Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lost in the translation - Bible Translation Questions
world magazine ^ | 1-24-03 | Joel Belz

Posted on 01/24/2003 7:34:07 AM PST by Brookhaven

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-186 next last
To: r9etb
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been useful, both for getting two thousand years closer to the originals, and also for seeing how much divergence has cropped up in the intervening years.

The DSS "Isaiah" is identical to the Masoretic Hebrew text, and trashed the "higher critics'" pet theory that "Isaiah I" and "Isaiah II" were two different people.

The DSS also validate the Masora to the extent that the "higher critics" have tried to suppress the DSS for many years.

101 posted on 01/24/2003 1:34:32 PM PST by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven; Jean Chauvin
I've made a real effort to avoid any Zondervan published materials since their reversal on their promise not to publish a gender neutral version of the NIV.

You didn't really believe them, did you? It was inevitable. After all, the NIV people were peddling the ungendered NIV to children in Britain.

Just a little bump for a friend, Jean.
102 posted on 01/24/2003 1:39:00 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan; Brookhaven; aruanan; ColdSteelTalon; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; RnMomof7; Clint N. Suhks; ...
Please. Not that stuff again about the NIV being soft on homosexuality.

What stuff? Do you mean this (among many other investigative reports on the matter)? An exerpt from the article Homosexuality and the NIV by David Cloud

SODOMY AND THE NIV
By Carl Graham
Revised 1996
Twogistates Publishers, 500 Wheeler Dr., Angier, NC 27501
(919) 639-3143

The question is often asked, "Is the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) a reliable translation?" The answer depends entirely on the basic belief structure of the one replying. It is a general consensus among the evangelical community that the NIV is an excellent rendition of what God has said to mankind. The positive answer among this group is probably brought about for two reasons: (1) the translators claimed to be evangelicals, and (2) the evangelicals endorse the modern techniques of textual criticism which were employed. Others who subscribe to the theory of textual criticism will also hold a high opinion of the NIV. From a scholarly standpoint, the NIV seems to have been accepted.

However, there are those who are comfortable with the King James Bible (KJB) and hold a totally different view about the NIV. They see many new words and concepts and are convinced that these changes not only aren't necessary, some even detract from God's Word. They believe the truth never changes and if the NIV were a true translation of the Bible, it would reflect the same thoughts and comparable words as the KJB which has been around for centuries.

Clearly, there is disagreement between NIV and KJB supporters. While there are many minor problems, the major difficulty falls in the area of providential preservation of the Scriptures and the implications this has on how God has protected His Word and kept it accurate over the passing years.

The KJB translators were fully committed to an accurate translation based on their personal convictions that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and that He had preserved it in its pure form for all generations. The texts they used were the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus.

On the other hand, the NIV translators held the view that the Bible had become corrupted over the centuries and they could reproduce the original wordings by various literary techniques. They discarded the work of the KJB translators and developed an eclectic text. The major discrepancies between the KJB and the NIV are due in part to the two different underlying texts, but the most radical changes stem from the foundational beliefs of the two translating committees.

The NIV committee was made up of over 100 people with various Biblical backgrounds and doctrinal beliefs. There were many who professed inerrancy, but believed the texts of the KJB were severely corrupted. Somewhere between this and the liberal view were those who professed partial inerrancy which basically means the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and practice but is in error in matters of history and science.

Then there were the extreme group who claimed to hold a high view of Scripture, but whose doctrine was either liberal (didn't believe the Bible was God's inspired Word), or was just generally confused regarding God's Word. The sad part of the whole situation is those who knew better let those with liberal leanings control the process and this resulted in a doctrinally deficient version of the Bible. This is clearly illustrated by the influence of Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and the treatment of homosexuality in the NIV.

Dr. Mollenkott, one of the literary consultants for the NIV translating committee, is a professed homosexual. This is verified by her own words in an interview in the Episcopal publication, Witness (June, 1991, pages 20-23). The interviewer, Sue Pierce, asked the question, "'Why was it important to both of you to come out as lesbians?" Dr. Mollenkott's reply was, "My lesbianism has always been a part of me. I tried to kill myself in my teens because they told me I'd never be healed, that God had no use for people like me. I couldn't stand the thought of living a life that was useless and offensive to God. I tried to be heterosexual. I married myself off. But what I did ultimately realize was that God created me as I was, and that this is where life was meaningful."

Realizing Dr. Mollenkott's moral direction, one could expect her views to strongly affect the outcome of the NIV translation, and it does, as can be seen in the treatment of the sin of Sodom from which the term "sodomy" is derived. This word, generally used for homosexual behavior, is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as "copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal." As can be seen, sodomy implies more than homosexual behavior, but Dr. Mollenkott was not interested in the human-beast relationship, she was only concerned about justifying the same sex relationship of sodomy.

