ARE THERE ANY "CORRUPT" ENGLISH VERSIONS

[timothy 1769]

A quick search in KJV for 'sodomite' led to the following verses:

Deuteronomy 23
17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.

1 Kings 14
24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

1 Kings 15
12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22
46 He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.

2 Kings 23
7 He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Could someone give me the NIV translation of this verse. I've heard that it has been changed to mean something different than being a "Homosexual."

Here it is:

Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders </font>[/QUOTE]I am glad to see that is does address the topic of homosexuality and I stand to be corrected. Thanks for sharing, Russell55. </font>[/QUOTE]'Homosexual offenders' could mean only those homosexuals that sin, perhaps by not having one comitted partner (shudder).

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
I just want to know are there any other versions in English that you would stay away from??? Versions of the Bible that you would consider not real "good" translations?

Your use of the word "other" implies that those who don't ascribe to KJVO-ism "stay away" from the KJV. That's not the case at all. I'm not KJVO, but I have a KJV and use it frequently.

But to answer your question, yes. I would never recommend the "Reader's Digest" Bible. It was terrible. I don't think it's in publication anymore.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Still making up my mind about The Message.

The Message translates phrases idiom for idiom, rather then word for word (idioms are the most common casualty of translations between languages). I think The Message has its place when used alongside a literal verbatim translation, such as the NIV.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
Homosexual is too nice of a word.

The "sodomites" and "sons of Belial, etc." would prefer to be called homosexuals, gays, or lesbians. I like to call it what God calls it.

The KJV uses the word "sodomite" to refer to either a resident of Sodom, or a male temple prostitute. It does not refer to two men having sex with each other as a "sodomite". When we imply that the KJV Bible says otherwise, we become guilty of adding to the Bible.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Could someone give me the NIV translation of this verse. I've heard that it has been changed to mean something different than being a "Homosexual."

Here it is:

Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders </font>[/QUOTE]I am glad to see that is does address the topic of homosexuality and I stand to be corrected. Thanks for sharing, Russell55. </font>[/QUOTE]'Homosexual offenders' could mean only those homosexuals that sin, perhaps by not having one comitted partner (shudder). </font>[/QUOTE]Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Jude
7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Looks like the NIV condemns it all to me.

 

[russell55]

Homosexual offenders' could mean only those homosexuals that sin, perhaps by not having one comitted partner (shudder).

I suppose someone who was looking for wiggle room could find it there. But I actually think it would be easier for someone looking for wiggle room to find it in "abusers of themselves with mankind." They might say, "Hey! I don't ABUSE myself with what I'm doing."

Let's face it. Those looking for wiggle room will find it no matter what the text actually says. In this particular verse, it seems to me that both versions are fairly equally clear (or unclear) about what is condemned.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Look at what the inspired Word of God says, THEN evaluate all English translations of that word accordingly.

Sodomite (Webster) is 1) resident of Sodom and 2) one who practices sodomy

Sodomy (Webster) is 1) abnormal sexual behavior 2) male to male or human to animal

IS THIS THE MEANING of the word in the inspired Word of God?

OT = qadesh: a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry

NT = arsenokoites abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

I am trying to find ANY English translation (good, bad, ugly even the Jehovah's witness) that doesn't condemn such in Romans 1. Can't find any.

Moot issue.

 

[Johnv]

Thanks, Dr Bob, for the research. That clears it up nicely. You're right. Moot point.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
Yes, the NIV is at the top of my avoid list. I wonder why they have removed the word homosexual? Does anyone know where the translators of the NIV are right now and how they live their lives?

Actually, it's the KJV which doesn't have the word 'homosexual' in it. Why? One good reason is that the word wasn't coined until C.1892.

As for versions I avoid-The Jehovah Witness' New World Translation is at the top of the list. Its "translators" Fred Franz & George Gangas, both JW big shots, knew little Greek and virtually NO Hebrew!(Franz admitted this under oath in a Scottish court!) Its rendering of John 1:1 ends with, "...and the Word was *A*god." There are numerous other corruptions in it, which I don't have time to look up right now.

There's a British version called the People's Bible, which doesn't follow any old mss closely at all, and makes the Song of Solomon look as if it was taken from a Hustler magazine.

I generally use the NKJV, NASB, KJV, and a replica AV 1611. The NIV does have some verses rendered better than some other versions, but I use it only for private study, or at the specific request of a lost person seeking Christ.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
What I have seen on this board thus far is that people "love" to attack those who use only the King James Bible and actually have enough faith (as silly as it may sound)to believe in Inspiration and Preservation.

A whole post of loaded statements and questions.

I know of many a person who uses only the KJV who does NOT believe it's the ONLY valid English translation out there. One of them was the late Dr. J. Vernon Mc Ghee. He flatly stated that he didn't think the KJV was an inerrant translation whatsoever, but it was the Bible he was familiar with from childhood onward, , was the version from which he'd preached for decades, and so he continued to use it.

