."


The ESV says a man shall not SUFFER for the Sins of his father
Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV), "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, or the father suffer for the iniquity of the son...." The KJV express the idea that the son shall not BEAR the INIQUITY of the father. An individual shall not BEAR the iniquity (or guilt) of his father, but he VERY WELL MAY SUFFER for his father's sins. There is a difference. Didn't David's son suffer death due to David's sins? (2 Sam.11:27-12:15). Didn't Christ suffer for our sins? (1 Pet. 2:21).

The ESV translates inappropriate contenteia (fornication - KJV) as “sexual immorality” (Matt. 19:9; etc.) This is too general. Lust is a form of “sexual immorality,” but evil thoughts are not a justification for terminating a marriage.

The ESV renders the original words aner as “husband” and gune as “wife” (1 Cor. 11:3ff). This is inconsistent with the immediate context, and at variance with other contexts dealing with the same gender theme (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:8ff.). The headship of “man” (in general) over “woman” is in view, rather than the husband wife relationship.

CONCLUSION: It is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Thus, all the removals of man, sin, and Deity, plus the omissions, additions, contradictions, poor translating, and paraphrasing in the NIV and ESV are from the devil. Those who love the Word of God should use them for their own study and comparison purposes (if desired); however, we do not believe the use of these versions should be promoted in the church.



ELDERS, beware! Your job is to watch over yourselves and the flock. YOU and many of your preachers and teachers are promoting and using these versions when teaching the flock. God is not pleased! What we should look for are Bible translations which attempt to make word for word translations. Elders who are faithful in their work of feeding and protecting the flock should request that only reliable translations (ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASV, etc.) be used in sermons, classes, and public Scripture readings. This does not always make for ease of readability, but it does, as a general rule, provide the reader with a reliable translation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well understand that but. The thing is the committee was not inspired by God is the real problem. Also the copyrights as well.

Posters can only use so meant verses from the N.I.V or there in danger of copyright infringement.

The whole N.I.V is not to be copied by anyone. Is a copyright infringement.

Why does the N.I.V have these restrictions and more. Answer so they can make money, change words to fit there own believes and false doctrines.

2 Tim 3:16 K.J.V
ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Tim 3:16

The K.J.V can be quoted from cover to cover no copyright infringement, also you can copy the K.J.V cover to cover with NO copyright infringement.




(Romans 16:16)
We understand that it was the original autographs or writings of the apostles and prophets which were inspired (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 14:37). However, for centuries men have been translating the original Scriptures (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) into their native vernacular. Each time a translation is produced there is the hope that it will be the perfect one. It never is! Why? Because translations, unlike the original autographs, are not inspired. Translations are the productions of fallible men, and “to err is human.” Thus, every Bible translation has its strengths and weaknesses. Those who translate ought to translate, not mistranslate, omit, add to, rewrite, paraphrase, and offer personal commentary.

We are not opposed to a new version per se. But the need for a new version has been grossly exaggerated, and many of those which have been produced are truly perversions rather than versions. They are for the propagation of denominational and theological error under the guise of a Bible. Such deception and lack of integrity ought never to be dignified by faithful brethren. Some degree of subjective interpretation is woven into the fabric of any Bible version. Admittedly, though, some translations are better than others. Some "translations" couldn't be farther from accurate translations. There are the so-called paraphrases which include The Living Bible and Good News for Modern Man. Very little reliability can be found here, since men have put into their own words what THEY think the text says.

Then, there are translations such as the NIV, which in many instances are reliable, but have a publisher’s bias which must be recognized. The NIV was translated by a group of Greek scholars who are Calvinistic and premillennial in theology. Thus, one can find elements of Calvinism in it. For instance, Romans 8 in the NIV reflects the Calvinistic tenet that man has a "sin nature." Yet, Romans 8 does not use such words in the Greek text. The translators became interpreters and commentators in this case.

Loved ones, our humble lips cannot clearly express to you the danger of promoting the use of the NIV and ESV. The devil is sooooo smart. For approximately six thousands years he has put up with men reading the Bible. He has done his best to get man away from the Bible by giving them other books (Qur’an, Book of Mormon, etc.). However, this tactic has worked for him only in a limited way (he has a few million Mormons and maybe a billion or so Muslims). He now has become so smart that he has devised a way to give man a Bible to read that is NOT really a Bible.



The devil has given man a Bible that is NOT a Bible because it takes man, sin, and God out of the Bible (NIV/ESV). Below are a few errors (FALSE TEACHINGS) from the NIV and ESV that brethren have fought against for years (see Ephesians 5:19 in the NIV – “sing and make music” instead of “sing and make melody”). But before you go to them, just do a quick verse by verse comparison of two chapters from the NIV/ESV. The NIV/ESV is attractive to many because of its readability; however, please notice what these versions say compared to what the KJV says. Notice how they take God, man, and sin right out of the Bible. Use Ecclesiastes chapters 5 and 6 for the comparison. Notice especially 5:8 (the "high official" vs the "highest"), 9, 12 ("full stomach" vs "abundance,") 14 and 6:3, 4 (“it” vs “he” – man), 9 ("appetite"- play on verse 7 vs "desire," also "wind" vs "spirit") 10, 11.