In her book, Is The Homosexual My Neighbor? (V. Mollenkott and L. Scanzoni, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), Dr. Mollenkott explains fully why she thinks the homosexual got bad press in the Bible. She presents all kinds of fanciful notions that the Old Testament Holiness Codes which forbid sodomy do not apply to the New Testament church. She explains in detail that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality as a loving relationship between two consenting adults. Therefore, she concludes, it has to be OK. Where Paul mentions homosexuality, she again says that it only applies to promiscuous homosexuality. The NIV clearly reflects her views.

THE FOLLOWING READINGS COMPARE THE KJB AND THE NIV IN SEVERAL AREAS WHERE SODOMY OR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS MENTIONED. Going over these, it is easy to see that sodomy was never considered as a viable concept in the NIV and homosexuality was presented from Dr. Mollenkott's viewpoint. The comments of Dr. Mollenkott are from her book, Is The Homosexual My Neighbor? (abbreviated as ITHMN).

GENESIS 19:5 - THE SIN OF SODOM

KJB - And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

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

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 57 ". . . the Sodom story seems to be focusing on two specific evils: (1) violent gang rape and (2) inhospitality to the stranger."

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

LEVITICUS 18:22 - SODOMY

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

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

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

LEVITICUS 20:13 - SODOMY

KJB - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

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

Mollenkott, ITHMN, pages 110 through 121 - “Dr. Mollenkott argues that this is part of the ceremonial laws, and as such, are to be disregarded by the Christian. She places this act on the same level as wearing clothes of two different materials.”

DEUTERONOMY 23:17 - SODOMITE

KJB - There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

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

JUDGES 19:22 - SODOMY

KJB - Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

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

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 57 - "Violence -- forcing sexual activity upon another -- is the real point to this story."

I KINGS 14:24 - SODOMITES

KJB - And there were sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

NIV - There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.

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

I KINGS 15:12 - SODOMITES

KJB - And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

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

I KINGS 22:46 - SODOMITES

KJB - And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

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

II KINGS 23:7 - SODOMITES

KJB - And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

NIV - He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the Lord and where women did weaving for Asherah.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 59 & 60 - "Most scholars agree that in the fertility religions of Israel's neighbors, male cult prostitutes were employed for homosexual acts. The people who loved and served the God of Israel were strictly forbidden to have anything to do with such idolatry, and the Jewish men were commanded to never serve as temple prostitutes."

MATTHEW 11:24 - JUDGMENT UPON SODOM

KJV - But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the day of judgment, than for thee.

NIV - But I tell you it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.

LUKE 10:12 - JUDGMENT UPON SODOM

KJB - But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

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

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 59. "Jesus refers to Sodom, not in the context of sexual acts, but in the contents of inhospitality." And on page 71, she expands this thought with "the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible."

ROMANS 1:26 & 27 - HOMOSEXUALITY

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

NIV - Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 62 - "The key thought here seems to be lust, 'unnaturalness,' and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid the acknowledgment of God. But although the censure fits idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God's existence?"

I CORINTHIANS 6:9 - REJECTION OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

KJB - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…

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

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

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

I TIMOTHY 1:9 & 10

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

NIV - We also know that law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murders, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 67 - "Interpretation of these passages depends on two Greek words used in I Cor. 6:9 which have presented a problem for translators in the King James Version, they translated 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind.' In the Revised Standard Version of 1952, they were combined and rendered simply 'homosexuals,' which implied that all persons whose erotic interests were oriented to the same sex were by the very fact excluded from membership in the kingdom of God. But the original intent seems to have been to single out specific kinds of same-sex practices which were deplorable."

JUDE 7 - STRANGE FLESH

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

NIV - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Mollenkott, ITHMN, page 59 - "The 'unnatural lust' thus could, in the context, and in view of the apocryphal texts to which Jude made allusion, refer to a desire for sexual contact between human and heavenly beings."

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

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

The information presented here is not all inclusive, but is intended to sound an alarm. If the NIV is your Bible of choice, it would be prudent to look closely in other areas as well, for there are many other subjects handled just as loosely as sodomy. Don't take anyone's word for what God says. Check it out! After all, He'll hold you alone responsible.


More corroboration can be found at:

Dr. Marten Woudstra, Sodomite, Homosexual, and Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee by an English researcher
More on lesbian Mollenkott

For more on Mollenkott, you can enjoy her other fine Christian writings in such titles as Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism and The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female. I'd be happy to quote her at length from these lovely books. Maybe you'll enjoy her description of God as "our tender Father and our demanding Mother and then again our loving Friend, faithful Companion, and cosmic Lover".

