SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : KJ Error??

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4502


 Be thou careful...

Brother Stever...

Quote:
I am not trying to be difficult. I have given specific examples in my "LONG POST" that compare what the NIV has done to specific words in the King James when "translating" them into the NIV". That is the point here. The NIV has erased the sin of homosexuality and replaced it with who knows what---temple prostitution. Sodomite is only found once in the NIV, and has been replaced with the word "temple prostitute" and other meaningless words. The outcome? Today many Christian Churches think that the sin of homosexuality is no sin at all.

That is the real issue here. Not the missing of a word here or there. What is missing is Christian doctrine in all of the Newer Versions that is still present in the Old King James- doctrine that determines if we are going to heaven or if we are headed for hell.

I truly wish there was a more gentile way of presenting this, but with the constant denials of others, this seems to be the only approach- direct with examples. I truly wish that you would reply to the examples, and then at the same time give me a reason why most of the main denominations today think that homosexualtiy is not only O.K., but endorsed as a lifestyle?

As many people have stated before, the NIV makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin. And as many people have also stated many times before, nothing is "missing" from the NIV. It is an entirely different translation taken from a different set of source material. All of the doctrine that you claim is non-existant in the NIV is there. The trinity, the diety of Christ, the gifts of the Spirit, the need to be born again, etc... -- they are all there. While the passages (and inclusions thereof) may not be the same -- the doctrine is still sound.

I would be very careful. It often sounds like you are attributing the scriptures as found in the NIV to the devil. And it sometimes sounds like you question whether or not a person is saved that uses a translation like the NIV.

Like I stated before, I use the KJV. Why? Because it is what I feel to be the best English translation from the Textus Receptus. But I also use the NIV. Why? Because I feel that (after a great deal of study and research) that it is the most reliable English translation of the other sources. The NIV is also the translation that I recommend to most new believers. Why? Because most Americans seem to have a difficult time with the 17th century grammar and language usage of the King James Version. In fact, it seems like the only ones that don't have difficulty with the language are the ones that have been raised on the King James Version all their lives -- or those who study 17th century English Literature.

I would just urge you to be cautious with your words. It would be a terrible crime to bear false witness against a version of the Bible (or translators of the Bible) in which you do not know the issue from a firsthand position.

:-)

EDIT:
On a side note, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Mollenkott was [u]not[/u] a translator. I would like to also know whether or not you have really researched the slander that you include, or have you trusted in the words of other men? Have you called or written the people to find out their roles in the NIV? Or have you relied completely on the testimony of other men and women, along with some writing that you attribute to them.

[u]Real[/u] research may include secondhand sources, but only [u]after[/u] you have exhausted all firsthand sources. Secondhand sources must also be verified by the firsthand sources too. Unfortunately, we can't do this with the King James Version. What kind of lives did the translators of the KJV live? We may never know. All we have left is propaganda. Perhaps there was a homosexual or adulterer in the KJV committee? Or maybe one of the men may have been just as corrupt as King James himself?!? Or perhaps worse, there was an dedicated Anglican that didn't want to lose some of the language and wording that had become a tradition in the Roman and English churches?


_________________
Christopher

 2006/2/12 15:03Profile









 Re: Be thou careful...

It is as it always has been. Why will you not answer specifically to what I have posted?

GENESIS 19:5 - THE SIN OF SODOM

NIV - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them."

The King James Bible plainly states that the sin for which God judged Sodom was connected with gross and strange immorality. 2 Peter 2:7 refers to Sodom's "filthy conversation." The same Greek word is translated “wantonness” in Rom. 13:13 and 2 Pet. 2:18. Jude 7 refers to Sodom’s fornication and "going after strange flesh." God did not send fire upon Sodom for its inhospitality.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LEVITICUS 18:22 - SODOMY

KJB - Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

NIV - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.

Author’s note: There is quite a degree of difference between the meaning of the words “abomination” and “detestable.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LEVITICUS 20:13 - SODOMY

NIV - If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death: their blood will be on their own heads.
xxxxxxxxx
DEUTERONOMY 23:17 - SODOMITE

NIV - No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

JUDGES 19:22 - SODOMY

NIV - While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

I KINGS 14:24 - SODOMITES

NIV - 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.

