One of the common claims regarding the NIV translation is that it is contaminated because two participants in the translation were apparently gay.
These two participants are Marten Woudstra and Virginia Mollenkott.
I will leave it to you in regards to their specific roles, but Mollenkott was a contractor and she aided as an English stylist. My understanding is that when her lesbianism became public, she was not engaged anymore as a contractor.
Here's where double standards come into play, though.
The Greek New Testament used as the basis for the KJV was created primarily by Desiderius Erasmus.
It is a matter of record that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, wrote letters to a young monk called Servetius Rogerus. These letters contained remarks that definitely sound like an attempt to initiate a romantic relationship.
I invite you to read the letters themselves to gauge this for yourselves.
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/e...-was-not-gay/the-servatius-letters/index.html
Additionally, King James VI and I, who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible, engaged in similar suspicious relationships with other men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I
Now, whether these men were involved in actual homosexual acts is a matter of dispute. Some will claim that the language of Erasmus, for example, was normal for men of that time. I don't think it was, and the quotes I have seen sound like an attempt to engage Servetius in an intimate relationship, which was rebuffed by him. I don't think these letters were written in the context of normal male companionship.
Regardless of whether they were or not, though, it is indisputable that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. This is interesting to me because frequently KJVists will express very anti-Roman Catholic sentiments.
Regarding the English royalty, historians are pretty confident homosexual relationships were being engaged in.
What is my point?
My point is this: KJV Onlyists employ argumentation toward the NIV participants that could be applied to the KJV participants. Do I think the KJV was a bad translation for its' time, and the limited manuscript evidence Erasmus had? NO. Erasmus was a humanist, which means, in essence, that he enjoyed working with original documents. I am confident that he did a great job with the information that he had (except for the Comma Johanneum, which I believe he succumbed to the pressures of the Roman Catholic Church to include from the Latin Vulgate).
However, the KJV Onlyist is content to argue that the aforementioned individuals, Woudstra and Mollenkott, softened the NIV with regards to sexuality.
I am not the biggest fan of the NIV. Personally, I like the English Standard Version. However, I am able to see clearly that KJV Onlyist argumentation is faulty, because they are taking one standard, and applying it to the NIV, and failing to apply the same standard to the KJV. This is hypocritical.
Like I mentioned, I prefer the ESV (English Standard Version). The NASB is fine, and so is the NKJV. All are in contemporary English. I like the NIV as a cross-reference, and my favorite study Bible is only available in NIV (Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible).
However, I'm not a big fan of the KJV. This is mostly due to the language and the NT textual basis, but if I wanted to sound like a KJV Onlyist, I could claim that I don't like it because the underlying Greek text was compiled primarily by a gay Roman Catholic priest, and it was commissioned by a gay English king.
But, I know God works through flawed people (that's the only kind there are).
These two participants are Marten Woudstra and Virginia Mollenkott.
I will leave it to you in regards to their specific roles, but Mollenkott was a contractor and she aided as an English stylist. My understanding is that when her lesbianism became public, she was not engaged anymore as a contractor.
Here's where double standards come into play, though.
The Greek New Testament used as the basis for the KJV was created primarily by Desiderius Erasmus.
It is a matter of record that Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest, wrote letters to a young monk called Servetius Rogerus. These letters contained remarks that definitely sound like an attempt to initiate a romantic relationship.
I invite you to read the letters themselves to gauge this for yourselves.
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/e...-was-not-gay/the-servatius-letters/index.html
Additionally, King James VI and I, who commissioned the King James Version of the Bible, engaged in similar suspicious relationships with other men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I
Now, whether these men were involved in actual homosexual acts is a matter of dispute. Some will claim that the language of Erasmus, for example, was normal for men of that time. I don't think it was, and the quotes I have seen sound like an attempt to engage Servetius in an intimate relationship, which was rebuffed by him. I don't think these letters were written in the context of normal male companionship.
Regardless of whether they were or not, though, it is indisputable that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. This is interesting to me because frequently KJVists will express very anti-Roman Catholic sentiments.
Regarding the English royalty, historians are pretty confident homosexual relationships were being engaged in.
What is my point?
My point is this: KJV Onlyists employ argumentation toward the NIV participants that could be applied to the KJV participants. Do I think the KJV was a bad translation for its' time, and the limited manuscript evidence Erasmus had? NO. Erasmus was a humanist, which means, in essence, that he enjoyed working with original documents. I am confident that he did a great job with the information that he had (except for the Comma Johanneum, which I believe he succumbed to the pressures of the Roman Catholic Church to include from the Latin Vulgate).
However, the KJV Onlyist is content to argue that the aforementioned individuals, Woudstra and Mollenkott, softened the NIV with regards to sexuality.
I am not the biggest fan of the NIV. Personally, I like the English Standard Version. However, I am able to see clearly that KJV Onlyist argumentation is faulty, because they are taking one standard, and applying it to the NIV, and failing to apply the same standard to the KJV. This is hypocritical.
Like I mentioned, I prefer the ESV (English Standard Version). The NASB is fine, and so is the NKJV. All are in contemporary English. I like the NIV as a cross-reference, and my favorite study Bible is only available in NIV (Zondervan NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible).
However, I'm not a big fan of the KJV. This is mostly due to the language and the NT textual basis, but if I wanted to sound like a KJV Onlyist, I could claim that I don't like it because the underlying Greek text was compiled primarily by a gay Roman Catholic priest, and it was commissioned by a gay English king.
But, I know God works through flawed people (that's the only kind there are).
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
- Show all
