The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[tall73]

The Genesis 3:1 version of the Bible is titled "Yea, hath God said..."

Does that help? The Genesis 3:1 Version is the basis of all modern versions, and that is why you can't provide an answer defending the NIV exposed in post 467.

Joe I really cannot tell if you are confused about my position, or are intentionally ignoring it. Once again I favor the majority text. So why would I defend the NIV?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The Genesis 3:1 version of the Bible is titled "Yea, hath God said..."




Does that help? The Genesis 3:1 Version is the basis of all modern versions, and that is why you can't provide an answer defending the NIV exposed in post 467.

Untill you give a good answer to post 467, I won't bother showing the same kind of things in all of the other modern versions.

The only good answer to post 467 is to say the NIV is a fraudulent imposter which falsely claims to "convey or contain' the word of God.

The NIV contains and conveys the word of God the same way the serpent did in Genesis 3:1.......it's twisted, which means perverted....corrupt which means defiled, polluted, degraded and degrading......again, read post 467 to see why these statements I am making are simply true. God cannot lie and the NIV is a book rife with lies so it cannot be God's word but it is a Genesis 3:1 Version.

How in the world people can say fake Bibles contain or convey the word of God is beyond me. Just makes my head spin trying to understand why people can't admit they are wrong when they say God didn't really say what He said in English.

Answer posts 491 -495 too please, I know it may be hard to sit still and read them...but try please...

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Joe I really cannot tell if you are confused about my position, or are intentionally ignoring it. Once again I favor the majority text. So why would I defend the NIV?

Oh, you abandoned the NIV? Wow, that's progress. Which is your favorite version so I can do a similar expose' on it to help you abandon it as ungodly the same as the NIV is ungodly?

Tell me your favorite version so we can have a look at it.


The Pure Cambridge edition is the one my research has led me to conclude is the word of God. That is the one you need to trash in order to prove you are the superior intellect for interpreting God's word.


Now are you going to tell me your favorite version so I can prove it is just as evil as the NIV if not more so, since you have given up trying to defend the NIV?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Joe I really cannot tell if you are confused about my position, or are intentionally ignoring it. Once again I favor the majority text. So why would I defend the NIV?

Your position is clear. You believe you are your own personal translator of God's word. I don't buy it. I have God's word no thanks to you. Sorry. No offense intended. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Posts 467, 471, and 491-495 are too much to chew on for anti-preservationists. That's why they spit it out and do all they can to change the discussion.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Please, if you have read post 467 and decided you can no longer defend the NIV, let's move on to your next favorite modern version so we can see why it should be abandoned in fear of God as the NIV should be abandoned.

My momma often said "don't take no wooden nickels". The NIV is a wooden nickel, and I'm glad to see some here have given up on trying to defend it. For those who still want to defend it as conveying or containing the word of God, please see post 467.

For those who are ready to see why their favorite modern version is a wooden nickel no better than the NIV, please tell me which version so we can have a good look at the changes and deletions which prove they cannot "contain or convey" God's word because they are rife with lies the same as the NIV is rife with lies.

 

[tall73]

Oh, you abandoned the NIV? Wow, that's progress. Which is your favorite version so I can do a similar expose' on it to help you abandon it as ungodly the same as the NIV is ungodly?

Joe,.........................

Progress? I mentioned even in the previous thread that I lean toward the Majority text. I was not supporting the NIV to start with.

You have not even bothered to understand my position this entire time, and just keep repeating no one will pry your Bible from you. OK, great for you. What you are doing is not conversing. You are just going on and on with your talking points, regardless of the fact that I didn't say I supported the NIV.

I responded to your post in great detail when you first made it. Even you seemed surprised I responded at such length. I guess I should not have bothered. But I try to answer every point raised when possible.

Yet you don't appear to have actually read my response. You just kept asking me to defend a text that I never claimed I was going to defend. Or perhaps you don't know what the majority text is?

The Pure Cambridge edition is the one my research has led me to conclude is the word of God. That is the one you need to trash in order to prove you are the superior intellect for interpreting God's word.

Why not the original 1611?

