| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2005 02:07:01 PM |
| Object: |
TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
TNIV EXPOSURE
RELIGION: In trying to make the Bible more accessible to today's young readers,
the TNIV toys with Scripture's meaning and accuracy | by Wayne GrudemMoms
aniversity
Purportedly "sexist" language has become taboo in some circles today. "Mankind"
must be changed to "humankind," "he" must be changed to "he or she," and words
like "businessmen" or "mailman" are taboo.
Bible translations such as the New Revised Standard, the Good News Bible,
and the New Living Translation have also adopted regendered language, and
now the most widely used contemporary translation, the New International
Version (NIV), is imitating them with Today's New International Version (TNIV).
Some Bible scholars think that's great. Craig Blomberg, a Bible scholar at
Denver Seminary, tells of young people and new Christians asking "Why are
the Proverbs written only to men?" because of all the language of "fathers,"
"sons," and that generic "he." Mr. Blomberg says, "It is still hard for them
to get it out of their heads that the Bible isn't outdated or biased against
women in ways that it never intended to be."
But other Bible scholars, and many evangelicals generally, have three questions
about editing the Bible to respond to that concern. The first arises from
the basic Christian understanding that all Scripture is inspired by God.
Sometimes God's writers used words like "anthropoi" that refer to no specific
gender, so they can legitimately be translated "people" rather than "men."
But when the inspired words clearly specify one gender or one person, should
translators change "fathers" to "parents" and "he" to "they"? Does this imply
that God really didn't know what He was doing?
If this first question emphasizes God's glory, the second concerns church
teaching. The NIV, unlike some already-regendered versions, has become the
standard pew Bible in thousands of churches, and its images stick in our heads.
For example, think of this NIV picture of the wicked man in chapter 15 of
the book of Job: "he shakes his fist at God and vaunts himself against the
Almighty."
Compare that with the image produced by TNIV translators: "they shake their
fists at God and vaunt themselves against the Almighty." An author who wrote
about a lonely individual, only to find that his editor had turned his passage
into a story about a mob in rebellion, would be rightfully angry.
A third question about the TNIV involves honoring agreements. In 1997,
following WORLD's exposure of the plan to change the NIV, James Dobson brought
together evangelical leaders and the presidents of the International Bible
Society, which holds the NIV copyright, and NIV publisher Zondervan. IBS,
which had been roundly criticized by many evangelicals, quieted the furor
by announcing that there would be no "gender-related language revisions in
any NIV Bible licensed by IBS." Yet, the introduction to the new Bible begins,
"Today's New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the New
International Version (NIV)" (p. A14)—and that's what the agreement did not
allow.
God's glory, church teaching, honesty—but does any of this really matter in
comparison with the opportunity to de-genderize biblical language? Bible
scholar Wayne Grudem, in the review of the TNIV that follows, argues that
it does.
—The Editors
Eight years ago I compared 15 Bible passages in the New International Version
(NIV) and the NIV-Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI), which had already been
published in England ("Comparing the two NIVs," WORLD, April 19, 1997).
Zondervan and the International Bible Society were quietly making plans to
publish a similar gender-neutral NIVI in the United States, but when the
Christian public saw the actual changes that had been made to the NIVI in
the interests of "inclusive language," many decided they could not trust such
a translation.
Now in 2005 Zondervan and the IBS have published another revision of the NIV
called Today's New International Version (TNIV). Has it corrected the
gender-neutral translation policies that were found in the NIVI? Yes, in one
of the 15 passages (Proverbs 29:13). But in the other 14 passages it is
disappointing to see that nothing has changed (in 11 passages) or that partial
corrections were made that did not really solve the problem (in three
passages). In spite of a handful of helpful changes, the gender-neutral
translation philosophy of the 2005 TNIV is essentially the same as that of
the NIVI that caused the controversy of 1997 in the first place. It is the
same committee giving us essentially the same Bible.
Genesis 1:26-27
Current NIV: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image. . . ." So God
created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them.
TNIV (2005): Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image. . . ."
So God created human beings in his own image . . . male and female he created
them. [identical to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: The change from singular "man" to plural "human beings"
obscures the unity of the race as "man" (indicated by the singular Hebrew
noun 'adam). The word "man" in English can mean either "a male human being"
or "the human race," and thus it is the best translation for Hebrew 'adam,
which can also refer either to man in distinction from woman (Genesis 2:22,
25) or to the human race as a whole (as here). The TNIV thus fails to convey
as much of the meaning of 'adam as it could in English today. Why is the
male-oriented aspect of the meaning of the Hebrew word removed?
Genesis 5:2
Current NIV: He created them male and female. . . . And when they were created,
he called them "man."
TNIV (2005): He created them male and female. . . . And when they were created,
he called them "human beings." [identical to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: God's activity of naming is important in the Bible. Here
the TNIV has renamed the human race, refusing to use the male-oriented name
"man." But in the previous four chapters this same singular Hebrew word 'adam
has been used eight times to refer to man in distinction from woman (as in
"The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame," Genesis 2:25),
and also five times as the proper name "Adam." So Hebrew readers would hear
clear male nuances when God named the human race 'adam in Genesis 5:2, and
"man" is the best English translation. The TNIV incorrectly removes the
male-oriented aspect of the name God gave the human race.
TNIV supporters say the change was necessary because the English language
has changed. But people today still understand that "man" can mean the human
race, as in the Wall Street Journal headline about the recent tsunami, "Man,
Nature, and Disaster" (Dec. 28, 2004, p. A10).
Psalm 1:1
Current NIV: Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
NIVI (1996): Blessed are those who do not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
TNIV (2005): Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or
stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers. [identical
in gender language to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: Here the word "man" means "a male human being," and it
is the correct translation of the singular Hebrew word 'ish, which (except
in special idioms) means "man" in distinction from woman, and surely is
singular, not plural. The Hebrew text holds up an individual righteous man
as an example that all Israel should imitate. The next verse says more about
this man: "His delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates
day and night" (vs. 2). But the TNIV changes "the man" to "those," removing
the concrete example of an individual man. It changes the Bible's singulars
to plurals in hundreds of such cases, in each case removing one of the primary
teaching methods of the Bible: holding up an individual man as an example
for all believers to imitate.