The rendering “male shrine prostitutes” is an interpretation as is the rendering “sodomite.” According to Strong’s, the Hebrew term is “qadesh, kaw-dashe'; from H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry.” In the Authorized Version this Hebrew word is translated “sodomite” and “unclean.” The term “sodomite” was brought over from the Geneva Bible. Many older Bible dictionaries connect sodomy with homosexuality. Eadie defines Sodomite as “not dwellers in Sodom, but practisers of unnatural lust--the sin of Sodom (John Eadie, A Biblical Cyclopedia, London: Charles Griffin, 1872). This sin was consecrated in many Eastern kingdoms.” The People’s Bible Encyclopedia by Charles Randall Barnes (1903) says: “The sodomites were not inhabitants of Sodom, nor their descendants, but men consecrated to the unnatural vice of Sodom (Gen. 19:5; comp. Rom. 1:27) as a religious rite.” Note that Barnes connects the sin of sodomy with the homosexuality described in Romans 1:27. Hastings (1898) says: “The term ‘Sodomite’ is used in Scripture to describe offences against the laws of nature which were FREQUENTLY connected with idolatrous practices” (emphasis ours). Note that Hastings did not claim that the offences against the laws of nature were restricted solely to idolatrous temple worship. The term “sodomy” in these passages probably did refer, at least in part, to homosexuality connected with immoral pagan religions. The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I KINGS 15:12 - SODOMITES

NIV - He expelled all the shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of the idols his fathers had made.
xxxxxxxx

I KINGS 22:46 - SODOMITES

NIV - He rid the land of the rest of the shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

II KINGS 23:7 - SODOMITES

NIV - 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.

xxxxxxxxxxxx
MATTHEW 11:24 - JUDGMENT UPON SODOM


NIV - But I tell you it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
LUKE 10:12 - JUDGMENT UPON SODOM

NIV - I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for you.

ROMANS 1:26 & 27 - HOMOSEXUALITY

KJB - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in lust one toward another; man with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

NIV - Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx


I CORINTHIANS 6:9 - REJECTION OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

KJB - 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…

NIV - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

Here we would point out that this is the only place in the NIV where the word "homosexual" occurs. It is not clear from the context if this means heterosexuals who abuse homosexuals or homosexuals who abuse each other. See Dr. Mollenkott's explanation in the 1st Timothy comments following.

NOTE --- We also see that the New International Version replaces the “effeminate” of the KJV with “male prostitutes.” The word “effeminate” in the KJV is from the Greek word “malakos,” which Strong defines as “soft, i.e. fine (clothing).” The Greek word appears three times in the New Testament, and in the Authorized Version it is translated “effeminate” one time (1 Cor. 6:9) and “soft” two times (Matt. 11:8; Lk. 7:25). The New International Version translators had no authority to translate this word as “male prostitutes.” They have replaced the New Testament term “effeminate,” which aptly describes male homosexuality in general, with the term “male prostitutes,” thus diluting and perverting the meaning of the passage.]
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

I TIMOTHY 1:9 & 10

KJB - Knowing this, that the law is not made for righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.

NIV - We also know that law is not made 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 murders, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

JUDE 7 - STRANGE FLESH

KJB - Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

NIV - In 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.


IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN PRODUCING THE NIV FAVORED HOMOSEXUALITY AS AN ALTERNATE LIFESTYLE, BUT IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THOSE WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL WORDINGS WERE AT LEAST SYMPATHETIC TO DR. MOLLENKOTT'S CAUSE. One only has to look at the treatment of sodomy in the NIV to reach this conclusion.

While many believe practicing homosexuals can be Christian, there are many others who have a different conviction about what the Bible says about sodomy. For this group, it is hardly acceptable to call sodomites temple prostitutes, nor to think of same-sex relationships as natural. These same people would take a viewpoint that God hates the sin of homosexuality and will bring judgment on those who live this kind of lifestyle.

xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Would appreciate your response to the above, ccchhhrrriiisss.

Thank you,


Stever

 2006/2/12 15:23
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4502


 Re:

Brother Stever...

Your excessively long posts don't seem to indicate anything that would be important to this issue. The NIV shows that homosexuality is a sin. To say otherwise would be dishonest. Therefore, there is no need to engage in a excessively long and time-wasted verse-by-verse comparison about this issue. I have far too many things to do than to pick apart verses -- when the doctrine of both translations state the same truths (albeit differently and in different passages). The NIV and KJV differ somewhat because they are translated from different sources.

I believe that it is time to "move on" from this argument. The argument that that "the KJV is the only 'perfect' translation, the only 'preserved Word of God,' and the only version acceptable unto God" is filled with holes. Not only does such an argument attempt to destroy any credibility in the NIV -- your constant and long-running argument seems to indicate that the NIV is [u]not[/u] the Word of God, and it is perhaps the Word of "Satan." That is a dangerous accusation to make. Be mindful of the consequences of such statements.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/2/12 16:22Profile









 Re: Long Posts require reading

Stever's response: My posts only appear long to you because you do not read them. You respond to them without reading and understanding what has been posted.


Stever Continues:

[Quote]
Ccchhhrrriiisss posts: " EDIT:
On a side note, as I wrote earlier, Dr. Mollenkott was not a translator. I would like to also know whether or not you have really researched the slander that you include, or have you trusted in the words of other men? Have you called or written the people to find out their roles in the NIV? Or have you relied completely on the testimony of other men and women, along with some writing that you attribute to them."
[Quote]
Xxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response to the above:


Again, you did not read my post. Is it any wonder that we cannot get anywhere if we do not read what others post?


In your post, you listed KENNETH L. BARKER:

Kenneth L. Barker, Secretary of the Committee on Bible Translation
Kenneth L. Barker. Capital Bible Seminary. Evangelical Free.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Stever continues:

My post goes into detail about the fact that Mollenkott was a LITERARY CONSULTANT for the NIV. Not until after she came out of the closet did the NIV distance themselves from her and her involvement with the NIV.



xxxxxxxxxxxx

This is what Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the International Bible Socciety had to say about Mollenkott:

1. “In their letter to me, the NIV people denied that Dr. Mollenkott had any influence on the final product. However, they have not been consistent in their explanation of her input, for one letter from them says she was dismissed in the late 60’s and another from the same office says she was dismissed in 1972. From what I have read about Dr. Mollenkott’s relationship with the NIV, I am left with the impression that she was there for the duration of the project. I really don’t know where the truth lies about her influence on the final product, but I know for certain that she is a homosexual, she served on the committee, and the sin of the Sodomites has never appeared on the pages of the NIV” (Carl Graham, introduction to the 2nd edition of Sodomy and the NIV, p. iii).

The following article was written by Graham after he researched the connection between the NIV's rendering of passages touching on homosexuality and the presence of a homosexual on the translation review team. It is amazing to see many direct parallels between Mollenkott's views about homosexuality and the translation of the New International Version. In some people’s book, two and two still equals four. IF MOLLENKOTT OR WOUDSTRA (ALONE, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME OTHER HOMOSEXUAL) DID NOT DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THESE TRANSLATIONS, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NIV COMMITTEE WHO WERE AMAZINGLY LIKE-MINDED WITH THESE MODERN “EVANGELICAL” SODOMITES.


[That is possibly true, but I do know that others knew of it or at least strongly suspected it. I have heard from people who have known her since the 1950s, both personally and professionally, and her homosexuality was suspected even then. Dr. Donald Waite used to teach at Shelton College, where Mollenkott once taught. In his Bible for Today publication for March-April 1994, Dr. Waite gave the following report: “Mollenkott’s perversity was known about long before the NIV was first published, so that one man (Arthur Steele) refused to accept the full presidency of Shelton College, Ringwood, New Jersey, where Mollenkott taught during the 1960’s unless she was removed from the staff.” By 1978 Mollenkott had co-authored Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? As noted previously, the book claims that the Sodom account in Genesis does not teach the evil of homosexuality, that “the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or ‘condition’ is never mentioned in the Bible” (p. 71), and that Romans 1 does not “fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian” (p. 62).]

2. Even though Barker’s letter claims that Mollenkott was consulted only in a minor way in matters of English style, the fact remains that her name has been plainly listed in their literature for almost THREE (3) DECADES under the heading “LITERARY CRITICS AND OTHER CONSULTANTS.” Only RECENTLY WERE WE TOLD THAT HER ROLE WAS INCONSEQUENTIAL.


MOLLENKOTT'S OWN ACCOUNT:

"Furthermore, Mollenkott’s own account differs from Barker’s. “Barker is playing little word games. It would be a different story if Edwin Palmer [EDWIN H. PALMER. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NIV COMMITTEE ON BIBLE TRANSLATION. CHRISTIAN REFORMED] were still alive; he knew me; had heard me speak and sent me sheaf after sheaf of translations to review over a period of three or more years, including several gift editions for the committee members when the work was first completed” (Mollenkott’s reply to Robert Kasten, Jan. 20, 1995, cited from Why Not the NIV? by G.R. Guile). Mollenkott said, further: “… they would send me big swatches of translations . . . many chapters at a time . . . perhaps several shorter books from the Old Testament or the New Testament. . . . I would write notes all over manuscripts which I was sent, both praising phraseology . . . and asking questions . . . 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…”(Ibid.).

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's conclusion:


The bottom line is the NIV is weak on homosexuality. Was this by design, or by human error. It really doesn't matter which one it is----it should be avoided!

God bless,

Stever


[u][b]My posts only appear long to you because you do not read them. You respond to them without reading and understanding what has been posted. [/b][/u]

 2006/2/13 20:48
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re: KJ Error??

If you read the quote of this passage in Hebrews 2:7, the greek is clear that it says "angels." The passage in Hebrews 2:7 is quoting Psalm 8:5, and in the LXX (Greek OT, which the NT writers would have used), it also says "angels."

It's possible the KJV translators were trying to do what many scribes often did, and create a more even exactness between citations. But, in Psalm 8, it would seem according to the Hebrew that "angels" is also an appropriate translation.

You might consider looking it up in a more technical commentary such as Word Biblical Commentary to see what scholars think of the matter.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/2/13 22:02Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

The question is...Is the KJV THEE word of God?? I think we can confuse people and not know if what they read is right interpetation. The panel of the NIV had a homosexual on it and it had a man who didnt believe the first 5 books of the bible. The panel of KJV were to have there heads cut off if they were wrong...



Translating is translating. Just because somebody was perhaps of more noble character in translating and did so in a more difficult circumstance doesn't mean they produced a better translation. In the Greek 2 class I'm taking this semester in seminary, I might be much more devote than a number of my fellow students, some, perhaps, who might not even be saved. However, when the rubber meets the road, and we have to translate & parse the Greek sentences before us come test time, many of them have faired better than I did.

Some simply grasp Greek better than I do, and are better Greek scholars than I. I study hard and pray over my schoolwork, yet they still do better than me.

So, my point in all this is: The translation done by the better Greek scholar will produce a better translation. It doesn't matter how moral or righteous they are, it ultimately boils down to is who knows their stuff. Otherwise, we should just go ahead and get the godliest men we know, and have them translate the Greek and Hebrew, even if they don't actually know Greek or Hebrew.

Of course, to do that would be silly.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/2/13 22:17Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Brethren, you be surprized at how often these urban legends spread through the evangelical community. Whenever you hear one of these things check it back to its source if at all possible.



It's sad to see how bad we as Christians are often about doing our homework. Quick to believe gossip and close our mind to anything that might be truth.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/2/13 22:20Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Only the Levites were allowed by God to write His Words



This is simply untrue and has no Biblical basis to it whatsoever.

Quote:

The dead sea scrolls were written by a cult- the essenes. What value is that to us today?



The dead sea scrolls contain ancient copies of the Hebrew scriptures. Prior to their discovery, the oldest copy of the Hebrew scriptuers we had was from the dark ages! And when these Scriptures are unrolled, they show a very careful scholarship by which the essenes hand copied the sacred texts.

For example, the book of Isaiah reports a 99.99% accuracy in copying, with the only copyists errors being a very very very small typo's. Such is important for scholarship, for it shows how carefully the Scriptuers were often copied by scribes throughout the ages.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/2/13 22:28Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

The bottom line is the NIV is weak on homosexuality. Was this by design, or by human error. It really doesn't matter which one it is----it should be avoided!



