Bible Translations

Exactamundo!!

 

Exactamundo!! </font>[/QUOTE]Oh Brother, at our church the pastor teaches and preaches out of KJV, but other MVs are used in other areas of the church, Sunday School, youth groups, etc. Probably 25% of our congregation carries MVs. Believe me Satan is definitely resisting our church. But even though Satan has tried to tear us down over the last two years we've seen a 75% growth! Truth is being preached and Souls won! All because God is in control, not a dictator.

 

Exactamundo!! </font>[/QUOTE]Someone tell him we use an MV so he will lay off of us. He apparently hasn't gotten the word yet because he is fighting hard over here.

Of course, this is an absurd argument to say that Satan is resisting churches that use an MV. Which one of you talked to him to find this out??

 

To Pastor Larry,

As to your alleged refutation of lax teaching on sodomy in the NIV, is it being a male temple prostitute that is wrong? So one can be a sodomite as long as one is not a male temple prostitute? As to 1 Cor 6:9, your NIV stands alone there. The NIrV has "homosexual acts" which at least in some respect condemns homosexuality. But "homosexual offenders" can mean either those who offend homosexuals or homosexuals who are offenders. This would allow those sodomites who are not breaking any laws to continue to be sodomites. You start out with the assumption that it is wrong. But what about a sodomite who doesn't have this assumption and picks up the NIV? He will not see it clearly condemned in the NIV.

As to the NIV translators knowing greek and hebrew, how is it that they consistently mistranslate and fail to translate words in both Testaments. One merely has to sit down with the BCM Letteris text and the Greek New Testament (Green's The Interlinear Bible 1984, Berry's IGENT 1897, 24th printing May2002), the NIV, and the Bible to realize this. Even their rendering of 1 Tim 6:10 is sloppy and Proverbs 2:7, 8:36, to name but a few, do not come close to accurately translating what is in the Hebrew.

I find it odd that you always claim to be right, even when the Hebrew and Greek texts contradict what you say. You offer no proof, you just say "I am right and you are wrong." You most likely haven't looked at the Hebrew or Greek text yourself. I suggest you do before you post about it again. And in the future you should post the book you are referencing, the copyright, the author, and page.

As to the use of the critical greek text being used in in geographical locations, it was used in Alexandria mainly, the hotbed of gnosticism, where they corrupted it. Most of its corruptions match the heresies of Marcion. It was also used by the Roman Catholic Church. It was not however used by the majority of Christian believers down through history. Therefore it has no right to be called God's word, nor do any translations from it. You still have provided no answers. And your constant droning of "fruit in modern version churches" is not proof. Provide examples. Where are the great revivals using modern versions? Where are entire islands converted to christianity using modern versions?

Now you are exhibiting "the kind of shoddy work that we have come to expect from you and others like you. You play loose with the truth. There is absolutely no excuse for this to happen time and time again." I never stated that God did not preserve it in Greek and Hebrew. As I posted in this section I believe he did preserve it in Greek and Hebrew as well as other languages, and that currently the most modern translation of his preserved word in english is the AV. I have also always maintained that the Ben Asher text, which underlies the NIV, and the Critical Text, which underlies the NIV, are corrupted texts. This is due to the ungodly men who worked and work on them, such as Jesuit cardinal Carlo Maria Martini one of the editors of the UBS GNT, and their belief that the Bible is not God's word by the application of textual criticism of secular texts to the Bible.

And concerning your snide remark about my choosing Sola_Scriptura for a screen name, I could make equally snide remarks about your prefix "Pastor", but as such behaviour is childish I shall refrain.

To Scott J,

Did you even read what I posted? The text the RCC has, which is the critical text, is not the true text. Aleph and B have been shown to be filled with errors and a multitude of contradictions time and again. The date of their origins is also suspect. It should also be pointed out that the modern versions line up squarely with the NAB. Perhaps you should go back to the "great whore." It is also because of these false translations that ecumenicism is on the rise. Churches that don't use the fake versions don't go back to the whore. Look in Revelation 17:9,10 which tells us where the great whore is: "9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (The Holy Bible 1611)
Revelation 17:9,10 "This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while." (NIV The Student Bible 1986)
Revelation 17:9, 10 "Here is a clue for one who has wisdom. The seven head represent seven hills upon which the woman sits. They also represent seven kings: 10 five have already fallen, one still lives, and the last has not yet come, when he comes he must remain only a short while." (NAB, St. Joseph Edition 1991)

The NIV and NAB claim the "seven hills" are also "seven kings" The are of the "seven hills" however is the Vatican.

