Murdoch's NIV

[Calvary]

I believe it was IM4Given, but it wasn't me.

So, how about my question? Are we to believe that Bartholemew Legate and Edward Wightman were Baptists? I guess folks that claim the Donatist, MOntanist, Waldenses, Paulicans etc. will claim anyone as a Baptist these days. Not saying you do or are.

[Will]

I believe it was IM4Given, but it wasn't me.

So, how about my question? Are we to believe that Bartholemew Legate and Edward Wightman were Baptists? I guess folks that claim the Donatist, MOntanist, Waldenses, Paulicans etc. will claim anyone as a Baptist these days. Not saying you do or are.

Huh, never heard of those guys before. Went and looked them up, now I have some research to do. No, I'm referring to Thomas Helwys, who angered King James when he sent James a copy of his book "Mystery of Iniquity." Among the parts that made James upset we find these quotes:
"If the Kings people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men?s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man."
"If our lord the King by his discerning judgment see that as Queen Mary by her sword of justice had no power over her subjects consciences (for then had she power to make them all Papists, and all that resisted her therein suffered justly as evil doers) neither hath our lord the King by that sword of justice power over his subjects consciences: for all earthly powers are one and the same in their several dominions"
"The King," Helwys said, ?is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for then and to set spiritual Lords over them".

BTW-IM4Given is permanently on my ignore list until she repents.

[Calvary]

Thomas Helwys was not burned at the stake Will. He was arrested and died in prison. His being Baptist was really a moot point. His writings were inflammatory and provoked the wrath of the soveriegn. No one who really studies that time in history will cavil about James' (and all monarchs at the time) desire to rule without being challenged as did all monarchs, not just James, believed their right was divine and instituted by the scriptures. The real crux of the "biscuit" is hermenuetics. Even John Calvin would have agreed with James on that point.

Not for being a Baptist, but for "unpolitically" correct writings. It was not too expedient for him to return to England, he was safe and sound where he was.

So much for proofs and sources.


One should be more careful about what one repeates without digging around.

History books have a nasty way of turning on the bias of the author. That's why I would recommend trying to find opposing views, say one who is a pro Baptist, then one who might be a High Church man, somelike like Schaff perhaps.

[Will]

Thomas Helwys was not burned at the stake Will. He was arrested and died in prison. His being Baptist was really a moot point. His writings were inflammatory and provoked the wrath of the soveriegn. No one who really studies that time in history will cavil about James' (and all monarchs at the time) desire to rule without being challenged as did all monarchs, not just James, believed their right was divine and instituted by the scriptures. The real crux of the "biscuit" is hermenuetics. Even John Calvin would have agreed with James on that point.

Not for being a Baptist, but for "unpolitically" correct writings. It was not too expedient for him to return to England, he was safe and sound where he was.

So much for proofs and sources.


One should be more careful about what one repeates without digging around.

History books have a nasty way of turning on the bias of the author. That's why I would recommend trying to find opposing views, say one who is a pro Baptist, then one who might be a High Church man, somelike like Schaff perhaps.

I never stated that Helwys was persecuted merely for being Baptist. If you'll note, I included quotes from his book that angered the King. James despised all those who said that God was above the King, and that would include Calvin and the others who helped create the Geneva Bible. If you actually read your history, you'll see that James frequently persecuted Puritans and others who were not of the Church of England.

[Calvary]

Will, you won't play the man. Instead you run to semantics and say "merely". Your point was that James persecuted Baptists, "and other believers". I didn't understand your words another way, not should have I.

You also stated earlier that James forced the translators to retain Anglican words, and hated the Geneva Bible. Rhetoric that has been actually turned over so many times it amazes me that novices of history bring the putrid corpses of thier faulty homework to the table.

You tell me that if I "actually read history" I would know what you know. Dear brother, I doubt that you have read the half of what I own, let alone what is available outside of one retractor who wrote a book that was so ably debunked over 2 centuries ago, that again, I find myself talking with an half armed man.

I will leave off now as you are dangerously close to emabrrasing yourself. Leave well enough alone, Will, you are out of your league beloved.

You have a good day. I'm bowing out as you are not ready to actually deal with enough of the evidence that I care not to wait for you to catch up.