 

[FredVB]

Those holding to belief in the King James Bible being the one with the true Word of God and that others are corrupt translations that are come into being for replacing it are holding to that as a doctrine, not from what is conclusive in what is read from it. If they were right, it could not be easy to show any fault in that version, which it in fact is, without suggestion in this that the original autographs were faulty in that.
The supposed inerrancy in the translation would mean that, from the end of chapter 21 in 2 Chronicles into chapter 22, Jehoram was 32 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem 8 years, and died, the inhabitants of Jerusalem then made Ahaziah his son king in his stead, so Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned, and Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. So from that inerrancy of the translation that is supposed, Ahaziah was older than his father, Jehoram.

I'm sure you are a Christian who is unaware of how you are using arguments common in atheism to discredit the word of God.
I've debated several atheists who use that same argument as proof that the entire idea of God giving His word is a fabrication of man and nothing more. I think this is one of the popular arguments promoted by modern day atheists. I have seen it on atheistic websites. They have a couple dozen of these things which are popularized in modern criticisms of the Bible used by Christians and taken by atheists to their logical conclusion of completely denying God which is where atheists want it to go.
You need to study better. The error is in the way you are looking at things. A simple web search will enable you to find the argument which correctly answers your skewed view. I'm not going to bother giving you the information. If you don't have the initiative to find it yourself when it is so easy to find, you won't appreciate me giving it to you.

You can be dismissive with bluffing but I have known about such inconsistency long before I was using internet and very likely before you were. It is basically errors of numbers from the Hebrew script in copies and this is not saying there were the errors in the original writing. But the fact is the KJV has the inconsistency too from that, it can't itself be inerrant with that, and you avoid answering to that. And there are other things I could show, when I have time for it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Psalm 12
For the director of music. According to sheminith. A psalm of David.
1 Help, Lord, for no one is faithful anymore;
those who are loyal have vanished from the human race.
2 Everyone lies to their neighbor;
they flatter with their lips
but harbor deception in their hearts.
3 May the Lord silence all flattering lips
and every boastful tongue—
4 those who say,
“By our tongues we will prevail;
our own lips will defend us—who is lord over us?”
5 “Because the poor are plundered and the needy groan,
I will now arise,” says the Lord.
“I will protect them from those who malign them.”
6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[c] refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,
8 who freely strut about
when what is vile is honored by the human race. (NIV, 2011)

Psalm 12:1. Help, O Lord, for there is no longer anyone who is godly;
the faithful have disappeared from humankind.
2. They utter lies to each other;
with flattering lips and a double heart they speak.
3. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips,
the tongue that makes great boasts,
4. those who say, "With our tongues we will prevail;
our lips are our own--who is our master?"
5. "Because the poor are despoiled, because the needy groan,
I will now rise up," says the Lord;
"I will place them in the safety for which they long."
6. The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure,
silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
purified seven times.
7. You, O Lord, will protect us;
you will guard us from this generation forever.
8. On every side the wicked prowl,
as vileness is exalted among humankind. (NRSV)

Scorners make bizarre attacks on the biblical doctrine of preservation, and their desperation can be seen when looking at what they do with Psalm 12:6-7 and how the NIV boldly and dishonestly changes the passage to obliterate the Bible's claim to be pure and preserved (we could also say incorruptible)

Many corrupters of God's word will claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version.

"O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."

This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.

It boggles my mind how anybody can believe the NIV is a good translation...or any other modern translation after the King James Bible. They all make heretical changes in many places in the Bible, and they all had ulterior motives for doing it.

The truth is that in the 1984 edition of the NIV, Psalms 12:7 was translated from the Septuagint version,

σύ, κύριε, φυλάξεις ἡμᾶς καὶ διατηρήσεις ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

As you can see for yourself, the personal pronoun ἡμᾶς is in the accusative case and the first person plural (> us). Therefore, your allegations against the NIV are lies. As for the translation found in the KJV,

Psalm 12:1. Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (KJV)

In vv. 3-4, the LORD promises to “cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things….” In v. 5, the LORD promises to arise for the poor and needy, and to set them in safety. In v. 6., the truth and reliability of the promise is guaranteed by the fact that the “words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” In verse 7, the LORD promises to preserve the poor and needy from the perverse generation described in vv. 3-4.” This verse says absolutely nothing about the Bible and the preservation of it.