The result is (1) an incorrect translation of the singular noun 'ish, (2)
a loss of the picture of the moral courage of a solitary righteous man standing
against plural sinners, (3) a shift away from the Bible's emphasis on the
relationship between God and individual persons to a greater emphasis on
groups, (4) a loss of any possibility of seeing this "blessed man" in the
Psalms as a foreshadowing of Christ, the truly righteous Man, and (5) a loss
of historical accuracy, because the original writer of Psalm 1 did not speak
of "those" but of "a man."
The change to plural also produces a comical picture in verse 3: "He is like
a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season" (NIV)
becomes "they are like a tree. . ." (TNIV). All God's people around the world
are like one tree? Another amusing example is a whole group of sluggards now
reaching into one dish: "Sluggards bury their hands in the dish and are too
lazy to bring them back to their mouths" (Proverbs 26:15).
Psalm 8:4
Current NIV: What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that
you care for him?
TNIV (2005): What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings
that you care for them? [identical to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: The singular "man" meaning "the human race" is changed
to plural "mere mortals," wrongly removing the sense of unity of the human
race (the Hebrew is singular). The Hebrew singular ben which means "son" and
the singular 'adam which means "man" are incorrectly translated with the plural
"human beings," removing masculine meaning, and thus removing the title "son
of man," which Jesus often used of Himself. (The TNIV also incorrectly removes
"son of man" when this verse is quoted in Hebrews 2:6.)
Psalm 34:20
Current NIV: He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.
TNIV (2005): He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken.
[identical to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: The third-person masculine singular "his" rightly represents
the third-person masculine singular pronoun suffix in Hebrew, and the TNIV
incorrectly pluralizes this to "their bones." This obscures the fulfillment
of this verse in Christ's crucifixion in John 19:36. This part of Psalm 34
speaks of God's protection of an individual righteous man: God protects "his
bones." Why does the TNIV refuse to translate hundreds of third-person
masculine singular pronouns in the original languages as third-person masculine
singular pronouns in English? What is the objection to male-oriented language
when it accurately reflects the original Hebrew or Greek text?
Proverbs 5:21
Current NIV: For a man's ways are in full view of the Lord.
TNIV (2005): For your ways are in full view of the Lord. [identical to NIVI
(1996)]
Change in meaning: The Hebrew male-specific noun 'ish means "a man," as the
NIV correctly translated it. The TNIV incorrectly changes this to "your,"
and thus restricts the statement to the "you," which in this context is the
son being warned by his father in the previous verse. The text no longer
affirms God's observation of the ways of every person (represented by the
concrete example of "a man").
These last two verses (Psalm 34:20; Proverbs 5:21) also demonstrate another
serious result of systematically changing singulars to plurals in hundreds
of cases: The TNIV will ultimately lead to a loss of confidence in tens of
thousands of plural pronouns in the Bible. A preacher cannot rightly use the
TNIV to make a point based on the plurals "they/them/ their/those" or the
second-person pronouns "you/your/yours" because he can no longer have
confidence that those represent accurately the meaning of the original. Maybe
the original was plural ("their"), but then again maybe "their" is a
gender-neutral substitute for a singular ("his"). Maybe the original was second
person ("you"), but then again maybe "you" is a gender-neutral substitute
for a third-person singular pronoun ("he") or a singular noun ("a man"). How
can any ordinary English reader know? He can't. So no weight can be put on
those pronouns. "He" in the NIV has become "we" or "you" or "they" in the
TNIV hundreds and perhaps even thousands of times.
How many pronouns are thrown into doubt? The forms of "we/us/our/ourselves"
occur 4,636 times, of "you/your/ yours/yourselves" 21,205 times, and the forms
of "they/them/their/ themselves/those" 19,372 times, for a total of 45,213
pronouns. How can we know which of these 45,213 are trustworthy, and which
are the TNIV's gender-neutral substitutes for the correct translation
"he/him/his"? The only way is to check the Hebrew and Greek text in each case,
and who is going to do that? Can you really study, or memorize, or teach or
preach from such a Bible where you can't trust this many pronouns?
Another measure of the extent of the changes comes from seeing that the TNIV
has 1,826 more instances of second-person pronouns such as
"you/your/yours/yourself" than were in the NIV. Did 1,826 new examples of
second-person verbs and pronouns suddenly appear in the original Hebrew and
Greek texts? No, most of these are gender-neutral substitutes for the
objectionable words "he/him/his," which were translated correctly in the NIV.
And the TNIV has 2,321 more examples of forms of
"they/them/their/those/themselves" than the NIV. Did 2,321 new examples of
third-person plural verbs and pronouns suddenly appear in the original Hebrew
and Greek texts? No, most of these again are gender-neutral substitutes for
"he/ him/his," which were translated correctly in the NIV. You can't trust
the pronouns in the TNIV. This is a deficiency so great as to render the TNIV
unsuitable for widespread use in the church.
Proverbs 29:3
Current NIV: A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion
of prostitutes squanders his wealth.
NIVI (1996): Those who love wisdom bring joy to their parents, but companions
of prostitutes squander their wealth.
TNIV (2005): A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion
of prostitutes squanders his wealth. [a helpful correction, restoring the
NIV wording]
Change in meaning: None. The TNIV returns to the original NIV in this verse.
Luke 17:3
Current NIV: If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive
him.
NIVI (1996): Rebuke a brother or sister who sins, and if they repent, forgive
them.
TNIV (2005): If a brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if
they repent, forgive them. [changed but no improvement over the NIVI; the
words "against you" are added but they are not there in the Greek text]
Change in meaning: The words "or sister" are inserted into the Bible but Jesus
did not say them and they have no basis in the Greek text. (The Bible can
say "brother or sister" when it wants to, as in James 2:15.) The words "against
you" are inserted into the Bible but they have no basis in the Greek text.
The words "them" and "they" hinder clear communication because they will be
taken as plural by some people, as singular by others, and as bad grammar
by many. A common reaction will be some uncertainty as to whether the original
Greek was singular or plural. The TNIV is going through linguistic gymnastics
simply to avoid the offensive word "him," but "him" is the most accurate
translation of the masculine singular Greek pronoun autos.