:smile

PS

You included no quotes from Thomas Hewlys, you merely quoted from a book that purpots to quote from his book. Secondary sources are subject to verification brother. Perhaps you should verify them yourself before you quote a secondary source so freely as if it is gospel truth.

And still, even if the quotes attributed to Thomas are word for word, that in and of itself says nothing to any liability James had towards them. True historical study would produce said reaction by James, instead of drawing conclusions based upon a one sided, and albiet deficient work and assume that because of Thomas' book he was killed.

Do you have said quotes from King James? Can you produce said "hatred for the Geneva Bible" in any works put written by King James? Ya' know he was a prolific writer, it wouldn't be too hard to find his written and preserved opinion on the Geneva Bible if it in fact actually existed.

There's always 2 sides to the coin my friend. Heads and tails. All depends on the toss I guess.

You take care.

[matie-k]

Calvary - I'm sure you're a great person and have lots of wisdom that I don't have, but your manner towards Will totally turns me off from wanting to read anything else you might have to say.

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

[JerryNumbers]

Seems to me, the RCC did not like King James the lest bit, so they did everything they could to slander him. Now days many people pick up the slander the RCC put out against King James and claim its truth.

I was on a board with some RCC members, they were always down on King James and the KJV of the Bible. And the first thing they would bring up was that he was a homosexual.

King James was a godly man and thru him God did give us His word in the English language.

[5dumplings@home]

Seems to me, the RCC did not like King James the lest bit, so they did everything they could to slander him. Now days many people pick up the slander the RCC put out against King James and claim its truth.

I was on a board with some RCC members, they were always down on King James and the KJV of the Bible. And the first thing they would bring up was that he was a homosexual.

King James was a godly man and thru him God did give us His word in the English language.

It would be good to remember that James encouraged Charles to woo the Infanta so that he could gain the RCC's blessing on his reign...(why did he need that?)

Charles and Buckingham went to Spain for an extended period of time. Spain seemed to be amiable toward the match, but at the last minute gave her to another.

It would also be good to remember that the frivolities of James's court were toned down greatly under Charles who disliked his father's excesses tremendously. That is not RCC history. That is English history.

[Kubel]

King James was an unrepentant murderer and persecutor of all believers that did not embrace the Anglican Church (who's doctrine was heresy, and who's leader was the King), yet we say God still used him greatly in the work of ordering the creation of a new translation. There are many relationships through which we can attempt to assign guilt to a particular translation. But the best, clearest, and most honest way is to examine the translation itself and expose those faults, not try to form guilt by association, so we can better understand God's word and identify mans error.

I'm just surprised that the people here (of whom are mostly US citizens and are familiar with our nations' early history with the British) can disregard known history of persecution by the king just so they could lift up James, which they think will somehow defend the KJV from the very guilt-by-association that they try applying to other translations (which is irrelevant in the first place)! If it weren't for King James and his persecution, the colonies would not have been filled with believers, only entrepreneurs seeking riches and escape from taxation, and our nation would no doubt be worse off than it is now.

King James was not guiltless, yet he played an extremely important part of the creation of the KJV. Here we have a "lingual stylist", not a translator, who was a lesbian (in the closet at the time) and was on the project for 5 months. When the team discovered she took stands that were not Biblical, she was removed from the project. Now we are somehow expected to believe that 5 months of lingual stylism would lead to translation changes that would somehow allow homosexuality into the Bible as something to be condoned. I don't find that in the NIV any more than I find persecution of Christians and murder condoned in the KJV as a result of King James playing a part in administering the creation of his translation for more than 10 times the amount of time that Mollencott was on the project.

Interesting discussion, but this has been brought up so many times before in the past on dozens of discussion boards, and they have all ended with the KJV being as guilty as the NIV for having similar associations. In this case, the KJV and NIV are guilty of being innocent. Reason: Lack of evidence supporting whatever conclusion is drawn from irrelevant relationships of data. :bonK:

[qwerty guy]

I've always wondered... how come King James is always the one pointed out, when all he did was hire the people to translate the bible, and never did any translating himself?

The NIV though, the actual people who DO the translating are the suspects.

It's far easier to see the problems with the NIV by it's root, the Wescott and Hort greek, and attacking some of the things directly in it. Why bother with the people who MADE the book when the book itself is so full of sickening blasphemies.

