SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : TNIV - Your Thoughts??

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
I edited my original statement regarding KJV Only advocates. Poor job of clarifying what I meant. I know not all KJV Only advocates beileve that the KJV improved upon the received text. I am mainly lashing out at those who treat the KJV like it is a new revelation and divinely inspired as a translation. I believe only the original text is divinely inspired and as such any translation from that text into another language is subject to man's flaws. The KJV is the best available english translation because it is based on the true text -- the received text.



Very well said... and you agree with probably 85% of the people who are labeled as KJV-Only. Welcome to our cult! :-P

There really is no reason to lash out at the obscure few who do promote what you were coming against. They are a small voice... and an annoying one at that. Unfortunately, those who promote the modern versions have used the few to stereotype the many. It's kinda like saying "everyone in the south is a hillbilly". It's not true... we're really rednecks. LOL... just kidding. Anyway, you get what I mean.

I wasnt offended, but if I need to forgive you for anything... I do. I'm glad you clarified your statement.

Krispy

 2005/3/21 13:19









 Re:

I know this thread asked for our thoughts on the TNIV, but I thought I would post this. It is from Terry Watkins website. I dont believe this is copyrighted... at least I couldnt find anything that said it was:

[b]TNIV & HOMOSEXUALITY[/b]

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the word of God delivers a very serious warning against certain sins. Among these sins is sodomy, or homosexuality. The TNIV obscures the seriousness of the judgement on "homosexuals" by confusing the sin of "homosexuals" by adding the word "practicing". It’s no longer "homosexuals" but "practicing homosexuals".

1 Corinthians 6:8-10, TNIV
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Practicing homosexuals?

Where did the TNIV translators ever come up with such a biased, unwarranted, pro-homosexual wording? Why didn’t they say "practicing" adulterers, "practicing" thieves, or "practicing" drunkards, or "practicing" slanders? Hmm. . . Why just "practicing homosexuals"?

The TNIV translators pull the same trick in 1 Timothy 1:10

1 Timothy 1:9-10, TNIV
9 We also know that the 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 the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers. And it is for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
Why not "practicing" murders, or "practicing" liars, or "practicing" slave traders?

The fact is – every time "practicing" shows up in the TNIV it ONLY applies to "homosexuals". And the fact is – every time "homosexual" shows up in the TNIV it is blurred with "practicing". There is no basis in the Greek text for adding the word "practicing".

Why do the homosexuals get special treatment? Hmm. . .

What's the difference between a "homosexual" and a "practicing homosexual"? Are the TNIV translators implying it's ok to be a homosexual, just not a "practicing homosexual"? Are the TNIV translators saying that it's ok for homosexuals to engage in a "monogamous" homosexual relationship? Just as long as they don’t "practice"? Are the TNIV translators implying that God created homosexuals?

What are the TNIV really trying to say?

Boy. . . oh boy. . .You talk about opening a confusing "can of worms". . .

[b]HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE ORIGINAL "NIV":[/b]

The NIV-TNIV translators and the sin of sodomy or homosexuality have an on-going sympathetic relationship.

The "original" NIV is also very kind to homosexuals. 1 Corinthians 6:9, in the "original" NIV is translated "homosexual offenders". Not just "homosexuals" but "homosexual OFFENDERS". And again, the obvious implication is "homosexuality" is fine. It’s just "homosexual OFFENDERS" that’s the problem.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, in the "original" NIV:

Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God's kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
The pro-homosexual, website, Religious Tolerance, heartily agrees with the NIV’s "homosexual friendly" translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9

"The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm)
The NIV’s "homosexual offenders" has lead many to refer to the NIV as the "homosexual version". The "USA forbidden" New International Version Inclusive Language (NIVI) also translates 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "homosexual offenders".

Of all the mainstream translations, the NIV, NIVI and the TNIV are, FAR AND AWAY, the most friendly with homosexuals.

Here’s how 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads in some of the other major versions:

New American Standard Version (NASV) "homosexuals"
Revised Standard Versions (RSV) "sexual perverts"
King James Bibles (KJB) "abusers of themselves with mankind"
New Century Version (NCV) "men who have sexual relations with other men"
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) "sodomites"
New King James Version (NKJV) "sodomites"
The Living Bible (TLB) "homosexuals"
As you can see, homosexuals are much more acceptable in the NIV, NIVI and TNIV.

[b]THE NIV’S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET. . .[/b]

It’s a dirty little secret, that radical feminist and lesbian author Virginia Mollenkott was a stylistic consultant for the "original" NIV translation team. Mollenkott, a very outspoken, lesbian and feminist, is the author of at least 11 highly controversial books such as Is The Homosexual My Neighbor, Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach, and Divine Feminine.

