Family Christian Stores

[PetFCtr]

The NIV is corrupt flith? HMMM! I beg to differ. You must come from the belief(American Baptist) about only the KJV is the only true Bible out there. The NIV has helped me in my Christian walk so much I understand alot more Scripture now since I've been study it. Whoever is putting that garbage in your head PetFCtr you need to get away from them, because I believe they think that anyone who goes with the NIV will burn in Hell. Bill Gothard theory anyways.

I've heard that it makes references about homo sexuality being ok.

[PetFCtr]

I guess we are no longer allow to go out in the world and see what is relevant in today's society. You have to know that most of the Christian artists you know and love out there have a secular company running them, and they all have their hands into the piece of the pie that is not in a Christlike manner. I know for 10 years or so Word Music was owned by Capitol Cities Corp. Which has a huge stake in Playboy and produces, manufactures, and distributes all their movies. Petra was with Word at this time, so do you think it would be wrong to go out and support Petra's Ministry because of this? Family Christian Stores probably had no control over what their parent company did; Just like Petra had no control over Capital Cities Corp.
What I'm trying to say is that you can watch Fox, FX, FoxNews, and all the other media outlets that are owned by NewsCorp and not be doing anything wrong; It just depends on what you are watching on those that get you into trouble.
Pray and see what God wants you to do; If he tells you to give up anything to do with NewsCorp do it.
I do have a couple of questions for you PetFCtr, I ask these because I feel alot of what you are saying is here say.

First off i think it is an outrage that any Christian company would be owned by a company that is in the bunnies business. Why would Word allow themselves to be owned by a bunnies company..

Yes I actually do think its a problem that Petra was involved with Word records if Word was involved with perverts. If you purchased anything on Words lineup it will go down the chain and be available to make more perverion...

1. What bunnies Mag. does NewsCorp own?
2. What Satanic Bible do they produce?

I dont know which mag. Harper Collins the publisher owned by Murdock puts out the one and only satanic bible by anton lavey

[axelegend]

I've heard that it makes references about homo sexuality being ok.

You've "heard" that? I don't believe everything that I hear - and if someone told me that the NIV makes references about "homosexuality being ok", I would first question the source and then check it for myself, ESPECIALLY before making any further mention about it. Always check the validity of the source before making a misinformed decision (or spreading false information).

I have studied the NIV for many years, and have not once seen where it justifies homosexuality as being "ok" in any context.

The only place in the NIV translation where the specific word "homosexual" is used is in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which reads:

"9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

In vs. 9, Paul clearly identifies 3 types of sexually immoral persons: adulterers, male prostitutes, and homosexual males. In Romans 1:26, Paul adds the category of female homosexuals (taken in its full context, Romans 1:24-27 (NIV) states:

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

The phrase "God gave them over" at the beginning of vs. 24 refers to the fact that God allowed sin to run its course as an act of judgement). People who participate in such activity and other offenders (see vs. 9-10) are clearly excluded from the kingdom of God. However, these people CAN be saved by God's grace if they genuinely repent from their sins, accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and transform their lives with the help of the Holy Spirit - let us not forget that with God, all things are possible (see Matthew 19:26).


In the Old Testament, it is also revealed that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) states

"22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

and Leviticus 20:13 (NIV) states

"13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

These few Scriptures (from the NIV translation) clearly state that homosexuality is NOT "ok" in God's eyes. There are other Scriptures in the Bible that speak against sexual immorality and, more specifically, homosexuality.

If you can point out a single passage from the NIV translation that states or implies that homosexuality is OK, then please let me know. Otherwise, do not state things such as "I've heard that it makes references about homo sexuality being ok" when you haven't yet done your own homework about it.

Please note that I am not being mean or vindictive, just merely making a point and using Scripture to support it.

[charl]

I've heard that it makes references about homo sexuality being ok.

The issue was that apparently one of the people who worked on the project was a lesbian, unbeknowest to much of the translation team. If this is true, I do not see how this would make the lady in question less qualified to work as part of the team, and it is obvious that she had did not interfere with the honesty of the work. but that is enough to condemn the translation and all who read it in these people's minds because of their foolish practice of umpteenth degree separation.


Petfctr, from some of the things you've come up with in the past, you sound like you have been hanging around strict fundamentalist groups.
I have recently been reading blogs (here and here) of people in this movement and while I knew they were odd, some of this stuff seems absolutely bizarre (Spurgeon was not a Calvinist? WTH.). If that is where you are, tred carefully. Remember to test everything (as we all should)! Not everything you hear is gospel truth.

[brent]

1. Well burn all of the guitars, amps, drums, etc that are used in Christian music. They are all from secular manufacturers. The major ones anyway. Don't use a computer. Don't listen to an iPod or a CD. A rapist, child abuser, cheater, lier, thief, baptist, catholic, etc might have made them.

Has it ever occured to anyone that we could stand to learn something from the world? They know how to make money, while the Christians walk around with open palm, waiting for a hand out. Why DON"T Christians own Christian companies in Christian industries? Cause they SUCK at it that's why. So we just gripe and moan about the secular people owning everything. Well, it's because they know business. It's because they understand money. If we put the emphasis on souls, like they do a profit, then we would allow God to come out of the box like a genie from the lamp, and kick some holy tail.

[executioner]

I've heard that it makes references about homo sexuality being ok.

You've "heard" that? I don't believe everything that I hear - and if someone told me that the NIV makes references about "homosexuality being ok", I would first question the source and then check it for myself, ESPECIALLY before making any further mention about it. Always check the validity of the source before making a misinformed decision (or spreading false information).

I have studied the NIV for many years, and have not once seen where it justifies homosexuality as being "ok" in any context.

The only place in the NIV translation where the specific word "homosexual" is used is in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which reads:

"9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

In vs. 9, Paul clearly identifies 3 types of sexually immoral persons: adulterers, male prostitutes, and homosexual males. In Romans 1:26, Paul adds the category of female homosexuals (taken in its full context, Romans 1:24-27 (NIV) states:

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

The phrase "God gave them over" at the beginning of vs. 24 refers to the fact that God allowed sin to run its course as an act of judgement). People who participate in such activity and other offenders (see vs. 9-10) are clearly excluded from the kingdom of God. However, these people CAN be saved by God's grace if they genuinely repent from their sins, accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and transform their lives with the help of the Holy Spirit - let us not forget that with God, all things are possible (see Matthew 19:26).


In the Old Testament, it is also revealed that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) states

"22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"

and Leviticus 20:13 (NIV) states

"13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

These few Scriptures (from the NIV translation) clearly state that homosexuality is NOT "ok" in God's eyes. There are other Scriptures in the Bible that speak against sexual immorality and, more specifically, homosexuality.

If you can point out a single passage from the NIV translation that states or implies that homosexuality is OK, then please let me know. Otherwise, do not state things such as "I've heard that it makes references about homo sexuality being ok" when you haven't yet done your own homework about it.

Please note that I am not being mean or vindictive, just merely making a point and using Scripture to support it.

Greatly said Axel. PetFCtr please don't take this as us being mean, just take it for what it is. Watch what you repeat and before you repeat it verify the source is valid and correct, and also it helps if you have proof of everything.

[executioner]

I guess we are no longer allow to go out in the world and see what is relevant in today's society. You have to know that most of the Christian artists you know and love out there have a secular company running them, and they all have their hands into the piece of the pie that is not in a Christlike manner. I know for 10 years or so Word Music was owned by Capitol Cities Corp. Which has a huge stake in Playboy and produces, manufactures, and distributes all their movies. Petra was with Word at this time, so do you think it would be wrong to go out and support Petra's Ministry because of this? Family Christian Stores probably had no control over what their parent company did; Just like Petra had no control over Capital Cities Corp.
What I'm trying to say is that you can watch Fox, FX, FoxNews, and all the other media outlets that are owned by NewsCorp and not be doing anything wrong; It just depends on what you are watching on those that get you into trouble.
Pray and see what God wants you to do; If he tells you to give up anything to do with NewsCorp do it.
I do have a couple of questions for you PetFCtr, I ask these because I feel alot of what you are saying is here say.

First off i think it is an outrage that any Christian company would be owned by a company that is in the bunnies business. Why would Word allow themselves to be owned by a bunnies company..

Yes I actually do think its a problem that Petra was involved with Word records if Word was involved with perverts. If you purchased anything on Words lineup it will go down the chain and be available to make more perverion...

1. What bunnies Mag. does NewsCorp own?
2. What Satanic Bible do they produce?

I dont know which mag. Harper Collins the publisher owned by Murdock puts out the one and only satanic bible by anton lavey

I believe Petra's contract with Word was put in place before Capital came along; Petra is binded by law to fulfill that contract. Very rarely is there an escape clause in these contracts, They had no choice in the matter.

[executioner]

1. Well burn all of the guitars, amps, drums, etc that are used in Christian music. They are all from secular manufacturers. The major ones anyway. Don't use a computer. Don't listen to an iPod or a CD. A rapist, child abuser, cheater, lier, thief, baptist, catholic, etc might have made them.

Has it ever occured to anyone that we could stand to learn something from the world? They know how to make money, while the Christians walk around with open palm, waiting for a hand out. Why DON"T Christians own Christian companies in Christian industries? Cause they SUCK at it that's why. So we just gripe and moan about the secular people owning everything. Well, it's because they know business. It's because they understand money. If we put the emphasis on souls, like they do a profit, then we would allow God to come out of the box like a genie from the lamp, and kick some holy tail.

My goodness Brent we agree on something.

[executioner]

PetFCtr,

When you watch tv what do you watch? What news program do you watch? We know you use a computer so who is your internet provider? Which operating system do you use Windows or Apple? What kind of car do you drive? What I am trying to say is everything in this world is NOT perfect(including us) everything has a bad side. All the things I posted above you can use either in a bad way or use it for God's Glory. It is up to you to use it in the proper manner. Also instead of looking how everything can be bad for you why don't you look for a solution and find out how you can use these things for God's Glory. Look at the cup as being half full and not half empty.


BTW I am a huge Foxnews fan. It's on my TV every day.

