Homosexuality as sin... clearer in the modern versions than in the KJV

[FSSL]

KJVOs make a big deal out of modern versions like the NIV exchanging the term "Sodomite" with "male temple prostitutes." See this and this. They want us to believe that the modern versions soften the sin.

On this forum, we have a KJVO refusing to see the sin of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the KJV. Why doesn't he see it? Because the KJV is less clear than the modern versions.

Here is the KJV:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Here is the NIV with footnote that explains it further:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. fn. The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

 

[prophet]

KJVOs make a big deal out of modern versions like the NIV exchanging the term "Sodomite" with "male temple prostitutes." See this and this. They want us to believe that the modern versions soften the sin.

On this forum, we have a KJVO refusing to see the sin of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the KJV. Why doesn't he see it? Because the KJV is less clear than the modern versions.

Here is the KJV:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Here is the NIV with footnote that explains it further:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. fn. The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

That's the FSSL I've grown to know and love! MVP (modern version prophet).  I thought the Nestle-Aland would go unrepresented on this forum.
  Do us all a propuh, my nigguh, and keep it rell.  Don't pretend like the m.v.'s were translated from the same mss as the AV.  It's all good, in the m.v. hood, dogg.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

Do us all a propuh, my nigguh, and keep it rell.

What do you mean "us," kemo sabe? Speak for yourself.

Don't pretend like the m.v.'s were translated from the same mss as the AV.

We all know they weren't. Don't be patronizing. Are you suggesting that the difference in translation between the KJV and N IV is because of a variant between the TR and NA texts at 1 Cor. 6:9?

 

[FSSL]

That's the FSSL I've grown to know and love! MVP (modern version prophet).  I thought the Nestle-Aland would go unrepresented on this forum.

Do us all a propuh, my nigguh, and keep it rell.  Don't pretend like the m.v.'s were translated from the same mss as the AV.  It's all good, in the m.v. hood, dogg.

Anishinabe

Can you please point out the word difference in the following?

"The textus corruptus dug out of the garbage pits in Alexandria" UBS, 4th Revised
ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

"The textus receptus going back to the original not tampered with by the hooligan Scrivener." 1550 Stephanus
η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται

So, since you claim to be a messenger from God with Holy Spirit revelation, it would be helpful for the rest off us to see why you make the claim that the modern versions have a different mss basis than the KJV in this verse being discussed.

 

[SAWBONES]

"The textus corruptus dug out of the garbage pits in Alexandria"

"The textus receptus going back to the original not tampered with by the hooligan Scrivener."

Just came across this thread.
Steven Avery is not a good mentor for you, Mr. self-styled non-prophet.

"Garbage pits" in Alexandria?
F.H.A. Scrivener a "hooligan"?

A person employing such language has instantly exempted himself from any genuine discussion of NTTC.

Go sit in the corner with your KJV and ponder 1 Tim. 4:7. 

 

[FSSL]

"The textus corruptus dug out of the garbage pits in Alexandria"

"The textus receptus going back to the original not tampered with by the hooligan Scrivener."

Just came across this thread.
Steven Avery is not a good mentor for you, Mr. self-styled non-prophet.

"Garbage pits" in Alexandria?
F.H.A. Scrivener a "hooligan"?

A person employing such language has instantly exempted himself from any genuine discussion of NTTC.

Go sit in the corner with your KJV and ponder 1 Tim. 4:7. 

LOL!!! That was me. I was speaking the language of Avery for effect!
The so-called prophet, earlier, on another thread, was rejecting any discussion in the Greek.

 

[SAWBONES]

Hi FSSL.
The Avery-esque language was unmistakable, and the quotation marks misled me!

My apologies to "prophet" for attributing such language to him; my error.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I think the translators had to be very careful to not offend the king in light of his great affections for young men and boys. You Don`t want to bite the hand that feeds you. You might end up burning like some Baptists.

 

[prophet]

I think the translators had to be very careful to not offend the king in light of his great affections for young men and boys. You Don`t want to bite the hand that feeds you. You might end up burning like some Baptists.

Actually, I Cor 6:9 would have gotten James I off of the hook, 'such were some of you', if it was worded more specifically, for his unnatural affection.  It wouldn't have helped his conscience deal with 'persecuting the separatists out of England' , though.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Hi FSSL.
The Avery-esque language was unmistakable, and the quotation marks misled me!

Sorry! If I were not admin, I would set up a sock puppet! Bwahahaha!!

My apologies to "prophet" for attributing such language to him; my error.

I am sure he would agree with the language anyways. That was my rationale for using it.

Yeah, you got me pegged. At least, concerning Codex Alexandrias being 'discovered' in a trash can, and being descended from Origen's (the abuser of himself-ouch!) Scripture mutilating Frankenclinic. 
  But I can't see Scrivener wasted and rowdy after a Man United match.

Anishinabe

 

[SAWBONES]

Yeah, you got me pegged. At least, concerning Codex Alexandrias being 'discovered' in a trash can, and being descended from Origen's (the abuser of himself-ouch!) Scripture mutilating Frankenclinic.

Ain't no such thing as "Codex Alexandrias".

(And if you meant "Codex Alexandrinus", it wasn't "discovered in a trash can", and at least in the Gospels it's primarily Byzantine in its textual character, so if you approve the KJV, you should approve Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels.)

 

[FSSL]

Yeah, you got me pegged. At least, concerning Codex Alexandrias being 'discovered' in a trash can, and being descended from Origen's (the abuser of himself-ouch!) Scripture mutilating Frankenclinic. But I can't see Scrivener wasted and rowdy after a Man United match.
Anishinabe

The false prophet likes to make claims about mss when he is unable to even show us the supposed differences.

There is nothing like watching a KJVO claim to uphold a Bible that he does not even know how to interpret.

 

[SAWBONES]

The false prophet likes to make claims about mss when he is unable to even show us the supposed differences.

There is nothing like watching a KJVO claim to uphold a Bible that he does not even know how to interpret.

Ah, well.

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, 'The Lord knoweth them that are his.'"

KJVOism and KJVOists are ultimately just boring, not to mention downright silly. If only all the KJV fanciers would simply obey their KJV rather than making it into a pretended totem, there'd be no problem at all.

Whether one prefers the KJV, the ERV, the ASV1901, the NASB, ESV, NKJV or some others of the more literal Bible translations, no cardinal doctrine will be found lacking, and nothing necessary for faith and manner of life will be missing.

It's only the KJVO-Kabbalists who believe in, and insist upon the existence of, such a nonsensical thing as a "magical perfect English Bible translation".

Too bad they can never rationally account for the supposed ultimate accuracy in their "perfect" KJV, of Matt. 27:44's "cast the same in his teeth", Rev. 22:19's "book of life" (attributable to Erasmus' back-translation from Latin), Beza's emendations in Revelation, Acts 12:4's "Easter", 1 John 5's "heavenly witnesses", etc., etc., none of which are supported by the Greek primary (ancient) textual evidence.

 

[bgwilkinson]

KJVO is so boring and exhausted. Hard to get very excited about it anymore.
It's like a corpse awaiting burial in the ground. Yawn.

 

[prophet]

Yeah, you got me pegged. At least, concerning Codex Alexandrias being 'discovered' in a trash can, and being descended from Origen's (the abuser of himself-ouch!) Scripture mutilating Frankenclinic.

Ain't no such thing as "Codex Alexandrias".

(And if you meant "Codex Alexandrinus", it wasn't "discovered in a trash can", and at least in the Gospels it's primarily Byzantine in its textual character, so if you approve the KJV, you should approve Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels.)

I wondered if anyone would catch that misspell.  I was in the hardware store, thinking "did I spell that Alexandrias?"  O well.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Perhaps you could correct your other glaring mistakes as well.

Like my mistake of seeing your arrogant disdain for KJO?

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

Actually, I Cor 6:9 would have gotten James I off of the hook, 'such were some of you', if it was worded more specifically, for his unnatural affection.

I'm sure even a KJV-onlyist can understand the difference between "such were some of you, and "such are some of you."

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

Actually, I Cor 6:9 would have gotten James I off of the hook, 'such were some of you', if it was worded more specifically, for his unnatural affection.

I'm sure even a KJV-onlyist can understand the difference between "such were some of you, and "such are some of you."

What are you talking about?
I'm not sure what you are addressing.  Maybe I wasn't clear.
  I meant:  If the AV would have clearly left the door open for those who 'leave nature, and burn in their lust' for strange flesh, to be the 'washed' in 1 Cor.6:9, instead of the general 'abusers of themselves' with alike souls, then a Sprinkled, Works Salvation, 'Divinely Appointed Minister' like James 1, would have known he could death bed confess, and be fine.
Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Followed by:

I meant:  If the AV would have clearly left the door open for those who 'leave nature, and burn in their lust' for strange flesh, to be the 'washed' in 1 Cor.6:9, instead of the general 'abusers of themselves' with alike souls, then a Sprinkled, Works Salvation, 'Divinely Appointed Minister' like James 1, would have known he could death bed confess, and be fine.

As I thought, you don't understand the difference between "were" and "are."  You weren't clear, and as the above loblolly shows, you still aren't clear. Speak English!

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Followed by:

I meant:  If the AV would have clearly left the door open for those who 'leave nature, and burn in their lust' for strange flesh, to be the 'washed' in 1 Cor.6:9, instead of the general 'abusers of themselves' with alike souls, then a Sprinkled, Works Salvation, 'Divinely Appointed Minister' like James 1, would have known he could death bed confess, and be fine.

As I thought, you don't understand the difference between "were" and "are."  You weren't clear, and as the above loblolly shows, you still aren't clear. Speak English!

I have no idea why you are insisting on this point.  Obviously I know the diffence between the verbs 'were' and 'are'.  Both appear in 1 Cor. 6  'Such WERE some of you' ,'but ye ARE washed'.
  So what point are you trying to make?
  Scenario #1 James 1, being alledgedly a Sodomite, sees in the newly Translated English Bible, that people can be former Sodomites, who's sin has been absolved.  Being an Anglican, he naturally would equate this washing with a visit from an earthly priest, a rite.  He is not condemned,  finally, by this, and so he doesn't take offence.
Scenario 2, James reads the Authorized Version, sees final condemnation in Romans 1, for his lifestyle, and takes offence.

If the translators were trying to get him off of the hook, to avoid persecution, as was suggested on an earlier post, They could have made the 1 passage in the scriptures that would have accomplished this, 1 Cor. 6:8-12 more specific, like the other passages where homosexuality is referenced in the Scriptures.
  The same goes for inserting baby sprinkling, Maryolatry, and etc. They apparently had no fear of offending the Tyrant.

Anishinabe