Results 341 - 360 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33103 | ||
Makarios; point taken. I apologize. Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
342 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33102 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Thanks for the excellent information. I think in the larger culture, the two terms are different. Gender-inclusive language seeks to eliminate the implied exclusion of women arising from the standard use of masculine gender when no gender is intended. (After all, why not use feminine gender in such cases? Male domination, of course!) This shortcoming of English is addressed by such silliness as "s/he", "chairperson", and the TNIV's use of "they" to refer to a singel person of unspecified/irrelevant gender. Gender-neutral language, on the other hand, seeks to eliminate all references to gender and thus erase all distinctions between men and women. This is the disease infesting seminaries as described in your first link ("The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy"). God and Jesus lose their gender altogether and we end up with such neologisms as God Godself (rather than "God himself" - an example in the aforementioned article). To me, gender-neutral is a much more dangerous concept. Gender-inclusiveness doesn't have much theological significance because it addreses the characteristics a perticular language. The use of gender-neutral language, however, is an assault on the nature of God. This is a heresy that transcends languages. But it's a heresy that I don't think the TNIV is necessarily guilty of. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
343 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33093 | ||
Greetings, Hank; I didn't mean to indulge in name-calling. I thought I was accurately describing the feelings of those responsible for the speculation, half-truths, retroactive condemnation of the NIV, and general demonizing of Zondervan. After all, their motives, their honesty, and their scholarship have all been attacked, along with an old and honored bible society that has distributed God's World throughout the world for nearly 200 years. Sounded pretty hateful to me. But if you and others don't hate them, please accept my apologies. Any comments on the substance of my message? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
344 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33068 | ||
Hello, Joe! A quick search of the TNIV shows that God retains his title Father, so this is something of a non sequitur. Don't be misled by the oft-cited article on baptistpress.com. When the headline refers to the TNIV as a "revision" not a "translation", their position is pretty clear. Despite their claims, the TNIV is not gender-neutral - as the above example shows. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
345 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33067 | ||
Hank; I suspect that Wak was making the point that the IBS (which I believe is not-for-profit) has earned a measure of trust after almost 200 years. You have to throw out an awfully big baby with the TNIV bathwater. This is the same old "appeal to authority (other than Scripture)" argument that we see so often on this forum. The TNIV isn't all that important to me. But if it were, I would read it to see what I could glean from it. I don't plan to start letting "experts" do my thinking for me. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
346 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33066 | ||
Hi, Hank (and all the Zondervan-haters); If God is still the Father, the TNIV is not a gender-neutral Bible. "Father" is gender-specific. If we're going to try to destroy a company that has decades of useful service to Christians behind it, we should at least be able to identify its crimes. Shop-lifting is a lesser crime than armed robbery. Likewise, trying to address short-comings of the English language is a lesser crime than pandering to feminist cries for political correctness. It amazes me that folks who insist on a literal reading of other parts of the Bible don't hesitate to tell me that when Jesus said "he" or "him", he didn't really mean it and "anyone can tell the difference". Ooops, I forgot, Jesus wasn't speaking English; "he" and "his" were a translator's choice of a translator's choice. Until a sizeable number of evangelicals actually read the TNIV, ponder it, discuss it, and pray about it, this is a tempest in a teapot. And an awfully uncharitable one at that - judgmental and probably uninformed as well. The TNIV NT is a free download at http://www.tniv.info/bible/index.php How many Zondervan-haters have actually read it? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
347 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33062 | ||
Hi, Hank; I agree with most of what you say. Translating "as accurately as possible", however, is always a judgment call. If you've ever studied a foreign language, you know that word-for-word translation doesn't work. Sometimes there's no corresponding word; sometimes the author wrote idiomatically. Even if there's only one text to work from, intent, meaning, and context will always enter into the process. Add multiple texts and the problem grows. My points are these: (1) The TNIV is not the NIVI. (2) the editors and translators are not known to be agents of Satan - Zonderrvan does have a history of serving the Christian community. (3) It's easy to make up motives for other people - common courtesy and Christian charity demand that we carefully consider their own explanations before we manufacture our own. (4) Since transaltion is a matter of judgment, it's premature and short-sided to excoriate Zondervan if they have made an error in judgment. (5) I wouldn't consider anyone who has not personally read the TNIV qualified to comment on it. I believe the Bible calls for witnesses not second-hand witnesses and hearsay. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
