http://bibleforums.org/ Questions and answers. Any conceivable topic related to the Bible. en Sat, 18 May 2013 17:49:44 GMT vBulletin 60 http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/rss.png http://bibleforums.org/ http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247356-Various-Parallel-Mythology?goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 08:03:31 GMT There's a bunch of different mythological narratives similar to The Holy Bible's.
Examples being: Creation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths), The Flood(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths), and Samson(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson#Interpretations).

Why are they so similar in some areas?
Also, I've heard varying things, but which was written first, the story of Utnapishtim or the story of Noah? ]]> Bible Chat MasamuneIyasu http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247356-Various-Parallel-Mythology http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247330-Daniel-8-10-meaning?goto=newpost Thu, 16 May 2013 15:51:05 GMT Daniel 8:10 "It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them."
I've read up on this and come to the conclusion that there is no 100% sure conclusion. ;) So far I've found that starry host can mean angels, fallen/wicked angels, pagan dieties, heavenly stars, heavenly hosts... Regardless, we know that it represents Antiochus extending his power over Israel and trying to defeat the believers in god.

What do you think the words "starry host" mean? ]]> Bible Chat MousePad http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247330-Daniel-8-10-meaning http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247329-All-marriages-are-secular?goto=newpost Thu, 16 May 2013 15:50:03 GMT *This was copied and pasted from http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION *Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history... This was copied and pasted from http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/AT...n_western.html



HISTORY OF MARRIAGE IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation, and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution.

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.

On the other hand, it may surprise many modern couples to learn that in earlier times divorce was often easily granted. Here again, men usually had the advantage when they could simply dismiss their wives, but in many instances women could also sue for divorce. In ancient Rome couples could even divorce each other by mutual agreement, a possibility that has not yet returned to all European countries. Another notable historical fact is the nearly universal stress on the necessity of marriage and the resulting pressure on single persons to get married. This pressure was partially lifted only under the influence of Christianity which, at least for some time, found a special virtue in celibacy. Christian doctrines have, of course, also had their effects on marriage itself, and some of these will be discussed below.

Marriage in Ancient Greece and Rome

In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.

However, while marriage was deemed important, it was usually treated as a practical matter without much romantic significance. A father arranged the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract signed before witnesses. Shortly thereafter a wedding celebration was held and the young couple (who might never have met before) was escorted to bed. All marriages were monogamous. As a rule, the bridegroom was in his thirties and the bride was a teenager. In addition to this disparity in ages there also existed an inequality in education and political rights. Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home. Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs. For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: "We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring." Many men also cultivated intense emotional and sexual relationships with male adolescents (paiderastia). The legal inequality of the sexes was further reflected in the divorce regulations. It was always easier for a husband to divorce his wife than vice versa. However, since a divorced woman could take her dowry back with her, men normally asked for a divorce only in cases of female adultery and infertility.

The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval. Early in Roman history, a husband had considerable power over his wife and children, whom he could punish, sell, or even kill as he saw fit. However, eventually women came to enjoy a better legal position and gained more and more control over their lives and property. Thus, in imperial times husband and wife approached marriage as equals. Yet it seems that there was also a decline in marriage and birth rates, since the emperor Augustus found it necessary to pass drastic laws compelling people to marry and penalizing those who remained single. There were several forms of marriage, the first of which (by usus) involved no ceremony at all. It was established simply by the couple's living together for one year. Divorce was just as informal. A more formal kind of marriage (by coemptio) began with a ceremony in front of witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. Members of the upper classes usually preferred an elaborate ceremony and thus married by confarreatio in front of ten witnesses and a priest. In the case of a divorce, another great ceremony was required. However, all three forms of marriage and divorce were equally valid. All marriages were monogamous. Both men and women usually entered their first marriage in their late teens.

While the Romans tolerated prostitution and concubinage, and had no qualms about homosexual relationships, their marriage laws were remarkably fair to women and thus greatly contributed to their emancipation.