I myself use the KJV and even the AV 1611, but I'm not limited to those editions. After all, some 400 years have passed since it was first made, and we don't speak that style of English now-let alone, there are the THOUSANDS of mss found between then and now, that simply CANNOT be ignored by any serious Bible scholar or student

THIS FORUM IS NOT FOR BASHING THE KING JAMES BIBLE OR THOSE WHO USE IT.

If pointing out the booboos in the KJV is considered bashing to you, that's just tuff. I,too, am a KJV user, the difference being that I'm not LIMITED to the KJV. And if pointing out the errors of the KJVO myth is considered bashing to you. again, that's just tuff. When a Christian KNOWS that another Christian is promoting a false doctrine, even if that promoting is unwitting, then he SINS if he just keeps silent and ignores the falsehood.

I am simply asking an honest question to those who Reject the King James Bible as being the Preserved Words of God in English without error.

Do you mean, those who simple reject the KJV as being the word of God, which, far as I know, is no one here, or do you mean those who say the KJV DOES have errors?

No need to point out the errors in the KING JAMES BIBLE, I've already heard many of them.

And you have no answers for them.

I just want to know are there any other versions in English that you would stay away from??? Versions of the Bible that you would consider not real "good" translations?

The People's Bible(British), and the TNIV & other "gender-inclusive" versions aren't very good translations, as they don't follow ANY mss too closely.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by robycop3:
The People's Bible(British), and the TNIV & other "gender-inclusive" versions aren't very good translations, as they don't follow ANY mss too closely. [/QB]

The TNIV follows very closely to the the mss's. The difference is that they understand many of the "anthropos" and other similar words to be referring not just to men, but to men and women, and have translated it as such. They are still translating from the "script," so to speak.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

TT said:

Still making up my mind about The Message.

S&T:

Here is a simple way to "clinch" the deal. Open to the book of Matthew in the message. Take a highlighter and mark all of the terms popular with the new age crowd these days that have been put into the mouth of Jesus. This is what I am currently doing, and can not believe some of the things I am finding. I will be posting my findings on the message thread in the near future. If you need to get up to speed, go here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001118

 

[Nomad]

I'm fairly eclectic in that I regularly use a wide variety of translations, including the KJV. (And I'm yet to be confused!) The versions I use less are those that have "dumbed-down" Biblical language, those that consider words like grace, salvation, or righteousness to be too "churchy" (the CEV falls into this category). Still, I can see that these versions could be of use to someone who did not grow up in a Christian family and may be encountering the Bible for the first time. In short, I'm happy about the variety of translations, not fearful or indignant about it.

 

[Ransom]

Pastor Larry said:

Contrary to what Archangel said, I believe the NIV is a very good translation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we now have two people posting under the name "Archangel." There's Archangel, the guy from Canada who is very knowledgeable about textual criticism and to whom I believe you are referring. And there's The Archangel who is in this thread.

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Pastor Larry said:

Contrary to what Archangel said, I believe the NIV is a very good translation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we now have two people posting under the name "Archangel." There's Archangel, the guy from Canada who is very knowledgeable about textual criticism and to whom I believe you are referring. And there's The Archangel who is in this thread.

Ransom,

You are correct. There are two "Archangel's" The Canadian guy post with a Canadian flag and his moniker is Archangel7.

I, however, do not have any flag-thingy (I forget the technical term) in my posts. Also my moniker is The Archangel.

I know these are subtle differences and yes, I am confused by them from time-to-time AND I'm one of the Archangels!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for the confusion.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[Charles Meadows]

The NIV is a good translation in a black and white. Remember that it is a little more of a "dynamic" translation than the KJV, or that NASB for that matter. That is to say the translators were more concerned with getting the SENSE of the passage, idioms and all, as opposed to simply translating the Greek text very literally.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said that it's adultery if any one divorces "except it be for fornication". The NIV says "marital unfaithfulness". The Greek word is porneia - that's where we get fornication. But the word in Hellenistic as well as classical Greek means really sexual badness - not just fornication but adultery, incest, prostitution etc. The KJV word is more literal (and sounds harsher) but the NIV is probably really more conceptually accurate!

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
TT said:

Still making up my mind about The Message.

S&T:

Here is a simple way to "clinch" the deal. Open to the book of Matthew in the message. Take a highlighter and mark all of the terms popular with the new age crowd these days that have been put into the mouth of Jesus. This is what I am currently doing, and can not believe some of the things I am finding. I will be posting my findings on the message thread in the near future. If you need to get up to speed, go here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001118

So far, I'm not impressed with your list. Your grasping at anything that may sound similar and you make no mention of context.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

TC stated:

So far, I'm not impressed with your list. Your grasping at anything that may sound similar and you make no mention of context.

S&T:

Just sit tight. You may be more impressed as time goes on.

TC:

anything that may sound similar

S&T:
Let's recap:

Mesage... as above, so below

Every esoteric counterfit faith.. as above, so below


hmmmmmm...... QUITE similar. Might be good to check with your local wiccans or satanists just to be certain. Nothing like taking the same words that are used in demonic incantations by these groups and others, and inserting them into the mouth of Jesus.

 

[rsr]

Well, maybe you can put me in touch with my local Satanists and Wiccans, all of whom are following a syncretic religion with its roots in the late Victorian era, or later.