another_poster

If you think that is all that is needed for a successful marriage then you are sadly mistaken. Perhaps you should actually try reading what I wrote again but actually take your time and read carefully. My wife had no problem with it. See that is the key. She knew about it. I don't know about you but personally I don't think in the middle of a crowded restaurant is an ideal place for horizontal dancing. Perhaps you do but nothing is going to happen. It is not a line being crossed by having lunch with a person. If I was to say invite them to my place or go to their place then yeah that would be cause for concern but having lunch in public is not an issue unless one is weak in faith. Seriously if that is a problem then no married person should work in a place where they interact with members of the opposite gender. After all that could give the wrong impression too. One of the worst sins of the church in general is they have through their actions (intentionally or unintentionally) made it a sin to be friends with people of the opposite gender. This causes so many problems in the church. We will have to agree to disagree on the origins of christian holidays. If you want to send me some links to info I will read it (may take a couple of months) and consider it. Please send via private message or start a new thread and provide a link to that thread rather than derail this one though please.

If only Jesus had realised that rather than giving the response he gave when that argument was used by the religious leaders of the day!

You actually start with a common mistake. That passage only refers to revelation. It does not refer to the entire bible. We need to remember how the bible came about. It was not complete when revelation was written. This is a mistake in reasoning with God's Word as the Revelation in context takes us into the eternal state and in that contextual flow lies the great seal of God's Word and intent for eternity... there is nothing that can be added past the Revelation and that is where the seal is placed! Love, Steven Who said anything about adding? Fact is the bible as we know it today did not exist when revelation was written. It is not reasonable or logical to assume it should apply to other books especially since some of them had not been accepted as scripture at that point in time. All the passage means is not to add or subtract to the book of revelation. No more, no less. It is always amusing when one is quoted and then content is not addressed Love, Steven So you find it amusing that you quoted me and did not address my comments? I'm confused. You made a comment which had already been made and provided nothing new at all to address what I have said.

The same can be said about a lot of music people listen to today especially the use of drums. So should we ban music as well? Where do we draw the line? Individuals are different. Some christians can have one or two drinks and stop no problem while others if they have one drink will keep going till they are drunk. So for the one who can't stop drinking would be a sin while it would not be for the one who can stop. Of course it would be wrong for the one who can stop to drink around the one who can't stop.

There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that various christian holidays were originally pagan celebrations so it is not ridiculous. Stretching is stretching. If your worried stretching is a sin then don't do it. I see no problem with stretching. I stay away from other religions so would never attend a session if they had the spiritual side attached. I would find out first before attending. It isn't hard to ask. I would think you are having lunch with a friend. See I don't leap to judging people. If her spouse was unaware and she tried to hide it from her spouse then that is a different issue. It is so sad when christians want to instantly judge people. If we are to abstain from appeareance of evil does that mean the apostles were wrong to speak in tongues at pentecost? After all they obviously had the appearance of evil (drunkeness). Intyeresting conclusion you draw there. Or did you not realise that is what you were saying? I used to have lunch with female friends and my spouse had no problem with that. I paid for those lunches because my view is that the one who gives the invite has the responsibility to pay. of course you can. You also don't have to do every single exercise. Just because a definition says it means something does not mean it is impossible to separate the two. but what are their roots? Where did they come from? It could easily be argued that they were adapted from pagan pravtices as well so best not to do any exercise or stretching! Really if you want to stick to what you have been saying you can not seriously suggest any kind of stretching. Not unless you can be 100% certain where it originated and has never been part of any belief or faith that opposes christianity. You pretend that easter & christmas do not have their roots in pagan holidays but openly admit they were designed to replace pagan holidays for converts. That means it is rooted in pagan holidays.

You actually start with a common mistake. That passage only refers to revelation. It does not refer to the entire bible. We need to remember how the bible came about. It was not complete when revelation was written. This is a mistake in reasoning with God's Word as the Revelation in context takes us into the eternal state and in that contextual flow lies the great seal of God's Word and intent for eternity... there is nothing that can be added past the Revelation and that is where the seal is placed! Love, Steven Who said anything about adding? Fact is the bible as we know it today did not exist when revelation was written. It is not reasonable or logical to assume it should apply to other books especially since some of them had not been accepted as scripture at that point in time. All the passage means is not to add or subtract to the book of revelation. No more, no less.

