Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

New NIV Bible problems

Expand Messages
  • Brother Dave
    Dear Members, The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change sons of God to children of God to be more politically correct .   
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 1, 2009
      Dear Members,
       
      The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
       

       

      Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,

       

      Brother Dave

       

      http://www.LedByJesus.org/   our newest Christian website

       

      http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
      proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
      OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS

       

      Come learn and share in one or both !

    • thegreengeko
      Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin. But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn t affect us or our faith.
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 3, 2009
        Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

        But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

        --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Brother Dave <truthist@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Members,
        >
        > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
        >
        > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090901/ap_on_re/us_rel_bible_translation
        >  
        >  
        > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
        >  
        > Brother Dave
        >  
        > http://www.LedByJesus.org/%c2%a0%c2%a0%c2%a0our newest Christian website
        >  
        > http://www.PureChristians.org/%c2%a0Gospel enlarging website,
        > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
        > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
        >  
        > Come learn and share in one or both !
        >
      • Brother Dave
        Paul   You wrote that the debate over changing the NIV references to humans as sons of God to children of God are, as you said, ...just words and
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 4, 2009
          Paul
           
          You wrote that the debate over changing the NIV references to humans as "sons of God" to "children of God" are, as you said, "...just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith."
           
          Obviously, Theology is not your specialty.  These words are extremely important ! That is why there is a serious and proper Theological debate over same.  To bring this importance home to you personally: If you had a newborn baby son that you and your wife named Mark Robert, but the hospital filled out the birth certificate as Patty Sue, you would not ask for it to be changed; as words about sexual gender are "...just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith."
           
           
          Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
           
          Brother Dave
           
          http://www.LedByJesus.org/   our newest Christian website
           
          http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
          proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
          OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
           

          Christian-Philosophy Yahoo group

           

          Come learn and share in one or all !




          From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...>
          To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 9:27:04 PM
          Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems

           

          Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

          But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

          --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@.. .> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Members,
          >
          > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
          >
          > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
          >  
          >  
          > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
          >  
          > Brother Dave
          >  
          > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
          >  
          > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
          > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
          > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
          >  
          > Come learn and share in one or both !
          >

        • George
          If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be
          Message 4 of 15 , Sep 4, 2009
            If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
             
            Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
             
            How then does that not affect your faith?
             
            ...George 

            --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...> wrote:

            From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...>
            Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
            To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM

             
            Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

            But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

            --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@.. .> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Members,
            >
            > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
            >
            > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
            >  
            >  
            > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
            >  
            > Brother Dave
            >  
            > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
            >  
            > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
            > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
            > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
            >  
            > Come learn and share in one or both !
            >


          • Thom Hunter
            The world always seeks a compromise.  Given the fact that the Word of God is neverchanging, our attempts to make it change to fit our socio-political
            Message 5 of 15 , Sep 4, 2009
              The world always seeks a compromise.  Given the fact that the Word of God is neverchanging, our attempts to make it change to fit our socio-political environment makes it less fruitful.  However, God's Word is also all-powerful.  The attempts to change it should make us ever-mindful of the admonishment to keep it in our heart where man cannot tamper with it. 
               
              Thom
              http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/

              --- On Fri, 9/4/09, George <geojosh1@...> wrote:

              From: George <geojosh1@...>
              Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
              To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:05 PM

               
              If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
               
              Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
               
              How then does that not affect your faith?
               
              ...George 

              --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com> wrote:

              From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com>
              Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
              To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
              Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM

               
              Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

              But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

              --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@.. .> wrote:
              >
              > Dear Members,
              >
              > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
              >
              > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
              >  
              >  
              > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
              >  
              > Brother Dave
              >  
              > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
              >  
              > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
              > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
              > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
              >  
              > Come learn and share in one or both !
              >



            • thegreengeko
              Why would it be a sin for something initially written by humans to be edited by humans? If it really bothers you that much, just think of it as another
              Message 6 of 15 , Sep 4, 2009
                Why would it be a sin for something initially written by humans to be edited by humans?

                If it really bothers you that much, just think of it as another translation.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA

                --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, George <geojosh1@...> wrote:
                >
                > If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
                >  
                > Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
                >  
                > How then does that not affect your faith?
                >  
                > ...George 
                >
                > --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...>
                > Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                > To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM
                >
                >
                >  
                >
                >
                >
                > Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.
                >
                > But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.
                >
                > --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@ .> wrote:
                > >
                > > Dear Members,
                > >
                > > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
                > >
                > > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
                > >  
                > >  
                > > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
                > >  
                > > Brother Dave
                > >  
                > > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
                > >  
                > > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                > > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                > > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                > >  
                > > Come learn and share in one or both !
                > >
                >
              • Thom Hunter
                It will depend on how this new version is marketed.  If it is marketed as an accurate translation of the Bible written to convey a new message . . .then it
                Message 7 of 15 , Sep 4, 2009
                  It will depend on how this new version is marketed.  If it is marketed as an accurate translation of the Bible written to convey a new message . . .then it will be more the corrupted distortion you were referring to in your discussion of the Book of John.  We will have done a doozy.  I think George was just saying it is faith-impacting.  If it is a translation, then they will have needed to go back to the original language and meaning.
                   
