Why isn't the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob Landis:
Chick,

So what you are saying if a whole group of satanists translated the bible into a new version it would be hunkie dorie because God would be workink through them? What does evil to do with good? There is a big difference between repentant sinners and blatant sinners.

[ July 27, 2001: Message edited by: Bob Landis ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob and Chick:

Mallencrodt (sic) had no involvement with the NIV translation; she was a stylistic consultant until her lesbianism was revealed. Then she was dismissed.

However, I do side with Bob on this issue: If an ENTIRE committee of a Bible translation for a new version was to reveal themselves as homosexuals, how in the world could they ever faithfully translate an accurate English version?

The character and beliefs of the translators does directly imapct their work. Luther said it requires godly men to translate Holy Writ.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple: The character and beliefs of the translators does directly impact their work. Luther said it requires godly men to translate Holy Writ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is very true. And for that reason, men of God were indeed translating the Bible - and they were not temple prostitues or sodomites either!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Did you know that the KJV is soft on homosexuals? You can know this because they never use the word "homosexual." Not one time; not even a hint of it. In fact they don't even use the prefix "homo." Astounding facts for those who claim that the KJV so adamantly condemns homosexuals while the NIV doesn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pastor Larry, back in 1611 the word homosexual had not been invented. The KJV translators chose the word sodomite because it would be easily identified with the people of Sodom who practiced homosexuality.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pastor Larry, back in 1611 the word homosexual had not been invented. The KJV translators chose the word sodomite because it would be easily identified with the people of Sodom who practiced homosexuality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was not about the derivation of the word. My point is that homosexuality as defined today is not condoned/permitted either by the KJV or the NIV. I was illustrating the absurdity of claiming that the NIV is soft on homosexuals because it doesn't use the word "sodomite." By the same reasoning, the KJV must be reasoned to be soft on homosexuals because it doesn't use the word. Of course, it is ridiculous to say that the KJV is soft on homosexuals; it is also ridiculous to say that the NIV is soft on homosexuals. The message that homosexuality is wrong is adequately communicated by both the KJV and the NIV.

"Sodomite" in common parlance is not limited to or descriptive of homosexuality per se. Therefore, that the KJV condemns sodomy does not necessarily mean that it condones all homosexual behavior if you follow the strict definition.

I was simply demonstrating the foolishness of a particular argument.

 

they try to warn you that
the NIV is soft on homosexuals and you will you listen? why do the homosexual churchs almost all use the NIV as their Bibles?
HUH? why not the KJV? call the "churchs" in san francisco and ask what bible they use.I have been there to CA. a lesbian virginia mollencott in a taped radio interview bragged that she corrected the anti gay bias of the NIV bible. she was proud of her involvement in ther NIV, want a copy of the tape write me and i will get it for you. after all God made me gay she claimed.
she brags for 1 or 2 hours of this stuff.
that was not all she corrected.
2 devils named westcott and hort translated catholic vatican manuscripts and gave us the basis of the NIV. the KJV uses different manuscripts than the NIV. westcott and hort were occultic. read their own quotes and see if what I say is true. the scofield reference Bible was patterned after the work they did...read the preface.
do not listen to me or anyone else look it up for yourself.

 

so why do queer gay sodomite churchs use the NIV for their services?? there must be a reason ??? they do not use the KJV! sodomite is a dictionary term of what they do and to delete it is a farce. do you want the taped interview or do you want to defend the gays?

 

for your information the peshitta Bible is as old as any manuscript and it says sodomite and the traditional hebrew masoretic
text (jewish) bible also says SODOMITE
so you use the modern westcott and hort Bibles if you wish but i will stick to Gods word the KJV.


PS the NIV deleted sodomite and added shrine prostitute. so how would one know what type of sexual perversion a temple prostitute performed? HUH ? and is it ok to have sex in the shrine as long as one did not charge for services? or can one charge as long as it is not at the shrine?
sodomite is just fine...for a description

 

Oh yes the king james was a pervert argument
he was a homo or was he? again why do Queer gay sodomite churchs not use his Bible? if he was gay he would never have been so hard on perversion? thank you for the compliment
as satan hates truth.

KJV is the hardest on perversion as a holy righteous God will be to unrepentant sinners.

 

Dear Rockfort and Bob Walker,

Perhaps you shoud re-read the entire post and see that the word "sodomite" in the underlying Hebrew (word - QADESAH) is something different than "sodomite" or "homosexual". The scope of the word includes both of these terms and much more. As was already noted, these "QADESAH" were models of total depravity.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
Oh yes the king james was a pervert argument
he was a homo or was he? again why do Queer gay sodomite churchs not use his Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have only been directly exposed to one 'gay church'. It was while we lived in Seattle. They came on the public access channel. The program was called Gay's for Jesus or something to that effect. Sorry to disappoint you but I am pretty sure that they used the KJV. How many gay churches did you survey to conclude that the NIV was their preferred Bible?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> if he was gay he would never have been so hard on perversion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The answer is that he wasn't. He had little if anything to do with the translation. In fact, I have never read anything suggesting that King James held strong doctrinal positions. However, I have read that King James hated the Geneva Bible because Puritans, Baptists, and others used it to deny prelacy and the divine right of kings. If he had any influence, it was to ensure that the Anglican doctrine making him the earthly head of the church would not be diminished. His main motivation appears to have been the consolidation of political power using the government and the church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> thank you for the compliment
as satan hates truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Satan does hate the truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>KJV is the hardest on perversion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt Satan has any problem with this statement since it is not true and it helps divide Christians.