So many christian holidays so are you saying we should get away from christianity? The two are easily separated the actual exercise and spiritual side of things. So perhaps you could lay off the insults.

Well I went to a church where there was a suitable judge. He was a judge in the district court! At church he helped set up chairs and put out the prayer slips as well as cleaned up. Seems like a character who would fit the description. Another person I would be happy to do that is now a minister. He was running some youth camps and on the first camp I attended I felt he was belittling some people. I went back again because I had friends on the camp and at the next one he got up and apologised to everyone and acknowledged his wrong and asked for forgiveness. I knew then that he would examine his decisions and admit when he was wrong. That is someone I have a lot of respect for.

like many other thing such a tai chi yoga can be done without the spiritual side and is good for the body from the purely physical side of it. Take what is good discard what is bad.

That is way to basic a mistake. If the torah and bible were similar or the terms used interchangeably yes. However that is not the case. Also worth noting is that God worked differently in OT times to NT times. So just because he dictated word for word to Moses does not mean he did so for the NT and also does not automatically mean that for the rest of the OT. One wonders why they had such great discussion over what to include in the bible if it is a clear as you suggest. You need to spend more time reading instead of responding. I never said any such thing. If you are going to make claims about what I said make sure you are accurate. Yes that passage applies to the writing of revelation. I have come to the position I have from study. I am always open to hearing other views. You don't do anything to indicate that you are open to the possibility that you might be wrong. You can not make a statement and expect people to accept it as the truth without backing it up. Ok so you claim to have researched it well so explain why I am wrong mentioning the specific passages I am talking about. If you don't know which passages I am talking about then clearly you have not researched as well as you claim. In saying what you have said here you have also claimed what the bible says is wrong! I'm guessing you don't realise that. The words in the bible make it very clear that some parts are peoples personal opinion. There is no evidence that God dictated word for word to the translators. Indeed logically that argument simply can not be supported. You also have not answered as to if the people who asked Paul questions were divinely inspired to ask those questions. After all by asking those questions they then determined what Paul would write about. You can repeat Proverbs 30:5 till your blue in the face. It changes nothing. The question is what is the word of God and what isn't. Divine inspiration also does not mean dictated word for word. Being told word for word what to write is not inspiration for a start.

The bible was given to Moses letter by letter? Really??? That statement is so wrong I just don't know where to start. Unless of course your claiming the bible only contains five books

This is an important verse and is taken out of the Bible. Regardless of what Revelation says, this verse should reach everyone who reads. See this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. That verse is just repeating the end of verse 25 but in a different way. The message is still there and unchanged so there really is no problem. Of course it does also have the footnote that some texts include words similar to Matt 6:15 which also says the same thing. If it was some big conspiracy like we are told to change the word of God why would they point out that others include it? Why would they tell you where to find those words if they didn't want you to know them? It just makes absolutely no sense. Rather it is an argument made up by someone at some point in time who had already formed their view and wanted to justify it. Much like the glass being half empty or half full. Both statements are correct but the view existed before. The same for Matthew 18 passage. Why do you think they include the verse number? It is not to hide anything but rather it lets people know to look at the footnotes which shows the words. We know that several of the gospels relied on the other gospels to fill in the blanks. That was common and accepted practice. All they have done is said it is not in the manuscripts we are using but others include it. There is also a very simple explanation of the morning star if you want to accept it. It is not actually a problem. It is just something people with pre-formed views jump on thinking they have made a good point. Post 13 explains it so I won't repeat it.