And imagine those foolish KJV translators. They actually were so dumb as to hold orthodox Christian views and lead exemplary moral and godfearing lives, spending even more time in prayer than in translation. How ignorant they were compared to the moral giants of the NIV committee.
103 posted on 01/24/2003 1:43:28 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
The DSS also validate the Masora to the extent that the "higher critics" have tried to suppress the DSS for many years.

No surprise here. To justify what they have done to scripture, they must continue to cast doubts upon its inerrancy and preservation. Just as it happened in archeology, God will again demonstrate the His Word is true and cannot lie.

God will not be mocked by a pack of heretics with literary pretensions. What a pity that anyone ever listened to them to begin with, starting with the Romanizing pagan unbelievers Westcott and Hort. God has marked out very specific punishments for that lot.
104 posted on 01/24/2003 1:49:28 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
If the writer could have said the word for "man", but instead said "he that pisseth against a wall", then WHATEVER he (He) was trying to convey by not choosing "man" but "pisseth, etc." is lost if we render it "man" in English.

Hebrew, English, and just about every other language have multiple words for the same general thing: man, guy, hombre, dude, male, BSD. Some of these are adoptions from other languages or innovations or represent archaic forms of the same language. In a collection of books such as the OT which span (depending on an early or late date of the exodus) over 1000 years, there are linguistic styles and vocabulary choices that reflect the Hebrew language at the time of composition. The occurrence of "he that pisseth against the wall" is limited to 6 occasions in I Samuel and I & II Kings. All three books were composed about midway between the earliest and the latest books of the OT. There is also the possibility of stylistic and word changes introduced either accidentally or deliberately by various redactors over the centuries of copying (sometimes a marginal gloss in one manuscript becomes incorporated into the text in later manuscripts (one example of this is the spurious trinity verse in 1 John when went from marginalia to text).

There is also the use of euphemism. In this passage, "Saul went in to cover his feet" is a euphemism for "Saul went in to take a dump". The same for "gone aside" in the passage where Elijah mocks the priests of Baal.
And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave. 1 Samuel 24:3

It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened." I Kings 18:27
Even now, there are lots of words in the OT for which there are only probable readings, some of them guesses based on the context, some of them based on their translation in the Septuagint. But then, even this is not entirely reliable since there were readings that were opaque even to the translators of the Septuagint. This led to the then-president of a very conservative Christian college telling me he was against the use of translations that showed probable or alternate readings of unclear OT passages or variant readings in the NT (such as the alternate endings of Mark, the woman caught in adultery inserted into John, "you" (plural) for "we" and "we" for "you" at various places throughout the NT--the words are very similar in spelling and subject to misreading or miscopying--and the trinity interpolation of I John 5:7). He said it would undermine the confidence people had in the Word of G-d*. So he was actually in favor of promoting a fraud (the idea that the understanding of the ancient Hebrew was complete and unambiguous) rather than telling the truth, and this supposedly in the name of Truth.

*He especially didn't like the correct translation of 1 Corinthians 1:18 since it appeared to contradict one of his favorite doctrines. He wanted the KJV to be used instead so that people wouldn't question the doctrine.

Here's the inadequate KJV translation:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of G-d.
Here is the correct translation:
"For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it is the power of G-d."
As he said to me, "We are not being saved. We have been saved." I told him that the Greek had a present, plural, passive participle that meant "to-those-of-us-who-are-being-saved" (tois sotzsomenois), whereupon he said, "Well, I'd have to look at that myself." So I pulled out the Greek NT and showed him. In spite of this (I'm not so sure he could read it), he told me to just keep using the KJV if I was going to read something in one of the churches we were visiting on choir tour. So much for truth.
105 posted on 01/24/2003 2:09:05 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
"Until then, it remains a matter of faith alone."

As most things are,whether one chooses to believe in God or not.

106 posted on 01/24/2003 2:09:31 PM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Spirited
Thanks for relating this memory!
107 posted on 01/24/2003 2:10:27 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Too bad the translators of the KJV had such inferior texts to work with. But they did do a pretty good job of translating what they had given the state of the art and their more limited knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

Don't you mean that it was too bad that the KJV translators didn't have the "advantage" of using a corrupted text from the Luciferians Hort and Wescott? Not to mention the filth from so-called "lost" text of Sinai and the Vatican - which cannot even agree with each other. Just because the earliest Textus Receptus is from the 3rd century does not mean that TR does not predate the tripe that the Alexandrians manufactured in the 2nd Century. As for Hebrew, the KJV translators did a pretty good job with MT. The proof of that is found in comparing it to the Stone Chumash or any other Jewish translation. Their most glaring error is repeated and applified in NIV - namely the "creation" of the word "Jehovah". Although the KJV translators were at least honest enough to only use it once. There is no such Hebrew word. The ADONAI vowel pointings in the most holy name of G-d are to encourage the reader to say aloud, "Adonai" when reading the Four Letters - not to place the vowels in the tetragrammaton itself (we don't say aloud yod-hey-vav-hey).
108 posted on 01/24/2003 2:11:41 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
If you, however, can do the Hebrew translation, please let us know how it turns out.