I agree, of course, that "If your brother sins against you" also applies to
sisters who sin, just as the parable of the Prodigal Son also applies to
prodigal daughters, and just as "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife"
(Exodus 20:17) also applies to not coveting your neighbor's husband! (And
the TNIV did not change those passages.) But people have easily understood
this for centuries: When the Bible uses an example of an individual man or
woman to teach a general principle, the principle also applies to people of
the opposite sex. We do not have to add the words "or sister" to understand
this. We should not add to Jesus' words things that have no basis in the Greek
text.
John 6:44
Current NIV: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,
and I will raise him up at the last day.
TNIV (2005): No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,
and I will raise them up at the last day. [identical to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: There is a loss of clear emphasis on the Father drawing
an individual person. "Them" seems to be plural here, referring to a group.
It is an incorrect translation of the third-person singular Greek pronoun
autos in both places.
John 11:25
Current NIV: Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in me will live, even though he dies. . . ."
NIVI (1996): Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those
who believe in me will live, even though they die. . . ."
TNIV (2005): Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone
who believes in me will live, even though they die . . . ." [a partial
correction changing plural "those" to singular "anyone," but still using the
incorrect plural "they"]
Change in meaning: I agree with the change from "He who believes in me" to
"Anyone who believes in me," because there is no masculine pronoun in the
Greek text. ("Anyone who" is consistent with the Colorado Springs Guidelines
for this kind of Greek construction, and it retains the singular meaning.)
But the TNIV still adds an element of confusion because of the plural
expression "they die" (with the plural verb "die") instead of the more accurate
NIV rendering, "he dies" (correctly rendering the third-person singular Greek
verb).
John 14:23
Current NIV: If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will
love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
NIVI (1996): Those who love me will obey my teaching. My Father will love
them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
TNIV (2005): Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love
them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. [a partial
correction, changing plural "those" to singular "anyone," but keeping "them"
instead of "him"]
Change in meaning: Again the change back to the NIV's "anyone" is helpful.
But the "If" that Jesus said (Greek ean) is omitted, and three masculine
singular pronouns (Greek autos) are incorrectly translated with "them,"
removing the amazing emphasis on the Father and Son dwelling with an individual
person. In the TNIV, maybe "them" refers to the whole group of those who obey.
How can we know?
Acts 20:30
Current NIV: Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth
in order to draw away disciples after them.
TNIV (2005): Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth
in order to draw away disciples after them. [identical to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: The TNIV removes the word "men" used to refer to the elders
of the church at Ephesus. The Greek word is not anthropos, which can mean
"man" or "person," but aner, which means "man" in distinction from woman.
The Greek expression for "from your own number" is emphatic, referring
specifically to the elders and not to the Ephesian church. Why not call elders
"men"?
1 Corinthians 14:28
Current NIV: If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in
the church and speak to himself and God.
NIVI (1996): If there is no interpreter, the speakers should keep quiet in
the church and speak to themselves and God.
TNIV (2005): If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in
the church; let them speak to themselves and to God. [singular "speaker" is
rightly restored but the incorrect plural "themselves" is retained]
Change in meaning: In attempting to avoid "himself" (which was the NIV's
correct translation of the masculine singular pronoun eautou), the TNIV inserts
"them" followed by "themselves," which many readers will take as plurals.
The verse will easily be misunderstood to encourage groups of tongue-speakers
to go off together and speak in tongues "to themselves." But that is not what
Paul wrote.
James 1:12
Current NIV: Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he
has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life. . . .
TNIV (2005): Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they
have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life . . . . [identical
to NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: TNIV removes the example of a single "blessed man" who
perseveres under trial and changes it to a group: "those" and "they." The
focus on God's blessing on an individual believer is removed. The TNIV pictures
a group under trial and suggests that reward waits until "they" all have stood
the test. "Those" is an incorrect translation of the singular Greek word aner,
which means "man," not "person," and certainly not "those."
Revelation 3:20
Current NIV: I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens
the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
TNIV (2005): I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens
the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me. [identical to
NIVI (1996)]
Change in meaning: The idea of Christ coming into an individual person's life
is lost; Christ no longer eats with "him" but with "them." Many readers will
understand "them" to refer to the plural group "those whom I love" in the
previous verse, so the TNIV now pictures Christ coming into a church and eating
among a group of people.
Additional verses:
In addition to these 15 verses, the TNIV has other types of unacceptable
translations, which I can mention briefly:
Changing "son" to "child" and "father" to "parent" when the original meant
"son" and "father"NIV Proverbs 13:1: A wise son heeds his father's instruction,
but a mocker does not listen to rebuke.
TNIV Proverbs 13:1: A wise child heeds a parent's instruction, but a mocker
does not respond to rebukes.
Removing "brother" when the original meant "brother" (singular)
NIV Matthew 7:3: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's
eye. . . ?"
TNIV Matthew 7:3: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's
eye. . . ?"
De-emphasizing the manhood of Christ
NIV 1 Corinthians 15:21: For since death came through a man, the resurrection
of the dead comes also through a man.
TNIV 1 Corinthian 15:21: For since death came through a human being, the
resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being.
Comment: Here the Greek word is anthropos, which can mean either "man" or
"person," depending on context. But in this context it refers to Adam and
Christ and the meaning "man" is appropriate. What is the objection to calling
them "men"?
NIV Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every
way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in
service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
TNIV Hebrews 2:17: For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and
sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful
high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins
of the people.
Comment: Did Jesus have to become like his sisters "in every way" in order
to become a "high priest in service to God"? All the Old Testament priests
were men, and surely the high priest was only a man. This text does not quite
proclaim an androgynous Jesus (who was both male and female), but it surely
leaves open a wide door for misunderstanding, and almost invites
misunderstanding. Meditate on that phrase "in every way" and see if you can
trust the TNIV.
Removing whole phrases from the bible
NIV Matthew 7:4: How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out
of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
TNIV Matthew 7:4: How can you say ___________, 'Let me take the speck out
of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
NIV Matthew 15:5 . . . if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help
you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
TNIV Matthew 15:5: . . . if anyone declares _______________ that what ____
might have been used _______ to help their father or mother is 'devoted to
God,'
Expanding the penalty for adding to the words of Scripture
NIV Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of
this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues
described in this book.