What about them? They are historical and of little significance at this point. The primary objective of the King James translators was to provide an English translation that would be deemed "the best" out of many, and thus become "The Authorized Version -- "Appointed to be read in Churches". I have a reproduction of the original 1611 edition (with the type set in modern typeface for readablity). That is exactly what is inscribed on the frontispiece. And it is only spellings, capitalization and punctuation which have been updated in our current Bibles. You make the common mistake about why the KJV came to be. It became common use because it was mandated to be used and declared that other translations were not to be used. That is the reason it became so common in use. Shiloh explains it in post #17. As for the points you made why don't you respond to what has been said already? Rather than just passing judgement on people why don't you take the time to outline why you believe you are correct? That is why these threads usually get closed quickly because people are busy passing judgement. By all means outline why you believe my statements to be wrong. 1. It is commonly acknowledged that word for word can miss the actual meaning of the passage. Lets look at the saying "Lets hit the road Jack". A word for word translation of that would have people wondering if they should hit the road with a stick or a stone or their hand and also wondering why they are supposed to hit the road. However different method of translation would translate it as "Hey lets go now". Which of those two is accurate to the meaning? The latter of course but that is not a word for word approach. Both methods have their flaws. 2. You make the pre-judgment that the manuscripts are corrupt. Yet you give no justification for that. Remember just because the majority agree on something does not make it right. The majority once upon a time believed the earth was flat. Does that mean the earth used to be flat? Of course not. 3. So what to be honest! The language in use then was different to language in use today. There are several saying that people claim are based on the bible but are not. 4. There are plenty of pieces of work that are considered to be classics. That does not make them automatically true. 5. Comprehension and the ability to read the words are two very different things. At ten years of age I was reading at the level of a eighteen year old. I could read so well. Didn't understand all of it which is why I did not appreciate the lord of the rings books until I read them later. Reading them at eight years of age was just too much of not understanding. So it is not a cop out. There are plenty of other reasons why it may be hard to understand and your dismissal of those reasons lacks compassion. Unless of course you just haven't thought it through very well and don't realise what you are actually saying. Also look at scientific studies. I can read the words no problem but I still don't understand what it all means. Here we go. Instead of upholding the fundamental Divine principle that Scripture cannot and must no be altered, we have this comment above. And Revelation COMPLETES Scripture, so your comment is incorrect to begin with. That was the whole point of the warning in Revelation. There will be no more Divine revelations from God. Scripture is complete. Do not tamper with the Word of God. You will pay for mutilating Scripture. So that is not "a common mistake" but a proper application of Scripture. However what is stated in Rev 22:18,19 is a general principle applicable to the whole Word of God. This principle was stated in the Torah a long time ago, and reiterated throughout Scripture (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6). Since "EVERY WORD of God is pure..." (Prov 30:5) and "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4) it should be evident that every Hebrew and Greek word is critical -- indeed every jot and tittle (Mt 5:18) -- which refers to the smallest Hebrew markings in the OT. Wrong. Revelation was written somewhere between 65-96AD depending on who you believe. The bible as we know was put together after. Just because they are now in the bible does not mean that that verse applies to the entire bible. The bible was written by man although inspired by God. That much is clear to see and is evidenced in the bible. We see personal opinion put in. Did God inspire the people who caused Paul to write what he wrote? I trust you know what I'm talking about since you claim to have thought this through and done the research. You also ignore the clear mistakes in the translation of the KJV. Do you know which passage I'm talking about? Hint: It is in the gospels. That is the KJV shows that the KJV has made mistakes in the translation. There is no convincing argument as to why the KJV is reliable while others are not unless one ignores facts such as what caused it to become so widely used. A lot of it is nothing but politics. Other factors are socio-economic. It has nothing to do with people believing it to be far superior or the only accurate translation. I have no problem with people being KJV only as long as they recognise that is simply their choice and it is not a sin or backsliding or a path to hell to read other translations. You claim that other translations are not more easily understood than the KJV. I assume that is based on the usual line that young kids can read most of the words. Reading and comprehension are two very different things. While the language in the KJV was common use language for the time it was written it is not common use language now and many people find it difficult to get their head around. If the KJV is as clear as you claim then there really is no need for the spirit and we should banish the holy spirit should we not! Of course not. You can quote a heap of passages out of context to try and prove your point but I will not accept that. The way you have used Matt 5:18 for example does not in any way reflect good hermeneutics. Just like the other passages you mention when read in context also do not support your claim. Someone once provided me with a list of changes that they felt made the translation not only wrong but evil! I went through the first 30 and was able to demonstrate that the meaning of the passage was unchanged. I did not bother with the rest of the list.

