PreviousIndexTopNext
Previous | Index | Top | Next

The NIV - New International Version Example Of Mistranslations

When Bill was in seminary, he had two professors who were on the NIV committee. As with other translations, how to translate the texts into English was in very hot debate regarding some controversial issues. The debate within the NIV committee was between translating based on traditional teachings vs a more literal (or dynamic equivalency) translation limited to what was actually said as understood by the exact words in the culture it was written.

Since most of the NIV translators came from a traditional conservative background, the majority view resulted in a traditional vs more historically accurate English translation. To varying degrees this is also true of other English translations which reflect more a conservative agenda than a search for God's truth. God's word should not be tampered with. That is why a serious student looks only to the original Hebrew/Greek texts seeking to understand what they meant to the culture in which they were written. You also have to realize the translation problems going from the words Jesus spoke in Aramaic (a very vague language) to the written Greek.

Many serious biblical scholars are revealing false traditional biblical teachings, especially regarding sexual issues which are based on Church dogma, not original scriptural texts.

Traditional Church Teaching

Only the false teachings of tradition church doctrine condemns a whole class of citizens. This should be a serious issue that Christians need to confront and deal with. Some clergy are stepping forward such as in the MCC, and United Methodists Reconciling Ministries. But most mainline denominations for the most part, still indoctrinate in the name of God, the false biblical teachings. Even though I am very heterosexual and have no personal issue in these matters, it greatly upsets me that any should suffer for being what God made them.

Council of Churches Dialogue on Homosexuality and the Bible with UFMCC.

To discuss homosexuality, Robin Scroggs and Byron Schaffer were the only two scholars to present. When asked why a scholar was not brought in to present the other side, that the Bible does condemn homosexuality, "they said no scholar would argue that the Bible condemn homosexuality because it clearly does not; even if they personally feel homosexuality is wrong they would never argue that the Bible says so as a scholar".

When the National Council of Churches can't find a reputable scholar to say the Bible condemns homosexuals, it is such a travesty that most Churches continue to teach bigotry and want to sell it as Biblical scholarship.

Even A Bob Jones University Conservative Agrees

For conservatives that think only liberals speak out supporting natural homosexual orientation Rev L. Robert Arthur, from Bob Jones University (I understand you can't get much more conservative) is also supportive.

Background: Masters degree in Bible from Bob Jones University and further graduate work in Greek, Hebrew, Ugaritic, Akkadian and Aramaic. He served as Asst Dean of Men at Bob Jones, and as a Baptist preacher in Omaha Nebraska. He wrote "Homosexuality And The Conservative Christian"

His book parallels the teachings of other scholars. The difference is he comes from a very conservative Bob Jones background and addresses such a conservative audience. His conclusion is the same that scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we know it today.

He lays out 7 basic presuppositions which he is convinced of. He suggests for those with different theological assumptions other books use different presuppositions but still arrive at the same conclusions. His 7 presuppositions are:

  1. Plenary-verbal inspiration of Scripture in their original languages. Means written by human agents of God in their own style, grammar but the end result were the exact words which God intended to have recorded.
  2. Authority and infallibility of Scripture. Everything in the Bible (in the original language and context) are completely accurate.
  3. For any accurate understanding of Scripture it must be read in its entire content.
  4. The best commentary on Scripture, is the Scripture itself.
  5. The language of the original Scriptures must be understood as it was used at the time it was written.
  6. In order to understand why certain events and statements occurred, we must understand the cultural situation of the time of those events and statements.
  7. Before we can apply the teachings of the Bible to present day, we must understand the meaning of those teachings in the day in which they were given.

His perspective both in theology and hermeneutical principals is conservative as taught by Bob Jones one of the most conservative Bible Schools in America.

Before you condemn homosexual behavior consider that your truth may be based on false understandings and mistransliterations of scripture in modern versions which may have very different meanings than the original biblical texts and the culture in which they were written.


PreviousIndexTopNext
Previous | Index | Top | Next