-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is Scripture?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Thank you michelle, you do have that precious and rare quality of admitting to a mistake.
Why the harping? Because in my view the Person and Character of God (which I know you value so highly) is called into question when the KJV is made into something it is not. As wonderful and marvelous as it is, it has a long history of correction and refinement (to the credit of the translators).
It is a source of confusion to many when it is exalted to a place over and above the original language documents preserved by the Primitive Church which the Church has always used to make new translations and correct old translations including the KJV.
And as a matter of fact, I do not accept the W&H theory (older reading better, shorter better, more difficult reading better) based on two manuscripts (Aleph and B) which according to John Burgon are hopelessly in disagreement even with each other, which, in many places are covered with erasures, corrections, splotches and blemishes (again according to Burgon).
My advice to my MV brethren is that we should reserve judgement until more evidence (especially of the papyri) is discovered and analyzed.
Personally, I have no doubt that the Traditional Texts of the Old and New Testaments will eventually be vindicated.
In the meantime I do use the MV's because as the King James translators said they ARE the word of God even the "meanest" (worst) of them and secondly because the NT Scripture went out into the world in "koine" (common) Greek as opposed to classic or Attic Greek of the period. As one writer put it "it was the language of life, not of books".
The KJV in it's time was very close to the "koine" period English of 1611.
Not any more. Yes, greatly used of God, but in need to be revised into our "koine" of the 21st century. So, I use the FE MV's and occasionally a DE for reference (where they are faithful to the Traditional Texts which is the vast majority of readings), not only because so many of them are "koine" but in the spirit of understanding of the KJV translators who said that out of a proliferation of translations (including the "meanest") one can find the "sense" of the Scriptures.
That of course does not preclude the Holy Spirit without whose illumination of our minds we would all go astray. Witness the myriad of cults who have or had the KJ Version of the Bible yet "cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand".
Last, your demeanor is that of a zealous babe in Christ. A trait IMO you need to grow out of.
How would you feel if you went to a doctor for a boil (perhaps, and as an example) who first gave you a beating for being so dumb about your hygiene?
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
Not any more. Yes, greatly used of God, but in need to be revised into our "koine" of the 21st century. So, I use the FE MV's and occasionally a DE for reference (where they are faithful to the Traditional Texts which is the vast majority of readings), not only because so many of them are "koine" but in the spirit of understanding of the KJV translators who said that out of a proliferation of translations (including the "meanest") one can find the "sense" of the Scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you Hank, for you explanation. I do appreciate it. I don't agree with your reasoning however. God desires us to preach, teach, live, grow and love in truth, not error. The KJB translayors were only fallible men, and had their own opinions and ideas the same as you or I, and everyone else. They weren't God, and to place what they have said, over and above that of what the Lord has said, is not very wise. Yes, God used these men to bring us his words, but they were not perfect. Another thing that many overlook regarding this, was the fact that they knew about the Aleph A and B manuscripts, yet they did not consult them. The words of the translators, were in reference to Bibles already in existence, and stemming from the same texts! Not different ones. They knew about Erasmus, and how Erasmus also rejected them. God never tells us to look to the "meanest". God tells us to not put up with error, and to separate from it.
Your above statement I am a bit confused on. You say that you like to consult the modern versions (even though you have admitted they have problems) to get an even better understanding of the scriptures. You also said, that you do this because the KJB is not easily understood in our 21st century language (this is news to me - I understand it fine). You have also stated that you understand the "koine" greek. This does not make any sense to me. How is it then, that you can understand a foriegn and dead tongue better, to that of your very own native-born language?
Another thing that I would like to explain, is that I have never said that the KJB supercedes that of the Greek and Hebrew. The KJB is my FINAL AUTHORITY because it is God's words in my own language. I have not the ability, nor does the common man, have the ability to understand these languages well enouph to decide these things for themselves. God has provided us His words as he saw fit to have them given, to us in our very own language, as he desired, when he desired and we should be thankful for this. English is our language, not Greek and Hebrew. To tell us we must rely upon today, not only different streams of texts, but the thoughts and beliefs of the translators as to what they "think" it should be and render it so, should be a red flag to all who love the words of God and the truth revealed within.
As you mentioned my "zealousness" as a "babe in Christ", I have to ask you: Are we not supposed to be zealous for Jesus Christ and His truth? You may not like my demeaner, and I am sorry that many of you don't, and I have been trying my best, with reliance upon the Lord, to better approach things. I will never change my zealousness for Jesus Christ and His truth however, because it is something I cannot change. He is part of me, and He has put this in my heart.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Not any more. Yes, greatly used of God, but in need to be revised into our "koine" of the 21st century. So, I use the FE MV's and occasionally a DE for reference (where they are faithful to the Traditional Texts which is the vast majority of readings), not only because so many of them are "koine" but in the spirit of understanding of the KJV translators who said that out of a proliferation of translations (including the "meanest") one can find the "sense" of the Scriptures.