Marriage in Ancient Israel

As we can learn from the Bible, the ancient Israelites had a patriarchal family structure. The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) Divorce was not encouraged, but permitted if a man found some "uncleanness" in his wife. In such a case, he simply wrote her a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1). However, it was virtually impossible for a wife to divorce her husband.

The Bible indicates that the marriage laws and customs of Israel changed somewhat in the course of time. Thus, divorces were increasingly frowned upon, and there was a general trend toward monogamy. Another change concerned the so-called levirate (i.e., the man's obligatory marriage to his brother's widow). This kind of marriage was at times required (Deuteronomy 25:5) and at other times prohibited (Leviticus 20:21). This change was probably related to changing economic conditions.

It was usually the patriarch who selected a bride for his son and who paid a "bride price" to her father. The acceptance of this bride price constituted a legally binding betrothal, which was followed by some wedding celebration when the bride took up residence with her new family. Both males and females married in their early teens, shortly after puberty. Theoretically, therefore, neither sex was subjected to any lengthy period of sexual frustration. Still, because of an unquestioned sexual double standard, men had a far greater opportunity for sexual fulfillment than women.

Marriage in Medieval Europe

The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.

In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage"). The symbol of a successful "bride sale" was the ring (a form of down payment) which was given to the bride herself. Acceptance of the ring constituted betrothal. The full payment of the "bride price" was made on delivery, i.e., when the actual wedding took place. (Since then, the ring has acquired many other symbolic meanings and, indeed, is still used in our modern marriage ceremonies.) The civilizing influence of the church soon refined these primitive customs. According to Roman law and Christian belief, marriage could be built only on the free consent of both partners, and this doctrine was bound to raise the status of women. Furthermore, theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments. This also endowed a formerly rather prosaic arrangement with a new dignity.

Unfortunately, at the same time the church created two new problems: It abolished divorce by declaring marriage to be insoluble (except by death) and greatly increased the number of marriage prohibitions. Now there were three basic impediments to marriage: "consanguinity", "affinity", and "spiritual affinity". Consanguinity (i.e., relationship by blood) was interpreted very broadly up to the 6th or even 7th degree. This meant that nobody could marry anyone more closely related than a third cousin. Affinity referred to a mysterious closeness between the two families of husband and wife. Since the latter were seen as having become "one flesh", all relatives on both sides also became related to each other, a circumstance which made marriage between any of them impossible. Spiritual affinity was said to exist between godparents and godchildren with their families.

As a result of these new regulations, the influence of the church on marriage was greatly strengthened. Very often extensive clerical investigations were necessary to prove or disprove the existence of impediments. For example, marriages that had been entered in ignorance or defiance of such impediments were considered null and void. In these cases the church was therefore willing to pronounce an "annulment". Since divorce was no longer permitted, an annulment was the only way of dissolving a marriage, and thus many married couples who had tired of each other sooner or later conveniently discovered some previously overlooked marriage impediment. The church also began to post so-called banns before each wedding, inviting anyone with knowledge of an impediment to come forward. The growing church involvement in marriage could further be seen in the development of a special religious wedding ceremony. In the first Christian centuries marriage had been a strictly private arrangement. As late as the 10th century, the essential part of the wedding itself took place outside the church door. It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, it remained understood that, even as a sacrament, marriage sprang from the free consent of the two partners, and that therefore neither the parents nor the priest nor the government could affect its validity. It thus became possible for couples to get married secretly if they could not obtain anyone else's approval. It also became possible for very young children to be married, if their parents could coax the necessary consent out of them. Especially aristocratic families often took advantage of this possibility when they found a politically advantageous match for their little sons or daughters. On the average, however, males married in their mid-twenties, and females in their early teens (i.e., soon after their first menstruation).

Today it may be tempting to see medieval marriage in the light of certain lofty religious doctrines and the poetry of the troubadours. However, throughout most of the Middle Ages and for the greater part of the population marriage remained a practical, economic affair. Romantic love hardly had any place in it. Moreover, the social and legal status of women, while somewhat improved in some countries, continued to be very low.

