I tried to post this yesterday in the comments, but blogger must have went wild. This is response to the comment from the last post.
Typically I don't come out swinging like that when it comes to Bible translations. I've never been a fan of the NIV, but it was mainly for the missing scriptures. When I stumbled across this I had to pass it along. As for Virginia Mollenkott, here are just a couple links: Way of Life an interesting, if not disturbing read; and AV 1611 which is apparently a 1611 KJV only website. As for King James being a homosexual. I don't know for sure. Most of what I've read says that the accusations didn't even surface until 25 years after his death, and that it originated from his arch nemesis. A quick google search turned up these pages: The first one seems to be written by a homosexual "christian", here. Another one that I found by a homosexual "christian" utilized filthy language, therefore gets disqualified from getting a link from me. Here's another. The next three oppose the thinking: here, here and here. What I do know is that he only promoted the translation of the scripture. He didn't take part in it.
As for books. The best that I've read is "Which Version Is The Bible?" by Floyd Nolen Jones. It's very detailed in the history and canonization of the Bible, who translated what and what the other Bible translations are missing or changing. I let a friend borrow it, but if I can get it back, I'll certainly pass it off to you.
Just to sum it up. I believe that all faith and foundation come from the word of God. If you can't believe that God has preserved His word for us and remains infallible, then how can you know what portions of the Bible to trust and what to disregard? And there are too many contradictions between translations for them all to be correct. The history that I've studied on the subject convinces me that the KJV is the authorized and preserved version.
Hope this helps to at least see where we come from. I don't like to stir up controversy or be divisive, but we too like to find truth.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
...a man and his pig. and his wife, and his seven children, and his chickens, and his dog, and his cat, and...
3 comments:
http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/homosexuals.htm
Troy, I have never heard of the book you mentioned. Maybe we could do a book swap. I included a link that discusses the two Greek words used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 when he speaks of "homosexuals." Anyway, I found it interesting.
I read your link about Mollenkott. I know the NIV was written in the early 70s and it looks as if her sinful lifestyle didn't start until the late 70s. It's quite probable that she wasn't the way she is today when the NIV committee asked her advice on English usage. According to the Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center she was consulted "briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views...If we had known in the sixties what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions."
Eshell mentioned having us over for dinner. Your wife is a brave woman. Let's see...that would be 10 kids total in one house! We would enjoy discussing what we've been discussing as well as just getting to know you all. In Christ, Rachel
Rachel,
The one article actually said that she "discovered" her homosexuality in the 50's and 60's. She also had an ongoing lesbian relationship at age eleven. True, she may have hid it. Her own personal blog (http://virginiarameymollenkott.blogs.com/)also says that she was on the NIV translation team from 1970 through 1978. She was very active in the gay and feminist movement in the early 70's. Despite the fact that the NIV crew may have not known about her lifestyle doesn't change the fact that she served on the board; and to say that she had no influence on the translators is completely unreasonable. Why else would they have her on the team if her input carried no weight?
I read the link that you sent me. That is interesting. Especially with those who have come lately to say that the Bible never speaks out against homosexuality. Although his argument was that the words translated into the actual act of male homosexuality (not just the orientation), could we follow the thought of Jesus and say that if they lust in their hearts for another of the same (or opposite for that matter) sex, they have already committed the act? It's the same for heterosexuals.
As for having you over for dinner, she is a brave woman. We've had families stay the weekend with us with ten children of their own. That's twenty people in one house...feeding them all! She is a saint!
Troy, So, do you believe that someone could be born with a predisposition towards members of the same sex just as someone might have a predisposition towards alcohol? I have heard of people who had feelings towards the same sex, but, knowing that it would be a sin to act upon them, refused to give in. Would this person still be called a homosexual? I may be tempted to get drunk, but, knowing again that it is a sin decide not to. Would I be an alcoholic even if I never took a drink? I guess what must be determined here is what one would define as "homosexual." Whatever the definition, Paul goes on to say,"And this is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God our God."
When referring to Mollenkott, you stated, "Why else would they have her on the team if her input carried no weight?" It's possible that her input carried weight, but from a grammatical standpoint opposed to one of doctrine. To get to the bottom of this whole Mollenkott debate, we would have to know specifically what advice she gave. What words did they ask her about? What Bible verses did she really have an input on, etc? It doesn't seem as if she got them to translate that homosexuality was ok. The NIV doesn't seem soft on homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27.
Well, it's late and I need energy for my family tomorrow, so I'm off to bed. It looks as if we may be coming over later this month. I told Eshell that I would love to hear your kids play. :) Rachel
Post a Comment