348 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33058 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Have you read either the NIVI or TNIV? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
349 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33005 | ||
ROFL! You're a better man than I, Hank. |
||||||
350 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32994 | ||
Hi, Hank; Most publishers make a profit; that's how they stay in business. For example, this is from our host's Foundation Publications home page: "NEW PUBLISHING PARTNERSHIP MEANS MORE EDITIONS AND MORE ADVERTISING THAN EVER BEFORE. In order to boost consumer preference for the Updated NASB, the Lockman Foundation has announced a three–way publishing partnership between Foundation Publications, World Bible Publishers, and Zondervan Publishing. Already the list of available text, reference, study and specialty editions has tripled." Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
351 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32993 | ||
Hi, Makarios; It's not gender-inclusive. Gender inclusive would make God our Parent, not our Father, Jesus his Child, not his Son. That's the feminist objective. That was the NIVI The TNIV seeks (not necessarily successfully) to overcome the English langueage's lack of a neuter gender. What did Jesus mean when he said "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."? (Luke 10:11) He said "everyone"; did he mean everyone? Did he mean that women can receive when they ask but may not find when they seek and may not have the door opened when they knock? Did he give men a better, more comprehensive promise? If he did then he acted completely out of character and Paul lied when he wrote "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) I hope nobody on this forum really thinks 2 Timothy 3:17 refers only to preparing men: "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Or that I have to forgive my brother seventy seven times (Matthew 18:21-22) but I can blow off my sister with impunity. The Bible wasn't written in English; every translation is a compromise. I can't see demonizing Zondervan for trying to overcome a well-known shortcoming of the target language. After all, they publish our host's NASB too. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
352 | Any biblical corrolation Atlantis? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 32951 | ||
Greetings, Hank; You wisely said "If we knew in minute detail all the facts of creation, what does it profit us if we don't know what we must do to be saved?" I know that statement reveals wisdom because it's a point I've often tried to make. ;-) The proper understanding of Genesis 1 is a great topic for (sometimes heated) debate among saved Christians. But it's a discussion that should be conducted carefully outside the Body. I shudder to think how many unbelievers remain lost because some faithful witness was more interested in preaching literal creationism than salvation in Christ. I don't intend to get that whole debate started again. I just wanted to commend you for giving us a reminder that "What must I do to be saved?" is a much more important question than "How old is the Universe?". Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
353 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32179 | ||
Hi, Hank; Thanks for your words of wisdom. I agree. I suspect we'll all be like Job who, upon encountering God in person, suddenly lost interest in whatever it was he was talking about. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
354 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32178 | ||
Hi, Tim; Hope you got your beauty rest. ;-) Sunday's a busy day, I know. I think the difference is in the method, the reasoning backwards. If one built one's entire worldview and theology on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and worked forward to belief in Jesus, any doubts about that interpretation could bring the whole edifice down. But I've said before that I believe in the Bible because I believe in Jesus, not the other way around. As I work my way back in time from Jesus' earthly ministry, I eventually encounter the historical Adam and Eve. With them I also encounter the beginning of human history, the first eyewitnesses to God's actions, the introduction of sin into a perfect world, the first foreshadowing of Jesus, the introduction of Satan, and the first pronouncement of his ultimate fate. These things cannot be denied. As I continue backwards from there, the next significant thing I encounter is "In the begining, God". I can't find any theological importance in the duration or manner of creation, so I don't see any reason to assume scientific rigor in the Bible's description. You may be interested to know that for most of my Christian life, I doubted the historicity of Adam and Eve. I was perfectly content with the notion that Jesus simply built on his Father's parable when he referred to them in his discussion of marriage. But I evenrually realized that I could not get around Paul's contrasting of Jesus to Adam. If Adam didn't really exist, that part of Paul's theology would simply be wrong. Since I believe beyond doubt that God inspired Paul's theology, it couldn't be wrong. So Adam must have existed. This proves I am teachable. ;-) And plaase note that I am not insisting on my reading of Genesis 1. As in the recent "Judas in hell" debate, I think there is room for differing views without doing harm to any aspect of Christian theology or the authority of Scripture. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who fervently hopes God agrees that the renewing and restorative power of the Sabbath can be accomplished through watching football playoff games. |
||||||
355 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32133 | ||
Greetings, Tim the other Indy; Reasoning backwards from what the Bible as a whole says, one has little choice but to accept that Adam and Eve were historical persons with the special roles and characteristics the Bible describes. The most obvious instance, of course, was Jesus' reference to them in Matthew 19:4-5. As I said, I see the Bible as God's record of his interactions with humanity. From Adam and Eve forward, historicity matters because God chose to reveal himself in the lives of real people. But if Adam had thrown on a three-piece suit instead of fig leaves, it wouldn't matter. The creation of the universe, however, took place before there was any history for God to intervene in and before there were any human lives to touch. Like the difference between a suit and a fig-leaf, the difference between 144 hours and 14 billion years is irrelevant to understanding the attributes of God or the work of Jesus. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
356 | Help! | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 32131 | ||
Hi, LF; There is a "method" to love; Paul spelled it out in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. There is no mention of emotions or "warm fuzzies" in that passage, just positive, prescriptive actions. I once heard someone suggest an even simpler method. He (she?) defined love as "always ascribing the best possible motive to the other's behavior" - always believing that your loved-one (spouse, friend, child, parent, or God himself) acted out of the best possible motive. How many times have you heard someone say "you did that just to hurt me", or "he said that just to make her jealous", or "you must hate me; if you didn't, you wouldn't have ________"? It's not the action or words (often trivial) that these complaints condemn; it's the presumed motive behind them. That in turn is not an attack on behavior but on the person him/herself. Love would not say or think these things. Instead, love would seek another reason or another viewpoint that would reveal the best, not the worst, in the other person. Love, it has been said, isn't an emotion, it's a decision. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
357 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32115 | ||
Hi, Curt; Let me offer partial support for your view of the Bible. I would suggest that it is not man's record of God's interaction with humanity, it is God's record communicated through inspired human writers. There were no eyewitnesses to the creation. If we don't assume that God inspired the writing of Genesis, then we don't know whether or not God created the universe. If we don't know that, we know nothing. Like you, I question the lieteralness of the creation story. But first a disclaimer: There is a great deal of wisdom and discernment on this forum. I have been truly blessed by both participating and lurking in many of the threads. And I have found that those who have hammered me hardest on Creation issues have often enlightened me the most on other questions. Now into the fray.... As you've begun to discover, the only unpardonable sin is to question the historicity of the creation story. It is not enough to know that God predated the universe and personally created it out of nothing. Nor is it enough to know that God's Creation was perfect or to know that sin entered this perfect world through the lies of Satan and the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Nor is it sufficient to know that Jesus' ultimate defeat of Satan was foretold at the moment of his greatest victory. No; for many there is a further requirement that one must know the exact mechanism and timing of certain events during the process. The prevailing wisdom on the forum is that if one questions the literal interpretation that it took God precisely 144 hours - no more, no less - then one automatically rejects the rest of the Bible or arbitrarily picks and chooses what one wishes to believe. Few here seem to be bothered by the fact that the Bible itself does not claim to be a source of scientific knowledge. Yet in this and the surrounding verses, Paul has summarized the only purpose that the Bible claims for itself. The assertion of scientific accuracy is of man, not Scripture. Over the years, I have developed a simple test of whether the historicity of any Genesis passage is really important: If the story as related in Genesis were different or inaccurate, would it contradict what the whole of the Bible teaches us about God? For example, if God had actually just grounded Satan for a week, or given Adam and