[brent]

BTW, I do not read the NIV version of the Bible. That's what it is. Man's thought for thought version. It is not a word for word translation.

As far as homosexual's involved with the process of the NIV, that would be reason enough for me not to buy one. Obviously she is not a repentant servant of God, so she should have been excluded. I prefer to read scriptures translated by fearful men, who started over when there was a mistake, threw out the ink, the pen and took a bath when they wrote the names of God, for fear of corrupting the text. I hardly think a practicing homosexual lives with such reverence.

As far as the NIVs references to "this verse was not found in the original texts", there ARE NO original texts. The first ref to God's WORDS being written by man by divine inspiration of God, are in Jeremiah. Thats the original right there. But the king cut them up and threw them in the fire. God said not to worry, he would give the WORDS again and add more to it.

Wanting to read originals is like only wanting to read the first love note that you sent your spouse. The first love note is a rookie. It is not seasoned with the depth and emotion that only years of a relationship and experience can bring. If you want originals, forget the NT. If you want originals, become a Jew and use the 5 books alone. But no. God has added the full revelation of himself. Anything else is an edit and a precursor to what is complete.

Versions like the NIV will be easy to use by the antichrist, because the specific titles of the Godhead have been reduced to "divine being". Check out Acts 17:29 and compare it to the KJ. There are hundreds of changes, where the NIV removes the descriptive word Holy. There are many other changes that seem small now. But each little change takes one step away from where you should be.

[charl]

Actually their antichristnesses tend to like the vulgate.

Seriously, the NIV does not claim to use 'originals' but 'oldest and most reliable' texts. The Sinaitic texts, etc. We have been through this before.
Plus the Pentateuch is not the only part of the bible to have an autograph, that line of argument is irelevant and makes little sense. I am also going to be charitable and assume you are not saying that the autographs said something radically different than the extant copies.

However, regarding a non-believer working on the translating team: why should one have to be a believer to know what a greek word should be in english? Only the KJVO's argue for an "inspired translation". God does not promise us one. In comparing the NASB and the NIV, I find they are not so different. The NIV is weaker because of it's being dynamic equivalent, yes, but that does not make it necessarily inacurate. It does make it unsuitable for serious study, but more than acceptable for regular reading.

[brent]

God does say that he would preserve his WORDS for all generations. Read Psalms.

While I am not the staunch KJ only boy that I was raised to be. I do believe it, just as the publishers do, just as the leading scholars do, to be the most accurate word for word english translation. It has been verified time and time again.

Again, the oldest does not necessarily mean the best. God continually added to the WORDS. Most reliable is another thing. They also considered the works of Westcot and Hort, hence the works of Origen of Alexandria. Those guys were nuts. None of them believed in the resurrection of Christ, a literal heaven, etc.

[executioner]

The KJV too me is the ultimate version of the Bible, but in alot of ways very hard to understand; Being the simple man I am I tend to go with the NIV just to get it put on my terms of understanding.

[charl]

First of all, if your definition of a "leading scholar" is simply one who accepts the KJV as the best, then fine. Many others consider the NASB more literal. This of course in itself would probably disqualify them as "leading scholars" though wouldn't it?

The newer translations do not always go with the oldest texts either, but also the ones they feel are most reliable. Interestingly, the KJV often followed Tyndale's version, but sometimes in places where he disagreed with the Vulgate, they went with the Vulgate instead of Tyndale. Tyndale has the distinction of being the first person to ever translate anything from Hebrew to English, BTW, because he bypassed the Vulgate and used texts written in the original languages. Does this disqualify Tyndale? Does it disqualify the KJV?

It is also interesting to note that though in some cases the KJV is a copy of a translation of a translation (of a translation in the case of the OT) there are not signifigant differences between it and the other English translations of the bible. Does this not speak to the preservation of the scriptures?

And why would God add to the autographs? Why not just have the original author write it in? This is by far the most problematic statement you have made. All Chistians believe in the inspiration and authority of the autographs-not necessarily the subsequent copies and translations. At the same time, the differences are not signifigant enough for us to feel that the autographs were radically different than what we have-and the certainly were NOT inferior to versions that we have today.

We have also been through the thing with Origen, and well, you can bandy that around all you like and it's really not going to convince anyone. I seem to recall the last time you put forth this argument it had glaring historical errors in it, and I'm not even going to get into it.


When Paul warned against foolish controversies, this was exactly the kind of thing he meant. That something as periferal as the translation that is used should divide the church is saddening. This is the problem with the strict fundamentalism mentioned as well-people having heavy burdens tied on their backs. It is so ironic that some call themselves fundamentalists, and then argue the loudest about secondary issues.

[js3971]

When Paul warned against foolish controversies, this was exactly the kind of thing he meant. That something as periferal as the translation that is used should divide the church is saddening. This is the problem with the strict fundamentalism mentioned as well-people having heavy burdens tied on their backs. It is so ironic that some call themselves fundamentalists, and then argue the loudest about secondary issues.

There's very little I agree with in most of Charl's posts, and there is probably very little she agrees with in mine, but I must say that this quote is probably the best thing anyone has said on this whole forum about anything in the whole year or so I've been posting here. Well said, Charl.