One could even comment on the idiotic translation of the greek word "monogenais" as "one and only" in the NIV. Obviously the NIV translators didn't know their stuff. Perhaps this because of their faulty translation method known as dynamic equivalency.

 

Concerning the word Sodomite in general:

The rendering “male shrine prostitutes” is an interpretation as is the rendering “sodomite.” According to Strong’s, the Hebrew term is “qadesh, kaw-dashe'; from H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry.” In the Authorized Version this Hebrew word is translated “sodomite” and “unclean.” The term “sodomite” was brought over from the Geneva Bible. Many older Bible dictionaries connect sodomy with homosexuality. Eadie defines Sodomite as “not dwellers in Sodom, but practisers of unnatural lust--the sin of Sodom (John Eadie, A Biblical Cyclopedia, London: Charles Griffin, 1872). This sin was consecrated in many Eastern kingdoms.” The People’s Bible Encyclopedia by Charles Randall Barnes (1903) says: “The sodomites were not inhabitants of Sodom, nor their descendants, but men consecrated to the unnatural vice of Sodom (Gen. 19:5; comp. Rom. 1:27) as a religious rite.” Note that Barnes connects the sin of sodomy with the homosexuality described in Romans 1:27. Hastings (1898) says: “The term ‘Sodomite’ is used in Scripture to describe offences against the laws of nature which were FREQUENTLY connected with idolatrous practices” (emphasis ours). Note that Hastings did not claim that the offences against the laws of nature were restricted solely to idolatrous temple worship. The term “sodomy” in these passages probably did refer, at least in part, to homosexuality connected with immoral pagan religions. The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.

Herein is how the NIV is weak in its stand against the sin of sodomy.

And then there is the removal of whoremongers and defilers of themselves with mankind from 1 Timothy 1:9,10 in the NIV and the faulty translation of Jude 7 removing fornication and going after strange flesh and replacing it with the ambigous "sexual immorality and perversion." Once again they demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Greek.

 

I, for one, am prepared to admit that there are some places in the modern versions which could be better translated. Are you prepared to admit that there are also some places in the KJV which could be better translated? Perhaps a specific example would help.

Consider the description of what happened at Jesus baptism (Mk. 1:10). The Greek participle used to describe the opening of the heavens is σχιζομενους, from σχιζω, a stong verb which carries the sense of something being forcefully divided into two. (The English word "schizophrenia" is derived from this Greek word). It's the same verb used in Mk. 15:38 to describe the tearing of the Temple veil at the moment of Jesus' death. In fact, these two occasions are the only times in Mark's Gospel where the verb σχιζω is used, and they "bracket" Mark's Gospel and show how Jesus Christ our Mediator tears away barriers and grants us access to God. English Bible translations before the KJV (the Geneva Bible) and after the KJV (the NIV and NKJV) correctly render the forceful nature of the Greek participle:

"And as soon as he was come out of the water, John saw the heavens cloven in twain, and the holy Ghost descending upon him like a dove" (Mk. 1:10, Geneva Bible)

"As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." (Mk. 1:10, NIV)

"And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove." (Mk. 1:10, NKJV)

Yet the KJV completely misses it, and instead gives us this bland translation:

"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mk. 1:10, KJV)

And it does so despite correctly rendering the forcefulness of the same Greek verb in Mk. 15:38:

"And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" (Mk. 15:38 KJV)

Since other Bible versions before and after the KJV more accurately translate the Greek participle in Mk. 1:10 and retain its connection to Mk. 15:38, and since the KJV doesn't, the KJV is demonstrably inferior in this specific instance, and could be better translated.