You actually start with a common mistake. That passage only refers to revelation. It does not refer to the entire bible. We need to remember how the bible came about. It was not complete when revelation was written. 1. Why the subtractions? That is rather simple. There are various choices of manuscripts available to use for translation purposes. There are different arguments to support the use of each one. Generally people have a pre-formed opinion and side with the argument that supports that view. Also the Good News version is designed to be easily read by children and as a result some compromises are made. 3. Do we need to rectify it? Who is right and who is wrong? Can one really answer that question without being biased? There are different methods of translation. Some do word for word which sound like a good idea but the drawback is that they can lose the actual meaning of the passage. So the solution was to look at the meaning of the passage and translate it. Of course there are problems with that too. 4. As christians we should read the bible and ask for the spirit to guide us into truth. The bible is a useful tool but it is not God. I think we often forget that. 2. You can look for people to blame if you really want but I think it is a waste of time. I think if one looks at any translation of the bible accepted by all mainstream denominations then I am confident that all the translators had the best intentions and were not trying to come up with a con job.

It is always a difficult situation living with a set of parents. I know my dad did not react well to having a young child in the house again when I temporarily moved in after my marriage ended. Perhaps your mother in law is doing the same. Not coping well with the situation and expressing it in unhealthy ways.

Fresno can you please rephrase your last post so your point can be understood more easily without the way you normally do your posts as I really can't understand at all what you are saying

Figuratively (?) Speaking Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Psalms 106;37-38 The Truths Of God Are Often Emphasized Or Heightened I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. Psalms 139:14 When One Reads From The Song Book O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. Psalms 104:24 Of The Jew Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 IMO Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 Psalms 84:11 Psalm 23 Psalm 1:1 psalm 2:3 They are just a few examples. Please note I did not say everything was figurative but there is certainly a lot of figurative speech. Are we to assume God pulled out a pair of knitting needles to make us? Somehow I don't think that is meant to be taken literally. Yet it is part of the passage that people rely on to support their view.

Point is there was no required belief. People could believe different things without having their faith questioned. That abruptly changed. Why? Graham was far from the only prominent christian to state those views. In later years they would never utter such views. The reaction to the article was not one of outcry which you would expect if there was the kind of consensus that people claim. Biology teaches many things. Do I assume all biology is correct and without error? Do I assume then that if biology conflicts with christian views then the christian views must be wrong including the bible? Not something I'm comfortable with. What biology taught in the past is different to what is taught today. History I was taught in school would never be taught these days yet those events have not changed. Teaching is based on teaching what they are instructed to teach no matter if it is right or wrong. Even if wrong they teach incorrectly otherwise one would fail the exam. What was taught in science in years 7-10 here contradicts what is taught in years 11-12. Both can not be right. To say it is pagan to not value human life is the kind of garbage I was wanting to avoid. When life starts is being discussed so it is entirely possible for a person to believe life begins at birth or with the first breath or at conception and still value human life. The two are separate. Note I never said the view that abortion is wrong did not exist before. It certainly has.

So using your answer as a guide why would we ignore the clearer verses that life begins with breath and instead take the personal interpretation such as the reasoning you have provided as being correct then? See that is the issue. You are making out that it is clear but it really is not as clear as you think. Especially when you look at the story of the valley of bones. They were all perfectly formed but not alive. I was not saying the Psalms are not part of scripture but they are also poetic and one needs to be careful before taking every single word too literally. Psalms uses figurative speech in many places. Also the last two sentences is based on your already formed opinion and is not therefore something that is arrived at by understanding. You claim abortion was not practised by the jews because they saw it as wrong. Yet it is just as valid to conclude that it was not mentioned because they did not believe life started at conception. The fact that mankind is made in the image of God does not support your conclusion. Going back to science we know that at conception it looks nothing like a person. Considering we know when the brain os formed (about 5 months) can we really say a two day old foetus has a mind? Having a will also is very debateable. Heart and body well yeah they are formed quite early on. Many of the words and phrases you use are designed to project a certain image but that once again is a already formed view rather than fact.

