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.

Hey now! I thought that my answer made sense! =) The question, as I understood it, is why God would choose to create a being who has the potential to sin. While there are a variety of theories -- some with more Biblical support than others, the Bible does not tell us exactly why God makes all of the decisions that He does. We know that He is good and that He has a plan and that it's all about His glory, but we really don't have the specifics. Which you kind of said too. Anyway, I think there is a difference between creating something with free will (the ability to sin) and creating a sin/lie in and of itself. Of course, God created Satan with the ability to do all that he does, but I really think that's different than God choosing for Satan to be his adversary. God is sovereign, but he doesn't choose evil or endorse it. I think Job has a really good example of that... showing that Satan is exercising free will. He's acting within the abilities that God gave him, but outside of the righteousness that God demands. Being sovereign is not the same as being a puppeteer.

Who are Yusef and Miriam? Scripture tells us clearly..it was a house NOT a stable Matt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. ARRGH. Two different locations man. The manger was at the inn, near Bethlehem. The house was elsewhere in Bethlehem. That is where they returned to after the census. Would Yusef have endanged Miriam and the baby with such a ride if the Romans had not commanded it? God protected His son on the ride from plenty of dangers. Miriam could've miscarried from the rough ride. She could've fallen off the donkey. They could have been waylaid by highway robbers. Then they find a temporary home for nearly two years in Bethlehem. Meanwhile, the Magi traveled all the way from present-day Iran and when they arrived, Jesus was about 2 years old. Overland journey was not what we think of today, it was treacherous to say the least. So these Magi were protected as well. Why? It is believed that the Magi were Zoroasterian believers. The Zoroasterians believed in one God. God honored that, even though their beliefs were not perfect. They were stargazers (not necessarily astrologers) in the sense of Genesis, they read the times and seasons and great events in the stars. They understood that such a star as they saw over Bethlehem meant the birth of a great king. Did they believe Jesus divine? We don't know. But they definintely understood him to be 'King of the Jews' and that they should pay proper tribute to Him. Revelation 12 tells us more about the cosmic events that were taking place. John is getting a glimpse here of the history of the birth of Christ. He sees Israel in verse 1 & 2, then Satan in verse 3. We know the great red dragon is Satan, but the description is exactly that of Rome as well (seven heads, ten horns). Rome is Satan's tool. Who gave the command for a census? Imperial Rome. Did the Emperor at the time have any understanding as to why he was issuing such a command? Frankly, I doubt it. The pagan emperor was just using his power, but Satan believed that there was a chance he could kill Messiah before he became old to enough to fulfill any of the prophecies (like Genesis 3; the idea of getting one's head squashed is not a pleasant one). Satan takes a third of the angels in rebellion and goes to 'stand before' the woman so that he could devour the child. This is a figurative (oh no!) description of the reason behind the call for the census. The real and true reason is so that Satan might cause Miriam to miscarry! Obviously this doesn't work. Even more interestingly, we have in Rev 12:5 one of two uses of the word harpazo in the whole New Testament. The baby Jesus is caught up (harpazo) to God's throne. We're not given any reason or further explanation in Revelation 12 regarding that, but I believe it is a reference to divine protection. In Matthew 2, a protective angel guards Jesus from Yusef divorcing Miriam for being pregnant seemingly outside of marriage. And again, an angel protects him when Herod wants to kill him. And again an angel protects the Magi from the anger of Herod by appearing to them in a dream telling them to get out of the area using a different trade route. Revelation 12 does tell us about Jesus being taken into the Wilderness. Even though he's not directly mentioned in the Revelation 12 passage, remember that Messiah is the very hope of Israel. He is the embodiment of the nation's hope. So when the woman goes into the Wilderness, baby Messiah goes as well. Miriam is a human figure of Israel. The woman who gives birth to Messiah. It does no damage to the text to understand the woman as Faithful Israel andMiriam as well. So off go Yusef, Miriam and Yeshua into Egypt...the Wilderness. 1260 days later, they come back, but even then there is somewhat of a threat as outlined in Matthew 2. Again, Yusef is directed by the angel to go to Nazareth, to fulfill the Scripture...and put paid to any threat. During this time, a war is raging in heaven. It began at the conception of Messiah, if we follow the text. Satan has been accusing the brethren before Messiah was conceived, but now he and his are cast out of heaven and down to earth. Jesus Himself said that He saw Satan thrown down from heaven like lightning. Rev 12:10 shows that there is no way for the Devil to win. To emphasize this, a loud voice says several things: Rev 12:10-12 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. "For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who [fn]dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time." The coming of Christ into the world brought salvation (through Christ's atoning death), power (through the Holy Spirit), the Kingdom of God (Jesus spoke of it when he cast out demons, remember? [Mt 12:28]) and the authority of His Christ. The Greek text says these things have come. The next 2 verses state that Satan is mad, because he realizes that there is nothing he can do. He has only a short time. He will eventually be able to strike Christ's heel, but that very striking will in turn crush his head. John re-iterates the situation. The devil persecutes the woman who had the Christ. God protects her, even to taking her into the Wilderness for 1260 days. So what does Satan do? He starts persecuting the faithful remnant of Israel. John the Baptizer is murdered. And furthermore, the succession of emperors gets worse. Until his (Satan's) fairhaired boy arrives. Nero. There is LOT more to the Navitity than the mere birth of a baby. He was a King from birth, and in danger early on from Satan. BUt God prevails.