Marriage in Modern Europe and America

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived. Luther and other Protestants also reduced the number of marriage impediments. Affinity and spiritual affinity were no longer considered obstacles, and consanguinity was interpreted much more narrowly than before. Thus, even marriages between first cousins became possible.

The Catholic church, in response to the Protestant challenge, took its stand in the Council of Trent and, in 1563, confirmed its previous doctrines. Indeed, it now demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and two witnesses. Among other things, this virtually eliminated not only secret marriages, but also the formerly common informal marriages. These, similar to the old Roman marriages by usus, were based simply on mutual consent without formal ceremony. In England they came to be called "common law marriages", and since Henry VIII had broken with Rome, they continued to be permitted until 1753, when the Church of England was put in charge of all marriages (including those of Catholics, but excluding those of Quakers and Jews). This development did not affect the English colonies, however, and thus common law marriages remained possible in America. (As recently as 1970 they were still recognized in several states.)

In most of Europe marriages continued to require a religious ceremony until the French Revolution in 1792 introduced the compulsory civil marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century when Bismarck diminished the influence of the Catholic church. Eventually, marriage before some magistrate or government official became the only valid form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place.

Another contested issue was that of divorce. In opposition to Catholic doctrine, the Protestant Reformers did not believe that marriage was insoluble, but favored divorce under special circumstances. The Puritan John Milton in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce (1643) even advocated self-divorce without the involvement of either church or government. For him, marriage rested entirely on the full compatibility of both partners. Where mutual love was lacking, marriage was a sham and had to be dissolved. However, this philosophy was too far ahead of its time. The English Parliament began to grant some divorces, but the procedure was so cumbersome and expensive that few couples could take advantage of it.


UNCONVENTIONAL FORMS OF MARRIAGE IN 19TH-CENTURY AMERICA

Marital experiments are nothing new. Especially the United States has an interesting history of attempts at marriage reform.


The Oneida Community

Founded by John Noyes in 1848, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health. The picture shows this special breed of children playing in front of their proud parents.

Mormon Polygamy

The members of the Mormon church were relentlessly persecuted, harassed, and ridiculed because of their polygamy. Finally, they were forced to abandon the practice. The picture is a satirical cartoon commenting on the death of Brigham Young in 1877. tl shows twelve widows in the same marital bed mourning the death of their husband.

A more efficient divorce court was not established until the middle of the 19th century. In colonial America the Puritans permitted divorce in certain specific cases, but it remained prohibited in all Catholic countries until the French Revolution and the Napoleonic code introduced it to France. After Napoleon, divorce was abolished again by the restored monarchy, but it was reinstated by the Second Republic in 1884. Still, divorce remained impossible in Italy, Portugal, and Spain, until Italy finally legalized it in 1970.

Monogamy was and still is the only accepted form of marriage in both Catholic and Protestant countries, although Luther condoned polygyny in exceptional cases. (He "unofficially" permitted Landgrave Philip of Hesse to take two wives.) Nevertheless, such old biblical customs had become repugnant to most modern Christians, and when, in the 19th century, the Mormons revived the practice of polygyny in America, they were so relentlessly persecuted that they abandoned it.

The gradual emancipation of marriage and divorce laws from the control of the church resulted in greater individual freedom and further raised the status of women. The parents began to lose influence over the marital choices of their children, and romantic love became an important factor in marriage. Even so, for most couples until well into the 19th century marriage was still basically an economic arrangement. Moreover, the husband was usually the one who profited most, because he was the "head of the household" and controlled his wife's property. He also had many other rights denied to his wife and was favored by a moral double standard that allowed him considerable sexual license. Under the circumstances, women continued to press for further reforms, a process which even today has not yet fully reached its goal. (See also "The Social Roles of Men and Women.")
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


If marriage is secular and is a government function then adding gay marriage doesnt really change anything. Yes/No?



]]> Bible Chat Realist1981 http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247329-All-marriages-are-secular http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247322-Interpreting-Isaiah-46-8-11?goto=newpost Thu, 16 May 2013 04:54:04 GMT "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, 9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.”