After being exposed for having an open, militant, homosexual on the NIV translation staff, the NIV crew has vigorously attempted to deny the influence and sexual perversion of Mollenkott. They’ve claimed Mollenkott’s lesbianism was not known when Palmer asked her to participate on the NIV translation process. But Dr. Donald Waite, who taught with her at Shelton College in Ringwood, New Jersey, says he knew she was a lesbian as early as 1962-63 –many years before (1978) the NIV was published. Dr. Waite, also has a letter, from Bob Jones, Jr. (Bob Jones University), addressing Mollenkott’s attraction to "young girls", as far back as the 1950’s. The BJU letter states, "We had a definite problem with her because she insisted on hobnobbing with a few girls when she was employed as a teacher here for one year in the fifties."

And in Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), Mollenkott readily confessed, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." Mollenkott, says in the pro-homosexual Evangelicals Concerned's Spring 1997 Record, "I came of age [lesbianism] in the 1940s and 1950s, discovering my own sexuality at a time when only negative information was available to me...I was one of the many gay teenagers. . ."

If the NIV staff did not know Mollenkott was a lesbian, it was simply because they did not want to know. It was a Clinton, "don’t ask, don’t tell" cover-up.

What about Mollenkott’s influence on the NIV?

In an interview with Joseph Chambers, Virginia Mollenkott, explained her role in the NIV translation process:

"I worked mainly in solitude. . . they would send me big swatches of translations. . . and `my job' was to read them with an eye as to how this would communicate with the modern reader, and to indicate if I thought there were any infelicities [inappropriate, or awkward] in language that could be corrected... So, I would write notes all over manuscripts which I was sent, both praising phraseology that I thought was wonderful and raising questions or asking-for instance something I would typically write would be, `Would the Greek or would the Hebrew permit this word' which would seem to me to be much more understandable or clear to a modern reader?..."

Now, what do you suppose Virginia Mollenkott wrote if she received 1 Corinthians 6:9, or 1 Timothy 1:10? Possibly "homosexual OFFENDERS" rather than a general condemnation of "homosexuals"? Not surprising, the NIV completely removes the word "sodomy".


 2005/3/22 8:32
inotof
Member



Joined: 2005/1/7
Posts: 267
Morehead, KY

 Re:

Casting in my lot, I have to agree with Krispy's post below. Very powerful information. I don't want to say anthing other than I do not approve, will not use or sell it in our bookstore and ever since it's inception was pitched at CBA years ago, have opposed it.


_________________
David

 2005/3/22 11:28Profile
Sentry
Member



Joined: 2004/2/5
Posts: 119
West Monroe, Louisiana

 Re: TNIV - Your Thoughts??

I use KJV, always felt like I should. What about the NEW King James Version? Our Pastor preaches with the NKJV.

On another note, I was teaching a class the other day, and someone said, I don't have that in my bible! (they had NIV)

I can't remember the scripture, but it proves the point.


_________________
Mark

 2005/3/22 12:33Profile









 Re:

Quote:
What about the NEW King James Version? Our Pastor preaches with the NKJV.




Proabably Phil. 2:6 is the most damning verse for the NKJV. Compare the KJV and the NKJV:

KJV: [i]Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:[/i]

NKJV: [i]Who being in the form of God, [b]did not consider equality with God something to be grasped[/b][/i]

That is a direct attack on the diety of Jesus Christ.

Compare the following verses between the KJV and the NKJV... and decide for yourself if the NKJV is an accurate Bible:
Lk. 16:23
John 5:24
Acts 2:38
Acts 17:16-17,22
Rom. 1:28-32
Rom. 2:2
Rom. 4:7
I Cor. 1:22
I Cor. 11:29
II Cor. 2:17
II Cor. 5:17
II Cor. 10:5
Gal. 4:17
Gal. 5:4
Eph. 6:12
Phil. 2:8
Phil. 3:2
Col. 2:12
Col. 2:14-15; 17-18
Col. 3:2
I Thess. 5:22
I Thess. 5:23
II Thess. 2:7
II Thess. 2:12
I Tim. 1:4
I Tim. 3:6
I Tim. 4:1
I Tim. 5:1
I Tim. 6:5
I Tim. 6:10
I Tim. 6:20
II Tim. 2:5
II Tim. 2:12-13
II Tim. 2:14-15
II Tim. 4: 2-5
Heb. 12:8
Ja. 5:16
I Jn. 2:2
I Jn. 3:6
I Jn. 3:8- 9
II Jn. 10
Jude 6,8,12,15,19,24
Rev. 1:18
Rev. 6:14

Krispy

 2005/3/22 14:08









 Re:

One more thing about the NKJV... pronouns. Thee, thou, ye, you... The original languages had different words for "you" singular, and "you" plural. In today's English we use the same word "you" whether we are speaking to one person, or many. The KJV translators used "thee" and "thou" as singular "you", and "ye" and "you" as plural.