                  Thom
                  http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/ 

                  --- On Fri, 9/4/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...> wrote:

                  From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@...>
                  Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                  To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:45 PM

                   
                  Why would it be a sin for something initially written by humans to be edited by humans?

                  If it really bothers you that much, just think of it as another translation.

                  http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=ZFrkjEgUDZA

                  --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, George <geojosh1@.. .> wrote:
                  >
                  > If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
                  >  
                  > Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed  also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
                  >  
                  > How then does that not affect your faith?
                  >  
                  > ...George 
                  >
                  > --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ ...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ ...>
                  > Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                  > To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                  > Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.
                  >
                  > But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.
                  >
                  > --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@ .> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Dear Members,
                  > >
                  > > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
                  > >
                  > > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
                  > >  
                  > >  
                  > > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
                  > >  
                  > > Brother Dave
                  > >  
                  > > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
                  > >  
                  > > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                  > > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                  > > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                  > >  
                  > > Come learn and share in one or both !
                  > >
                  >


                • Sbkidde@aol.com
                  Believers in evolutionary aggression group all those who believe that the universe was created by a Creator God into a single group that they then renounce
                  Message 8 of 15 , Sep 4, 2009
                    Believers in evolutionary aggression group all those who believe that the universe was created by a Creator God into a single group that they then renounce as naive and delusional. The definition of creationism that they attack however is contrived. It does not apply to most believers. The definition amounts to a cheap shot against faith.
                     
                    Faith is not antithetical to scientific inquiry. Science, however, uses non-religious terminology. Scientific writing is designed to address the general public. The language of faith has specificity for the religious group.
                     
                    There was a time in the polytheistic republic when non-religious expression was advantageous because it did not encourage the competition between beliefs in gods and goddesses. Now non-religious expression is advantageous because the constitutional protection for freedom of religion is against any law for the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.
                     
                    Most educated people do not state that scripture was written by God. People who assert that it was written by God are usually opposed to some kind of change in the way that scripture was translated. I have become bored beyond tears with the debate against creationism. The position of the evolutionary aggression-ists has become dogmatic, predictable and non-productive. If they want to blame religion or standard religion for all the world's problems, they should recall that science has created many a malicious malady that still stand in need of correction. 
                     
                    Steve K.
                     
                    In a message dated 9/4/2009 11:51:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, thegreengeko@... writes:
                    http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=ZFrkjEgUDZA
                     
                  • Edna Dismukes
                    The Bible was not written in English, so it was changed by being written in King James English and in each subsequent translation, using the language of the
                    Message 9 of 15 , Sep 5, 2009
                      The Bible was not written in English, so it was changed by being written in King James English and in each subsequent translation, using the language of the current era and culture.  In modern American English, sons are exclusively male children; therefore, using this English word does deny all women any rights as part of the Christian family, regardless of what arguments you make about its supposed original meaning.  If the original meaning of the word translated as "son" did include the concept of both male and female, as you state, then it makes logical sense to use the modern day word of "children" which does include both male and female.  (Unless you are using the words as in their apparent sense in some gnostic texts, where it appears that somehow the baser woman will in heaven be changed into a superior male.)

                      --- On Fri, 9/4/09, George <geojosh1@...> wrote:

                      From: George <geojosh1@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                      To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 9:05 PM

                       

                      If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
                       
                      Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
                       
                      How then does that not affect your faith?
                       
                      ...George 

                      --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                      From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com>
                      Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                      To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM

                       
                      Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

                      But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

                      --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@.. .> wrote:
                      >
                      > Dear Members,
                      >
                      > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
                      >
                      > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
                      >  
                      >  
                      > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
                      >  
                      > Brother Dave
                      >  
                      > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
                      >  
                      > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                      > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                      > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                      >  
                      > Come learn and share in one or both !
                      >



                    • thegreengeko
                      your right in that militant atheists group every religious person with fundamentalists. On the one side you have fundamentalists, and on the other are militant
                      Message 10 of 15 , Sep 5, 2009
                        your right in that militant atheists group every religious person with fundamentalists.

                        On the one side you have fundamentalists, and on the other are militant atheists, while most people are in the golden mean.