Will you acknowledge that the KJV could be better translated in Mk. 1:10? If not, why not?

 

This is not an either/or situation. This is like asking, Is it wrong to have sex with an unmarried single woman since certain verses only condemn sexual relations with a married woman?? Both are clearly condemned. The flaw is your false dichotomy. Both are wrong.

Unless he reads the verses I quoted earlier. You are completely wrong on 1 Cor 6:9, but even without that, homosexuality is clearly stated to be wrong in the NIV. To contend otherwise is to show that you have never read the NIV or looked up any verses. Go ahead, look up the verses I quoted above. You will see that I am right and you are wrong.

1 Cor 6:9 is a condemnation of those who offend by being homosexuals. It is not that they are okay if they don’t offend anyone. That is your bias coming through and your failure to read the text for what it says. It is clear that homosexuality itself is the offense. They are homosexual offenders. They break the law against homosexuality.

Additionally, study on the meaning of “sodomy” would be appropriate here. The word “homosexuality” more clearly describes what we are talking about.

Your idea of “mistranslation” is probably the error. I would be curious as to your credentials to determine a “mistranslation.” If you want to discuss these verses, then start a thread. I don’t need the BCM Letteris text or any Interlinear. I have the Greek and Hebrew right here. I will be glad to discuss this with you if you want to start the thread. I don’t think the NIV always got it right. But no translation did.

1 Tim 6:10 has no problems. It is a good translation.
Prov 2:7 – the word translated “victory” was translated “salvation” in the LXX. It means “sound wisdom” and probably has the idea of the success or victory that comes from sound wisdom. That would make sense based on the parallelism of the verses where “shield” is used in the next line. This is probably not one of the NIV’s better translations, but it does seem defensible.
Prov 8:36 – The NIV may be the best translation here. The word “Chatah” means to sin or the miss the mark. The verse indicates what happens when someone fails to find wisdom … they get injured. What does it mean to “sin against wisdom”? We sin against God, we can sin against others, we can sin against ourselves. I am not sure how we “sin against wisdom.” Clearly, the verse is talking about what happens to those who fail to follow wisdom. The NIV communicates that very well.

It seems here, in fact, that your idea of mistranslation is based on a faulty understanding of the Hebrew. Did you bother to look this up in the Hebrew before you brought it up?

I don’t always claim to be right. It just so happens that on the things you bring up, I am right and the Greek and Hebrew texts show that to be true.

I don’t think I have cited any books here. When I do, I give the info you request. That is my standard procedure and has been for close to 7000 posts now. You are new here so you might not be aware of my practices. If you see something I did not give a source for, please ask. I will be glad to tell you where it came from.

I read Greek and Hebrew all the time. I translate everything I preach. I have had more than 20 hours of Hebrew and more than 30 hours of Greek. So if you want to talk language, let’s have at it. I will be more than happy to discuss these things. It is actually what I enjoy, far more than having to refute these silly ideas that these forum is so often consumed with. You have yet to show where the Hebrew and Greek texts contradict what I say. If you have a place you would like to discuss, my Hebrew and Greek are always handy. I will be glad to discuss them with you.

Your interpretation of these facts is tremendously suspect. There is virtually no one who knows what they are talking about who agrees with you. There are other interpretations of these facts that make good sense and don’t necessitate all the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. All that aside, there are no heresies in it as we have shown time and time again. The RCC finds no support in this that they do not find in the KJV. This is simply a poor understanding of history.

But it is proof of the same nature as your “power in the KJV” argument is. I have used both in public ministry. I can assure that I have seen much more fruit from the MVs than I ever did with the KJV. There are no great revivals going on with the KJV today. There were great revivals long before the KJV and will be after it is not even known about should the Lord tarry. I see the fruit of modern versions everyday in my ministry. I see it in other ministries that I am familiar with. I guarantee that if you come here, you will see the fruit.

If you believe that the KJV is the best translation, but not the only word of God, then you have my apologies. Nothing I have seen from you would indicate that to me. If you believe that the KJV is completely without error, then my comment stands as it was written. To hold that the KJV is completely without error is to attribute error to the Greek and Hebrew texts.

You do, however, deny that the Hebrew BHS and the Greek eclectic text are the preserved word of God. That is simply wrong. They are preserved and they are the word of God; therefore, by definition, they are the preserved word of God. The fact that you don’t understand the history and reasoning involved in them does not make them less the word of God. There are very few translation differences between the Ben Chayyim text and the Ben Asher text. Why don’t you demonstrate your vast store of knowledge and tell us what these differences are.

To assert that the most modern translation of his preserved word is the AV shows that you simply do not understand the issues. Even if you prefer the TR, there are modern translations of it that are more recent than the KJV. For someone who claims the amount of knowledge you do, you should be aware of this.

You can make all the comments you want about “Pastor.” I have explained that when I signed up, the name “Larry” was already taken, so I used “Pastor Larry” out of necessity. You don’t have to like it; it is however an apt description of me.

I was merely pointing out the inherent inconsistency in your name. There was nothing snide about it (unless you know of a meaning for snide that I don’t). It was a remark about how you claim one thing but believe something else. That is all.

 

Exactamundo!! </font>[/QUOTE]So is this an acknowledgement that you are applying a double standard? Perhaps you should try to respond to the post in context. Of course, it seems to be a common disease among KJVO's to try and deal with things out of context so they don't have to accept the truth.

 

Perhaps so, however it is more likely they chose "he saw the heavens opened" because of the context. The tearing in two of the temple veil in Mark 15 is a violent scene. The opening of the heavens in chapter 1 is peaceful scene.

However this quite a bit different than the failure of the NIV team to accurately translate some of the most simple words. From Proverbs 2:7 "He holds victory in store for the upright..." NIV In the Hebrew, forgive the transliteration, "vitspon [SN 6845]layeshrom [3477] tushiyil [8454]" or "he layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous" (kjv) The word victory does not appear in the Hebrew. Or in Proverbs 8:36 "But whoever fails to find me harms himself..." But in the Hebrew it says "vahchote [2398] chemaym [2554] nepheshoh [5315]" or as the kjv says "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul" Reading last night from the NIV, KJV, Letteris text, in the book of Proverbs I noticed a multitude of mistranslations, omissions, and errors between the Letteris text and KJV on one side and the NIV on the other. Either the NIV translators were incompetent/lazy, or they were deceitful.

 

Let's begin by stopping here. Please tell me you are not correcting translations based on Strong's. If you are going to correct translations, use real resources. Strong's gives a gloss, not a full definition.

Funny though how so far, you have disproved yourself.

No it doesn't. I already showed several verses that have a clear condemnation of homosexuality in the NIV. Did you look them up???

"Sodomy" in 21st century America English has a meaning and it is not the mean of "homosexuality." A brief glance at a dictionary will confirm that for you.

Secondly you have the problem of translation. The job of a translation is to tell us what the author said, not what you would like for it to say. IF the author meant "temple prostitute" then that is what the text should say. On that point, the NIV excels on this topic. They tell us what the author said.

Let's start by correcting a clear misstatement. The NIV did not remove"whoremongers and defilers of themselves with mankind." It was never there. Teh NIV started from scratch. Second Paul didn't write it. Paul wrote in Greek and what you have in the NIV is a translation of that. But, moving on, let's have a look shall we???

1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Looking at the words used by Paul, he is talking about adulterers and sexual perverts. Sounds the NIV got it right.

You should really love the NASB on this verse: 1 Timothy 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

There is explicit condemnation. Will you condemn the KJV for being weak on homosexuality here? Or will you find an excuse for why they were soft on it by not using the exact word??

As I said, it would be very interesting to find out your qualifications to determine who knows Greek well enough to translate. You are certainly very condemning of those who translate. Tell us your background and credentials. Let's find out why we should trust you.

 

Or maybe we shoudl consider a third option ... that Sola Scriptura is commenting about something he doesn't really understand. Based on what I have seen here, I would lean towards that one, though I hope you will give enough evidence to sway us the other way.