Yes but how do we decide which is truth? When we read the bible we interpret it. It is not always clear what is meant. Sometimes reading it literally causes a contradiction with other parts of the bible. So that leaves one in the position that either the bible contradicts itself and can not be the word of God OR our understanding must be wrong. I take this latter view. Once again the question of when life begins is an excellent example. When there are several passages all indicating life begins with first breath how then do we accept that life begins at conception? Especially considering the main justification for that view is from Psalms.

To be honest the only real option for staying together is professional counselling. That could help bring out if there is an underlying issue that your wife is expressing that way. I don't think anyone here is really qualified to give that kind of advice. She should accept that your daughter is your daughter and that means she is important to you. When I maried my step-son was important to me because he was important to my wife. I realised that it was a package deal (yeah not best phrasing I know). Perhaps your wife is feeling a little insecure. Do you talk to your ex about your daughter or is she old enough that you don't need to? If you do how does the way you interact look from the outside? These are all things that could come up in counselling and there are many other options. Naturally I would advise against a divorce as they are not at all helpful but your daughter does need to be a part of your life. Remember for counselling to work you need to be open to it as well and behonest.

Yeah it can be scary. What one needs to do is surround oneself with people you trust who will support you. Of course you are always welcome here and people will chat with you but if you have someone close by who can physically be there or you can call when things get tough or that you can call will be a great help.

It is a great attitude but what I find helpful is to have strategies in place for when those times come. Strategies that help you find a safe place so you can deal with those thoughts. One thing I found helpful is to think of the good things I do have. Another idea (and probably the best one) is to praise God and thank him for what you have. No matter what God is worthy of praise. No matter how bad things are he is worthy of praise. There is healing power in praise. There have been times where praising God was the last thing I wanted to do but I forced myself and in no time at all I was in tears and the healing started. I can't remember the reference but in the OT there is a guy who says even though my cattle are all gone and the harvest is ruined I will praise God. Perhaps someone with better memory than me can mention the book. I understand that it is great to have a shoulder to lean on and someone to share trouble with when it can't be your partner and I have been fortunate to have that most of the time. It does sound like part of you likes that you are needed like that and that may be part of what your responding to. I wish I had something more useful to say about the questions in your first post but I really don't know so don't want to fumble through and end up giving bad advice.

In biblical times clothing for men and women did not look that different but it was still distinctly male clothing and female clothing. I guess that with womens jeans one often finds some pattern or design that would never be on mens jeans. So they are both jeans but still distinctly male and female. As for dressing modestly it is worth noting that the bible does not actually mention clothing when discussing how to dress modestly but rather teaches the principle not to dress to show off and get attention. Sounds like your doing that. In reality there is no way to dress so no man will like it. Tastes are just to varied to be able to do that. I for example much prefer ankle length dresses or skirts to short skirts or revealing tops. Yet those kinds of clothes would be considered modest. Others have a foot fetish which I don't understand myself but once again the kind of clothes you wear won't make much of a difference. So don't spend too much time worrying about modesty. Dress in a way that you find comfortable. Like OakWood I also wonder if this is a part of you not wanting to grow up. Being comfortable being home schooled and now you go to college it is different and perhaps you are wanting something more familiar. It is not something to be concerned about but just different and different is okay.

the whole bible was written for you and none of it was written for you! Especially in the NT the letters were written to a specific group in a specific culture for specific situations as well as general situations. So in that sense it was not written for you. However when you understand the context which not only includes the surrounding passage but also the whole book and the culture of the time and why it was being written etc then we can still learn lessons from it and I believe the bible speaks on every single topic even if it does not mention the topic by name. So in that sense yes it is written for you. Qnts2 also explained it well.