 

[tall73]

Posts 467, 471, and 491-495 are too much to chew on for anti-preservationists. That's why they spit it out and do all they can to change the discussion.

You must be joking. You have not even pretended to respond to the detailed posts I have made throughout. You prided yourself on not bothering with any "scholarly" statements, and letting Jack do it. You have never taken seriously a single post I made. And even though I responded to nearly all your posts, you still claim I haven't?

You approached the whole debate saying the whole time we could never convince you. And you have lived up to that by not bothering to interact with what was said.

You went on for pages asking me to defend the NIV, when I said before this thread even started I favor the majority text.

You either don't understand what the majority text is or are being intentionally difficult.

 

[tall73]

PrincetonGuy

Joe doesn't have any respect for the LXX. Of course, the KJV translators did. And the inspired Scriptures of the NT include their readings the majority of the time.

However, that doesn't mean anything to Joe.

 

[tall73]

Current Cambridge and Oxford editions* of the KJV do not only update the spelling and grammar of the 1611 editions; they also make changes that affect the meaning of the text. Who was inspired—the translators who made numerous mistakes, or the editors who corrected more than 400 errors in 1613, or the editors who corrected still more errors 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769?

Agreed. Folks can read a rather comprehensive listing and a full discussion on the topic in the introduction to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

https://archive.org/details/cambridgeparagra00scri

The example that I think is most interesting, which was on your list, is I John 5:12.


Today's:
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1611:
12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.


In the second clause today's says "hath not the Son of God" while the 1611 says only "hath not the Sonne".

The later editors updated to include the reading "of God".

How often do supporters of the position that the KJV are perfect renderings make a point of newer versions dropping such words? Yet do they not care that the original 1611 translators dropped it, and it had to be edited in later? Is that perfect translation?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy

Joe doesn't have any respect for the LXX. Of course, the KJV translators did. And the inspired Scriptures of the NT include their readings the majority of the time.

However, that doesn't mean anything to Joe.

I am aware of these things. My point was that Joe’s comments about the translators of the NIV are blatant lies. I am not trying to help Joe see the truth; I am posting the truth so that other readers of this thread can know the truth.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I am aware of these things. My point was that Joe’s comments about the translators of the NIV are blatant lies. I am not trying to help Joe see the truth; I am posting the truth so that other readers of this thread can know the truth.

One of the editors of the NIV was a known lesbian. It never was a secret until nowadays when people like you try to prevent others from looking at the multitudes of historical references to the well known fact that one of the NIV editors was a known lesbian. This was known in secular as well as Christian circles and was not disputed before or during the time she sat on the editing board for the NIV. She made sure to change things the Bible says about Sodomy.

You are posting to try to discourage others from investigating the truth, and I like the way you dodge post 467.

You are the one posting lies here, but you don't realize you are posting lies so I won't say you are lying. You are accusing me of blatantly lying, which only proves you have not investigated the fact.

 

[tall73]

You are posting to try to discourage others from investigating the truth, and I like the way you dodge post 467.

What? How did he dodge it?

Here is your post 467:

Scorners make bizarre attacks on the biblical doctrine of preservation, and their desperation can be seen when looking at what they do with Psalm 12:6-7 and how the NIV boldly and dishonestly changes the passage to obliterate the Bible's claim to be pure and preserved (we could also say incorruptible)

Many corrupters of God's word will claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version.

"O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."

This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.

It boggles my mind how anybody can believe the NIV is a good translation...or any other modern translation after the King James Bible. They all make heretical changes in many places in the Bible, and they all had ulterior motives for doing it.

He responded to it in his post #530.

 

[tall73]

The Pure Cambridge edition is the one my research has led me to conclude is the word of God.

Why not the 1611 Joe?

You accept later editors as being led by God instead of the translators of the KJV?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

She claims to have kept her lesbianism in the closet, but her public support of homosexuality was no secret. To claim nobody knew she was a lesbian is asking for you to believe a lot. They knew, and they knew it was best to pretend like they didn't know.

The New International Translation (NIV) is straight out of the pits of Hell. The man appointed to be the Chairman of the Old Testament Committee of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, Dr. Marten Woudstra, was a homosexual. Also, Virginia Mollenkott, who worked as the stylistic editor for the translation, is a proud lesbian. Some of Dr. Woudsta's collaborators on the NIV knew about his homosexuality years ago during the translation process. The fact that a homosexual oversaw the translating of the Old Testament should be alarming to anyone who loves the Lord Jesus Christ and recognizes the Word of God as the most important Book in their life. The sad truth is that at least two known homosexuals influenced the NIV used in most churches today.

The following quote was ascribed to Dr. Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee:


"There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today."

Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, a literary critic on the NIV translation is an open lesbian. In the Episcopal magazine, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits,

“My homosexuality has always been a part of me...”
Although Mollenkott's lesbianism may possibly have been concealed from the NIV translators at the time she worked with them, the fact of the matter is that she did have an influential part as a literary critic in the work. Albeit, the flaming homosexuality of Dr. Marten Woudstra was no secret to the Committee On Biblical Translation (CBT). Woudstra was the chairman, the top man in charge of the Old Testament work of translation.
The Bible is our Final Authority and is not something that was intended to read like the Sunday paper nor a comic book. The Bible was Authored by an authoritative God Who hates sin and called homosexuals “sodomites” for a reason, that is, to associate the sin of homosexuality with the wicked city of Sodom, which God utterly destroyed with fire and brimstone as an EXAMPLE of what would happen to all the wicked, which definitely includes lesbians and homosexuals. Jude 1:7, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

No wonder why you can't find the word “sodomite” in the NIV? Look it up in Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7. Do you think an avowed homosexual put her two cents in it? If so, what about “the accuracy” everybody's talking about? Dr. Woudstra was the CHAIRMAN of the Old Testament committee and chose to remove the word “sodomites” from the Bible entirely. Woe unto the NIV translators and publishers!

The following is a report by Mr. Michael Penfold of England, UK...


In a letter to me [Michael J. Penfold] dated Dec. 18th 1996, in reply to my investigation into her true role on the NIV, Virginia Mollenkott wrote the following revealing letter:

"[Virginia Mollenkott writes] 'I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time.

Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept "homosexual" is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me.

I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. At the time I was naive about how many millions of dollars are made by a successful Bible translation! Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people. He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history.

"'Somewhere in my files is the letter I got thanking me for my work on the NIV when the project was completed. I also have the slipcase version sent out to the whole NIV team in 1978 by Zondervan; and I have the tenth-anniversary edition sent out to the whole team in 1988 by the International Bible Society. Various other editions were also sent out gratis to the translation committee and stylists, but I have received nothing since 1988 that I can remember. Because I am idealistic and sincere, it never occurred to me that anyone would lie about my contributions, so I was not meticulous about keeping records. Thank you for anything you can do to set the record straight. You may utilise this letter to do so, and I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of anything you generate. Sincerely, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.'

"Why could not Dr. Barker have told the truth in the first place? Taking Mollenkott's words at their face value, the NIV publicity machine has nothing to worry about. Does their anxiety to distance the NIV from homosexual associations reveal something more sinister?

"In the light of the following, I believe it does, as it has now come to light that THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NIV'S OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION COMMITTEE, DR. MARTEN H. WOUDSTRA, WAS A HOMOSEXUAL. This is much more serious than Mollenkott's involvement. Here we have one of the leading scholars on the NIV CBT who is a homosexual. Obviously this fact compromises the whole project, especially as this fact was well known by his colleagues for many years. However, only now is this fact coming to the notice of the general public through articles like the one you are reading.

"Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organisation was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian 'evangelical Christians' and their friends. ECI's address is 311 East 72nd Street, New York, NY 10021.

"It was during a series of research phone calls to Dr. Blair that I first confirmed the fact of Dr. Woudstra's homosexuality. Blair and Dr. Woudstra were friends. Dr. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned from its inception, and although he had no formal ties with ECI, on one of his many trips to New York he called in and had tea with Dr. Blair. Dr Blair told me that Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong 'loving monogamous relationships' between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his special area of technical expertise) that corresponded to 'homosexual orientation'. The 'sodomy' of the OT simply involved temple rites and gang rape (Gen 19). Notice the similarity between this view and that of Virginia Mollenkott. Dr. Blair clearly stated to me on the phone on 23rd September 1997 that Dr. Woudstra, a lifelong bachelor, was a homosexual. He intimated that other members of the NIV translation committee were also quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me who they were (for obvious reasons). He later called them 'bigger' names than Dr. Woudstra.

