The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum

[Smyth]

Your statement above is utter foolishness.


You speak as a foolish woman.

Even more nonsense from your keystrokes.

I'm a proud black man, not a foolish woman. Speaking of foolishness, where is your wisdom? Where is your sense? You repeat accusations against my reasoning, but you provide no reasoning in response. Nothing, aside from saying all translations are paraphrases.

Ignorant people guard their ignorance by avoiding direct responses. In this example, it's about changing "brothers" to "brothers and sisters", not about your indirect response that paraphrase is the nature of all translation.

You say "brothers" means "brothers and sisters". That's your opinion, and an opinion that you haven't supported, in regards to my points. Specifically, the NIV2011 injects an biblical feminist attitude. And, generally, I don't want translators adding their opinions to translations when it can be avoided, even if I agree with the opinion. The NIV2011 translators could easily have avoided adding "and sisters."

Pick out specific passages and deal with your differences of opinion. Don't wholly castigate Bible translations that are serving the Christian public.

Any translation that injects biblical feminist attitude is seeking to incrementally move Christians away from God.

 

[Rippon]

I'm a proud black man,

It is strange that you could say that as a black man and it would be acceptable to most people. But for someone to say "I'm a proud white man" would cause even white people to say he is a racist.

Speaking of foolishness, where is your wisdom? Where is your sense? You repeat accusations against my reasoning, but you provide no reasoning in response.

When one (in this case you) says nonsensical things --it is not incumbent on me to reply. Or, as it is commonly said "No need to dignify your remarks with a reply.

Ignorant people guard their ignorance by avoiding direct responses. In this example, it's about changing "brothers" to "brothers and sisters",

My dear uninformed "brother" --I have and shall comment when it is reasonable to do so. When you speak of "changing" brothers to brothers and sisters, you have made a basic error. Changing it from what? Is it because most older English translations have "brother(s)?

In your church if the pastor asked the brothers to stand up --would female Christians in your assembly also stand? If you think that the word brother or brothers is so sacrosanct and that the meaning is so very clear --then why the confusion over the matter? Many times in the N.T. (certainly not all or possibly even most) it has been understood in the past that brothers means Christians of both genders. Why not spell it out? What's wrong with accuracy?

You say "brothers" means "brothers and sisters". That's your opinion, and an opinion that you haven't supported, in regards to my points.

As I said earlier, many times in the New Testament it means exactly that. If you go to the book of James, for instance, I dare you to tell me that when an English translation has "brothers" it always refers to male believers. It just does not. You are severely mistaken.

Specifically, the NIV2011 injects an biblical feminist attitude.

Back your charge up with facts. So far you are shooting blanks.

And, generally, I don't want translators adding their opinions to translations when it can be avoided, even if I agree with the opinion.

I see you have completely ignored the import of my Mounce quote in my last post.

The NIV2011 translators could easily have avoided adding "and sisters."

And in doing so they would have compromised accuracy to accommodate traditionalists such as yourself.

Any translation that injects biblical feminist attitude is seeking to incrementally move Christians away from God.

You are as confused as JJ who gave a blanket endorsement of your post.

First of all, what is a "biblical feminist attitude" anyway? If something is biblical it is good. If you had said a feminist agenda I would have agreed with you. But again, you don't communicate your thoughts very clearly.

 

[Rippon]

My prior post was getting too long to include these observations.

Please go to the book of Romans and look up 1:3;7:1,4; 8:12,29; 10:1; 11:25;
12:1; 15:14,30; 16:14 and 17.

Tell me if Paul is addressing only male believers or if he is addressing believers of both genders.
In the NET translation and the NIV "brothers and sisters" are used in the text.

In the NLT and CEB they also use "brothers and sisters" in those verses and in 9:13 too.

The NRSV uses "brothers and sisters" in just 10 places. They opt for something else in 7:4 and 8:29 --
but it is not "brothers."

In the ESV there is a footnote for 1:13. It reads:
Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word (translated "brothers") refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer to either men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God's family, the church.

Then throughout Romans (and other N.T. books) the ESV leaves reminders : "Or brothers and sisters."

 

[Smyth]

It is strange that you could say that as a black man and it would be acceptable to most people. But for someone to say "I'm a proud white man" would cause even white people to say he is a racist.

You people even intimidate yourselves.

In your church if the pastor asked the brothers to stand up --would female Christians in your assembly also stand?

Speaking of race, in some churches, if a pastor said that, only the black men would stand up. Context matters.

Many times in the N.T. (certainly not all or possibly even most) it has been understood in the past that brothers means Christians of both genders. Why not spell it out? What's wrong with accuracy?

If "brothers" means brothers and sisters, why not just use "brothers"? Answer: Because in our society, you suggest, the term "brothers" just means "brothers."

Why does brothers just mean brothers now? It doesn't the Bible, as you claim. It didn't 100 years ago in America. Which translation before the Feminist revolution changes "brothers" to "brothers and sisters"? What changed? Oh yeah, the Feminist revolution. You naively believe, or dishonestly pretend, that the cultural differences of "brothers" vs. "brothers and sisters" has nothing to do with attitudes toward God's word, but is just random tradition.

A liberal denomination that has female pastors and marries homosexuals, like PCUSA, is going with a Translation that changes the Bible to "brothers and sisters". They're going use the NIV and read "brothers and sisters" and see biblical confirmation of their feminist pseudo-equality values. Churches that hold a higher view of scripture, like most baptist churches use translations like the NKJV which do not change brothers.

I see you have completely ignored the import of my Mounce quote in my last post.

I did respond to it, and I agree with it.

 

[Smyth]

I have explained myself quite clearly. You are either super-stubborn or slow.

Do you think denominations should allow women to be pastors?

 

[Rippon]

Do you think denominations should allow women to be pastors?

No, I do not. Further, you won't support for the idea of women pastors in the NIV. That's why your whole premise is way off-base.

 

[John of Japan]

Someone close this thread, please. Rippon is posting little else than insults, and the whole conversation is getting further and further from the OP.

 

[Rippon]

Someone close this thread, please. Rippon is posting little else than insults, and the whole conversation is getting further and further from the OP.

You have spoken falsely JJ. I have spoken the truth on this thread. You give brownie points to nonsense posts.

You need to be honest. You claimed to have me on ignore. Looks like you have been paying attention after all.

 

[Yeshua1]

You people even intimidate yourselves.



Speaking of race, in some churches, if a pastor said that, only the black men would stand up. Context matters.



If "brothers" means brothers and sisters, why not just use "brothers"? Answer: Because in our society, you suggest, the term "brothers" just means "brothers."

Why does brothers just mean brothers now? It doesn't the Bible, as you claim. It didn't 100 years ago in America. Which translation before the Feminist revolution changes "brothers" to "brothers and sisters"? What changed? Oh yeah, the Feminist revolution. You naively believe, or dishonestly pretend, that the cultural differences of "brothers" vs. "brothers and sisters" has nothing to do with attitudes toward God's word, but is just random tradition.

A liberal denomination that has female pastors and marries homosexuals, like PCUSA, is going with a Translation that changes the Bible to "brothers and sisters". They're going use the NIV and read "brothers and sisters" and see biblical confirmation of their feminist pseudo-equality values. Churches that hold a higher view of scripture, like most baptist churches use translations like the NKJV which do not change brothers.



I did respond to it, and I agree with it.

The truth that some refuse to accept is that there has been more going on with some modern editions than just updating some of their translation, as there indeed does seem to a subtle but still there shifting away from masculine authority as ordained by the Lord into this situation of all of us equal in christ also means that God now would have us all now able to do the same things...

Just seems to be this underlining of if we are really equal and same in Christ, should also now mean tht masculine definite roles have now to get torn down, as that message to some was made in the Bible when they had "un[rogressive " viewpoints...

I woud say that what God meant for us back when the Bible still stands to us even now, as spiritual authority is not dependent upon cultural norms and views...

 

[Rippon]

...has been more going on with some modern editions ....

Just seems to be...

I woud say...

You still post utter tripe despite the truth staring you in the face.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Per the original poster's request this thread is closed.

Someone close this thread, please. Rippon is posting little else than insults, and the whole conversation is getting further and further from the OP.