                        >There was a time in the polytheistic republic when non-religious
                        > expression was advantageous because it did not encourage the competition between
                        > beliefs in gods and goddesses

                        Actually, religious expression was most advantageous. Polytheists back then were far more flexible with their belief. If you wanted to do business with someone, all the better to accept their gods. This is how alliances began, and trade networks started. Furthermore, someone's message is better received if the people believe its coming from a divine source ( hint hint). Competition between religions was rather rare as it was easier to accept another person's gods than to fight over it. Remember, back then people believed in many gods and whats one more, right?

                        In fact, monotheism was probably the most upsetting in this respect.

                        >I have become bored beyond tears with the debate against creationism.

                        Actually, I am delighted to watch such debates. I learn something from one side, and get a laugh from the other. Fundamentalism: pushing the lower limits of human intelligence!

                        --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Sbkidde@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Believers in evolutionary aggression group all those who believe that the
                        > universe was created by a Creator God into a single group that they then
                        > renounce as naive and delusional. The definition of creationism that they
                        > attack however is contrived. It does not apply to most believers. The
                        > definition amounts to a cheap shot against faith.
                        >
                        > Faith is not antithetical to scientific inquiry. Science, however, uses
                        > non-religious terminology. Scientific writing is designed to address the
                        > general public. The language of faith has specificity for the religious group.
                        >
                        > There was a time in the polytheistic republic when non-religious
                        > expression was advantageous because it did not encourage the competition between
                        > beliefs in gods and goddesses. Now non-religious expression is advantageous
                        > because the constitutional protection for freedom of religion is against any
                        > law for the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.
                        >
                        > Most educated people do not state that scripture was written by God.
                        > People who assert that it was written by God are usually opposed to some kind of
                        > change in the way that scripture was translated. I have become bored
                        > beyond tears with the debate against creationism. The position of the
                        > evolutionary aggression-ists has become dogmatic, predictable and non-productive. If
                        > they want to blame religion or standard religion for all the world's
                        > problems, they should recall that science has created many a malicious malady
                        > that still stand in need of correction.
                        >
                        > Steve K.
                        >
                        > In a message dated 9/4/2009 11:51:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                        > thegreengeko@... writes:
                        >
                        > _http://www.youtube.http://wwwhttp://www.yo_
                        > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA)
                        >
                      • George
                        You are right - the Bible was not written originally in English; however, the King James was meticulously translated from the original Greek and Hebrew
                        Message 11 of 15 , Sep 5, 2009
                          You are right - the Bible was not written originally in English; however, the King James was meticulously translated from the original Greek and Hebrew languages, not merely changed into the English language to fit what was the language of the current culture of the day.
                           
                          What we find today are people who have been programed by the government and activist to follow that the standards and rules they have set forth for us to follow. The Church should not follow the standards of the world, but follow the Word of God and not change the Word to fit what the standards of the world are.
                           
                          ...George 

                          --- On Sat, 9/5/09, Edna Dismukes <ednaraye@...> wrote:

                          From: Edna Dismukes <ednaraye@...>
                          Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                          To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 9:30 AM

                           
                          The Bible was not written in English, so it was changed by being written in King James English and in each subsequent translation, using the language of the current era and culture.  In modern American English, sons are exclusively male children; therefore, using this English word does deny all women any rights as part of the Christian family, regardless of what arguments you make about its supposed original meaning.  If the original meaning of the word translated as "son" did include the concept of both male and female, as you state, then it makes logical sense to use the modern day word of "children" which does include both male and female.  (Unless you are using the words as in their apparent sense in some gnostic texts, where it appears that somehow the baser woman will in heaven be changed into a superior male.)

                          --- On Fri, 9/4/09, George <geojosh1@yahoo. com> wrote:

                          From: George <geojosh1@yahoo. com>
                          Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                          To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                          Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 9:05 PM

                           
                          If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
                           
                          Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
                           
                          How then does that not affect your faith?
                           
                          ...George 

                          --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                          From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com>
                          Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                          To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                          Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM

                           
                          Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

                          But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

                          --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@.. .> wrote:
                          >
                          > Dear Members,
                          >
                          > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
                          >
                          > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
                          >  
                          >  
                          > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
                          >  
                          > Brother Dave
                          >  
                          > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
                          >  
                          > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                          > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                          > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                          >  
                          > Come learn and share in one or both !
                          >




                        • Thom Hunter
                          Amen.  The world should adjust to the Word and nor vice versa.   Thom http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/ ... From: George
                          Message 12 of 15 , Sep 5, 2009
                            Amen.  The world should adjust to the Word and nor vice versa.
                             
                            Thom
                            http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/

                            --- On Sat, 9/5/09, George <geojosh1@...> wrote:

                            From: George <geojosh1@...>
                            Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                            To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 3:32 PM

                             
                            You are right - the Bible was not written originally in English; however, the King James was meticulously translated from the original Greek and Hebrew languages, not merely changed into the English language to fit what was the language of the current culture of the day.
                             
                            What we find today are people who have been programed by the government and activist to follow that the standards and rules they have set forth for us to follow. The Church should not follow the standards of the world, but follow the Word of God and not change the Word to fit what the standards of the world are.
                             
                            ...George 

                            --- On Sat, 9/5/09, Edna Dismukes <ednaraye@yahoo. com> wrote:

                            From: Edna Dismukes <ednaraye@yahoo. com>
                            Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                            To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 9:30 AM

                             
                            The Bible was not written in English, so it was changed by being written in King James English and in each subsequent translation, using the language of the current era and culture.  In modern American English, sons are exclusively male children; therefore, using this English word does deny all women any rights as part of the Christian family, regardless of what arguments you make about its supposed original meaning.  If the original meaning of the word translated as "son" did include the concept of both male and female, as you state, then it makes logical sense to use the modern day word of "children" which does include both male and female.  (Unless you are using the words as in their apparent sense in some gnostic texts, where it appears that somehow the baser woman will in heaven be changed into a superior male.)

                            --- On Fri, 9/4/09, George <geojosh1@yahoo. com> wrote:

                            From: George <geojosh1@yahoo. com>
                            Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                            To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 9:05 PM

                             
                            If a candidate was running on the platform to legalize some types of sins, like perhaps murder and theft, and you voted for that individual, would you not be just as guilty as the candidate?
                             
                            Would not the same be true if the words of the Bible are changed to appease those who are opposed to what God had originally stated in His Word? Would not the reader who agrees with what the writer of the new version of the Bible changed also be guilty? In other words; is not the reader who desires the change and agrees with the change just as guity as the one who wrote the change in the first place?
                             
                            How then does that not affect your faith?
                             
                            ...George 

                            --- On Thu, 9/3/09, thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                            From: thegreengeko <thegreengeko@ yahoo.com>
                            Subject: [Christian-Philosop hy] Re: New NIV Bible problems
                            To: Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:27 PM

                             
                            Oh, let me play you a sad song on the worlds smallest violin.

                            But seriously, its just words and terminology. Such things shouldn't affect us or our faith.

                            --- In Christian-Philosoph y@yahoogroups. com, Brother Dave <truthist@.. .> wrote:
                            >
                            > Dear Members,
                            >
                            > The planned NIV Bible update is causing controversy.  They may change "sons of God" to "children of God" to be more "politically correct".    Doing so would be Theologbically incorrect; as all human men and all human women are classified as sons of God and in the brotherhood of mankind.  The many types of angels are classified as daughters of God.   Thus woMan and feMale is correct as they are actually sons of God.
                            >
                            > http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20090901/ ap_on_re/ us_rel_bible_ translation
                            >  
                            >  
                            > Peace and progress in Spirit and in Truth,
                            >  
                            > Brother Dave
                            >  
                            > http://www.LedByJes us.org/   our newest Christian website
                            >  
                            > http://www.PureChri stians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
                            > proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
                            > OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
                            >  
                            > Come learn and share in one or both !
                            >





                          • Sbkidde@aol.com
                            The King James Bible was translated into the English language of the time. It is a logical fallacy to assert that the Bible was not translated into the
                            Message 13 of 15 , Sep 5, 2009
                              The King James Bible was translated into the English language of the time. It is a logical fallacy to assert that the Bible was not translated into the English of the time simply because it is not the English of our time.
                               
                              In a message dated 9/5/2009 4:33:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, geojosh1@... writes:
                              You are right - the Bible was not written originally in English; however, the King James was meticulously translated from the original Greek and Hebrew languages, not merely changed into the English language to fit what was the language of the current culture of the day.
                               
                            • Sbkidde@aol.com
                              Wait another couple of decades. See how you feel then. In a message dated 9/5/2009 3:35:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, thegreengeko@yahoo.com writes: Actually,
                              Message 14 of 15 , Sep 5, 2009
                                Wait another couple of decades. See how you feel then.
                                 
                                 
                                In a message dated 9/5/2009 3:35:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, thegreengeko@... writes:
                                Actually, I am delighted to watch such debates. I learn something from one side, and get a laugh from the other. Fundamentalism: pushing the lower limits of human intelligence!

                                 
                              • thegreengeko
                                Perhaps you re right.
                                Message 15 of 15 , Sep 6, 2009
                                  Perhaps you're right.

                                  --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Sbkidde@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Wait another couple of decades. See how you feel then.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > In a message dated 9/5/2009 3:35:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                                  > thegreengeko@... writes:
                                  >
                                  > Actually, I am delighted to watch such debates. I learn something from one
                                  > side, and get a laugh from the other. Fundamentalism: pushing the lower
                                  > limits of human intelligence!
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.