In Isa 46:9 God says, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.” So the issue in this text is the uniqueness of God among all the beings of the universe. He is in a class by himself. No one is like him. The issue is what it means to be God. When something is happening, or something is being said or thought, and God responds, “I am God!” (which is what he does in verse 9), the point is: You’re acting like you don’t know what it means for me to be God.

So He tells them what it means to be the one and only God. He tells them what’s at the heart of his Godness. Verse 10: What it means for me to be God is that “I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.” Two statements: One, I declare how things turn out long before they ever happen. Second, I declare not just natural events but human events — doings, things that are not yet done. Verse 10: “I declare from ancient times things not yet done.” I know what these doings will be long before they are done.

What we have here is the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge, not the doctrine of his sovereignty. But in the next half of the verse God tells us how he foreknows the end and how he foreknows the things not yet done. Verse 10b: “I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’” When he “declares” ahead of time what will be, here’s how he “declares” it, or “says” it: “saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’”

In other words, the way He declares his foreknowledge is by declaring his fore-counsel and his fore-purposing. When God declares the end long before it happens, what he says is: “My counsel shall stand.” And when God declares things not yet done long before they are done, what he says is: “I will accomplish all my purpose.”

Which means that the reason God knows the future is because He plans the future and accomplishes it. The future is the counsel of God being established. The future is the purpose of God being accomplished by God. Then, the next verse, verse 11b, gives a clear confirmation that this is what He means: “I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” In other words, the reason my predictions come true is because they are my purposes, and because I myself perform them.

God is not a fortuneteller, a soothsayer, a mere predictor. He doesn’t have a crystal ball. He knows what’s coming because He plans what’s coming and He performs what he plans. Verse 10b: ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’ He does not form purposes and wonder if someone else will take responsibility to make them happen. "I will accomplish all my purpose."

So, based on this text, the sovereignty of God has the rightful authority, the freedom, the wisdom, and the power to bring about everything that He intends to happen. And therefore, everything He intends to come about does come about. Which means: God plans and governs all things.

When He says, “I will accomplish all my purpose,” he means, “Nothing happens except what is my purpose.” If something happened that God did not purpose to happen, he would say, “That’s not what I purposed to happen.” And we would ask, “What did you purpose to happen?” And he would say, “I purposed this other thing to happen which didn’t happen.” To which we would all say, then, “But you said in Isaiah 46:10, ‘I will accomplish all my purpose.’” And he would say, "That's right." Therefore, what God means in Isaiah 46:10 is that nothing has ever happened, or will ever happen that God did not purpose to happen. Or to put it positively: Everything that happened or will happen is purposed by God to happen.

Can I please hear an Amen on that? ]]> Bible Chat Nick http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247322-Interpreting-Isaiah-46-8-11 http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247321-Studying-to-present-our-selfs-approved-unto-God?goto=newpost Thu, 16 May 2013 04:08:12 GMT 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

What does this mean?

The Greek word for "study" is spoo-dad'-zo (according to strongs concordance)
From G4710; to use speed, that is, to make effort, be prompt or earnest: - do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.

How do I show myself approved unto God? by studying?
Does that mean for me to get out all Bibles, concordances, and learn the Word of God? ]]> Bible Chat Curtis http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247321-Studying-to-present-our-selfs-approved-unto-God http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247308-spiritual-death?goto=newpost Wed, 15 May 2013 15:22:39 GMT Are we spiritually dead from conception?

Do we spiritually die when we choose sin?

Do you agree or disagree that the “second death” is not final until the judgment?

