Q
Would you discuss in more detail NIV references to homosexuality?
A
A recent James Dobson newsletter tells of a lesbian who realized that the new
bible versions were easier on homosexuality and were actually hindering her need for
repentance. The question, “Why does the NIV omit all censuring of the sodomite or
effeminate?” is answered by NIV translation stylist Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. Her
recent book, Sensuous Spirituality, mentions the “great number of lesbian or gay
clergy” who have confided in her “secretly.” She readily admits:
1. Her ”homosexuality” (p. 12, et al).
2. Her views about “working secretly within the system” (p. 48).
3. Her belief in “lying... deviousness, and downright subversiveness.... Subversion
means a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine...” (pp. 47 — 48).
Is it any wonder that the particulars of homosexual sin are omitted by a version that
employed a closet homosexual stylist. In Pat Robertson’s February 1994 issue of
Christian American, Dr. Mollenkott calls the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition an
“abusive parent.” Why does she call God an “abusive parent”? She says:
“I can no longer worship in a theological context that depicts God as an abusive
parent and Jesus as the obedient trusting child.”
Mollenkott refers to god as “she” and her religion as “monism.”
“The monism [Hinduism] I’m talking about assumes that god is so all inclusive that
she is involved in every cell of those who are thoughts in her mind and embodiment of
her image.”
Her pro-homosexual book, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? echoes her NIV’s
assertion (in 1 Cor. 6:9, Deut. 23:17, 1 Kings 15:12, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7) that the
bible censures only criminal offenders or prostitutes, not “sincere homosexuals...
drawn to someone of the same sex.” Few “effeminate men” (KJV) are prostitutes or
commit criminal offenses of a homosexual nature. Young people desperately need the
bible’s warning that the “sodomite” (KJV) is engaged in a potentially deadly activity.
“Shrine” or “cult prostitution” (NIV, NASB, et al.) is archaic, it is not a translation
of the Hebrew, but a subjective interpretation of its meaning.