New ESV Transformation Bible Released 10/1/13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.


And you know this how? If true, were they translators?
Terry
 
Some are worried about the women being involved with the New ESV. That is not an issue with me as I will not be using it. But I wonder, just curious, how people feel that there were two homosexuals involved with the creation of the NIV. One a man and the other a woman.


And you know this how? If true, were they translators?
Terry

I am not interested in getting into this subject other than to make an historical observation: one was a stylistic editor with a pretty widely published defense of her lesbianism (she even received awards from a number of gay organizations and writes about her coming out of the closet; currently she lives with her domestic partner).

The other charge is inferential (possibly libelous) and involves a prominent scholar and translator about whom rumors circulated for years prior to his death, partly due to his open support for the advocacy organization Evangelicals Concerned. Some people accused this man of being gay because he was a lifelong bachelor and made statements in the 80s about homosexuality such as: “I think, as those who love the inerrant Word of God, we want to be doubly sure that we read that Word correctly. Jesus says that His yoke is easy and His burden light. Let us make sure that as we put a burden on anyone such as complete celibacy we do so because we are 100% sure that this is Jesus’ burden. Otherwise we should leave this to the individual conscience."

I'm not sure that proving that a translator was a sinner proves much more than that he was a fallen human being. How many Bible translators were drunks, materialistic, adulterous, or guilty of any number of other sins? The NIV is one of my LEAST favorite translations. However, I'm not interested in trashing it on the basis of the genetic fallacy.
 
YES! I read months back that Michael Horton was at work writing notes on Joshua for a new ESV study Bible, and I suspected it was this one. :) I'll pick it up when my income improves shortly.

Other than that, did Bryan Chapell select all these guys? If so, somewhat intriguing that he selected a premillenialist for Revelation. Hamilton did write quite an impressive work on the central theme of Scripture, however, "God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgment," and he's quite an able exegete when he's not getting Israel/Church wrong. xP
 
That's a fair question to ask me Logan. I ask myself, am I a sinner too? Some of us our sins go before us and are apparent to people, some are in a sense hidden from sight, from all but God. Yes of course I am a sinner, and still struggle with sin to this day. I believe everyone who is involved in any translation is guilty of sin, every person alive so. The question is, does that sin cause another to stumble, or to believe or take something the wrong way. Not see the proper truth? Did the person who had a battle with alcohol or believe a doctrine a different to me have any effect on the translation? I don't see any removal from the KJV or change of "drunkards, or winebibbers" nor any doctrine compromise made anywhere. So I don't see their sins, like I am a sinner too, have any effect or cause a compromise in doctrine or teaching. They did not cause their brother to stumble regardless of their sin. If I saw a translation that had a drinker on board and that translation had taken out or changed reference's to drinking or being a drunkard to something else then I would say "hey what's going on there?"
But I do see changes made to the NIV where references to sodomites, sodomite and effeminate have gone. Been changed and altered! So no I do not see where I have grounds to say that a person who battled their own particular sin of drinking or someone believing a doctrine different to me had any effect whatsoever. I sin, they sinned, we are the same. I cannot say the same for the NIV. Not in regards to their sin, but in regards to its effect on the translation. Coincidence that they worked on it and those changes were made? Sorry to everyone if I did take things off track. I will leave it at that.
 
"sodomites" occurs 4 times in KJV. Each time in NIV it is translated "male shrine prostitutes" (Strong's says the Hebrew word means "male temple prostitute").
"sodomite" occurs 1 time in KJV. Same Hebrew word, NIV says "man...shrine prostitute".
"effeminate" occurs 1 time in KJV. NIV apparently combines the two Greek words and says "men who have sex with men".

So...it's been "changed and altered" to say the exact same thing, and perhaps more clearly? In fact, perhaps the KJV is the one in error here, as "sodomite" derives from the town of Sodom, and the Hebrew word does not imply a reference as far as I know. The translators appear to have used an English colloquialism. Actually, it is misleading because it (perhaps incorrectly) implies the major sin of Sodom was homosexuality, and Ezekiel 16:49 says their sin was pride and not caring for the poor.

I am no fan of the NIV, but I really dislike trashing other translations, no matter how much you like the KJV. If you want to continue this conversation, I'd suggest moving to a new thread.
 
Last edited:
"sodomites" occurs 4 times in KJV. Each time in NIV it is translated "male shrine prostitutes" (Strong's says the Hebrew word means "male temple prostitute").
"sodomite" occurs 1 time in KJV. Same Hebrew word, NIV says "man...shrine prostitute".
"effeminate" occurs 1 time in KJV. NIV apparently combines the two Greek words and says "men who have sex with men".

So...it's been "changed and altered" to say the exact same thing, and perhaps more clearly? In fact, perhaps the KJV is the one in error here, as "sodomite" derives from the town of Sodom, and the Hebrew word does not imply a reference as far as I know. The translators appear to have used an English colloquialism. Actually, it is misleading because it (perhaps incorrectly) implies the major sin of Sodom was homosexuality, and Ezekiel 16:49 says their sin was pride and not caring for the poor.

I am no fan of the NIV, but I really dislike trashing other translations, no matter how much you like the KJV. If you want to continue this conversation, I'd suggest moving to a new thread.

Hi,

If one reads the epistle of Jude concerning the apostates, it clearly says that Sodom's damming sin was sexual immorality, specifically going after "strange flesh", which is considered to be the sin of practicing homosexuality. They are said to be an example of what happens with this sin as they are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. They were also guilty of other sins, such as those mentioned in Ezekiel.

AV
FC of Scotland, Toronto
 
Hi Logan. No, the last thing I said was "sorry if I did take things off track, I will leave it at that". Stating I was not going to say anything else, with an apology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top