TNIV Revelation 22:18: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy
of this scroll: If any one of you adds anything to them, God will add to you
the plagues described in this scroll.
Comment: The first "you" added by the TNIV is plural, referring to the whole
group of hearers. Therefore the second "you" is also plural, and if anyone
in the group adds to the words of prophecy the penalty is now expanded to
the whole group.
Objections by TNIV defenders
The defenders of the TNIV respond, "But all translations make these kinds
of translation decisions." No, they do not. They do not systematically remove
hundreds of male-specific terms when there is a male-oriented term in the
original, nor do they change hundreds of singular verses to plural just to
avoid using the word "he."
Defenders of the TNIV fail to mention that in the major "essentially literal"
translations (such as the ESV, NASB, HCSB, and NKJV) translating singulars
as plurals is rare, done only in unusual cases like collective nouns that
have a singular form in Greek but require a plural for the same plural sense
in English, or neuter plural subjects that take a singular verb because of
a particular feature of Greek grammar that does not match what English does.
In addition, there are some difficult Old Testament poetic verses where the
Hebrew pronouns shift frequently in ways difficult for anyone to understand.
But these are unusual exceptions.
To say that "the TNIV is just doing what all translations do" is not coming
clean with the Christian public regarding the extent of the changes. It is
like saying that a student who misspelled 100 words in a term paper "is just
doing what the teacher does" because she misspelled one difficult word in
class five months ago. It is not the same.
Another question is, "Why are you only attacking the TNIV?" First, Vern
Poythress and I systematically critiqued several gender-neutral translations
in our book, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. Second, the
NIV is the most widely used translation in the English language, so its
policies have great influence. Third, other translations that use much
gender-neutral language (such as The Message or the New Living Translation)
have been "dynamic equivalent" translations that are read more as commentaries
and interpretations of what the Bible says rather than as "word for word"
or "essentially literal" translations. But the NIV is different, because many
people use it as their main Bible for study, teaching, preaching, and
memorizing, and they depend on it much more for accuracy in the very words.
I believe the TNIV is no longer sufficiently trustworthy to be used for these
purposes.
The most frequent reason given for the TNIV is that updates in language are
needed to reach younger readers today, especially those 18-34. But the words
that are systematically removed are not archaic words. What reader 18-34 cannot
understand the words "father," "son," "brother," "man," and "he/him/his"?
Yet these male-oriented words have been removed many hundreds of times where
they correctly represented the original Hebrew or Greek in the current NIV.
The best term to describe this Bible is not "gender-accurate" but
"gender-neutral."
I agree with removing male-oriented words when there is no male-oriented
meaning in the original Greek or Hebrew text. But when there is a male meaning,
we dare not under-translate and conceal that meaning just because that emphasis
is unpopular today.
If we believe that "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), and that
"every word of God is flawless" (Proverbs 30:5), then we must believe that
every word of Scripture as originally written is the very word God intended
to be written. To put it another way, our doctrine of the "verbal inspiration"
of Scripture is that the very words of Scripture—not just the general ideas—are
"God-breathed" and are therefore the very words of God. Jesus and the New
Testament authors sometimes base arguments on a single word of Old Testament
Scripture (Matthew 4:10; John 10:34; Galatians 3:10, 16; Hebrews 3:13; 4:7)
and sometimes a single letter of a word (Matthew 22:44). Anyone who does
expository preaching knows how often good preaching makes use of the sense
of individual words. These words are not ours to tamper with as we wish; they
are the words of God.
If the TNIV should gain wide acceptance, the precedent will be established
for other Bible translations to mute unpopular nuances and details of meaning
for the sake of "political correctness." The loss of many other doctrines
unpopular in the culture will soon follow. And at every case Bible readers
will never know if what they are reading is really the Word of God or the
translators' ideas of something that would be a little less offensive than
what God actually said.
In many hundreds of places, then, the new words in the TNIV do not accurately
reflect the meaning of the words God originally caused to be written, and
thus they are not
--
Posted with a Jornada 720 Handheld PC running Ink Spot CE
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
[Jn 11:25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and
the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
.
|
|
| User: "Carl Walther" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
30 Sep 2005 03:46:17 PM |
|
|
I guess the NIV didn't suck enough... Zondervan needed to give it that
extra little push.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible John" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
01 Oct 2005 11:35:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1128113177.497322.191450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess the NIV didn't suck enough... Zondervan needed to give it that
extra little push.
Whats wrong with the NIV Carl?
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
2Tim. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in
season and out of season; correct, rebuke
and encourage ‹ with great patience and
careful instruction.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Steve Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
02 Oct 2005 05:26:17 PM |
|
|
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> spake thusly and wrote:
Whats wrong with the NIV Carl?
It is a perfectly acceptable translation for false-christian
cultists like John Wolf and other polytheists.
Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Steve Winter" |
|
| Title: John Wolf quite an obsessed prating fool actually... |
02 Oct 2005 09:36:00 PM |
|
|
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> spake thusly and wrote:
On it there is an audio clip of what Hank Hanegraaf said about your
behaviors on national radio.
Is John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig or is
John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig?
Why would I care what some accursed, Christ hating,
false-christian dirt like Hank Hanegraaf thinks about anything?
It is interesting how John Wolf lied to him about me, though.
It is also interesting how obsessed this false-christian scum
John Wolf is with me for simply showing him to be a fake
from his own Bible.
Is John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig or is
John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig?
Others may also have noticed that Hank did not seem impressed
much by Mr. Wolf and was able to see right through him. It is
too bad that John Wolf is too carnal and stupid to comprehend
that the audio from that show disgraces him and shows John Wolf
for the prating, obsessed, fool that he is.
Pastor Winter http://www.onegodsermons.com
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Steve Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
02 Oct 2005 09:36:38 PM |
|
|
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> spake thusly and wrote:
On it there is an audio clip of what Hank Hanegraaf said about your
behaviors on national radio.
See my reply as:
"John Wolf quite an obsessed prating fool actually..."
Is John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig or is
John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig?
Why would I care what some accursed, Christ hating,
false-christian dirt like Hank Hanegraaf thinks about anything?
It is interesting how John Wolf lied to him about me, though.
It is also interesting how obsessed this false-christian scum
John Wolf is with me for simply showing him to be a fake
from his own Bible.
