Results 461 - 480 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | 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 |
||||||
462 | 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 |
||||||
463 | 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 |
||||||
464 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33103 | ||
Makarios; point taken. I apologize. Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
465 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33104 | ||
Hello, Makarios; I honestly have no interest in the NIVI; I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is the abomination folks think it is. I did download and read parts of the TNIV NT. I also visited some of the sites that are critical of it. You may have noticed that I have reserved judgment on the TNIV (other than pointing out that it disappoints the feminists by letting God pick his own gender). When it becomes available in print, I will probably buy the NT. (The more than 300 pages in the download would be the death of my old laser printer.) I will read it and think about it and decide for myself. I do think Zondervan and the IBS deserve a thoughtful evaluation of the entire product. They certainly have earned that - not the hysteria, attacks on the integrity of the translators and editors, and appeal to authority arguments that have characterized this thread. And it won't bother me at all to hand over 15 or 20 dollars to the Evil Empire (Zondervan/HarperCollins). ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
466 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33106 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Well, I had to ask. ;-) I've read enough of the TNIV to not get too excited about it, not enough to render a thoughtful judgment on its merits. I haven't read the NIVI and have no interest in defending (or excusing) it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
467 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33132 | ||
Hello, Makarios; I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning and relative importance of those terms. But while we're excoriating bible publishers, I assume we should add Tyndale to the list of money-grubbing, world-loving publishers who have sold out to the feminists. The NLT is also gender-inclusive. See, for example, Matthew 7:8-9: "For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who knocks. You parents - if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?" Not a "he", "him", or "son" in sight. And don't try to excuse their perfidy by saying it's a paraphrase. It says it's a translation. So they too have played fast and loose with God's Word. The same can be said of the Good News (TEV) too. That just leaves our hosts' publishing arm, Foundation Publications. Ooops, no; they're in bed with Zondervan to publish the NASB. Guess we'd all better start learning Aramaic. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
468 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33188 | ||
Hi, Makarios; After re-reading my message, I find no insult to anybody and precious little sarcasm. The NLT (Tyndale) and TEV (ABS) do contain language similar to the TNIV and so should be similarly reviled. And, yes, I have been following this thread; I have found little more than sarcasm and insults in most of the responses to the publication of the TNIV. I have been observing a truly shameful attack on the motives, honesty, scholarship, and integrity of two institutions that have done a great deal of service over the years by publishing and distributing bibles and other materials throughout the world. I'm no expert on Zondervan, but I do know that in addition to the very well-respected NIV, they publish other versions and ancillary materials as well. I know they have given voice to some of the greatest contemporary Christian writers around. I know of at least one evangelical Christian university (Taylor) whose library was built in large part with a gift from Zondervan. I'm not even going to waste my time defending the International Bible Society and its work. It's one thing to oppose, protest, dislike, or boycott the TNIV. If he agreed that it distorts his word, I am sure Jesus would do the same. But Zondervan and the IBS are made up of people, many of whom I am sure love God and his Word as much as anybody on this forum. It's hard for me to imagine that Jesus would join in this forum's vicious, hateful (yes, hateful), attack on organizations and people that have served him and his church so well over so many years. And I'd guess that if he approved of the NIV 20 years ago, he wouldn't now burn it, throw it away, or hide it from his sight. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
469 | Good-bye, NIV | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 33205 | ||
Hi, Makarios; No crusade, just hope for a little more grace shown to people and institutions who have in the past served faithfully and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future. I think I'll go out and buy another NIV. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
470 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 80672 | ||
Hi, Ray; Interesting question - one that causes me to wax philosophical, so be warned! I don't know how your thought works in Hebrew or Greek, but I think the idea is intriguing. Maybe it comes down to what it actually means to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit remains a separate entity who speaks to my mind and spirit, then I think it would be more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit does the breathing/inspiring. But if the Holy Spirit infuses my entire being and speaks directly through my words, then it would be more accurate to say, as you suggest, that the Holy Spirit is the breath/inspiration. I sort of incline toward the separate entity just because it seems it would be easier for my sinful nature to ignore him as it too often does. This may be more consistent with the struggle Paul describes in Romans 7:7-25. I know that the Holy Spirit has affected my words - when suddenly called upon to pray in public, for example, or when (against all odds) I say exactly the right thing in a difficult situation, or when (lay) preaching without notes. I say "affected" because I can't describe the process that caused the words and ideas to come out of my mouth. I can't say that I "heard a voice", but the mind is a mysterious thing. The Spirit could speak to my subconscious mind and cause his message to come out in my words. Does the Spirit relay words through our minds or assume control of our mouths or pens and deliver his message directly? Speaking in tongues might be an example of the Spirit assuming direct control, but, again, I don't really know. I think the truth is that both explanations are kind of right and kind of wrong. The older I get the more convinced I am that human language can't capture the complete picture of anything to do with God. One of my favorite passages is 1 Corinthians 2:6-16. It doesn't really answer the question but expresses a truth that is bigger than the question. Thanks for getting me started this morning thinking about "the deep things of God" instead of the war or paying bills. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
471 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 80744 | ||
Hi, Ray; You're right; I missed it. Now that I see what you meant; it's a good thought. I think Paul makes a similar distinction in 1 Corinthians 2:11 - "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." - spirit and Spirit, Spirit speaking to spirit. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
472 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 81002 | ||
Hi, Ray; Thanks for the Scripture references. I think your examples represent an interaction of Spirit and spirit. Just to stick with 1 Corinthians 2:12, I don't see it quite the same way because of v. 11: "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God". I agree that our spirit plays a part in the spiritual wisdom Paul is writing about - the Spirit of God, who knows "the deep things of God", informs our spirit. But what sets the saints apart is that our spirit is informed by God's Spirit while the non-believer's spirit is informed by the "spirit of this world" - Satan. Likewise, our spirit without the Holy Spirit wouldn't cast out many demons (Matthew 12:28). I think the key is the interaction or even the intermingling (if that's what it means to be indwelt) of God's own Spirit and our spirit given by God. But this isn't an argument that I would press because I don't think I can fully grasp the relationship among our minds and spirits and the Holy Spirit of God. It's entirely possible that, from God's perspective, we're like the two blind men who got hold of an elephant. You grabbed a leg and tell me it's like a tree; I grabbed the trunk and tell you it's like a big snake. In our finiteness, we can't see the whole thing, so we're both right but neither one of us has the complete picture. Or maybe you're right on the money and I'm completely wrong. It's happened once or twice before. ;-) Why do you suppose this thread is restricted from appearing on the home page? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
473 | holy spirit guide men to write bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 81781 | ||
Hi, Ray; Sorry for the long delay in responding. I am inclined to think that many instances of uncapitalized "spirit" are cases where the Holy Spirit is described but not named. For example, I may refer to Joe Pastor as the "pastor from First Presbyterian", or the "pastor from the church across the street", or "my pastor". They all refer to the same person but no capitalization is necessary in three of the cases. They are informal titles, not names. Likewise, I'm inclined to think that the "spirit of truth" and "God's spirit" are informal titles for the person whose name is the Holy Spirit. When Paul speaks of "a man's spirit within him", that is another case of a generic "spirit" not referring to a particular spirit by name. But I think that's just a general rule. Each case needs to be decided by the context - a good study, I would think. But that reaises another question. God is spirit. Is there a part of him that is not spirit? If so, it makes sense to refer to God's spirit apart from God himself. if God is pure spirit, then his spirit is himself with his many names. If God is pure spirit, then it seems "God's sprit" would refer to a spirit apart from God in some sense. I think the most like candidates (again determined by context) are (1) the Holy Spirit, who is both unified with and distinct from God the Father, and (2) the spirit that God gives to each person (Ecclesiastes 12:7) BTW, I have to disagree with your intrepretation of Luke 11:20. The word "finger" used in other contexts just means "finger" - i.e. Jesus writing with his finger in John 8:6, or criticizing lawyers in Luke 11:46 for not touching their own burdens with so much as a finger. I think Jesus was just saying that it takes very little effort for God to drive out a demon. This is an interesting discussion, but I am reminded that, in light of the event we are celebrating today, not life-changing. Hallelujah! He is risen! Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