With due respect, your tone does not demonstrate the love we are to have for the lost.

I hate homosexuality. It is a sin CHOSEN by its practitioneers. Therefore, I make an even greater effort to be kind to them. The goal is to be in a position to offer them the Truth to replace the lie they have believed. They consider themselves homosexuals. I consider them unredeemed sinners just like I was once. If you "hate queers" then you are also deceived by Satan since your attitude will preclude you and others from reaching them with the Gospel. They will inherit the same hell as any unsaved but 'moral' person. Since we deserved the same fate, we should be humbled not antagonistic. "For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."

 

Dear Friends:

The last several posts illustrate something for which we must be vigilant, urban legends. The most infamous of which is the "O'hair Christian Radio Ban" which has been circulating for years. We are called to be wise as serpents and as discerning as doves. The internet allows such a free exchange of information that misinformation can be spread around the world in minutes. Some of these tidbits are calculated to make the faithful look like fools.

Always double check your information. Look for confirmation, and if it comes from a shady or untrustworthy site, just don't spread it.

Thanks,

 

Bob Walker,

Did you know ...

... that the NIV uses the term "Homosexual" more than the KJV does? (1 to 0). The NIV even says that these homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

... that the term "sodomite" in contemporary usage does not mean homosexual activity per se. There is much homosexual activity that does not fall under the definition of "sodomite"? I would quote it here but it might be inappropriate considering the forum.

... that churches that adamantly condemn homosexuality as sinful before God use the NIV?

... that the NIV has the following verses:

Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.1 Cor 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

[ August 10, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

bob walker said:

a lesbian virginia mollencott in a taped radio interview bragged that she corrected the anti gay bias of the NIV bible.

Who interviewed her? Was the interviewer unbiased? Or was he trying to push a particular viewpoint about the NIV? Would he have had a vested interest in having Virginia Mollenkott [sic] say exactly that?

In any case, is it reasonable to believe that one single person on a large committee, and an English stylist at that, as opposed to a translator, would have trumped the entire committee when it came to this subject?

2 devils named westcott and hort translated catholic vatican manuscripts and gave us the basis of the NIV. the KJV uses different manuscripts than the NIV. westcott and hort were occultic. read their own quotes and see if what I say is true.

I have read their own quotes. What you say is flatly false, and those published authors who have accused Westcott and Hort of occultism have distorted their words, probably intentionally.

I am referring, for example, specifically to Sam Gipp and Gail Riplinger, who have both had a considerable amount to say about Westcott and Hort. I believe both Gipp and Riplinger to be deliberate liars.

 

A christian Pastor taped the avowed lesbian virginia mollencott. do you want the taped interview or will you just talk.you read westcott and hort you say...well here are their quotes. go to a library and check your facts...do you agree with these quotes?

In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be.
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus "vile and villainous" (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).
If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the 'restorers of the true text', should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.

What they said about............

The Scriptures:
"I reject the word 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)
Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, "Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)
Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2 Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," (KJV).

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).
"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created."(Hort, Revelation, p.36).
Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38 "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him." which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator." (thus calling Christ "a creature.")

I trust gail riplinger and samual Gipp
but you.......?
go to the library and see if this is true.
these occultists translated your "MODERN BIBLE" and you trust them?

 

Westcott and Hort more quotes:

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)
Romanism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"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)
It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other interpretations. It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother. Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).

I suppose someone will say these are quoted out of context or a fabrication...
oh he that has ears to hear let him hear.

these are the Occultists who did your modern Bible translations, that Scofield liked so well in his preface

 

I for one am not all that interested in what Westcott and Hort believed because we do not use their text. We are way past that. Westcott and Hort were right that for the purpose of textual criticism Scripture should be treated like any other text, by comparing the extant manuscripts and coming up with sound text critical principles for determining the most likely original reading. They were not infallible, just like Erasmus, Stephanus, the KJV translators, and you.

You are covering old worn out ground that has long been answered by reputable sources. At least try a new argument or something here. Humor us a bit why don't you.

BTW, since this thread is about homosexuality in the NIV, did you consider my post above. I noticed you appear to have ignored it. Too hard to answer??

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Westcott and Hort were right that for the purpose of textual criticism Scripture should be treated like any other text, by comparing the extant manuscripts and coming up with sound text critical principles for determining the most likely original reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately their "sound text critical principles" were not all that sound. If you would like I would be glad to discuss Hort's "pillars" with you and examine the evidence against all 5 of them. Now that would be an interesting discussion. Just the facts. No ad hominem, name calling, bombastic arguments, just the facts. It might even catch on here on the BB!

 

The occultic duo westcott and hort laid the basis for the NIV a tree is known by its fruits...and why do the homosexual churchs use the NIV as their primary Bible? also there are a couple of negative references to homosexuality in the NIV, but rest assured they too will be deleted like the word sodomy. every new edition of the NIV deletes more words.the traditional jewish text says sodomite and the eastern text the peshitta so quit blowing smoke. it is a corrupt text.
it is from the same tree as the watchtower jehovah witness Bible. i will pass. I am glad I did not go to Bible school to learn to defend occultists, and their Bible.
I will stick with the KJV.

 

Dr. Bob I would like to answer that last question? are any of the KJV translators in Hell? I can almost hear Jesus saying to them
"enter thou faithful servent, into the joy of the LORD". I will not waste any of my time looking for westcott and hort. I will look for G.Riplinger and a few others.