First, the NIV 2011, following the TNIV, employs gender-neutral language by neutering the masculine pronouns. Gender-neutral language is not illegitimate if the biblical text is speaking generically about human beings (e.g., Acts 17:25) but is suspect if the biblical text is referring to a specific sex.
Though gender-neutral language may not be an illegitimate translation practice for generic references of humanity, the translator might obscure the text‚Äôs meaning if it‚Äôs not employed carefully. This often happens when the translators take a masculine singular pronoun and translate it as a gender-neutral plural.
Second, the NIV 2011 includes translations that promote egalitarian positions, even though the biblical text does not warrant such readings. This is found in the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12, which reads, ‚ÄúI do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be...
Those comments by Joyner are some of the most misguided, misleading and downright false statements I think I've heard in some time. Tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people will believe it to be true. One problem I know the facts, so sell crazy some place else.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Observer, I learned a lot about cults, anyway, talking to the KJVO types, I'm talking to the people who aren't in it, and I'm trying to keep them out of it. from, Which Bible?
I think you'll find that if they're not part of the movement they probably have grounds not to be part of it. Your constant slating of a good bible (despite its faults) is wearing and frankly more likely to make them want to go that way. On the forums in which I've taken part there is far more of the modern bible only movement (apparently your stance) than the KJO. Both camps are equally intolerable!
Observer, I learned a lot about cults, anyway, talking to the KJVO types, I'm talking to the people who aren't in it, and I'm trying to keep them out of it.
Dr. Robert A. Joyner wrote: I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.
It's just like a soap opera. I can tune out for months and check in to see the same plot. Big Jim baselessly attacking the KJV. Thank goodness the Lockman foundation brought us the nas...and now all the following versions are owned by one company. NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, VOICE, AMP...we trust news corp and Rupert Murdoch to maintain the integrity of Gods holy word don't we? Oh and by the way same company owns and publishes The Satanic bible, Anton levy books and numerous books on witchcraft and satanism. But you're right it's about the integrity of the word, not profits...I will stick with the one that has been the incorruptible standard for 400 years, thanks.
Ahem wrote: A diatribe from a man who couldn't produce biblical proof for his silly notion that a person can be saved and yet lost for one sin (and we're not talking about the sin against the Holy Ghost). Impressive isn't it, the hypocrisy of the man!
Once saved is forever saved and does not commit Judas Iscariot act. Thanks for standing strong and immovable that salvation can never be lost; indeed, it is the work of the Holy Spirit and no one can destroy it.
DanUSA wrote: You despise the "leader of the team of the KJV" even though the man you judged could no longer depend himself, yet you EMBRACE WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND AND STRENGTH the Antichrist, the man of sin, the harlot Babylon the great the murderous church of Rome by embracing, defending, and fighting for the modern fake bibles -- The Codex Vaticanus manufactured by the Antichrist library, the pope; and the Codex sinaiticus came from the harlot church of Rome - a convent if you well. Unlike the "team leader" you are judging, the Harlot Church of Rome and its head the Pope the antichrist
A diatribe from a man who couldn't produce biblical proof for his silly notion that a person can be saved and yet lost for one sin (and we're not talking about the sin against the Holy Ghost). Impressive isn't it, the hypocrisy of the man!
You despise the "leader of the team of the KJV" even though the man you judged could no longer depend himself, yet you EMBRACE WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND AND STRENGTH the Antichrist, the man of sin, the harlot Babylon the great the murderous church of Rome by embracing, defending, and fighting for the modern fake bibles -- The Codex Vaticanus manufactured by the Antichrist library, the pope; and the Codex sinaiticus came from the harlot church of Rome - a convent if you well. Unlike the "team leader" you are judging, the Harlot Church of Rome and its head the Pope the antichrist
Your first mistake is that you are getting your info from, of all people, an Anglican! Then you want to mention liberal Dr. Wallace who is about as corrupt as they come! All are men who have perverted the Word of God! These are men who do not believe that God can, and has preserved his Word! Anyone out there who does not believe that God has preserved his word has made him a liar!
There were very few Christians on the KJV translation team. The leader of the team was a man of the devil,
Rick Norris wrote: In an 1852 booklet, Baptists stated: "Bishop Bancroft, to whom the king confided very much in the actual execution of the work [KJV], was one of the most bigoted and bloody sectarians in the civilized world" (THE BIBLE QUESTION, p. 38).
Albert Peel wrote that Bancroft was described by Andrew Melville as "the capital enemy of all the Reformed Churches in Europe" (TRACTS, p. x).
Alexander McClure noted that Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV TRANSLATORS REVIVED, p. 217).
I like your moniker brother and I also consider myself to be an unprofitable servant as well. But, like you said, our Lord and Savior was worthy.
 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luk 17:10 KJV)
 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:48 KJV)
 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1Pe 1:14-16 KJV)
Note: the below was written in the "present tense".
 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Rom 7:21-25 KJV)
B Ross, thanks for your response. Alas, you judge rightly I am an unprofitable servant, my Lord deserves much better, and I do pray that by His grace He will see some the travail of His soul in such an unworthy one as myself, so thank you for that reminder. As to the fear of God, I must confess to God with the song writer, I have not feared Thee as I ought, nor bowed beneath Thine awful eye, nor guarded deed, and word and thought remembering that Thou art nigh..may God grant the grace of holy fear.
I actually said nothing of the character of the translators of the KJV, I might add that they did not view their work as superior to the other English translations of the day, mainly the Bishops and Geneva Bible. Seeing this discussion centered around word changes, you do well to note that included in the margins of the 1611 edition are several notes with alternate translation of words, and even the dreaded not in certain manuscripts. Just for the record I use the KJV.
My comment was addressing the fact that King James was no saint. You stated he was a true man of God. I only suggest you do more research before you come to that conclusion. God bless