Is this a simply guilt by association? Let's presume one of the consultants was as gay as they come. Let's assume they had a shrine to satan in every room in their house. Let's assume they were cannibalists.

Even if all this and more is true, you still have a number of things to prove and consider, such as:

1) Exactly what passage(s) they were involved or not involved with.
2) The extent to which the passage(s) they were involved with. For example, did they just make a recommendation that a panel of scholars considered but ultimately rejected as the best possible translation?
3) Did their sinful lifestyle bias their professional scholarly work?

Also, if you suspect their influence tainted the translation to be incorrect, can you prove the translation you are offering is better? Do you know Greek? Do you know Hebrew? Do you know Aramaic?

If you don't, then you have no way of verifying if their translation is in error. And no, looking up something in Strong's doesn't in anyway count as "knowing" a language. And to say which translation is better when you don't actually know these languages (I'm assuming you don't), is simply FOOLISH.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/2/13 22:44Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4502


 Re:

Brother Stever...

Quote:
Stever's response: My posts only appear long to you because you do not read them. You respond to them without reading and understanding what has been posted.

Please refrain from making direct accusations like this. To put it bluntly -- you are [u]wrong[/u]. I do read your posts -- even though they are usually very long and seem to often skirt around the very issues that you raise. But I do understand the perspective of your opinion. I just don't agree with your opinion, nor the opinion of the sources from which you appear to cut-and-paste large amounts of examples from.

The NIV is not "soft on homosexuality." While you are indeed allowed to have such an opinion, you need to be careful before making such a slanderous accusation. The NIV is very [u]clear[/u] that homosexuality is a sin. There are many verses that show this. To state otherwise would be either done out of ignorance or dishonesty. But I have noticed your tone change a little over the past several months. At first, you made it sound as though there was an NIV conspiracy that condoned homosexuality. But now you are saying it is "soft" on the sin. I disagree, as do the original translators and the publisher that vouch for this. None of the translators were homosexuals. In the past, I directed you to the actual publisher about refuting this urban legend. [b][url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf]Click here[/url][/b] for that same link. It is a book published by the publishers and translators that answers alot of questions and myths about the NIV.

Brother, I believe that this type of argument is often unproductive. You seem very [u]convinced[/u] that the KJV is superior in every way to the NIV. In fact, you have stated in past posts that the KJV is [u]perfect[/u] -- even though I have pointed to inconsistancies in the translation, as well as changes that were made in the KJV over a period of 158 years (in order to correct translation mistakes). You also seem to be convinced that the NIV was a part of some sort of [i]evil conspiracy[/i] created to [i]pervert[/i] the Word of God. I totally disagree with this assertion. I would just urge you to be very careful about making such slanderous public statements in the eyes of even babes in Christ. Remember, if you are uttering such statements and find out that they are actually false, then you have born false witness against not just the translators -- but against the Word of God.

As for me, I am going to refrain as much as possible from this argument. In previous threads about the KJV-only debate, I wrote my conclusions after having contacted the publishers, the original translators, Bible scholars, and other experts in the field. I also contacted some of the KJV-only individuals. Interestingly, most of them did not return my calls, emails or letters. And I also found it interesting that very few of the Bible scholars and experts that I wrote (without knowing their stand on this issue) did not agree with the KJV-only argument. The common consensus seemed to be that the KJV is superior among translations taken from the Received Text. They also seemed to agree with the fact that most people in the world today have difficulty understanding the language and grammar of the KJV. But the majority of those scholars also stated that they believed that the Alexandrian Texts are more reliable.

I do not agree that the Alexandrian Texts are more reliable than the Received Text. I simply do not know. I have read information on both sides -- but I cannot arrive to the conclusion that one is much more reliable than the other. I do not read Hebrew well enough (let alone ancient Hebrew) to translate -- and I do not speak Greek at all. Should I then take the word of the [i]KJV-only[/i] websites? Should I take the word of the best modern scholars and translation experts? No. I will trust in the Lord. He will lead me and guide me into all truth. I have searched diligently concerning this matter. Right now, I am quite secure in my belief that the NIV is a proper translation. And I will continue to use both. I will continue to view the KJV as a Received Text translation, and the NIV as a translation taken from other sources.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/2/13 22:54Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy