New Bible draws critics of gender-neutral language
In the old translation of the world's most popular Bible, John the Evangelist declares: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." Make that "brother or sister" in a new translation that includes more gender-neutral language and is drawing criticism from some conservatives who argue the changes can alter the theological message.
The 2011 translation of the New International Version Bible, or NIV, does not change pronouns referring to God, who remains "He" and "the Father." But it does aim to avoid using "he" or "him" as the default reference to an unspecified person.
Before the new translation even hit stores, it drew opposition from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization that believes women should submit to their husbands in the home and only men can hold some leadership roles in the church.
...
Jim Lincoln wrote: Statto, the 21st Century KJV was attacked because it diligently tried to include all the KJV errors,
Not by me.
I have a problem with the blatant untruth in the title of the work. 1994 was not in the 21st century. If I cannot trust what is on the cover, why should I look inside?
I'm glad you did, for that is rare enough, but I had in mind repentance towards brothers & sisters unjustly wounded by words or actions. The lack of this, I think, explains why some folks mysteriously disappear from churches w/o any formal process. Could it be that they know they will get no justice if they try?
1 Cor. 6:3: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" Then angels should be worried.
Neil wrote: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." Whether a "fault" or a "sin," there's room for improvement on this score. When's the last time you ever heard a pastor do this? So far in my experience, once or twice (I'm not talking about "We're all sinners" type generalities & kidding around about minor weaknesses, but specific, serious repentance). And it's fairly rare among laypeople, too.
I actually had to apologize to a congregation after stating a made up illustation as an actual occurance. Right after I said it, the Lord would not let me get away with it. So I immediatly let them know it didn't really happen, but it did illustrate a point.
I cannot feel comfortable using a sermon flippantly. I'm amazed at the gender neutral Bible people. Has their conscience become so dulled?
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed."
Whether a "fault" or a "sin," there's room for improvement on this score. When's the last time you ever heard a pastor do this? So far in my experience, once or twice (I'm not talking about "We're all sinners" type generalities & kidding around about minor weaknesses, but specific, serious repentance). And it's fairly rare among laypeople, too.
biblioread wrote: Talking about 'neutral' language in modern versions.... 1 Peter 4:1 KJV "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;" NASB "Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin," NASB leaves out "for us," the reason why Christ suffered and went to the Cross. This verse in the NASB makes it as if Christ suffered for His own sins, and we know that He was without sin. He also didn't suffer for nothing, but "for us." James 5:16 KJV "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." NASB "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." NASB changes "faults" to "sins" because the Catholic's believe in confessions to priests, instead of unto God, who alone has power to forgive sins.
These are good examples of subtlety, and we know who authors subtlety when it comes to changing God's word. Man, a lot of folks would not even have noticed that.
Talking about 'neutral' language in modern versions....
1 Peter 4:1 KJV "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;"
NASB "Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin," NASB leaves out "for us," the reason why Christ suffered and went to the Cross. This verse in the NASB makes it as if Christ suffered for His own sins, and we know that He was without sin. He also didn't suffer for nothing, but "for us."
James 5:16 KJV "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed."
NASB "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." NASB changes "faults" to "sins" because the Catholic's believe in confessions to priests, instead of unto God, who alone has power to forgive sins.
Statto, the 21st Century KJV was attacked because it diligently tried to include all the KJV errors,
Christopher Pope wrote: The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) might have outdone the NKJV if it had been more consistent in updating the KJV's archaisms and correcting more obvious errors such as Easter in Acts 12:4.
John, it should be easily seen that The [A]nglican [V]ersion --is--a syncretic Bible put forth by a syncretic church founded by a serial wife killer! Why any American who opens up this lewd, bombastic version doesn't see is as a third rate bible should amaze any rational Christian.
The correct translation of,
John 15 26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me,---NASB
Yes, you really do need a dictionary to use with the AV. See James Strong's numbers, 03739 and other numbers mentioned, for "which"
Mike wrote: So it's just a matter of language, then? Whereas today "which" is used in reference to things, not persons, but in 1611 "which" was used for things and persons, too, sometimes but not always?
Etymology
Which:- "O.E. hwilc (W.Saxon) "which," short for hwi-lic "of what form," from P.Gmc. *khwilikaz (cf. O.S. hwilik, O.N. hvelikr, Swed. vilken, O.Fris. hwelik, M.Du. wilk, Du. welk, O.H.G. hwelich, Ger. welch, Goth. hvileiks "which"), from *khwi- "who" (see who) + *likan "body, form" (cf. O.E. lic "body;" see like (adj.)). In M.E. used as a relative pronoun where Modern English would use who, as still in the Lord's Prayer. O.E. also had parallel forms hwelc and hwylc, which disappeared 15c."
Mike wrote: So it's just a matter of language, then? Whereas today "which" is used in reference to things, not persons, but in 1611 "which" was used for things and persons, too, sometimes but not always?
Well, that is certainly true, Mike. But there is a far more important point, which I will share with you.
There are some folks in this world who genuinely and sincerely believe that the translators made a simple error when they referred to the Spirit as "itself".
Such plain ignorance these folks show!
Now when any person reads and studies only the KJV, they get to know certain things about how words are used. I have demonstrated many verses where modern man would gripe at the use of "which" for example, used concerning humans.
This last text shows the Spirit being referred to in apparently different genders. Some would ignorantly say, "There's another mistake."
Oh the haughtiness and pride of stupid modern intellectual men. Do they really imagine that every translator on the 47 panel missed such an obvious thing! On the contrary, every one of the 47 agreed with how the translation was worded, at the very least in a majority consensus. And they were right.
