It is included, but all kinds of heinous sexual perversions are lumped in. Older versions use the term 'strange flesh.' So it may even refer to some kind of unholy connection with angels as well
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Gross InSINuations About Modern Bible Versions
- Thread starter Rippon2
- Start date
I have supplied ten key verses from the NIV and NLT on the subject of homosexuality. None of the renderings of these passages can be accused of inching toward appeasing liberality on the issue. None of the readings water down anything regarding what God has said concerning the subject matter.
So away with false allegations. That is sinful. Allegations must be founded on truth. If the allegations are not found in the text then the claims are bogus.
So away with false allegations. That is sinful. Allegations must be founded on truth. If the allegations are not found in the text then the claims are bogus.
In the ten verses I cited, only 1 Cor. 6:9 has the H-word in it --the NLT has it, as well as most translations. The NRSV has 'sodomites.' With respect to the other nine verses, no translation, to my knowledge, has the H-word. But it is rather obvious what's going on by the context.
Not my post!
why not use that term though?
Post #43.
Because it is rather OBVIOUS to any reader who reads with even the barest of comprehension skills. What you need to do is less posting and more reading with comprehension. Read those passages in other versions. Go to Biblegate or anywhere else. Search it out for yourself.
Is it wrong then to still use that term?
1 Timothy 1:10
NIV : "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars
and perjurers --and for else is contrary to the sound doctrine."
NLT : "The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders
liars, promise breakers, or who do anything e that contradicts the wholesome teaching"
NIV : "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars
and perjurers --and for else is contrary to the sound doctrine."
NLT : "The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders
liars, promise breakers, or who do anything e that contradicts the wholesome teaching"
Yawn.
37818
Well-Known Member
There are two chief issues. Textual and truthfulness in translation. Some translation interpretation simple is not what the word of God says!
He will now ask you for examples, and then poo poo it!
Do you have any issues with any of the passages I gave in this thread from the NIV or NLT? If so, what are they?
Whenever someone lobs an accusation of course I am going to ask for examples. It would be foolish not to. In your case you have said the most absurd things about the NIV that are not in the text. You have furnished absolutely no examples to back up your nonsense. As I always say : If it's not found in the text; it's false. Simply spell out the passages that back up your mudslinging. You have never done so because your charges have been phony.
If you would value integrity you would say :"The NIV has weakened the true biblical stance regarding the subject of H-----ality. I can prove it. Look at this text from the NIV." But you are stuck. All the passages I have cited from the NLT and NIV have the same truths that all legitimate translations have on the subject. So you are unwilling to acknowledge the obvious out of pride or whatever, and you will start up again with made up stuff. That's you. That has been your perennial routine.
Junia and Son of man.....
That's interesting that you would say that after I posted some verses from the NLT and NIV that you would not take issue with unless you were a flaming liberal.
Jesus and Trinity.
the Niv translated Jesus and trinity correctly, but my examples, not so much!