 

Pastor Larry,

Once again you fail to present anything valid. Proverbs 8:36 contains the words sin and soul not harms and himself. I prefer that the translators do not add their own ideas as the NIV translators have here. Perhaps you should read the book The General Accuracy of the NIV
by Earl Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges, but you will probably call them liars as well. Or you can read an excerpt from Chapter 4 here: http://www.seageronline.org/NIV_ch4.htm

And I did read the listing of verses you supplied, however your NIV is still weak in the area of sodomy. Its translation as "male temple prostitutes" is limiting.

As to 1 Tim 6:10 in the NIV being a good translation, where in the verse is the greek word for kind?

Once again we see the flaw in using dynamic equivalency instead of verbal equivalency, and relying upon secular textual criticism techniques to fix a non-secular book, the Bible.

 

Did you even read what I posted? </font>[/QUOTE] Yes I did. It was a whole bunch of hooey- emotional ranting without a single root in substanative facts or truth.

According to you. However, you have not demonstrated discernment on this issue. You have not dealt with issues equitably nor thoroughly. You have shown a penchant for selectively editing facts so that they support your predetermined conclusion. In other words, your arguments have no integrity.

Furthermore, your opinions of other Christians and churches is dripping with a pharisaical/judaizing attitude. You make your opinion, not the Word of God, the final authority.

Did you read what I posted? I simply turned your argument around to show your dishonesty in employing a double standard. If the RCC has recognized the superior scholarship of Protestant theologians- great. Which is better- Catholics using a Bible based on a text from non-Catholics or non-Catholics using a text from a single RCC scholar?

As have your arguments. The difference is that the conflicts between Aleph and B are acknowledged and can be reconciled through an honest review of other evidence. You ignore and deny your errors and contradictions.

So what? Perhaps you have forgotten that part of the TR was back translated from the Latin Vulgate. Your attempts at evasion cannot overcome the FACT that if association with the RCC disqualifies a Bible text or translation then the TR and KJV must be discarded in addition to any that you name.

No it isn't. That is an incredibly stupid statement. MV's no more teach RCC doctrine or ecumenicalism than the KJV does.

That's true... many churches using the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, etc have no interest in compromising their principles for unity.

This is nothing more than a product of your vain, conspiratoral imagination.

I actually agree with you here. I am neither a proponent of the NIV or dynamic equivalency. However, it is with notable dishonesty that KJVO's impugn all MV's and the whole NIV based on isolated passages from the NIV while ignoring similar problems in the KJV.

 

"The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the THOUGHT of the writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more
than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and
constant regard for the contextual meanings of words." (From the NIV Bible, Zondervan Corp.)

Seems the NIV translators disagree with you. They believed the job of translator was to tell us what the author thought, and not what he wrote. However scripture tells us we can know what the author (GOD) thought by reading his actual words.

“In the Preface to the NIV, the Committee on Bible Translation states that sometimes it was necessary to modify sentence structure and to move away from a word-for-word translation in order to be faithful to the thought of the biblical writers and to produce a truly accurate translation. Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to “interpretational intrusions” foisted on the text. While it may be that at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into the text, I would contend that overall this version has achieved a high level of accuracy by its philosophy of translation. By occasionally moving away from a literal translation, they have produced a more accurate translation that captures the meaning of the original languages with greater precision.” (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 128.)

Now how do you get more precise moving away from the text?

 

Another blunder in the NIV is found in their rendering of Phil 2:6,7 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." In the Bible "6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" In verse 6 the question arises is Christ God or not. In the NIV it implies that he was not, in the AV it states that he is equal with God. In verse 7 the NIV translators put "made himself nothing" versus the AV "made himself of no reputation." Here there is a considerable difference. Besides violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, though God can do this though why he would do it in this manner is unknown, Christ has made himself nothing.

NOTH'ING, n. [no and thing.]

1. Not any thing; not any being or existence; a word that denies the existence of any thing; non-entity; opposed to something. The world was created from nothing.

2. Non-existnce; a state of annihilation.

Did Christ annihilate himself and cease from existence? According to the NIV he first did this, and then took became a servant in the likeness of men. According to the AV he did not. Instead in the AV we see that he made himself of no reputation. Here we have God humbling himself to come to us as one of us.