474 | 'Reinvented' Gospel | 2 Tim 4:3 | stjones | 110176 | ||
Hi, prayon; Another reason is even more troubling. According to pollster George Barna, only half of Protestant pastors even have a Biblical worldview. Barna defined this worldview as "believing that absolute moral truth exists, that it is based upon the Bible, and having a biblical view on six core beliefs (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone, and the personal responsibility to evangelize)". In short, half the pastors re-invent the Gospel because they either don't know it or they don't believe it. I guess it's not too surprising that Barna found less than a tenth of "born again" believers have such a worldview. (www.barna.org, Barna Updates, 1/12/2004) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
475 | Why remain defeated? | Heb 10:14 | stjones | 108192 | ||
Hi, Makarios; I know from past disagreements that I can count on you for a response! ;-) I also know that when you disagree with me, I need to switch to Berean mode; you just might be right. ;-) I wish you a happy and blessed New Year in the Lord. And keep on posting; you usually are right. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
476 | JOSHUA NOT MENTIONED IN HEB. CH.11? | Heb 11:32 | stjones | 33941 | ||
Hi, JMSCOTT; Are you saying that Joshua was Jesus? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
477 | JOSHUA NOT MENTIONED IN HEB. CH.11? | Heb 11:32 | stjones | 34065 | ||
Hi, Rev; Thanks for the note. I'd gotten that impression from other posts but perhaps JM will clarify. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
478 | Promise? | Heb 11:39 | stjones | 43354 | ||
Hi, charis; You're right, of course. I had in mind a very comprehensive meaning of salvation. David spoke of living in the house of the Lord forever; we have a better idea of what that means because of Jesus and all that he means to us and to the world. Jesus is the promised land. Now get some sleep.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
479 | Why is marijuana use prohibited? | Heb 13:17 | stjones | 68138 | ||
Greetings, jini; I have to admit your misuse of Scripture is interesting: 1) There is no place in the Bible that prohibits speeding in school zones, private ownership of bazookas and grenade launchers, or practicing medicine without a license. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that Christians generally support laws prohibiting such things. Are we to assume based on your "argument from silence" that you are an advocate of them? 2) Cannabis is also known as hemp; perhaps God intended it only for rope-making and we have chosen to misuse it; we do have a history of that. Otherwise, we must believe that God meant for man to be more or less perpetually stoned on marijuana, hashish, heroin, mescaline, cocaine, and psilocybin. This leads to the enivitable question, why would a loving God combine mescaline with strychnine in the peyote cactus? 3) You object to "ignorant" and "apathetic" churches quoting irrelevant Scripture in their opposition to recreational drug use. Yet you don't hesitate to surgically remove Isaiah 10:1 from its context to support your opinion. Perhaps you could read chapter 9 and the rest of 10 to get some idea of what Isaiah was talking about. I assure you he was not complaining that poor people and widows were not being allowed to get high. 4) Your statement that "Jesus told us to visit people in prison, not to put them there" is just plain silly. Did he say to close the prisons? Did he say to eliminate civil law? or to ignore it at will? No; he said to visit those who are paying the price for their disobedience to man's laws, recognizing that we are all prisoners of our own disobedience to God's law. 5) Likewise, your expropriation of Colossians 2:21 to invalidate civil law is proof-texting of the worst sort - especially if you would have us believe Paul was railing against laws that interfere with sensual pleasure (v. 23). If you have not read the entire Bible to get a sense of what it's all about, I suggest you do so. If you have and you deliberately misapply Scripture to promote Hedonism then you really should be ashamed of yourself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
480 | Is coveting with a pure heart Godly? | James 4:3 | stjones | 29990 | ||
Greetings, Nolan, my friend; To "desire" God's blessings is not necessarily to "covet" them. Somewhere I read/heard that to "covet" is to not only the desire to posess something but to posess it at someone else's expense, i.e. to covet one's neighbor's wife. A quick word search in the NIV seems to support this notion. "Covet" is always used in the sense of desiring what someone else already posesses. It's a zero-sum game. If I'm to win, someone else has to lose. This is not true with God's blessings; they are limitless. I remember explaining to our older daughter when her little sister arrived that we wouldn't love her any less. We had a box of love and until then she had gotten the whole thing. She wouldn't get less now because when we got her sister, we got another box too. They would both get the whole thing. So it is with God's blessings. Had I been a Christian then, I'd have known what I was talking about! ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [25] >> |