Is John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig or is
John Wolf an accursed filthy lying false-christian pig?
Others may also have noticed that Hank did not seem impressed
much by Mr. Wolf and was able to see right through him. It is
too bad that John Wolf is too carnal and stupid to comprehend
that the audio from that show disgraces him and shows John Wolf
for the prating, obsessed, fool that he is.
Pastor Winter http://www.onegodsermons.com
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible John" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
03 Oct 2005 01:20:40 AM |
|
|
In article <o861k1pr0b03u335qb527uckv3lgkt25p2@4ax.com>,
Pastor Steve Winter <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote:
It is also interesting how obsessed this false-christian scum
John Wolf is with me for simply showing him to be a fake
from his own Bible.
No I'm obsessed with putting you in your place. Your clearly a
"Spiritual Terrorist" and I am tired of your online behaviors and the
way you treat the sheep here. You are no Shepherd, and need to be
removed from these boards.
Jesus spoke very boldly and plainly about the false teachers as I do
about you and others like you.
Matt. 23:27 ? "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you
hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the
outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything
unclean.
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
2Tim. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in
season and out of season; correct, rebuke
and encourage -- with great patience and
careful instruction.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Steve Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
03 Oct 2005 10:18:19 AM |
|
|
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> spake thusly and wrote:
It is also interesting how obsessed this false-christian scum
John Wolf is with me for simply showing him to be a fake
from his own Bible.
No I'm obsessed with putting you in your place. Your clearly a
"Spiritual Terrorist"
I think anyone worth convincing can see who the obsessed nutty
"terrrorist" is and it is the filthy false-christian scum John
Wolf.
The problem is that John Wolf is too stupid to see that even his
"hero" on the radio was rebuking him and doesn't even know of me.
Just keep posting John Wolf so that you remove all doubt
regarding what a sicko, obsessed nutter John Wolf really is.
Pastor Winter http://www.onegodsermons.com
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
03 Oct 2005 10:23:35 AM |
|
|
Dear John,
You are no Shepherd, and need to be removed from these boards. <<<<<<<<<
Neither was Paul before He saw The Light. Join me in prayer for a lost
sheep ?
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
03 Oct 2005 10:45:35 AM |
|
|
It is interesting to see these pure rants with NO evidence to support their
claims. This indicates they have NO objective evidence or ability to discuss
issues intelligently.
Typical blind Christian bigots.
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:john.doggett-083D23.23203902102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
In article <o861k1pr0b03u335qb527uckv3lgkt25p2@4ax.com>,
Pastor Steve Winter <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote:
It is also interesting how obsessed this false-christian scum
John Wolf is with me for simply showing him to be a fake
from his own Bible.
No I'm obsessed with putting you in your place. Your clearly a
"Spiritual Terrorist" and I am tired of your online behaviors and the
way you treat the sheep here. You are no Shepherd, and need to be
removed from these boards.
Jesus spoke very boldly and plainly about the false teachers as I do
about you and others like you.
Matt. 23:27 ? "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you
hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the
outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything
unclean.
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
2Tim. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in
season and out of season; correct, rebuke
and encourage -- with great patience and
careful instruction.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Walther" |
|
| Title: Re: TNIV. A corrupt or biblical translation? |
03 Oct 2005 11:41:35 AM |
|
|
Bill blathered:
Typical blind Christian bigots.
What's YOUR excuse, Bill?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Walther" |
|
| Title: NIV Problems |
03 Oct 2005 01:01:49 AM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
In article <1128113177.497322.191450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess the NIV didn't suck enough... Zondervan needed to give it that
extra little push.
Whats wrong with the NIV Carl?
1) a corporate translation, with copyrited verbiage. (If you are ok
with that... READ ON MY FRIEND)
2) The theology behind the translation is blatantly Calvinistic and
takes license to do so. Read the Greek and you will see that this
translation takes more liberties than it really should. (If you are ok
with that... READ ON MY FRIEND)
I mean, it's not "The Message", but it isn't far off.
Just my 2=A2
--Carl
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
09 Oct 2005 05:54:02 PM |
|
|
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Bible John wrote:
In article <1128113177.497322.191450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess the NIV didn't suck enough... Zondervan needed to give it that
extra little push.
Whats wrong with the NIV Carl?
1) a corporate translation, with copyrited verbiage. (If you are ok
with that... READ ON MY FRIEND)
As opposed to a corporate translation made by the leadership of the
church of England, under orders from the homosexual king of England?
What is the advantabe of either the NIV OR the KJV?
2) The theology behind the translation is blatantly Calvinistic and
takes license to do so. Read the Greek and you will see that this
translation takes more liberties than it really should. (If you are ok
with that... READ ON MY FRIEND)
Your OPINION is noted. It is also noted that it is nothing more than
your OPINION and ASSUMPTION.
I mean, it's not "The Message", but it isn't far off.
Just my 2¢
And worth every penny of it!
I'll take my NASB or my NKJV to either the NIV OR the KJV.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
03 Oct 2005 04:06:51 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On 2 Oct 2005 23:01:49 -0700, "Carl Walther"
<no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
Bible John wrote:
In article <1128113177.497322.191450@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess the NIV didn't suck enough... Zondervan needed to give it that
extra little push.
Whats wrong with the NIV Carl?
1) a corporate translation, with copyrited verbiage. (If you are ok
with that... READ ON MY FRIEND)
2) The theology behind the translation is blatantly Calvinistic and
takes license to do so. Read the Greek and you will see that this
translation takes more liberties than it really should. (If you are ok
with that... READ ON MY FRIEND)
I mean, it's not "The Message", but it isn't far off.
Just my 2¢
--Carl
OTOH, any sincere, serious Bible student will read / own more than one
translation. I believe at this time, I own roughly half-a-dozen, and I
am adding to my collection. It includes NIV, NKJV, KJV, RSV, TEV,
Llamsa. Before I was burglarized, I owned roughly a dozen different
translations.
What I like about the NIV is that it is easy to read. I suffer several
reading impairments, and the "stiffer" translations are difficult for
me.
Since I have been a Bible reader/student for almost 50 years now, I am
pretty good with the content, I just need to be reminded.
We don't all need to concern ourselves with the Hebrew and Greek.