The NIV is very much a paraphrase in many places. It is impossible to take the NIV and translate from its English back into the original languages. Friends, please imagine what the world is going to be like 100 years from now because our children have been brought up using a Bible which is NOT a Bible (NIV/ESV). Ohooo, that scares me (us) to the bone…



The NIV & ESV Downgrade the Deity of Christ

They say the spotless Son of God had to be purified! "...their purification" (Luke 2:22). The KJV says, "...her purification." 1 Timothy 3:16 omits "God," and replaces it with "he." Acts 8:37 is omitted even though 95 % of the evidence demands it. The ESV renders the present participle, hyparchon (“being” KJV; “existing” ASV), in Philippians 2:6, as a past tense form – “was in the form of God” – which could leave the impression that Jesus was not deity while in the flesh. The Lord always existed, and continued to exist, as deity, even though incarnate (Fee, 1995, p. 203; Vine, 1991, pp. 279-80). R.C.H. Lenski noted that Jesus never existed apart from the nature of deity (p. 774). There is no reason not to give the participle its full, present tense flavor. Philippians 2:7 (NIV & ESV), Jesus "made himself nothing." The KJV, "But made himself of no reputation." If something is nothing, then it does not exist. Jesus is made to be a non-entity. How could a self existent being cease to exist? This is an absurdity and is evidence of poor scholarship. 1 Peter 2:8 (NIV) says, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that causes men to fall." The NIV teaches that Jesus causes men to stumble, and makes men fall. Jesus is the stone, but He does not cause or make men stumble; it is man's own disobedience. Here, the translators are guilty of paraphrasing, not translating. The KJV reads, "...which stumble at the word, being disobedient..."



The NIV & ESV Contradict the Bible

Mark 1:1 (KJV), "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark 1:1 (NIV), "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." The KJV involves the gospel Jesus preached and the NIV is what one believes about Jesus. Mark 1:2 (KJV), "As it is written in the prophets." Mark 1:2 (NIV & ESV), "It is written in Isaiah the prophet." They say Isaiah and then quote Malachi 3:1. Hebrews 11:17, Abraham sacrificed "his one and only son" (NIV); “only son” (ESV). The Bible says Abraham had TWO sons (Galatians 4:22). "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." These versions refer to Jesus as God's "one and only Son" or "only Son” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But 1 John 3:2 (KJV), "Beloved, now are we the sons of God..."



These versions teach that a non-Christian cannot understand the Gospel, thus contradicting Romans 1:16. 1 Corinthians 2:14 (NIV), "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot (is not able to - ESV) understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." They teach that Christ did not come to abolish the law. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill" (KJV). They say, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." But Christ did abolish the law. “By abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” (Eph. 2:15 – NIV). Thus, these versions contradict themselves as well as the Bible. Hebrews 10:9 (KJV), "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”


The NIV & ESV Teach Premillennialism

Matthew 19:28 (NIV), "at the renewing of all things," “in the new world” (ESV), rather than "in the regeneration" (KJV). This accommodates the literal 1000 years reign as does Acts 3:21 (which says) "restore everything" (NIV), and “restoring all the things” (ESV). The KJV reads, "Times of restitution." However, both passages refer to the Christian age. Ephesians 1:10 (NIV), "to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment." This teaches a future state rather than one fulfilled in Christ. KJV, "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." Galatians 4:4 (KJV) settles it, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”



The NIV & ESV Teach Salvation by “Faith Only”

Romans 10:10 (KJV), "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." They say, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." THIS IS FALSE, for it teaches CALVINISM - that is - a sinner is saved before he puts Christ on in baptism. Salvation is found only in Christ (2 Tim 2:10). God teaches that one gets into Christ at the point of water baptism (SEE Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:21). The NIV includes one in Christ WHEN he hears the word (Eph. 1:13). In 1 Peter 3:21 (NIV), a saving baptism is merely a "pledge of a good conscience toward God," rather than an appeal to God. Romans 1:17 (KJV), "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith..." Romans 1:17 (NIV), "a righteousness that is by faith from first to last..." In Romans 3:27 the NIV takes "the law of faith" right out of the text and replaces it with just the word "faith."



The NIV obliterates the subjunctive mood. In John 3:16 it makes the text say exactly opposite what the original text says. It changes the word "should" to "shall" (Once saved Always saved). "Should be saved" gives hope but does not give a guarantee. "Should" reflects the subjunctive mood of the original text but "shall" puts the translation into the indicative mood which indicates a statement of fact. If this condition were true only in a case or two, it might not make so much difference, but the NIV has eliminated the subjunctive mood throughout the New Testament.