Let’s discuss this…

There are more than a few perspectives (RC, EO, Calv, Arm, and more)

Isaiah says when we sin our iniquities separate us from God (spiritual death as I understand it is separation from God...that also may be discussed) so what do you say and what do the scriptures say

Brother Paul ]]> Bible Chat Brother Paul http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247308-spiritual-death http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247300-Can-we-know-for-sure-we-are-saved-Is-that-possible?goto=newpost Wed, 15 May 2013 05:28:50 GMT I think this one huge Mt. Everest like question. How do we know for sure? It is possible, as some will assert to lose our salvation? Well, let's explore that. '

Let's first identify the 4 kinds of people in this world: 1) There are people who are not saved who know they are they are not saved; 2) There are people who are saved who do not know that they are saved; 3) There are people who are saved who know they are saved; and 4) There are people who are saved that "know" that they are saved. What's the difference between #3 and #4? Universalism, which stems from the false understanding of what salvation requires and entails. The Universalist believes everyone is saved. It's quite easy to have a false sense of security about our salvation. We can also have a proper understanding of what salvation is and still delude ourselves about whether or not we meet the requirements for salvation. This is a MONSTER topic.

Do we love a God who is sovereign? Do we love a God who sends people to hell, including family members we love? Do we love a God who demands absolute obedience? Do we love a Christ who will say to some of our friends and even family members on the last day, "Depart from me, I never knew you"? Let that marinate for a bit and think of all the close family members, friends, etc. that don't know Christ or who have rejected him.

2 Peter 1:10-11 "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."

Here we see mandate to make our election sure. To do so requires diligence. Peter links assurance with freedom from stumbling. There are many Christians whoa are indeed in a state of salvation who lack assurance. His uncertainty makes him tentative in his walk with Christ.

Paul was sure about his election. 2 Tim 4:6-8 “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on That Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.”

How can we, like Paul, have true assurance, assurance that is not spurious? True assurance is grounded in the promises of God for our salvation.

]]> Bible Chat Nick http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247300-Can-we-know-for-sure-we-are-saved-Is-that-possible http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247297-Gender-Neutral-Bible(s)?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 23:09:42 GMT Most christians I assume would have no problems with the following, given that we view the bible as Gods word,

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. " 2Timothy 3:16

It is a little disconcerting (to me at least) when it appears that Gods word appears to be being tampered with for political/ideological reasons e,g, 'politically correct brigade'. Something to ponder, just how reliable/unreliable are our translations becoming?

I am currently reading a book by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem entitled 'The Gender Neutral Bible Contreversy'. It relates to the TNIV bible which was released in 2002 to a storm of controversy. My understanding is that it proved unpopular to many christians in the USA and was discontinued - I must have had my head in the clouds or buried in the dirt because the 'gender neutral issue' has just passed me by. That aside, the heart of the debate appears centre on the following question,

"Is it acceptable to translate only the general idea of a passage and sytematically omit male-orientated detals of meanings that are present in the original Hebrew or Greek text?"

The practical outworking of such translation practice is that the following are omitted, father, son, brother, man, he/him/his and substituted with other words/terms. Even, if they are there in the original language.

Does this matter? you might ask. Below is an example of such a change.

The NIV renders 1Cor. 14:28 'If ther is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

TNIV 'If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in church and speak to God when alone.

There is nothing in the greek text that means "when alone". By making the changes the text is subtly altered and is not strictly an accurate and faithful translation. Hundreds more example could be provided, but for the sake of brevity, I am just providing one. .

Although the TNIV may have been withdrawn, the updated 2011 NIV still contains 2,700 of of the approx 3,800 gender neutral changes made in the TNIV. In the UK at least it appears that the 2011 translation has now replaced the 1984 translation. I could be mistaken on this point, but I couldn't find a 1984 NIV in my local christian store.

Quite a number of non gender specific changes have taken place and this is because of advances in biblical scholarship. This is understandable. However, the two main reasons given for the gender neutral changes are that there have been significant changes in the english language (presumeably since the 1984 NIV translation), and many ?younger people today are incapable of working out when the use of the male pronoun (which is in the original text), is referring to both men and women. The other is because the use of the male pronoun is deemed to be offensive.