God bless!
john w
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Walther" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
03 Oct 2005 06:45:46 PM |
|
|
As a "sincere, serious Bible student" I read the Greek / Aramaic and
Hebrew. In english, I use the ESV.
--Carl
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
08 Oct 2005 06:45:24 PM |
|
|
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
As a "sincere, serious Bible student" I read the Greek / Aramaic and
Hebrew. In english, I use the ESV.
--Carl
I'm not impressed with the ESV. Its stated effort to be "gender
inclusive" turns me off badly. But I will be the first to admit I
haven't used it to any real degree. I don't just "jump at" every new
translation that comes down the pike.
My NASB, NKJV, NIV, and NRSV are all good translations; I will use one
of them when not using the GNT.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Walther" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
08 Oct 2005 07:34:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
As a "sincere, serious Bible student" I read the Greek / Aramaic and
Hebrew. In english, I use the ESV.
--Carl
I'm not impressed with the ESV. Its stated effort to be "gender
inclusive" turns me off badly. But I will be the first to admit I
haven't used it to any real degree. I don't just "jump at" every new
translation that comes down the pike.
My NASB, NKJV, NIV, and NRSV are all good translations; I will use one
of them when not using the GNT.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Gender inclusive? Really? Where did you read that?
Thanks
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
09 Oct 2005 03:20:09 PM |
|
|
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
"Carl Walther" <no_no_no_splam@hotmail.com>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
As a "sincere, serious Bible student" I read the Greek / Aramaic and
Hebrew. In english, I use the ESV.
--Carl
I'm not impressed with the ESV. Its stated effort to be "gender
inclusive" turns me off badly. But I will be the first to admit I
haven't used it to any real degree. I don't just "jump at" every new
translation that comes down the pike.
My NASB, NKJV, NIV, and NRSV are all good translations; I will use one
of them when not using the GNT.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Gender inclusive? Really? Where did you read that?
Thanks
I just looked at the "official" ESV webpage and read their philosophy
page, and I stand corrected. They depart from the traditional
renderings in some places, but not to the point of impropriety, I
don't think, at least not from their philosophy page.
But why "jump" at (and have to work hard at evaluating) a new
translation when we have the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV, the NLB, and the
NRSV? It would seem to me that we have PLENTY of good and reliable
English translations already.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
09 Oct 2005 08:55:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip >
But why "jump" at (and have to work hard at evaluating) a new
translation when we have the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV, the NLB, and the
NRSV? It would seem to me that we have PLENTY of good and reliable
English translations already.
It's what scholars do. They strive for the truth and don't let what they
want something to say get in the way of what it means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
10 Oct 2005 09:43:45 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
<snip >
But why "jump" at (and have to work hard at evaluating) a new
translation when we have the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV, the NLB, and the
NRSV? It would seem to me that we have PLENTY of good and reliable
English translations already.
It's what scholars do. They strive for the truth and don't let what they
want something to say get in the way of what it means.
"Scholars" don't go around reinventing the wheel just for the joy of
reinventing the wheel though. At least REAL scholars don't.
The translations I mentioned ARE the Truth and say what it means.
Again, when you have something that is very good and does what it is
supposed to do, why try to "reinvent" it, especially when it is the
Word of God we are talking about?
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
10 Oct 2005 07:14:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
wrote:
<snip >
But why "jump" at (and have to work hard at evaluating) a new
translation when we have the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV, the NLB, and
the NRSV? It would seem to me that we have PLENTY of good and
reliable English translations already.
It's what scholars do. They strive for the truth and don't let what
they want something to say get in the way of what it means.
"Scholars" don't go around reinventing the wheel just for the joy of
reinventing the wheel though. At least REAL scholars don't.
The translations I mentioned ARE the Truth and say what it means.
Again, when you have something that is very good and does what it is
supposed to do, why try to "reinvent" it, especially when it is the
Word of God we are talking about?
That's the American speaking "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
Other countries say that if it isn't broken, make it better.
They are the ones with higher standards of living, better education and
where everybody has health care.
I would think that any god that wrote a book could do it in a clear enough
manner as to not create 20,000 different versions of it's religion.
A football rule book does a better job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
11 Oct 2005 10:02:51 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
<snip >
But why "jump" at (and have to work hard at evaluating) a new
translation when we have the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV, the NLB, and
the NRSV? It would seem to me that we have PLENTY of good and
reliable English translations already.
It's what scholars do. They strive for the truth and don't let what
they want something to say get in the way of what it means.
"Scholars" don't go around reinventing the wheel just for the joy of
reinventing the wheel though. At least REAL scholars don't.
The translations I mentioned ARE the Truth and say what it means.
Again, when you have something that is very good and does what it is
supposed to do, why try to "reinvent" it, especially when it is the
Word of God we are talking about?
That's the American speaking "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
Other countries say that if it isn't broken, make it better.
They are the ones with higher standards of living, better education and
where everybody has health care.
I would think that any god that wrote a book could do it in a clear enough
manner as to not create 20,000 different versions of it's religion.
A football rule book does a better job.
Unless you can demonstrate that the new translation is better, I won't
waste a lot of time going through it passage-by-passage to see how it
compares to the Greek and Hebrew.
The Bible did not create any "20,000 different versions of its
religion." The Bible created only one faith (actually two if you
separate Judaism from Christianity), and it was the sinfulness of man
that created many counterfeits. On the other hand, a great number of
your "20,000 different versions" are not really different versions at
all, but just different labels for the same faith. You really should
look into it sometime. . .
IN Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
11 Oct 2005 08:26:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The Bible did not create any "20,000 different versions of its
religion." The Bible created only one faith (actually two if you
separate Judaism from Christianity), and it was the sinfulness of man
that created many counterfeits. On the other hand, a great number of
your "20,000 different versions" are not really different versions at
all, but just different labels for the same faith. You really should
look into it sometime. . .
Been ther, done that. There are over 20,000 *recognized* sects and the
number grows by a little over 100 each year.
While the difference between many of them are small most believe as you
state that *they* are the only true believers and that the others are wrong
in minor or major ways.
Yinger points out that these sects change over time, usually moving from
fundamental bible based, store front groups with no minister to large
churches with paid staff as their income and education level grows.