Eve a second chance, or killed Satan on the spot, it would change what the rest of the Bible teaches about God. If God took two weeks or two centuries or two billion years to create the universe, it would still be his creation and would contracdict nothing elsewhere in the Bible. A different period of time would still be consistent with everything else the Bible teaches and would still fall within this passage's definition of what the Bible is meant to do - lead us to Jesus. As long as God did it, it does not matter to me how he went about it or how long he took. In this way, I have come to understand that Adam and Eve were indeed historical people and that the events in the Garden must have taken place. Much of the Bible would have to be ignored if Adam and Eve were not real people. Not so with 6 24-hour days. And, no, I am not making God out to be a liar. I am making God out to be a loving father who is more interested in conveying spiritual truths - on which hang our salvation - than giving lectures in physics or cosmology. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
358 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | stjones | 31015 | ||
Hi, Jesusman; I agree with you but in a different sense. History (the sequence of events in the world, not the academic discipline) is what happened - it is true. If the historical events described in the OT did not happen, then the Father we know does not exist. If the events in the NT didn't happen, then the Son we know does not exist. Conversely, if these events did happen, then they point directly to the God we know. Similarly, science (the inductive methodology, not necessarily all practitioners) seeks to understand and describe the way the world works. When it succeeds, it is also true. God has revealied himself in the world (Psalm 19, Romans 1); to seek him there is to seek the truth. I would substitute "reason" for "common sense". Reason (and philosophy) also seek truth. Logic is an attribute of God's Creation. When the application of logic (reason) succeeds, it too is true. To the extent that the disciplines of history, science, and reason/philosophy genuinely seek the truth, they seek God. To the extent that they discover the truth, they reveal God - God is the source of all truth. So all three can be valuable adjuncts to faith and may indeed be avenues to faith. At least that's what I get from Romans 1:18-20): 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.' But of course, only faith saves. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
359 | Christian Response To Eastern Thought? | Is 55:11 | stjones | 30248 | ||
Hi, Jensen; God speaks to our brains too. I hope you'll never lose sight of the fact that Christianity is a rational religion - a "reasonable faith" as Tony Campolo, William Craig, and Winfried Corduan have titled their respective books. God is the ultimate intellectual, the ultimate philosopher, and the architect of all reason. As I said in my earlier post, God meets every need including the needs of the intellect. To illustrate, I've been programming computers one way or another for 30 years and spent seven years as a university professor in Computer Science. Nothing approaches what God has chosen to reveal through his Word and his Son for sheer intellectual riches and delight. Isaac Newton invented calculus and a big chunk of physics for the simple reason that he desired to think God's thoughts after him. I've said before on this forum that it was the reasoning of C. S. Lewis and the mysterious summons of the Holy Spirit that led me to faith in Christ. It was not the Bible, which I ignored until after my conversion. Incidentally, it was during my academic career that my brain convicted my heart. So don't despair of being able to use the Bible directly to convince your friend. As you said, use its truth. Anyone who genuinely seeks truth and has the humility to follow the path wherever it leads must end up at God. Disclaimer: I haven't read the books by Campolo, Craig, or Corduan, but they would certainly be worth a look. Another one I haven't read is Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". I have read (more than once) "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis and recommend it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
360 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | stjones | 30235 | ||
Hi, Jesusman; We can agree to disagree about translations. Since I don't read ancient Hebrew, I'm not qualified to criticize the translators' conclusions. The best I can do is look for consensus and to accept uncertainty when it can't be found. I don't think there's any question that God issued the challenge: 'The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."' (Job 1:8, NASB) There's no hint that they were already considering or looking at Job. God dangled Job in front of Satan like a fat worm in front of a largemouth bass. He as much as said that Job had rejected Satan ("turning away from evil"). Do you suppose God was suprised when Satan bit? Don't get me wrong. I think the Book of Job reveals God at his best - loving, faithful, slow to anger, quick to bless, almighty, sovereign, and very much the potter, not the clay. I also think there's a tendency to sugar-coat God's role in Job's woes. One has to wonder if Satan would have attacked Job so relentlessly if God had simply remained silent about him. I doubt it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [25] >> |