Featured Gross InSINuations About Modern Bible Versions

I thought it was ironic that in a thread about inSINuations that you inSINuated that Al Mohler said something he did not say, or in a way he did not say it.

It is correct that nothing like this has happened or is happening in the realm of mainstream Bible translations. I would be surprised if any of the current crop head down that road. However, this does not mean someone will not do so. The mysterious originators of the Queen James Version in 2012 have perhaps fired the first volley. Who knows whether someone will take up that mantle. I do not consider the QJV either mainstream or a real translation, but it does reflect the desire of some to water down, change, or remove Bible texts about homosexuality.

The Queen James Version of the Bible is in the realm of niche Bibles such as the Holy Name Bible and the New World Translation, which work over the Bible according to their own beliefs. In the case of the QJV, according to their own propaganda, this apparently is only 8 verses: “The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.” (In addition, they added a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the Bible and homosexuality in their introductory pages.)

Examples of what they have done:
Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Romans 1:26-27 “Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous,”

This is far out on a limb, and I do not think any other current Bible version is out on that limb with them. However, the mindset is there, even among some so-called evangelicals. So if some move in that direction in the future it will not be surprising. I haven’t heard much about him lately, but it seems that Matthew Vines is or was in the forefront of leading in this direction. He writes about it in Why I Left College and Spent Two Years Finding Out What the Scriptures Really Say, and also says “The Bible never addresses sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, and its references to same-sex behavior are to lustful, fleeting acts, not loving, committed relationships.” It will be no surprise to me if there is some future attempt to bring a gay-friendly Bible into the “mainstream.”

 

Mohler's failed prediction was not about someone, somewhere doing it, the context was mainstream translations.

You didn't quote this part, which supports Rippon's synopsis of what Mohler was saying, just an oversight I'm sure:

"There is no guarantee, Mohler said, that other well-respected translations will avoid substantial changes in the future."

 

The context is specifically the TNIV. However, his "some will be arguing" does not specify whom, as Rippon2 noted, "Mohler didn't speculate if the advocates of the removal of those words would be Christians or unbelievers."

No oversight. I compared and contrasted specifically what was supposed to happen "in five to 10 years," according to Mohler and Rippon2.

 

Sigh...

 

Dr Mohler was just addressing where some versions might be heading, and think that in time might well be

 

Get it right:
The time he gave: within "five to 10 years" (from 2002), The versions, from which he suggested there would be talk about deleting the word 'family', were "well-respected translations".

 

I think the main gist of what he meant was accurate though, in that versions seem to be sliding towards areas not intended by God.

 

Sigh if you wish. I did not say other translations were not mentioned. However, anyone who reads the article will see the catalyst for the conversation is the TNIV. Yes, he mentions "other well-respected translations," but they are not in the quote about what he said concerning "in five to 10 years" -- unless there is a transcript available of his entire talk that we can read, that puts it together in a way the article does not.

 

It appears so. Such quibbling, all to try to downplay Mohler's ridiculous, failed prediction!

 

It takes two to tango. I wonder why it is only arguing about arguing for me and not thee?

 

The Hcsb was a better translation then the Niv 2011 though....

 

Mohler's 'chicken little' schtick on this is disturbing, and how about the many substanceless 'exclamation posts' here parroting such pronouncements as fact.

 

Even though many feel that some revisions watered down the intended roles between the genders, and to male headship and authority of leadership?

 

There are many who feel as I do on the Niv 2011 though, are we all polluters then?

 

So again, those of us who have issues with some of how the translators choose to render things in the Niv 2011, are all in same boat, ignorant, misguided, gossip, liars etc?

 

Their big sin was Homosexual activity and behavior, correct?