The same growth also sees a movement from "rewards only in heaven" to
"rewards on earth" and the sect becomes more liberal.
This joke sums it all up.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the
Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed
Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of
1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
14 Oct 2005 05:37:08 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
The Bible did not create any "20,000 different versions of its
religion." The Bible created only one faith (actually two if you
separate Judaism from Christianity), and it was the sinfulness of man
that created many counterfeits. On the other hand, a great number of
your "20,000 different versions" are not really different versions at
all, but just different labels for the same faith. You really should
look into it sometime. . .
Been ther, done that. There are over 20,000 *recognized* sects and the
number grows by a little over 100 each year.
That number varies from 3,000 to 30,000 depending on who is doing the
"recognizing," and who is presenting the number.
(As you know, 87.34% of all statistics ARE made up on the spot. . .)
:-)
While the difference between many of them are small most believe as you
state that *they* are the only true believers and that the others are wrong
in minor or major ways.
I have never stated that "we" are the only true believers and that the
others are wrong. Don't put words into my posts.
And I disagree with you completely. Only a tiny FEW groups believe
that way. Virtually all of us recognize our limitations, and that we
ALL err.
The ONLY ONES with perfect theology are myself and my wife, and I
sometimes wonder about her. . .
THAT is MY joke! :-)
The TRUTH is that I have attended many Bible studies, men's groups,
etc. over the years that have each had Presbyterians, Baptists,
Nazarenes, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals and virtually every
other kinds of Christians you wish to list, praying together, studying
the Bible together in agreement over what it says and means,
worshipping together, and edifying each other in virtually all of
them.
To pretend that each of these groups believe that "*they* are the only
true believers and the others are wrong" is simply wrong.
In Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
15 Oct 2005 04:41:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
And I disagree with you completely. Only a tiny FEW groups believe
that way. Virtually all of us recognize our limitations, and that we
ALL err.
The ONLY ONES with perfect theology are myself and my wife, and I
sometimes wonder about her. . .
THAT is MY joke! :-)
The TRUTH is that I have attended many Bible studies, men's groups,
etc. over the years that have each had Presbyterians, Baptists,
Nazarenes, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals and virtually every
other kinds of Christians you wish to list, praying together, studying
the Bible together in agreement over what it says and means,
worshipping together, and edifying each other in virtually all of
them.
To pretend that each of these groups believe that "*they* are the only
true believers and the others are wrong" is simply wrong.
You've not spent much time on free.christians where almost all the
christians are claiming all the others are damned for what they believe.
Why would a group separate from a church they thought was the same as the
one they will be spending time and money on to develop into something
different?
Martin Luther was the first Scotsman when he said:
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
15 Oct 2005 06:36:23 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
And I disagree with you completely. Only a tiny FEW groups believe
that way. Virtually all of us recognize our limitations, and that we
ALL err.
The ONLY ONES with perfect theology are myself and my wife, and I
sometimes wonder about her. . .
THAT is MY joke! :-)
The TRUTH is that I have attended many Bible studies, men's groups,
etc. over the years that have each had Presbyterians, Baptists,
Nazarenes, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals and virtually every
other kinds of Christians you wish to list, praying together, studying
the Bible together in agreement over what it says and means,
worshipping together, and edifying each other in virtually all of
them.
To pretend that each of these groups believe that "*they* are the only
true believers and the others are wrong" is simply wrong.
You've not spent much time on free.christians where almost all the
christians are claiming all the others are damned for what they believe.
"free.christians?" What is that? I'll look for it in the ngs.
Will let you know what I find.
But reread what I said in the paragraphs above. You cannot deny they
are true. And THAT blows a hole in your theory.
Why would a group separate from a church they thought was the same as the
one they will be spending time and money on to develop into something
different?
My wife and I are doing exactly that now. We are leaving a
congregation (a church) that we have been trying to help reach out to
the worls, but who have become a "holy huddle," a bunch of "Christian
homeschoolers who are afraid their children will become "corrupted" if
outsiders come in, to attend another church which reaches out to
others, to lead them to Jesus Christ. He did command us to go to all
of the world, didn't He?
Does that mean we believe our former church to be "not Christian" or
"less Christian?" NOT AT ALL. Or that we believe the group we are
now worshipping with to be "the only true believers and everyone else
wrong?" That would be absurd!
Your theory is smoke.
Martin Luther was the first Scotsman when he said:
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.
Martin Luther was just like me. He put his knee-sox on one at a time!
:-)
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
BTW, I bought a nice new leather-bound NIV Study Bible this week. :-)
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernon" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
15 Oct 2005 10:12:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
wrote:
And I disagree with you completely. Only a tiny FEW groups believe
that way. Virtually all of us recognize our limitations, and that we
ALL err.
The ONLY ONES with perfect theology are myself and my wife, and I
sometimes wonder about her. . .
THAT is MY joke! :-)
The TRUTH is that I have attended many Bible studies, men's groups,
etc. over the years that have each had Presbyterians, Baptists,
Nazarenes, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals and virtually every
other kinds of Christians you wish to list, praying together, studying
the Bible together in agreement over what it says and means,
worshipping together, and edifying each other in virtually all of
them.
To pretend that each of these groups believe that "*they* are the only
true believers and the others are wrong" is simply wrong.
You've not spent much time on free.christians where almost all the
christians are claiming all the others are damned for what they believe.
"free.christians?" What is that? I'll look for it in the ngs.
Will let you know what I find.
But reread what I said in the paragraphs above. You cannot deny they
are true. And THAT blows a hole in your theory.
Why would a group separate from a church they thought was the same as the
one they will be spending time and money on to develop into something
different?
My wife and I are doing exactly that now. We are leaving a
congregation (a church) that we have been trying to help reach out to
the worls, but who have become a "holy huddle," a bunch of "Christian
homeschoolers who are afraid their children will become "corrupted" if
outsiders come in, to attend another church which reaches out to
others, to lead them to Jesus Christ. He did command us to go to all
of the world, didn't He?
Does that mean we believe our former church to be "not Christian" or
"less Christian?" NOT AT ALL. Or that we believe the group we are
now worshipping with to be "the only true believers and everyone else
wrong?" That would be absurd!
Your theory is smoke.
Martin Luther was the first Scotsman when he said:
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.