John UK wrote: Ahhhh....fellow turnip Mike, even if only temporarily. This person is referred to as: 1. The Comforter 2. The Sent One 3. The Spirit of Truth 4. The Proceeding One 5. The Testifier Is this the Spirit of Christ? Is he referred to as: 1. Whom 2. Which 3. He Well there you are.
So it's just a matter of language, then? Whereas today "which" is used in reference to things, not persons, but in 1611 "which" was used for things and persons, too, sometimes but not always?
John UK wrote: Jim, you need to slow down your thinking, cease looking at the internet sites, ignore the pastor's advice when he is wrong, and spend time with the Lord in deep prayer, humbly asking him for help in understanding his word, even to the extent of prostrating yourself and claiming yourself an ignoramus. Begin here: But when the Comforter is come, *WHOM* I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, *WHICH* proceedeth from the Father, *HE* shall testify of me: John 15:26 KJV *emphasis mine* ---
Today I be a turnip, John. What is it you are saying with the emphasis?
Jim, you need to slow down your thinking, cease looking at the internet sites, ignore the pastor's advice when he is wrong, and spend time with the Lord in deep prayer, humbly asking him for help in understanding his word, even to the extent of prostrating yourself and claiming yourself an ignoramus. Begin here: But when the Comforter is come, *WHOM* I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, *WHICH* proceedeth from the Father, *HE* shall testify of me: John 15:26 KJV
*emphasis mine*
But you'll never see it without prayer, Jim.
I sure hope you come to the knowledge of the truth, and I pray that in the remaining time God has given you by his grace, you may yet be found repenting of playing the false teacher, and confess to the world that the King James Bible is the most majestic, most accurate and inerrant Bible, to be recommended over and above all the modern versions because of its transcendent magnificence.
The jury is still out on the 2010 version of the NIV, though the 1984 is no doubt a better version of the NIV than the 2010 is, from just what I read.
Besides the various racist groups which give the AV a bad name, admittedly through no fault of it, it still has that evil attachment to it, and since there are so many better Bibles around including he 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21®) I believe that version tries to replicate all the AV's mistakes, so it would appear only an anti-American would not embrace that or similar efforts.
Jim Lincoln wrote: John, U.K., many of the British supporters seem to think they need to, they should using something else besides a very bad version of the Bible to do it.
Yes indeed, this new NIV is a very bad Bible, and it never ought to be bought by a single human being. Perhaps then the publishers will take it off the shelves, in the same way they have taken the 1984 NIV off the shelves. Maybe God will reveal his own displeasure at a "Bible" which has been translated from manuscripts found in the HQ of the greatest pseudo-Christian "Church" in the history of the world, headed by papal supremacy, yea, the pope himself, commonly known in my circles as THE ANTICHRIST!
If ever a translation comes out which merely modernises the words of the KJV, I will not hesitate to approve of it as the inerrant word of God, even though it will lack much. Folks will still want a KJV, and the KJV will still be published, and I will still be using a KJV, because it cannot be topped; it is impossible to improve on it.
John, U.K., many of the British supporters seem to think they need to, they should using something else besides a very bad version of the Bible to do it.
In this country, if one looks at perhaps the most well-known thrice divorced pusher of the AV, he is a supporter of British Israelism: A Mirage and White Supremacy. So, I'm very pleased that my pastor doesn't support the bombastic, foul-mouthed, and blasphemous ("The Spirit Itself," Or, The Greatest Defect In The King James Version) for much better Bible versions than the AV have been burned for a lot less reason than that.
So, again, what translation of the AV into modern English do you approve of? It is utter nonsense to have a Bible in Elizabethan English.
There was quite a good article about the new NIV in a California paper just recently, less partisan than many sources, but covers the topic quite well. New Bible draws critics from gender-neutral crowd
In fact not only Southern Baptists should like the article, buy you might even also, John!
Jim Lincoln wrote: John, U.K., that's fine that the AV has the Holy Spirit has the right gender in several places, then why not have it correct where the versions better than it have it as well?
Jim, you need to slow down your thinking, cease looking at the internet sites, ignore the pastor's advice when he is wrong, and spend time with the Lord in deep prayer, humbling asking him for help in understanding his word, even to the extent of prostrating yourself and claiming yourself an ignoramus. Begin here:
But when the Comforter is come, *WHOM* I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, *WHICH* proceedeth from the Father, *HE* shall testify of me: John 15:26 KJV
*emphasis mine*
But you'll never see it without prayer, Jim.
I sure hope you come to the knowledge of the truth, and I pray that in the remaining time God has given you by his grace, you may yet be found repenting of playing the false teacher, and confess to the world that the King James Bible is the most majestic, most accurate and inerrant Bible, to be recommended over and above all the modern versions because of its transcendent magnificence.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote; "If Mollencott’s lesbianism somehow tainted the final product, the NIV translation, then did King James’ own homosexuality fatally spoil the translation named after him?"
Jim your pals Ankerberg and Weldon are getting desperate. King James was not a homosexual. "However, the most serious allegation brought forth (after he was dead) was that he was a homosexual. This allegation was picked up and published in the Moody Monthly in its July/August 1985 edition. These charges have never been proved. As will be noted below, they originated from an embittered political enemy of James who vowed vengeance against him. His charges are analogous to the tactics of the modern political operatives in attacking their foes." King James. By D.H.Sorenson
26
There are a total of 45 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Pastor Greg Locke | 6/26/2008
COMMENTS | 
john yurich usa from usa: "john uk, i accept the westminster confession of faith of..."
