Originally posted by qtiger
My point about the NIV is that it was DELIBERATELY rephrased to specify effeminate and homosexual people, rather than its original meaning of general sexual perversion. Why? It is 'easier to understand' (makes them think it means what we want them to think) for the average person. Or, there wasn't any mention of homosexuality outside of Paul's writings and Leviticus, so they needed something a little more concrete.
You know, I'm watching conspiracy theory on TNT right now.
I think they need a subsection, a directors cut if you will of your view of the bible's interpretations.
The version of the Bible that you have, as well as the versions I have pointed out, like you said, and I said before, are interpretations.
The king james version was not written for protestants. It was written ordered to be written under King James of England, way back in the day, under the Catholic church.
Did I say that one version of the bible was right or wrong? no.
Did I take the words from the bible you quoted and defined them from a dictionary? yes. They matched the words of the bibles i quoted. Its not a big deal man. They say the same thing.
And whats to say the version you used is 'correct'?
This is all pointless anyway? Why are we now debating verisons of the bible?