Martin Luther was just like me. He put his knee-sox on one at a time!
:-)
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
BTW, I bought a nice new leather-bound NIV Study Bible this week. :-)
Why a "study" bible?
The comments are just comments and some may be wrong.
You just stated that the bible is not sufficient.
OR
Are you calling a bible with good "CROSS REFERENCES" a study bible.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
16 Oct 2005 08:05:16 AM |
|
|
vernon <ohyes@once.com>, posted this little bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
christia@quik.com wrote:
And I disagree with you completely. Only a tiny FEW groups believe
that way. Virtually all of us recognize our limitations, and that we
ALL err.
The ONLY ONES with perfect theology are myself and my wife, and I
sometimes wonder about her. . .
THAT is MY joke! :-)
The TRUTH is that I have attended many Bible studies, men's groups,
etc. over the years that have each had Presbyterians, Baptists,
Nazarenes, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals and virtually every
other kinds of Christians you wish to list, praying together, studying
the Bible together in agreement over what it says and means,
worshipping together, and edifying each other in virtually all of
them.
To pretend that each of these groups believe that "*they* are the only
true believers and the others are wrong" is simply wrong.
You've not spent much time on free.christians where almost all the
christians are claiming all the others are damned for what they believe.
"free.christians?" What is that? I'll look for it in the ngs.
Will let you know what I find.
But reread what I said in the paragraphs above. You cannot deny they
are true. And THAT blows a hole in your theory.
Why would a group separate from a church they thought was the same as the
one they will be spending time and money on to develop into something
different?
My wife and I are doing exactly that now. We are leaving a
congregation (a church) that we have been trying to help reach out to
the worls, but who have become a "holy huddle," a bunch of "Christian
homeschoolers who are afraid their children will become "corrupted" if
outsiders come in, to attend another church which reaches out to
others, to lead them to Jesus Christ. He did command us to go to all
of the world, didn't He?
Does that mean we believe our former church to be "not Christian" or
"less Christian?" NOT AT ALL. Or that we believe the group we are
now worshipping with to be "the only true believers and everyone else
wrong?" That would be absurd!
Your theory is smoke.
Martin Luther was the first Scotsman when he said:
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the angels.
He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.
Martin Luther was just like me. He put his knee-sox on one at a time!
:-)
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
BTW, I bought a nice new leather-bound NIV Study Bible this week. :-)
Why a "study" bible?
The comments are just comments and some may be wrong.
You just stated that the bible is not sufficient.
OR
Are you calling a bible with good "CROSS REFERENCES" a study bible.
Don't be snide. IT says it is a "study Bible," and I am calling it by
ITS claim. Of course the comments are sometimes wrong, we all know
that, and of course I would not buy any Bible that did not contain a
reasonable cross-reference system.
So don't be snide. That's petty.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
17 Oct 2005 12:04:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
wrote:
And I disagree with you completely. Only a tiny FEW groups believe
that way. Virtually all of us recognize our limitations, and that
we ALL err.
The ONLY ONES with perfect theology are myself and my wife, and I
sometimes wonder about her. . .
THAT is MY joke! :-)
The TRUTH is that I have attended many Bible studies, men's groups,
etc. over the years that have each had Presbyterians, Baptists,
Nazarenes, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals and virtually every
other kinds of Christians you wish to list, praying together,
studying the Bible together in agreement over what it says and
means, worshipping together, and edifying each other in virtually
all of them.
To pretend that each of these groups believe that "*they* are the
only true believers and the others are wrong" is simply wrong.
You've not spent much time on free.christians where almost all the
christians are claiming all the others are damned for what they
believe.
"free.christians?" What is that? I'll look for it in the ngs.
Will let you know what I find.
But reread what I said in the paragraphs above. You cannot deny they
are true. And THAT blows a hole in your theory.
It is not a theory. It is a fact that a very large number of sects believe
as Martin Luther did, that if you do not believe as they do, you are damned.
Why would a group separate from a church they thought was the same
as the one they will be spending time and money on to develop into
something different?
My wife and I are doing exactly that now. We are leaving a
congregation (a church) that we have been trying to help reach out to
the worls, but who have become a "holy huddle," a bunch of "Christian
homeschoolers who are afraid their children will become "corrupted" if
outsiders come in, to attend another church which reaches out to
others, to lead them to Jesus Christ. He did command us to go to all
of the world, didn't He?
Does that mean we believe our former church to be "not Christian" or
"less Christian?" NOT AT ALL. Or that we believe the group we are
now worshipping with to be "the only true believers and everyone else
wrong?" That would be absurd!
Your theory is smoke.
It i not a theory and if you spend even a little time on free.christians or
read much you will find it to be true.
Over and above that is the belief of the largeer sects.
The RCC teaches salvation by works and you can go to heaven if you are
afriad of hell.
Most Prodestants say you must be "saved" in some manner and the Calvinists
say you have no say in the manner.
Ther are sects that believe aa fertilized egg has a soul and goes to hell
if it does not become a mature adult and get saved. This alone puts 60% to
75% of all gods little creatures in hell.
Martin Luther was the first Scotsman when he said:
"I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even the
angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved"
-- Martin Luther Werke (Erlangen),XXIX , 217-33, on Maritian, 15.
Martin Luther was just like me. He put his knee-sox on one at a time!
:-)
You claim my "theory" is wrong and when faced with absolute proof, you try
to make a cute comment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "vernon" |
|
| Title: Re: NIV Problems |
14 Oct 2005 08:18:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>, posted this little bit
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
wrote:
The Bible did not create any "20,000 different versions of its
religion." The Bible created only one faith (actually two if you
separate Judaism from Christianity), and it was the sinfulness of man
that created many counterfeits. On the other hand, a great number of
your "20,000 different versions" are not really different versions at
all, but just different labels for the same faith. You really should
look into it sometime. . .
Been ther, done that. There are over 20,000 *recognized* sects and the
number grows by a little over 100 each year.
That number varies from 3,000 to 30,000 depending on who is doing the
"recognizing," and who is presenting the number.
(As you know, 87.34% of all statistics ARE made up on the spot. . .)
:-)
While the difference between many of them are small most believe as you
state that *they* are the only true believers and that the others are wrong
in minor or major ways.
< | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