Literal Translation:

IF BLESS BLESS INCREASE TERRITORY, HAND MAKE EVIL PAIN.

Now can you show me how you can get "Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me!" from that without resorting to at least some "dynamic equivalence"?

My point is that while we can complain about stuff like translators using "dynamic equivalence", we must recognize that there is simply no way to get a literal word for word translation from the Ancient Hebrew to modern English (or any modern language for that matter).

The big problem is when you treat the words as something they are not. Thus when translating you must do as the King James Translators did-- attempt as best as possible to provide a word for word translation. Where it is impossible, you must use everything at your disposal to attempt to reconstruct the idea that was being presented. In this case I believe the NKJV people did exactly that. They took the context, which included the verse before and rather than interpolate the "me" into the passage, they left it out and the inference from the previous verse is that Jabez did not wish to cause pain rather than that he did not wish to receive it.

109 posted on 01/24/2003 2:22:35 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Yep, Talisman is defending the indefensible, that the word qadesh doesn’t translate into Sodomite or represent the sin of Sodom. The word appears 6 times, once in Deuteronomy, 3 times in 1 Kings, once in 2 Kings and once in Job and they all refer to those who practice homosexuality…not male prostitution. Look how it totally changes the meaning in the NIV.

I KINGS 15:12 – SODOMITES

KJB - And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

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

110 posted on 01/24/2003 2:29:22 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Do you speak Hebrew? The words qadesh (masculine form) and q'desha (female form) come from the root meaning "sacred" and always refer to prostitutes (typically, but not invariably, pagan temple prostitutes.) If you include the female form of the word, it is used a lot more than 6 times, many of which do not refer in any way to sodomy. (For example. Genesis 38:18-21). It is true that male temple prostitutes may have been homosexual, but that is an interpretation, not a treanslation.
111 posted on 01/24/2003 2:42:52 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Absolutely
112 posted on 01/24/2003 2:47:46 PM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Sorry, I meant Genesis 38:15-21. The KJV translates q'desha there as "harlot" (the NIV uses "shrine prostitute"; I would have used simply "prostitute"). There is no warrant for translating q'desha and qadesh as anything other than the masculine and feminine forms of the same word.
113 posted on 01/24/2003 2:50:39 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
Is it about "feelings?" If so, it's a liberal translation.
114 posted on 01/24/2003 2:59:59 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
So, you think sodomy is a fine and Christian thing and that the Bible only forbids inhospitality, gang rape, men with soft clothing, etc.?

You're making an argument remarkably like that of Mollenkott.
115 posted on 01/24/2003 3:09:26 PM PST by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
There is no question that the Bible unquestionably forbids male homosexuality. You quoted the passages from Leviticus above; they are unambiguous. That doesn't mean that every verse in the Bible condemns homosexuality; some verses are talking about other things entirely. The ones using the word qadesh/q'desha are talking about prostitution (usually cult prostitution), not about homosexuality per se.
116 posted on 01/24/2003 3:21:29 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
...corrupted text from the Luciferians Hort and Wescott?

What do you mean by "luciferians"? Did these guys worship the devil? Do you have some proof of that?

117 posted on 01/24/2003 3:26:25 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I thought you would like to read this

Thank you for the 'ping'

118 posted on 01/24/2003 3:32:49 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
If you include the female form of the word, it is used a lot more than 6 times, many of which do not refer in any way to sodomy.

Oh I see, Deuteronomy condemns both male and female prostitutes dependently while Kings 1 and 2 and Job only speaks of male prostitutes, why aren’t the female prostitutes mentioned? Are female prostitutes any less an abomination or is there something about homosexual acts that makes qadesh especially wrong? Q'deshah is only mentioned four times in total and is only connected to qadesh once so if they were equal counter parts it would seem more likely that they both should have equal billing, and it's simply not the case.

119 posted on 01/24/2003 3:47:10 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I'm not following your point. Are you denying that qadesh and q'desha are the masculine and feminine forms of the same word? Do you speak Hebrew?

The word q-d-sh in Hebrew means a cult prostitute (although it is sometimes used loosely to mean any prostitute, as in Genesis 38). I don't deny that male cult prostitutes practiced sodomy, and this was one reason for their condemnation, but that doesn't mean that the word means "sodomite." It means "prostitute."

120 posted on 01/24/2003 3:56:22 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson