You threw two random words on the screen and I did the same in response to give you a clue that you're not making any sense. Try to construct a logical sentence please.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gross InSINuations About Modern Bible Versions
- Thread starter Rippon2
- Start date
You don't give examples. You never have. Examples are passages from the text. Nothing else will do.the Niv translated Jesus and trinity correctly, but my examples, not so much!
Their big sin was Homosexual activity and behavior, correct?
The word for strange there is ἑτέρας, which means another (of a different kind). Some would apply this to the fact they were angels (there came two angels to Sodom at even, Genesis 19:1). However, the men of Sodom did not know they were angels, but thought they were men like themselves (Where are the men, Genesis 19:5).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
The Queen James Bible takes advantage of this idea to present their version in this way, thus removing homosexuality from consideration (bold emphasis mine):
I take the "another of different kind" to mean a different kind of sexual relationships than they should be having.“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
"There is a subtle influence being wielded on and into some modern translations, as there will not
be one that comes and states Homsexulaity is legit, but will eventually bit by bit get there!" (y-1 1/220)
He claims there is some subtle influence being wielded, because apparently he has that special discernment
that can detect that which does not exist. He acknowledges that no translation actually comes out and states that H-ality
is legit, but why not make a pronouncement anyway.
I say that his stance is foolishness incarnate.
be one that comes and states Homsexulaity is legit, but will eventually bit by bit get there!" (y-1 1/220)
He claims there is some subtle influence being wielded, because apparently he has that special discernment
that can detect that which does not exist. He acknowledges that no translation actually comes out and states that H-ality
is legit, but why not make a pronouncement anyway.
I say that his stance is foolishness incarnate.
you just highlighted for us in this example how, while not trying to change and distort the meaning of scripture, some translations could be used by some with an agenda to have the meaning changed, as the translations would be giving the "wiggle room" to get that different meaning!The word for strange there is ἑτέρας, which means another (of a different kind). Some would apply this to the fact they were angels (there came two angels to Sodom at even, Genesis 19:1). However, the men of Sodom did not know they were angels, but thought they were men like themselves (Where are the men, Genesis 19:5).
The Queen James Bible takes advantage of this idea to present their version in this way, thus removing homosexuality from consideration (bold emphasis mine):
I take the "another of different kind" to mean a different kind of sexual relationships than they should be having.
Again, the Queen James team saw an opening to get to their meaning and took it!"There is a subtle influence being wielded on and into some modern translations, as there will not
be one that comes and states Homsexulaity is legit, but will eventually bit by bit get there!" (y-1 1/220)
He claims there is some subtle influence being wielded, because apparently he has that special discernment
that can detect that which does not exist. He acknowledges that no translation actually comes out and states that H-ality
is legit, but why not make a pronouncement anyway.
I say that his stance is foolishness incarnate.
I have not seen the whole book (do not really want to), but the Queen James Bible seems to represent a very narrow agenda, that is, to fix the verses they perceive as condemning homosexuality. The Inclusive Bible (copyright 2007) represents a much broader approach. Their Preface states, “We challenge the traditional ways of speaking about God. Traditional Western religious language calls God ‘Father’ and Jesus ‘Lord.’ Our intention is to recover the sense of the text and express that sense in a manner that facilitates immediate application of the Word to the experience of the listener. To that end, we correct out own interpretations by referring them to what scripture scholars have to say about the texts.” Here is Ephesians 5:21-22 in the TIB: “Defer to one another out of reverence for Christ. Those of you who are in committed relationships should yield to each other as if to Christ,” Concerning this translation of Ephesians 5:21-22, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott writes, “Not only is the appearance of one-way submission corrected in a way that is actually more in line with the Greek text, but the insights are made accessible to people in nontraditional relationships.”you just highlighted for us in this example how, while not trying to change and distort the meaning of scripture, some translations could be used by some with an agenda to have the meaning changed, as the translations would be giving the "wiggle room" to get that different meaning!
End result is to be condoning sin....I have not seen the whole book (do not really want to), but the Queen James Bible seems to represent a very narrow agenda, that is, to fix the verses they perceive as condemning homosexuality. The Inclusive Bible (copyright 2007) represents a much broader approach. Their Preface states, “We challenge the traditional ways of speaking about God. Traditional Western religious language calls God ‘Father’ and Jesus ‘Lord.’ Our intention is to recover the sense of the text and express that sense in a manner that facilitates immediate application of the Word to the experience of the listener. To that end, we correct out own interpretations by referring them to what scripture scholars have to say about the texts.” Here is Ephesians 5:21-22 in the TIB: “Defer to one another out of reverence for Christ. Those of you who are in committed relationships should yield to each other as if to Christ,” Concerning this translation of Ephesians 5:21-22, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott writes, “Not only is the appearance of one-way submission corrected in a way that is actually more in line with the Greek text, but the insights are made accessible to people in nontraditional relationships.”
There is no such wiggle room in the mainstream versions. It's all in your fevered imagination.you just highlighted for us in this example how, while not trying to change and distort the meaning of scripture, some translations could be used by some with an agenda to have the meaning changed, as the translations would be giving the "wiggle room" to get that different meaning!
You are relying on two wacko 'translations' to make a point? They are as heretical as the Book Of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy's oracles, and the NWT. Why not deal with mainstream Bible translations to make a point? Oh, I know why. You can't gain any traction if you deal with versions that Christians actually read.I have not seen the whole book (do not really want to), but the Queen James Bible seems to represent a very narrow agenda, that is, to fix the verses they perceive as condemning homosexuality. The Inclusive Bible (copyright 2007) represents a much broader approach. Their Preface states, “We challenge the traditional ways of speaking about God. Traditional Western religious language calls God ‘Father’ and Jesus ‘Lord.’ Our intention is to recover the sense of the text and express that sense in a manner that facilitates immediate application of the Word to the experience of the listener. To that end, we correct out own interpretations by referring them to what scripture scholars have to say about the texts.” Here is Ephesians 5:21-22 in the TIB: “Defer to one another out of reverence for Christ. Those of you who are in committed relationships should yield to each other as if to Christ,” Concerning this translation of Ephesians 5:21-22, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott writes, “Not only is the appearance of one-way submission corrected in a way that is actually more in line with the Greek text, but the insights are made accessible to people in nontraditional relationships.”
That these two wacko translations even exist shows that there is a demand for them among some so-called Christians.
Yes, obviously. It is nevertheless important to distinguish between what they two translations have done, and where we might think some mainstream translations are headed. There is still a very wide gap.End result is to be condoning sin....
I concede that modern translations right now have not gone all the way bad as those 2 did, but still see it allowing for in the future really bad changes in scriptures coming to some!That these two wacko translations even exist shows that there is a demand for them among some so-called Christians.
Yes, obviously. It is nevertheless important to distinguish between what they two translations have done, and where we might think some mainstream translations are headed. There is still a very wide gap.
I can honestly seeafuture time when some translation will give in and allow for alternate lifestyles and for women to now able to preach and teach! All under the guise of equability, getting rid over prior masculine over emphasis!You are relying on two wacko 'translations' to make a point? They are as heretical as the Book Of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy's oracles, and the NWT. Why not deal with mainstream Bible translations to make a point? Oh, I know why. You can't gain any traction if you deal with versions that Christians actually read.
I predict that your grammar will get even worse as time moves forward. Your sons will have to interpret for you, unless they too have fallen prey to your genetic grammar code.I concede that modern translations right now have not gone all the way bad as those 2 did, but still see it allowing for in the future really bad changes in scriptures coming to some!
Its a hold over from my Bapticostalist tongue days!I predict that your grammar will get even worse as time moves forward. Your sons will have to interpret for you, unless they too have fallen prey to your genetic grammar code.
I predict that your predictive skills are on par with Al Mohler's. And he has batted zero. Do you want to go out on a limb and forecast a specific year when a mainstream translation will be advancing alternate lifestyles?I can honestly seeafuture time when some translation will give in and allow for alternate lifestyles and for women to now able to preach and teach! All under the guise of equability, getting rid over prior masculine over emphasis!
You honestly sound drunk or high from weed when you post things like the above. Don't you care what you post? Have you ever decided to edit a post of yours because it was nonsensical, incomprehensible pseudo-English?I can honestly seeafuture time when some translation will give in and allow for alternate lifestyles and for women to now able to preach and teach! All under the guise of equability, getting rid over prior masculine over emphasis!
Will not be saying straight outhomosexual relationships acceptable, but will say like loving relationship, committed families etc!I predict that your predictive skills are on par with Al Mohler's. And he has batted zero. Do you want to go out on a limb and forecast a specific year when a mainstream translation will be advancing alternate lifestyles?