KJV onlyists often make outlandish claims against modern translations. I often encounter this in my numerous engagement with KJV Onlyists in social media. This time the text in dispute is 2 Kings 9:31. However the issue is not limited to just a mere translation of the text. This time KJV Onlyists accuse the NIV translation committee of being more committed “to gender equality” and that such commitment “exceeds their commitment to accurate translation” Here is their argument:
2 Samuel 3:29 – David Curses His Own Family
Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread. (KJV, Harkavy, JPS Tanach)
Let it fall on the head of Yo’av and all his father’s family. May Yo’av’s family always have someone with a hemorrhage or tzara‘at, or who has to walk with a cane, or who dies by the sword or who lacks food.” (Complete Jewish Bible)
May his blood fall on the head of Joab and on his whole family! May Joab’s family never be without someone who has a running sore or leprosy or who leans on a crutch or who falls by the sword or who lacks food. (NIV)
Joab and his family are the guilty ones. May the family of Joab be cursed in every generation with a man who has open sores or leprosy or who walks on crutches or dies by the sword or begs for food! (NLT)
Joab and his family are the guilty ones. I pray that Joab’s family will always be sick with sores and other skin diseases. May they all be cowards, and may they die in war or starve to death. (CEV)
Joab and his entire family will always be under the curse of this bloodguilt. May they forever be victims of crippling diseases, violence, and famine. (The Message)
Modern liberal versions, as usual, don’t hesitate to replace Scripture’s gender-specific language, but in this case the error is noticeably consequential. David was careful to curse only Joab’s father’s family because Joab’s mother was David’s sister Zeruiah. Had he cursed Joab’s entire family, he would have been cursing his own (Alshich).
This demonstrates how shallow versions such as the NIV can be. In fairness, their translators may be too biblically illiterate to know that Joab and David were related, but even granting that they weren’t intentionally corrupting the text to some purpose in this instance, we can see that their commitment to gender equality exceeds their commitment to accurate translation: ab means father and that is obviously the proper and logical translation here. They went out of their way to get it wrong, but it was close enough for the NIV’s lesbian chief style editor.
Now here is my counter argument:
While I do not prefer the NIV (in most cases) nor any translation which has a dynamic translation philosophy for personal study it is unfair to accuse the NIV and any other translation with a dynamic translation philosophy of any false accusations that is concocted by the outlandish imaginations of KJV Onlyists which is not only illogical but has not basis or is not backed by any evidence at all! Consider the following counter aguments:
1.) A consideration of translation philosophy
The translation philosophy you mentioned above including the NIV (which tries to strike a balance between literal and dynamic equivalence) more or less is in the “dynamic” end of the spectrum. (Some would argue it is in between dynamic and literal equivalence though) So it is unfair to jump to the conclusion that they translated it that way because they are “Modern liberal versions” and they are out there to corrupt the translation because of they have a gender specific agenda that is why they want to “replace Scripture’s gender-specific language.” Take note that the NASB and the ESV which are both modern translations translate the phrase in dispute as ” all his father’s house” (NASB) “upon all his father’s house” (ESV). Why is this ? Of course because the NASB and the ESV just like the KJV is a “literal” translation philosophy.
2.) Scripture passages in the NIV do not “soften” its stand on homosexuality nor is the text purposely corrupted by the NIV translation committee.
The accusation with regards to the “NIV’s lesbian chief style editor.” Is immaterial and irrelevant. Viriginia Ramey Mllenkott is only a literary consultant. As such, she did not participate in any translation work ! Further, during the time he worked with the NIV she did not “come out of the closet” so to speak. (See: http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2017/05/20/was-the-niv-corrupted-by-homosexual-translators/)
If the NIV has an agenda agenda to corrupt Scriptures and “replace Scripture’s gender-specific language” then why would they not remove the following text ?
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)
“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 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9)
“Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. “(Romans 1:26-27)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.” (1 Corinthians 6:9) [Homosexual offenders referring to those who have homosexual sex]
“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)
The above text still cleary shows that the NIV does not “soften” homosexuality or has inadvertedly corrupted the text because of their alleged hidden agenda to “replace Scripture’s gender-specific language” Once again this accusation has no logical or evidentiary basis and is the product of KJV Onlyists outlandish imaginations and conspiracy theorist tendencies.
3.) Logical fallacy of guilt by association
Oh by the way speaking of homosexuality, let us adopt the outlandish imaginations and conspiracy theorist tendencies and logic (or the lack of such) of KJV Onlyists. Should we then abhor the KJV just because King James himself is accused of being a homosexual (or had homosexual tendencies) or bisexual ?
See:
http://www.historiamag.com/james-king-or-queen/
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article168984592.html
https://hornet.com/stories/king-james-gay-lovers
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/james-i-lover-george-villiers-gay-portrait-rubens-art-painting
https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-james.html
Accusing the NIV of softening its stance on homosexuality and or that the NIV translation committee has purposedly corrupted its translation just because it was later found out that its chief style editor is a lesbian is a logical fallacy, the logical fallacy of guilt by association. It is just like saying we should not use the KJV because he is accused of being a homosexual (or had homosexual tendencies) or bisexual.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply