Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hehe, of course! And thanks to all these different translations, a man can choose who's guilty of adultery when he divorces his wife for some reason other than sexual immorality/fornication.
Matthew 5:32
Preferred for men
KJV
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Preferred for women
NIV
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
If you think those gives a man license to choose who's guilty, then that just shows a poor reading, no matter which translation you're using. Also note that that is from the NIV 2011, whereas the NIV 1984 had "causes her to become an adulteress". I don't say that because one is wrong and one is right - but to get a better understanding of what's going on.
Either way the point remains the same - the guy is putting the woman in an unfortunate spot because it is assumed that she will remarry after he divorces her, and since the first marriage should not have been dissolved, more consequences ensue when the second marriage takes place. And he is the cause of those consequences.
If you think those gives a man license to choose who's guilty, then that just shows a poor reading, no matter which translation you're using. Also note that that is from the NIV 2011, whereas the NIV 1984 had "causes her to become an adulteress". I don't say that because one is wrong and one is right - but to get a better understanding of what's going on.
Either way the point remains the same - the guy is putting the woman in an unfortunate spot because it is assumed that she will remarry after he divorces her, and since the first marriage should not have been dissolved, more consequences ensue when the second marriage takes place. And he is the cause of those consequences.
The 2011 NIV was modified to make it more politically correct, gender neutral, and less offensive to women. It is really a feminist's Bible. Its very dangerous and heretical to translate the Bible with a political agenda and those responsible will have to answer to God. I recommend the NIV 1984, ESV, or NKJV. I cannot recommend the 2011 NIV due to the reasoning behind the update.
I don't see much difference here. God hates divorce. His is the only opinion that matters. Where'd you copy and paste that one from?
The difference is that in one version the husband is the one committing adultery and in the other, the woman is the one committing adultery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdenscold
If you think those gives a man license to choose who's guilty, then that just shows a poor reading, no matter which translation you're using. Also note that that is from the NIV 2011, whereas the NIV 1984 had "causes her to become an adulteress". I don't say that because one is wrong and one is right - but to get a better understanding of what's going on.
I understand it fine. One version calls her the adulteress, and the other says that he's the one guilty of adultery.
At any rate, I think I made my point. It wasn't nonbelievers who changed the meaning of this verse. It was a group of Christians.
The 2011 NIV was modified to make it more politically correct, gender neutral, and less offensive to women. It is really a feminist's Bible. Its very dangerous and heretical to translate the Bible with a political agenda and those responsible will have to answer to God. I recommend the NIV 1984, ESV, or NKJV. I cannot recommend the 2011 NIV due to the reasoning behind the update.
I used to think that but I think the reasoning is a bit overblown now. It doesn't both me so much, and it's not because I've gone liberal.
The 2011 NIV was modified to make it more politically correct, gender neutral, and less offensive to women. It is really a feminist's Bible. Its very dangerous and heretical to translate the Bible with a political agenda and those responsible will have to answer to God. I recommend the NIV 1984, ESV, or NKJV. I cannot recommend the 2011 NIV due to the reasoning behind the update.
First of all no one should ever use the NKJV or KJV. They are based on very bad manuscripts of the NT.
As far as the NIV 2011, it is not attempting to be political correct. It is attempting to use modern language. Just compare 1 Tim 1:10 in the 1984 and the 2011 and that will dispell any notion that they are trying to be political correct. If they were trying to be political correct they would not have tightened up their translation of this verse to come down harder on homosexuality.
Yes, however, they are trying to use modern English instead of 1960s English and that means more gender inclusive choices. But they are only inclusive where the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic is intended to be inclusive. This should not be considered a weakness but a strength--using modern English (this is after all translation...or should we just insist that the Bible never be translated?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0 Hehe, of course! And thanks to all these different translations, a man can choose who's guilty of adultery when he divorces his wife for some reason other than sexual immorality/fornication.
Matthew 5:32
Preferred for men
KJV
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Preferred for women
NIV
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
As far as Matthew 5:32...
Dr. Blomberg (one of the members of the 15 person NIV translation team) has a blog post explaining the change to "makes her a victim of adultery." The change was not to be political correct or bow to society. They made the change because they truly believe that it is a better rendering of a very trickly Greek clause. He explains the teams logic here.
As far as Matthew 5:32...
Dr. Blomberg (one of the members of the 15 person NIV translation team) has a blog post explaining the change to "makes her a victim of adultery." The change was not to be political correct or bow to society. They made the change because they truly believe that it is a better rendering of a very trickly Greek clause. He explains the teams logic here.
If I'm to take your single team's logic into consideration, the rest of you should take the following into consideration as well:
THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
AND GOMORRAH
Moses said, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). What are we told about them? When two man were spending the night at the home of Lot, before they went to bed of the night, “The men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your tonight: Bring them out that we may have relations with them” (Genesis 19:1-5 New American Standard Bible).
• ”Bring them out that we may have relations with them” New American Standard Bible
• “Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” New International Version
• “Bring them out to us so that we may have intercourse with them” revised English Bible
• “Bring them out to us so we can have sexual relations with them” New Century Version
• “Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them” The New American Bible
• “Bring them out so we can have sex with them” New Living Translation
• “Send them out, so we can have sex with them” Contemporary English Version
Under the Law God demanded the death penalty for homosexuality. “Is there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; THEY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH” (Leviticus 20:13). “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “Defile not you yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomits out her inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:24-25).
Genesis 19:1- 7: “Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square." Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.” “Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with then, Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, ‘No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing’” [New International Version. There is no doubt that this man having relations (sex) with man is homosexuality and Job called it wicked. In Genesis 19 these cities were literally burnt up (Psalm 11:6; Isaiah 34:9), not still burning with the people walking around in torment. Their end was complete (total destruction) and is an example of the total destruction that is coming to the ungodly at the judgment.
SODOM AND GOMORRAH Jude 7 "Are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire" American Standard Version. God "condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly" 2 Peter 2:6 New Revised Standard Version. These cities were literally burnt up, not still burning with the people walking around in torment. Their end (extinction) was complete (total destruction) and eternal; and is an example of the total destruction that is coming to the ungodly at the judgment. SODOM HAS CEASED TO EXIST. So thoroughly was it's destruction that it's location is not known. Some believe it was under what is now the Dead Sea, some that it was other places. The annihilation (end, destruction, extinction, death) of the ungodly will be total and eternal, just as it was of Sodom and Gomorrah. THEY WILL CEASE TO EXIST. This is the first use of "fire and brimstone" and the only time it was literally rained on anyone. It was the total destruction of the two cities, and is later used as a symbol of total and eternal destruction. (Psalm 11:6; Isaiah 34:9; Revelation 19:20; 20:10; 21:8). "By turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly" New Revised Standard Version. That they were reduced to ashes and the fire went out is also a part of the example of what will happen to the ungodly. Where does any one find the revelation that changes this example of total destruction by a fire that went out when the destruction was complete into an example of destruction that will never be complete and the fire will never go out?
• "And if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them too extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly" New Revised Standard Version.
• "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with a overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly" American Standard Version.
• "He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter" New American Standard Version.
• "He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly" New International Version.
• "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly" New King James Version.
• "And God also destroyed the evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them until they were ashes. He made these cities an example of what will happen to those who are against God" New Century Bible.
• "And He condemned to ruin and extinction the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes (and thus) set them forth as an example to those who would be ungodly" The Amplified Bible.
• "God reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, condemning them to total ruin as an object lesson for the ungodly in future days" Revised English Bible.
If Sodom and Gomorrah are an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, how could the ungodly have an eternal life of torment? They were reduced to ashes and when there was nothing more to burn, the fire went out. They are an example of total destruction, not of eternal torment.
What is Sodom an example of?
• "Condemned them too extinction" -- Sodom --- or an eternal life of torment?
• "Condemned them too extinction" -- ungodly -- or an eternal life of torment? Does anyone think Sodom is now being tormented in Hell today? If it is not, then how is it an example of being tormented in Hell?
Next to the flood the destruction of Sodom was the most devastating judgment by God in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is the sin that wrought the wrath of God and a judgment of total destruction (death) on all the inhabitants of these four cities and all the inhabitants around them.
“Probably the most devastating judgment of Jehovah since the universal flood in Noah’s day was the destruction of the cities of the Plan, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, ‘Jehovah overthrew these cities in His anger, and in His wrath’ (Deut. 29:23). It was a judgment of total destruction upon the cities, the inhabitants of the land, and of all that grew upon the land. Although other sins were charged against Sodom: ‘Pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease…And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me’ (Ezek. 16:49050). Homosexuality (sodomy) was the abomination and chief sin charged against the city, and the immediate sin for which it was destroyed (Gen. 19:4-5, 12-13). When Lot, his wife, and two daughters left the city, ‘Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven’ (Gen 19:24). Precisely how this was done we are not told; but it was clearly a judgment from Jehovah, an expression of His fierce wrath and hot anger against the cities and the sin of sodomy” Homer Hailey, “God’s Judgments and Punishments,” Page 98.
“As a nation, the United States has enjoyed a favorable position on earth. Located between tow great oceans, with friendly neighbor to the north and fairly friendly nation to the south, it has escaped the ravages of war. Except for the Civil War, it has had no war of any magnitude on its soil since the Revolutionary War with England. Like Moab, it has ‘settled on its lees,’ becoming very wicked in the last half century. It can easily become the target of God’s judgment. Our self-confidence, out attitude toward homosexuality…and our haughty spirit toward the God of heaven could be the prelude to a serious judgment from the Almighty. Nuclear weapons, guided missiles, and terrorist organizations made a destructive war possible.” Homer Hailey, “God’s Judgments and Punishments Of Individuals and Nations,” Page 101. Note: This was written before 9/11.
God did not think homosexuality was “politically correct” but a sin worthy of death. A Christian cannot accept it, cannot approve of it or any that dose take part in it. IT IS UNACCETABLE TO GOD. Is not the US heading in the same path that Sodom took?
Anyone must reject many plain statements of the Bible to believe man has an immortal soul that is deathless and will live forever without the blood of Christ. All through the Bible death is God’s punishment for homosexuality.
It seems to be the case that there are gradually becoming more Liberal Churches performing s.s marriages or blessings.
For instance, the Episcopalian Church has started 'blessings'.
How do they reconcile this with the Bible and general Christian theology?
Some, seem to just do away with the OT and Paul sections, but how about with the more orthodox churches - how can this be?
They put what they want over what the Bible says. They have no love the the word of God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