I am aware that a number of gender neutral bibles have been produced and this post is not about 'my bible translation is better than yours'. I own a TNIV and NRSV translation as well as the 1984 NIV. For many people this may be a non issue or a welcome development. However, are we seeing a trend where the world appears to be entering into the word of God, (subtly changing it), rather than the other way round and changing the world. ]]> Bible Chat kgb http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247297-Gender-Neutral-Bible(s) http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247291-ANGELS?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 18:03:14 GMT Peace to all; Are angels divine beings?? Peace to all; Are angels divine beings?? ]]> Bible Chat The Real Milk Man http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247291-ANGELS http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247285-What-do-the-words-quot-dead-or-quot-die-quot-mean-in-these-verses?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 13:42:29 GMT Romans 8:10
And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Romans 10:13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Col 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. ]]> Bible Chat rom826 http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247285-What-do-the-words-quot-dead-or-quot-die-quot-mean-in-these-verses http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247284-Need-help-on-a-new-study-Bible?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 13:29:27 GMT I Have a horrible, yet exciting decision to make. Horrible because my long time Bible has finally fallen apart. Iraq was just too much for it. Exciting because I get to choose something new. I'm a long-time NIV reader, but I'm willing to consider other versions. Really looking for a study Bible. My three main candidates are the NIV study Bible, the HCSB study Bible and the ESV study Bible. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. I'm really having trouble deciding. Thanks in advance! ]]> Bible Chat Travis Haynie http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247284-Need-help-on-a-new-study-Bible http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247282-What-Happened-to-The-Giants?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 11:04:44 GMT "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Genesis 6:4(KJV)

"And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
Numbers 13:33(KJV)

It sounds like the giants were the size of buildings.
How did they die off?
More importantly, how did they survive The Flood? ]]> Bible Chat MasamuneIyasu http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247282-What-Happened-to-The-Giants http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247277-Was-John-the-Baptist-our-first-spiritual-construction-worker?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 03:28:31 GMT Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Mar 1:3 * The voice of one crying in the... Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

We know this was one of John's mission, to prepare a highway for the Lord. The word "way" means "highway"The word "prepare" means to "construct".
How did he construct this Highway, and for what purpose was it constructed? ]]> Bible Chat Curtis http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247277-Was-John-the-Baptist-our-first-spiritual-construction-worker http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247276-Today-s-Youth-and-young-adults?goto=newpost Tue, 14 May 2013 00:16:48 GMT I've been doing a lot of praying about today's youth and young adults. Even looking within my own circle I see passionate young men and women who desire to bring change and to be influencer's of Jesus with today's generation. This gets me excited! I see a type of church rising up who will be forerunners and world changers for the gospel. I wonder how many of us, who are older, see this generation as the hope and the future of the church? Or, are we simply pointing our fingers at them with "do and don'ts".

Sometimes we think we know better because of our age or wisdom, but have we ever sat down with this "social network generation" in a coffee shop and asked the hard questions we seldom avoid because we think we know better. The answer will surprise you. I recently did this with my son's youth group. He's a pastor at the Revolution movement that has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 3 years. Every week he leads hundreds of youth who have a sole mission in mind - to reach their generation today!. I asked him "How can we olders folks align ourselves with you as opposed to you aligning yourself with us older folks". His answer, join us in prayer and in worship and glorifying God together will be the result.

Now, not many of us can fathom 24 hour non-stop prayer or non-traditional worship. I can because I lead and breath it every week, many times a week. But I must admit my joining them wasn't as intentional as I had hoped. I love seeing today's generation active and purposeful with the Gospel and my point today is this, I pray the same for your church and youth movements. May your latter days be better than your former days with your youth ministry! ]]> Bible Chat amazzin http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247276-Today-s-Youth-and-young-adults http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247267-Upside-down?goto=newpost Mon, 13 May 2013 13:57:10 GMT So does the church turn the world upside down anymore? *And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, _These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;_ Acts 17:6.* Just... So does the church turn the world upside down anymore? And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Acts 17:6. Just wondering what your thoughts are on this; I remember hearing of a quote from Gandhi in which he stated he had no problem with Jesus Christ it is His followers that he could not understand. I think it would be amazing to say we as Christian turn the world upside down, but am afraid (especially with myself :B) that it is more of the other way around. ]]> Bible Chat Duggars19fan http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/247267-Upside-down