Only if you believe the Bible is “flat” and all old testament law should be followed.

The Muslims think interest is forbidden so their bank system is setup to reflect that but there's ways around it.

Only if you believe the Bible is “flat” and all old testament law should be followed.

The Muslims think interest is forbidden so their bank system is setup to reflect that but there's ways around it.

There are some flagrant inaccuracies in the original NIV that are clearly culturally conditioned, and all the more damnable for that.

(The translation I’m using is ‘MyV’, my modernization of the AV, or KJV, which came free with my free Bible software)

In the Law of Moses, God’s Constitution for Israel, our window into God’s Heart, lending and borrowing on interest is forbidden.

Exodus 22:25 If you lend money to any of my people who is poor by you, you shall not be to him as a usurer, neither shall you lay on him interest.
Leviticus 25:36 Don't take interest from him, or increase: but fear your God; so that your brother may live with you.
37 You shall not give him your money on interest, nor lend him your food for increase.
Deuteronomy 23:19 you shall not lend on interest to your brother; interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent on interest:
20 To a stranger you may lend on interest; but to your brother you shall not lend on interest: so that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you set your hand to in the land you go into to possess.

One can understand how unpalatable that would be to a capitalist, Ken Lay, say, who might want to think of himself as a Christian.

So the NIV translates ‘interest,’ ‘usury’ in the AV, as something like ‘excessive interest.’

Damnable.

Again, in first Corinthians 7:4 Paul writes:

“The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband [does]: and likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife [does].”

This is absolute; one could understand that a feminist woman– or a retrograde man; it’s absolutely even-handed– would resent this. So the NIV translates:

“The wife ALONE doesn’t have authority over her own body, but
the husband ALSO [does]: and likewise also the husband ALONE doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife ALSO [does].”

Interestingly, I’ve run this last verse past a couple of my evangelical brothers, and they’ve said 'Huh?' and ‘I don’t hear any difference!’

I’m embarrassed for them for bearing out the stereotype of evangelicals of inability to think critically.

The question is… will it retain some/all of its gender inclusive language? I suspect it will retain at least some of it.

See:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/tr...
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/tr...