"As to Dr. Marten Woudstra theologically, he was once the OT Professor at Calvin Seminary, the college of the Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Calvinistic). Over 70% of this denomination's churches now use the NIV. Dr. Woudstra was considered very 'conservative' within Calvin Seminary. He wrote the Joshua Commentary in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans) which was also contributed to by such illustrious 'evangelical' names as F.F. Bruce.

"In 1973 the Christian Reformed Church published their official position relative to homosexuality. There is currently discussion, debate and disagreement over the issue of homosexuality within the CRC as in the wider Reformed denominations. For instance, the CRC's sister denomination, the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, took the position in 1979 of actually approving homosexual behaviour within certain bounds. This is a more liberal position than the CRC has ever yet taken. Is it not incredible to think how far the CRC has travelled over the years when one considers some of the former teachers, professors and presidents Calvin Seminary has had, such as Harry Bultema, Herman Hoeksema, H.J. Kuiper, Louis Berkof and William Hendrikson, to name a few.

"In 1970, the CRC Synod appointed a six man committee to study homosexuality. Its report was adopted by the same Synod in 1973. One of the six, Clarence Boomsma, was four times moderator of the CRC and pastor of two CRC churches. In fact Boomsma held the record for the longest pastorate in the CRC; 35 years in the CRC church in Grand Rapids, near the Calvin Seminary.

"I called Clarence Boomsma on the phone in October 1997, and had a long talk about Dr. Woudstra since he had know him for many years and had been his friend. HE TOLD ME THAT DR. WOUDSTRA ASSISTED THEM IN WRITING THE REPORT ON HOMOSEXUALITY. I have a copy of the complete report in my office. It takes a compromised 'middle line' between the Biblical anti-homosexuality absolute, and the Reformed Church of the Netherlands liberal acceptance of homosexual behaviour within certain bounds.

"Let me quote a few lines from the report (Report 42, Art. 53, 1973):


"'In fact, its [homosexuality] origin is so unclear as to be finally a mystery' (page 613)

"'As the cause of homosexuality is uncertain, so is the possibility of correcting it' (page 614)

"'Responsibility and the possibility of personal guilt for the homosexual arises at the point where he must decide what he will do with his sexuality. It is here that the Christian homosexual must ask what God's will is for him in the same way as the Christian heterosexual must ask what he must do in obedience to God with his sex drive' (page 616)

"[Note here the clever but wrong comparison being drawn. For a man to desire sexual relations with a woman is not wrong within the marriage relationship. However, for a man to desire sexual relations with another man is always wrong in all circumstances].

"'From this story [Genesis 19, Sodom & Gomorrah] read as an isolated incident we cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned' (page 617).

"[Note that this report took the position that a person may be a homosexual by birth (homosexualism) due to the fallen and irregular nature of humanity, but should not practice homosexual acts (homosexuality)!]

"'In how far the prohibition of homosexualism [in Leviticus 18:21 & 20:13] is binding on us is therefore a question that remains' (page 619).

"'It has been suggested that the use of these words [malakoi and arsenokoitai in I Corinthians 6:9-10] stresses the activity rather than the condition of homosexuality' (page 619)

"[Note this vital belief of Dr. Woudstra. This is the reasoning behind the very clever translation in the NIV in I Corinthians 6 'homosexual offenders'. Thus the NIV here allows a person to be a homosexual, as long as they don't offend.]

"The report refers constantly to the 'Christian homosexual', and urges that he 'deserves the same acceptance, recognition, compassion and help that is given to any person (page 626). Since the report urges a fully functional place in the church for 'Christian homosexuals' is it any wonder that, according the Boomsma, the CRC has currently (1997) one openly 'celibate' homosexual minister who has 'come out'. All through the report one is struck with the similarities it bears to the views of Virginia Mollenkott. Even the title of her book 'Is The Homosexual My Neighbour' finds an echo on page 631 of the CRC's Homosexuality Committee's 1973 report where paragraph 2 begins 'Love for the homosexual neighbour...'

"The 1973 report advised homosexual ministers to seek pastoral and psychological help to cope with their desires, but stopped short of condoning homosexual practice. Boomsma felt that although the CRC should understand and 'sympathise' (page 630) with the struggle homosexuals faced, for which they may bear minimal responsibility (page 631), it could not make an exception and allow such people to engage in 'homosexual activity' that is wrong. This is still the view of the CRC in general.

"Taking the scriptural principle of two witnesses, I will now add the comments of Clarence Boomsma regarding the sexuality of his friend Dr. Woudstra, the Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee. Boomsma made the following statement to me on the phone on 25th October 1997; I wrote it down verbatim: 'It is generally believed among us [Christian Reformed Church and Calvin Seminary] that Dr. Woudstra was a homosexual.'

"I asked Boomsma if Dr. Woudstra was an 'active' homosexual. Although he knew Dr. Woudstra's views on homosexuality very well and holds in his possession a written dissertation by Dr. Woudstra on the subject, he did not feel free to comment on its contents. However, he did tell me about a '[homosexual] incident' in Dr. Woudstra's career in which his professorship was at stake. Woudstra survived and was not fired by the Seminary.


CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

 

[SaintJoeNow]

"Boomsma also spoke of Dr. Woudstra's frequent trips to New York 'which like all large cities has a large homosexual population'. On his return Woudstra would tell Boomsma how much he enjoyed the 'plays' in New York. I asked were these 'gay plays'. Boomsma would only say that New York has a large gay culture and is dotted with gay bars, and it was his impression that his friend, Dr. Woudstra, took part in this side of New York's social scene.

"I submit this research as I feel it has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians chapter 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend' by being 'active'; and this is the position of the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin Seminary, Evangelicals Concerned, and who knows, quite a few other members of the NIV Translation Committee other than the late Dr. Woudstra. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as such ethical condemnations do not apply today! ''A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit'' (Matthew 7:17)."

If this is not convincing enough that the NIV is straight from Hell, then consider this--The parent company (Harper Collins) who publishes the NIV, also publishes The Joy of Gay Sex, and The Satanic Bible. It doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to figure this out folks. The NIV is evil and corrupt.



Furthermore, the NIV is based upon the work of two of the biggest heretics and occultists of all time--Westcott and Hort. Westcott himself was one of the founders of the Cambridge Ghost Society. Westcott and Hort were psychic Ghost Hunters. Not to mention that the NIV was translated from the corrupted Alexandrian Greek texts.

Look at I Corinthians 6:9 which talks about how the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The King James Bible says,

"effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"

The King James says ALL homosexuals are unrighteous. What does the NIV say?

“Male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders”

The NIV says only law breaking homosexuals are unrighteous. Oh, I see, so what you're saying is committing sodomy and other perverse sex acts with someone of the same sex is alright if you don't break the law. Oh, okay--no, it's not okay. Do you think that some homosexual influence clouded the minds of the translators? Where in the world is that elusive accuracy that IBS is marketing all over the place?

Even people who read the NIV must surely recognize that homosexuality is sin. It is not because they learned it from the NIV. It is because they are old enough to remember what they learned from the King James Bible. And your going to let your kids read this dung called the New International Version?

[Hold the presses! Read here about Dr. Marten Woudstra the dead Sodomite who headed up the NIV Old Testament Committee.]

For more information on the NIV and Virginia Mollenkott the following publications are available from Bible For Today at


NIV — Homosexual On Translation Committee!

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Post 467 should be enough evidence for any God-fearing Christian to reject the NIV. The evidence against the NIV is voluminous, as is the evidence against whatever your favorite modern version might be.

This is the stuff "textual critics" do everything they can to avoid talking about. When it is put right in their face, they dismiss it by saying things like "the changes are not important" and then try to change the subject in order to trash the King James Bible by whatever means they can invent.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

What? How did he dodge it?

Here is your post 467:



He responded to it in his post #530.

did he admit the NIV shows it's evil in the way it falsifies the word of God? If not, he is ignoring the obvious evidence and not responding to the post. That is typical of people who try to promote their own translation as equal to the word of God and it is why I ignore most posts from those kind of people. I know what they are going to say before they say it, and they are ignoring evidence presented so I ignore them.