Here is a website providing more inaccuracies in the NIV translation: http://wbqa.org/msgboard4/messages/1014.htm

Here is an example concerning the habitual preinterpretation of the NIV team:

 

</font>[/QUOTE]the only humour is what's seen in the mirror. what cheap shots, if ever.

taken out of context, one can similarly joke about:

1. Christ making himself of "no reputation" (KJB)

2. destruction of the fleisch.

but let's not stoop.

 

What does it say in the original Greek? And don't say the original Greek doesn't exist, because the text that the NIV and the KJV used as source material is still in existence to day.

 

Actually, this is *exactly* like "the failure of the NIV team to accurately translate some of the most simple words." If Mark had intended it to be a "peaceful scene," he would have used ανοιγω, the garden variety Greek word for "open." But the opening of the heavens in Mk. 1:10 was a violent scene in fulfillment of OT prophecy (Isa. 64:1). At Jesus' baptism the barrier between heaven and earth that separated God from humanity had been torn apart once and for all, just as at Jesus' death the barrier between holy God and sinful humanity had been torn apart once and for all. To put it plainly, the KJV "Bible correctors" messed up what the Geneva Bible before them and the NIV after them had translated correctly.

 

Now how do you get more precise moving away from the text? </font>[/QUOTE]One of the greatest challenges of translation is how to render a source language's idiomatic words and expressions. Take two common English phrases -- "He's feeling down in the dumps," and "He's feeling blue." A native English speaker familiar with the idioms would know both these phrases mean "He's feeling sad." But if these phrases were translated literally word-for-word into another language, they would be confusing at best, incomprehensible at worst. A non-English speaker would wonder why the man was groping around in the garbage, or how the man could possibly feel a colour. So in order to convey the same *meaning* in the target language, the translator has to abandon a literal word-for-word rendering and find a similar meaning-for-meaning equivalent in the target language. In other words, when it comes to the meaning idiomatic expressions, in order to get more precise the translator has to move away from the literal wording of the text. Even the KJV does this occasionally. For instance, in Rom. 3:31 the Greek phrase μη γενοιτο (literally, "may it not be!") is translated as "God forbid!" in the KJV, though neither "God" nor "forbid" are found in the Greek text.

 

You didn't answer my question: What does it mean to "sin against wisdom"??? That is the key idea here. It means to not follow her or to not find her. It means to go your own way. Which is what I said and what the NIV says.

I don't think the NIV is the most accurate translation available. I am well versed on it. I have no particular affinity for it. But my encouragement is to deal with real problems, not ones that spring from bias or misunderstanding.

First, it is not "my NIV." I don't use it much at all. I don't think they did as well as they could have done with it.

Second, it is the Hebrew word that is limiting, as the lexicons will tell you. Did you look it up in NIDOTTE or BDB or TDOT or anything?? What did you use to come up with your definition of the Hebrew word (not the English word).

"Temple prostitutes" is an accurate translation. The NIV can not be called weak by anyone who can read the text without bias. Did you know that the KJV does not even talk about "homosexuals"? Get out your concordance and look it up. YOu will not find that word anywhere. You will find it in the NIV and the NASB.

Now, I agree that the KJV condemns homosexuality, just like the NIV. My point above was to demonstrate the absurdity of your method. The problem here, as I have said, is your failure to understand the words used.

The NIV says: 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.

How can you call that weak?? It is calling for death for the act of homosexuality. How is that unclear to you?? What homosexual would take solace in that?

It is found in the context of the word "panton." I believe this word is a substantive and a word such as this is used frequently to refer to all kinds of various things. In the context, v. 9 talks of "many foolish and harmful desires" that spring from the love of money. Quite clearly, Paul does is not referring to "all desires" but rather many. Therefore, to say "all evil" is to contradict v. 9 and to contradict what we know of human life. This is an issue of how you translate "panton." Both are valid translations and both communicate the same idea. V. 10 in teh NIV is more in line with the context of v. 9 and therefore is the superior rendering.

Once again, we are faced with someone who is not quite up to speed on these issues making a big deal out of the wrong things.

[ November 05, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]