I'm not saying it's a totally fruitless endeavor, you look into the lives of Wescott and Hort and you find two people who where very very involved in the occult, and obvious problem for "bible translators". Finding sin though, that will happen every time you examine someone.

If someone turns out to be a lesbian, who did work on a translation, then examine the work done to check if their sin effected the work. If not, then it's like any liar who admits lying is wrong, or a thief who admits that stealing is wrong. There are people who have not beaten sin, but that doesn't mean they make excuses or try to justify it. But yes, there are those who would rather erase their sin then confront it.

[Jerry]

Did the work of the homosexual and lesbian on the NIV committee affect the NIV? Yes:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

In her own writings, she states this means (ie. these words were chosen) that those who offend homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Plus, in the OT, the NIV refers to temple prostitutes, rather than sodomites (which would include ALL types of homosexuals and lesbians) - therefore limiting what is being condemned in those passages.

[JerryNumbers]

Lets face it, there are many, many who love the NIV and cannot see the errors that are within it. But for the most part, most of them can't see the truth within the KJV.

For the most part, I don't get involved in debates over it, I use only the KJV, it has served me well all my life. And if someone really wants the truth, that is where they should look.

Most people who use the NIV tell me they use it because they can understand it better. My words are this, if you understand something that is less than the truth, you still have not gotten the truth, so why go after less than the truth?

We know one thing for sure.

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Cor 14:33 (KJV)

That God is not the author of confusion.

Have you ever been in a Bible study class where there are 15 different people and everyone had a different Bible?

Now imagine this, a class of 15 people, they are setting there, the leader and or teacher is reading from His Bible. All the disciples follow along with this Bible reading in a book that does not say the same thing as the teachers KJV. What you have is confusion, which is not of God. If it is not of God them who is it of? It has to be of old Satan, so the Holy Spirit is not with that class, helping them to understand the Word, only old Satan is helping them.

In our church we have never had that problem, for we all have a true Bible and it saves confusion that is of old Satan.

And as you pointed out, the NIV is tainted, it changes the meaning of God's true Word, so it cannot be of God, but is of Satan.

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:6 (KJV)

The NIV has been tried, it is found not to be pure, so it can't be of God, for God's Word is pure.

As for me and my house we will stay with God's truth, it can be found within the pages of the old KJV.

[Kubel]

Did the work of the homosexual and lesbian on the NIV committee affect the NIV? Yes:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

In her own writings, she states this means (ie. these words were chosen) that those who offend homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Plus, in the OT, the NIV refers to temple prostitutes, rather than sodomites (which would include ALL types of homosexuals and lesbians) - therefore limiting what is being condemned in those passages.

1) We use the word "sex offender" in law. If someone is a sex offender, does that mean that person offends people who have sex?

2) "Temple prostitutes" is an accurate translation. They were men or women, providing sex for men or women (whether gay or straight). Sodomy does not always equal ritualistic prostitution, and ritualistic prostitution does not always equal sodomy. We have verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, and we have verses in the Bible that condemn ritualistic prostitution.

[Kubel]

It has come to my attention that false rumors are circulating, in both oral and written form, that the NIV is soft on sodomy (that is, homosexual sins). The alleged reason for this is that some NIV translators and editors were homosexuals or lesbians. These charges have no basis in fact. Thus they are simply untrue. And those who make such false charges could be legitimately sued for libel, slander, and defamation of character.

Here are the facts. It is true that in the earliest stages of translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960's), Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings. If we had known in the sixties what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.

I want to go on record as affirming that the NIV translators are among the most spiritual and godly scholars I have ever had the privilege of knowing and working with.

[Jerry]

I want to go on record as affirming that the NIV translators are among the most spiritual and godly scholars I have ever had the privilege of knowing and working with.

Yeah, that's why the NIV is so corrupted and watered down! Perhaps his definition of spiritual and godly is different than many on these boards.

Spiritual and godly translators/scholars would not have stood by while other translators were messing around with God's Word.

the NIV translators are among the most spiritual and godly scholars I have ever had the privilege of knowing and working with

Perhaps the writer is telling on himself! The "most spiritual and godly scholars" he has "ever had the privilege of knowing and working with"...