For instance, if I say "I want [b]thee[/b] to sing this song" ... and we are in a room full of people, you know I am speaking to only one person. BUT, if I say "I want [b]you[/b] to sing this song", then you can know I want everyone in the room to sing.

But when you remove the thees & thous... and use only "you", that is lost, and in many passages of the Bible it changes the meaning... and in some instances, the complete doctrine.

Thats a very simple explanation of this, and I know philologos or someone else can offer a better explanation... but I think you can understand what I'm trying to say.

Krispy

 2005/3/22 15:02
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2730
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
Proabably Phil. 2:6 is the most damning verse for the NKJV. Compare the KJV and the NKJV:

KJV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
NKJV: Who being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

That is a direct attack on the diety of Jesus Christ.



Krispy, are you sure you're quoting the Philippians verse from the New King James Version? The verse does not read that way in the online version of the NKJV found at Crosswalk.com, it reads as follows;

who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, (Philippians 2:6)

Here is a link directly to the verse on [url=http://www.biblestudytools.net/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=philippians+2%3A6§ion=0&version=nkj&language=en]NKJV on Crosswalk.com[/url]

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2005/3/22 16:25Profile
inotof
Member



Joined: 2005/1/7
Posts: 267
Morehead, KY

 Re:

I think the TNIV should be the next candidate for a Revolve NT Mag-Bible :-P :-P


_________________
David

 2005/3/22 16:28Profile









 Re: TNIV - Your Thoughts??

It's funny how passionate people are on this subject...Especially because we are only talking about the English Translation of text. We have to remember that Scripture has been translated into thousands of languages all over the world, thankfully! We have a couple from our church who work for a translation ministry. They have the tedious task of translating Scripture into hundreds of different dialects just for one small country in Africa. No version is perfect!! Even the KJV is flawed!! Besides that the Old English language used in the KJV is very confusing. How do you translate the word Thou or Thee into Chinese?

As far as the TNIV goes I personally have major concerns because it eliminates gender. I would personally not use it because of that!

Leonard Ravenhill once referenced these lines from the old hymn, Break Thou The Bread of Life!

beyond the sacred page I seek thee, Lord;
my spirit pants for thee, O Living Word!

Ultimately we should be seeking to know the Lord more! Jesus Himself is the Word!

p.s. I'm a NIV, NASB, NKJ version guy!

 2005/3/22 17:57
Matt25
Member



Joined: 2004/3/19
Posts: 69
Athens Ga

 Re:

Quote:
Ultimately we should be seeking to know the Lord more! Jesus Himself is the Word!



Then you see why if the Word is corrupt then our picture of exactly who Jesus is, is corrupt. I am against most of the new translations because I believe they are using the wrong texts. Not sure if you've done any study on this but it is fascinating to see how the new translators are using "new and improved" texts which only make up 5% of all available manuscripts. The other 95% of what is commonly called the Textus Receptus (received text) is ignored all together. If your friends who translate use the correct texts then I'm quite sure their translations are fine. I believe the message of the Gospel is so strong that it can speak even through inferior translations but I also believe that the new translations are bowing to political correctness and to pluralism and the church is suffering because compromise is everywhere.

For example, how is John 6:47 an improvement upon the majority text?

KJV -- Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth [b]on me[/b] hath everlasting life.

NIV -- I tell you the truth, he who believes has
everlasting life

NASB -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who
believes has eternal life"

NKJV -- Most assuredly, I say to you, he who
believes in Me has everlasting life.
(BUT WITH A NOTE IN THE MARGIN THAT SAYS
"NU-TEXT OMITS "ON ME") referring to the
minority text

Help me figure out how deleting "in me" is NOT an attack on the exclusive claim that Christ made about himself being the only Way, the only truth, and the only life. "He who believes" in what? Allah? Buddah? my Dog?


Quote:
Leonard Ravenhill once referenced these lines from the old hymn, Break Thou The Bread of Life!



In his 2 hour long interview which you can download from this site you will hear Ravenhill say these exact words: "I still think the King James version is nearest to the best." If you listen to his sermons you'll also hear Ravenhill refer to the King James as "the Living Bible" implying that the new translations are inferior and compromised.


_________________
Matt M.

 2005/3/22 20:39Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy