Peri

Okay, I'll try emailing him or a mod. Thanks! By the way (to anyone reading this), it's nothing personal. God has just really convicted me of spending so much time online, and I don't like having open accounts on sites that I don't use.

I'm sorry if this isn't the correct forum for this question, but I couldn't find a more appropriate forum. Would one of you be so kind as to direct me to the page where I can deactivate my account? I've tried searching the "help," but keep getting this "flood" warning. Thanks in advance!

So you're saying that no one is allowed to make hats and scarves for other people on the first day of winter because some Wiccans worship Mother Nature on that same day? And Christians aren't allowed to thank God for the seasons and the things that come with them that allow us to have food, because pagans are also glad for the seasons? You don't think that's a bit legalistic? I don't see where in the Bible it says that I'm not allowed to make hats and scarves on any day of the year that I want and give them away. Maybe we should all go in and edit Proverbs 31 to make sure that everyone knows that a woman shouldn't clothe her family on the first day of winter. And let's make sure that everyone knows to adjust that for time zones. Oh, and it flips over to winter at one particular second, so I guess we need some clarity on whether the whole entire day is taboo or just that particular second. Even though I've never knitted anything in my life, just in case I ever pick up the habit, it'll be important to know which second of the year I'm not allowed to knit anything in. So, if one is knitting a scarf for the homeless person on the corner on the day of the Solstice, what are they supposed to do on the exact second that it flips over to winter? Observe a moment of silence, or what? (And, no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; I'm genuinely curious.)

It's not Old English. It's late Middle English. There's a big difference. The danger in reading ME when you have not been trained formally in it is that words are not always what they appear to be. Often, it seems obvious what a word should be translated to, but such a translation is sometimes incorrect. The Psalms passage quoted here is not the best example, but there are multiple passages from The Canterbury Tales and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (and probably from the 1611 Bible, but I don't have a copy of that) that illustrate this concept well. Not all Modern English words involve spelling variants of the ME. Sometimes, the ME is translated to a Modern English word with no spelling similarity; meanwhile, there are Modern words that mimic particular ME spellings closely but are not associated with them at all. There is a word in the Psalms passage here that sort of illustrates that. Nere isn't necessarily translated to near. If you have a dictionary that confirms your translation of it in whatever passage, then that's fine, but you should be aware that nere doesn't always mean near, and certainly don't go around telling others that it does or passing out this version of the Bible and telling people to just translate it to what seems obvious. The fact that you would even call that Old English would suggest that you have no formal training in ME, which means that you are potentially setting yourself (and others you pass along your ideas to) up for a gross misinterpretation of God's Word. While you may find it entertaining or whatever to read the Bible in ME, I would question your wisdom in such a decision. C'mon B - You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible? Where Genesis reads like this: Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words. But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ? I did mean just that. About 10 years ago, a man at my church gave me a copy of the 1611 King James Bible, which has old English spelling and the Apocrypha. I was already familiar with the Authorized Version, as I had been reading it for years. I have read the Authorized Version cover to cover more than 10 times. After getting this Bible, I began reading through it. I had a little trouble adjusting at first, but by the time I had finished Genesis, I had little problems with it. The only thing that sometimes gives me trouble is the Roman numerals, but that is no big deal. If you don't believe me, here is an example, right out of my 1611 King James Bible. PSAL. LXXV VNto thee, O God, doe we giue thankes, vnto thee doe we giue thanks: for that thy name is nere, thy wonderous works delcare. What is so hard about that? I have no trouble at all translating old English words. I will demonstrate right now. Unto thee, Oh God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks: for that thy name is near, thy wonderous works delcare. I do this all the time. If that isn't plain enough, how is this? To you, Oh, God, we give thanks, to you we give thanks, for your name is near, your wonderous works delcare. As for definitions, I have an Abington-Strongs Exhaustive Concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Bible Dictionary, which I have also studied for years when a word was unclear.

Nope. But I think that it's a great suggestion. Thanks for the idea!

That's actually late Middle English, but I agree... While it can be fun to read something like The Canterbury Tales in ME, it's not my cup of tea for something that I'm picking up to read multiple times of day. With the rare exception, I fail to see how ME is any better than Modern English. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an ME word that doesn't have a modern equivalent. And what if you're going to quote the Bible to someone else? To edify or to witness... Is some homeless person in the ghetto going to even understand what you're saying if you talk in ME? Most people won't even understand what you mean when you talk in the language of the NKJV. I really don't think that it's less holy to read/write/speak in the language of our time. We must remember that the purpose of language is to communicate, and we can't communicate well with others if we're speaking like people out of another century! C'mon B - You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible? Where Genesis reads like this: Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words. But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ?

No, the Winter Solstice is the first day of winter. The pagans didn't create seasons; God did. I'm not going to pretend that seasons don't exist just because the pagans do bad things when the seasons change. Pagans do pagan things every single day. Seasons aren't evil. Should we pretend that the entire calendar doesn't exist? Honoring a day that the Lord made is nowhere near the same category as bowing toward Mecca.

No, that not the best I have. I was starting at the beginning. However, I don't have the time (or the desire) to go verse-by-verse through the entire Bible to point out the thousands of ways that The Message is an error. Since you don't seem to want to change you mind anyway, I doubt that anything that I could say would help. That is fairly subjective. Soup out of a can is not organized like a dictionary. The rest of the chapter affirms Creator/creation, not denies it. You are being picky. Is that the best you got?

What verse isn't heretical? Genesis 1 is heretical, for starters. "Earth was a soup of nothingness" ????????????? I know it's not meant to be a translation, but that's some pretty sloppy paraphrasing. Soup implies that there was some form and that it was not void, which is an opposition to what actual translations say. It can't be both like soup and formless.

Well, in my own studies of the original languages, I would say that there are way too many issues in the KJV/NKJV for me to feel comfortable using it (and thee/thou thing is beyond annoying; there's nothing about using out-of-date words that makes it more holy; in fact, in today's speech the words just distract and take away from the true meaning of the text, in my opinion). The NIV is very readable, but has some issues, too. The word choices in places are rather "loose." Both the NASB and ESV seem to do a good job of capturing things. But, I am not a scholar by any means. These are just my observations. And, of course, no version is going to be absolutely, 100% perfect. The languages are different, and English such a vague language in comparison to Hebrew and Greek. You simply cannot say that exact same thing in English that you can see in Hebrew or Greek. Ideally, we'd all just learn Hebrew and Greek =) Etymology courses are a great help, though, if you want something a bit less intense that gives you better handle on Biblical languages. For a very young child, the Living Bible would be appropriate as long as it is accompanied by parental advisement and guidance. The Message is downright heretical and I can't believe that Christian booksellers even have it on their shelves!

Okay. Well, if you have a specific purpose for it that is doing good for the kingdom and bringing glory to God, then you have my permission. Haha... (like you really need my endorsement!) My comment was more addressing the general issue that I see (in people around me) of obsessing over things like this for absolutely no useful purpose and then having incredibly poor doctrine because they don't have the time to actually read their Bibles and only read articles such as this. I agree entirely but I like to research the things that drive atheists/anti-Christians. I spend a lot of time researching the paranormal so I can get a feel for what's going on outside of the normal. I like to think I'm doing some good in the world by targeting things that are completely bogus and against the Word and exposing them for what they are. I've spent many nights in heated discussions with non-believers and maybe just maybe I've gotten through to more than a few.

Well, I don't see anything wrong with being charitable in that way, or in celebrating the change of seasons. God made the seasons after all. I don't see this as being any different than celebrating a good harvest by sharing it with your neighbours. Unless the teacher was forcing the children to bow down to the hats and scarves then I wouldn't see the harm in it. Edited to say: Besides, unless they're saved anyway, whatever they do is sin. So... does it really matter? It's not a crime. It's not hurting anyone. There's nothing inherently unbiblical about making hats and scares and giving them away in the winter.

This would be why I usually don't read articles like that. I find it more beneficial to read my Bible rather than reading negative things that others have to say about it =) That said, this sort of thing is interesting and I can understand the desire to want to read it. Let's consider this, though: Do we need to understand the biology behind the visions described in the Bible in order to believe that God's Word is true? Another tool of Satan is distracting believers with trying to figure out how the things in the Bible could have happened, when we really just need to believe that they happened and not ruminate on the why/how questions. Looks like yet another ploy by the Deceiver himself to sway people from belief in God, angels and Jesus Himself... Original article and discussion here: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/visions-angels-described-bible-may-lucid-dreams-191004102.html

Thank God that we have His joy regardless of our circumstances. I'll say a prayer for you!

Well, I would say that they are not inherently wrong. Of course, the picture must be used within the bounds of Scripture. I you're personally using it as an idol, then you need to stop. If you made a picture with an intent to portray Jesus inaccurately or to be irreverent, then I think you should destroy the picture. If God has personally convicted you to not look at images of Jesus, then you shouldn't do it (but that doesn't mean that it's wrong for everybody!). As with nearly everything, it can be used for good or used for evil. If you're doing something evil with it, then yes, it's harmful.