Well, I've been asked that question a few times (I used to teach a Sunday School class with some very inquisitive children). Here's what I say: I don't know because the Bible doesn't tell us exactly why. I don't believe in making up answers that aren't there just because someone want an answer. Children need to learn that the Bible doesn't tell us everything. It tells us what God wants us to know during our time here on earth. It is not an exhaustive guide to every thought/rationale that God ever had. Sure, God could have created angels and humans without free will. He could have done lots of things different. He could have made women's bodies so that they don't get fat after eating chocolate, but he didn't. He could have made evergreen trees pink instead of green (everpinks? haha). We could sit around all day contemplating why God made things exactly the way He did, but in the end, the answer is still, simply, "I don't know." Maybe we'll have a Q + A session in Heaven =) (Although I doubt we'll care a whole lot about such questions then!)

Oh, and for the record: Saint Nicholas Day is December 6, not December 25. So if you're going to ban a day because of the Santa myth, December 6 should probably be the day that's actually banned. December 6 is the day that my family celebrated Saint Nicholas/Santa anyway. Christmas was kept completely separate. Should I burn the wooden shoes that my grandfather carved?

Okay... Let me see if I have this right... We're not allowed to worship Jesus/God on any day that has ever been used for pagan celebrations/purposes. Are there really any days left then? Pagans are pagans everyday, not just on Christmas. There isn't any day that Christians can celebrate on that some pagan somewhere isn't doing something pagan. And the Christmas trees... So are we supposed to just set all of the trees in the world on fire? I assume that since it's bad to have them indoors, it's equally as bad to have them outdoors. More people see trees when they're outdoors. (And aren't there laws against setting forest fires?) And, out of curiosity, what do all you tree haters do when you go outside? I don't know about where you live, but it's pretty woodsy here. I'd have wear a blindfold to avoid seeing trees, and methinks it would be dangerous to drive blindfolded. It's kind of difficult to avoid looking at trees when God put them everywhere and made them so hardy. Oh, and what about other things that have been used for pagan purposes. I have this friend who was into Wicca for awhile (she got out of it, thankfully!) and she used all sorts of everyday objects in her rituals. Especially candles. Does that mean that it's wrong for me to own candles? Should I trash everything in my home that anyone has ever used for pagan worship in the whole entire history of the world?? Objects themselves are NOT spiritual beings. I'm shocked to even see that idea on a Christian board, because it's one that you see in pagan cultures. A tree or a candle is not innately evil. We mustn't forget that God is the author of creation and that His creation is good. The creation itself doesn't become evil because someone chooses to use it for evil or to worship the creation rather than the Creator. An apple would be an example of this. In "Snow White," the Evil Queen tries to poison Snow White with an apple. So, using the some "logic" as with the Christmas tree idea, this would mean that Christians could never eat apples since a pagan fairy tale presents apples as this magical, evil thing. Perhaps if the Christmas tree haters stop eating apples, I'll give their ideas a bit more thought. (Okay, maybe not...) I'll admit that many Christians (that I know, anyway) are much too focused on secular things on Christmas (and every other day of the year), but I don't see how that makes it taboo for me to worship Jesus on that day. Wouldn't that be modelling me life after the lukewarm Christians and the pagans? Why should I be anti-worship just because everyone else is?

I hope I put the right code in here. LOVE this song; such hope! *edit, fixed the code*

There's stuff all over the 'net about it and it's common for there to be a notation in Bibles about the John 7:53-8:11 passage. Here are some links that may be of help: http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html http://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm Hope that helps!

Thanks, Cherylu.

Hi Peri, Spacing stuff out really is a help isn't it? One of the things that I do too and and have found to be a big help is buying gifts early. Actually, the after Christmas sales and the seasonal (spring and fall) clearance sales can be a very good time to pick up things to use for gifts for the next year. My biggest problem with doing this has been forgetting what I have already bought and finding myself with extra presents for someone come Christmas time! Oh well, often they just become a head start on the next year's gift buying! Yes, the after Christmas sales and various other sales are great times to shop. I've done the same thing: buying extra presents. I just use them for next year, too, or, if it's a generic enough gift, use it for a gift basket for a new mom in the church or ladies night out giveaway, etc.

One of the things that I do is shop throughout the year. If my shopping isn't done by the beginning of November, then I hurry it up before Thanksgiving. Shopping online some helps quite a bit with this. Since I don't do Black Friday shopping, I try to get all of my Christmas cards done then. I usually buy them online in October and make sure to stock up on stamps, too. I try to keep up with cleaning year-round, so there isn't really anything extra to do there. Decorating is usually done the first weekend in December and only takes about 2-3 hours. I do baking at the last minute so that stuff is fresh. I do all of my wrapping the morning of Christmas Eve, but it's not anything fancy, so it doesn't take me any longer than a couple of hours. In short, I guess that I just try to space stuff out.