The NIV & ESV Teach that Miraculous Gifts Continue

In 1 Corinthians 2:12, the NIV and ESV have the Holy Spirit enabling us to "UNDERSTAND what God has freely given us." They equate "seizures" or “epilepsy” with demon possession in Matthew 17:15. Here the translators did not translate but interpreted by saying the boy was an epileptic. The KJV reads, "Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed..." Demon possession is not epilepsy. First Corinthians 13:8-10 (NIV) has miraculous gifts ceasing when PERFECTION comes...rather than "that which is perfect" (KJV). In Ephesians 4:13 (NIV), we are waiting for unity IN the faith rather than unity OF the faith (KJV) before miracles will cease.



The NIV & ESV Add Doubt and Deception in the Footnotes

Mark 16:9-20, the NIV states, "The most reliable early Manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20." This is very misleading. Mark 1:1, they say, "Some early MSS omit the Son of God." Luke 22:43-44, they say, "Some early MSS Omit verses 43-44."



Acts 2:38, the NIV Study Bible says, “Not that baptism effects forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness comes through that which is symbolized by baptism.” Acts 22:16, the NIV Study Bible says, “Baptism is the outward sign of an inward grace. The reality and symbol are closely associated in the New Testament.”



The NIV Teaches the church was Built on Peter

Matthew 16:18 (NIV), "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Then the footnote says, "Peter means rock." But Jesus says Peter is a pebble, and the great confession Peter made concerning the Deity of Christ (vs. 16) is the “ROCK” foundation upon which the church is built (1 Cor. 3:11). The NIV translators did what the Catholics have wanted to do for years but did not have the nerve to do.


The NIV Teaches Total Hereditary Sin (Original or Inherited sin)

Psalm 51:5 (KJV), "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 (NIV) says, "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, Sinful from the time my mother conceived me." However, the NIV is incorrect because this contradicts other clear Bible statements. Ezekiel 18:20 (KJV), "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son..." Matthew 18:3 (KJV), "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 1 John 3:4 (KJV), "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." The KJV teaches that a man is born into a sinful world, not born sinful. This Calvinistic idea is carried over into the New Testament by rendering "flesh" (KJV) as "sinful nature" (Rom. 7, 8, 9; Gal. 5 - NIV). Human nature is not sinful because we were made in the image of God and after His likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). Men "go astray," they are not "born astray."



The NIV suggests that if an unbeliever leaves his Christian mate, the Christian “is not bound” to the relationship any longer (1 Cor. 7:15). This is at variance with Matthew 19:9.


In the preface to the NIV the church of Christ is listed as a "denomination."

The ESV removes the fact that God Hates Divorce
Malachi 2:16 (KJV), God "...hateth putting away." ESV - "For the man who hates and divorces, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts." This is inexcusable. The idea expressed in the ESV is not that GOD HATES DIVORCE, but that the man who HATES AND DIVORCES is guilty of violence.

The ESV places a Time Element in 1 Thessalonians 2:16
"By hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved - so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last." The words "at last" express a time element. While the Greek word can express time fulfillment, the primary word is QUANTITATIVE. The KJV captures the force, expressing God's wrath coming upon them to the "UTTERMOST."


The ESV says a man shall not SUFFER for the Sins of his father
Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV), "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, or the father suffer for the iniquity of the son...." The KJV express the idea that the son shall not BEAR the INIQUITY of the father. An individual shall not BEAR the iniquity (or guilt) of his father, but he VERY WELL MAY SUFFER for his father's sins. There is a difference. Didn't David's son suffer death due to David's sins? (2 Sam.11:27-12:15). Didn't Christ suffer for our sins? (1 Pet. 2:21).

The ESV translates inappropriate contenteia (fornication - KJV) as “sexual immorality” (Matt. 19:9; etc.) This is too general. Lust is a form of “sexual immorality,” but evil thoughts are not a justification for terminating a marriage.

The ESV renders the original words aner as “husband” and gune as “wife” (1 Cor. 11:3ff). This is inconsistent with the immediate context, and at variance with other contexts dealing with the same gender theme (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:8ff.). The headship of “man” (in general) over “woman” is in view, rather than the husband wife relationship.

CONCLUSION: It is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Thus, all the removals of man, sin, and Deity, plus the omissions, additions, contradictions, poor translating, and paraphrasing in the NIV and ESV are from the devil. Those who love the Word of God should use them for their own study and comparison purposes (if desired); however, we do not believe the use of these versions should be promoted in the church.



ELDERS, beware! Your job is to watch over yourselves and the flock. YOU and many of your preachers and teachers are promoting and using these versions when teaching the flock. God is not pleased! What we should look for are Bible translations which attempt to make word for word translations. Elders who are faithful in their work of feeding and protecting the flock should request that only reliable translations (ASV, KJV, NKJV, NASV, etc.) be used in sermons, classes, and public Scripture readings. This does not always make for ease of readability, but it does, as a general rule, provide the reader with a reliable translation.

Where did you cut-and-paste this from? Judging by your previous posts these are not your words. Are you sure you didn't violate copyright laws by posting somebody else's words?

Beware that you don't fall under the schemes of Satan! Spreading untruths about God's word, including the NIV, is a sin of the highest order.
 
Upvote 0