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you Hank, for you explanation. I do appreciate it. I don't agree with your reasoning however. God desires us to preach, teach, live, grow and love in truth, not error. The KJB translayors were only fallible men, and had their own opinions and ideas the same as you or I, and everyone else. They weren't God, and to place what they have said, over and above that of what the Lord has said, is not very wise. Yes, God used these men to bring us his words, but they were not perfect. Another thing that many overlook regarding this, was the fact that they knew about the Aleph A and B manuscripts, yet they did not consult them. The words of the translators, were in reference to Bibles already in existence, and stemming from the same texts! Not different ones. They knew about Erasmus, and how Erasmus also rejected them. God never tells us to look to the "meanest". God tells us to not put up with error, and to separate from it.
Your above statement I am a bit confused on. You say that you like to consult the modern versions (even though you have admitted they have problems) to get an even better understanding of the scriptures. You also said, that you do this because the KJB is not easily understood in our 21st century language (this is news to me - I understand it fine). You have also stated that you understand the "koine" greek. This does not make any sense to me. How is it then, that you can understand a foriegn and dead tongue better, to that of your very own native-born language?
Another thing that I would like to explain, is that I have never said that the KJB supercedes that of the Greek and Hebrew. The KJB is my FINAL AUTHORITY because it is God's words in my own language. I have not the ability, nor does the common man, have the ability to understand these languages well enouph to decide these things for themselves. God has provided us His words as he saw fit to have them given, to us in our very own language, as he desired, when he desired and we should be thankful for this. English is our language, not Greek and Hebrew. To tell us we must rely upon today, not only different streams of texts, but the thoughts and beliefs of the translators as to what they "think" it should be and render it so, should be a red flag to all who love the words of God and the truth revealed within.
As you mentioned my "zealousness" as a "babe in Christ", I have to ask you: Are we not supposed to be zealous for Jesus Christ and His truth? You may not like my demeaner, and I am sorry that many of you don't, and I have been trying my best, with reliance upon the Lord, to better approach things. I will never change my zealousness for Jesus Christ and His truth however, because it is something I cannot change. He is part of me, and He has put this in my heart.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
RaptureReady
New Member
What? Who told you this lie? </font>[/QUOTE]The scriptures were sure not written on August 2, 2004! So when you read the scripture you must interpret it on the basis of when it was written. For example know of anyone who uses the phrase, "Bowels of mercy" today. </font>[/QUOTE]I do when I read the King James Bible.
Though some of the language has changed since the King James Bible was printed, it still is a love letter from Jesus to us, from this generation forever.
Of course you do michelle and so do I.
I have a ministry in the Word of God and many of the folks whom I am privileged to guide through the Scriptures have had difficulties with the KJV English vocabulary grammar and syntax and I spend substantial time showing them other translations (where faithful) rather than go over their heads with too much of the original languages.
The Lord has always given gifts to the Church. I believe He has given me a love and an ease and understanding with the biblical languages. I did not claim to understand koine better than English. The Church has always returned to these tongues for translation work as the KJV translators bore witness.
Though koine as you say is called a “dead” language (as well as biblical Hebrew) by many, they are not technically “dead” languages. Sanskrit is a dead language. They are snapshots in time of living languages. The one thing about them is that they never change. The Lord first gave the Scriptures in these languages and He has allowed the dissemination of myriad helps from antiquity concerning these biblical languages.
Again the Church has always relied upon the original language source documents as well as the preceding translations as testified by the KJV translators.
These men had some difficulties with the translation and said so. They “thought” and hopefully prayed about the difficulties. They gave alternative readings for the reader to decide for themselves. They corrected the text and in at least one reading they “changed their mind” twice. They were far from perfect still wearing the gave clothes of the Church of Rome (and somewhat to this very day) from whence they came and personally this is a "red-flag" for me. The character and theology of the translators makes a difference to me, although not necessarily a decisive difference.
And yes there is a lot of "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" in the Church at large today. It is definitley a problem and one that contributes to the MV situation especially the Dynamic Equivelancy abuses.
I never said that you personally believed the English should prevail over the Greek and Hebrew I said the radical KJVO do so and have published this fact in the public domain. I have suspected that you do because at one point you called the KJV the “very” words of God which simply cannot be true because the “very” words of God were not given in Elizabethan-Jacobean English neither in Latin or the Syriac language.
He does not need us to be zealous for His truth as much as He wants us to obey it.
Do you believe that you are serving Him by what you are doing here?
If you do (regardless if it is actually true) then why not use His method?
2 Timothy 2:24-25
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
1 Corinthians 10:32
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
HankD
--------------------------------------------------
Again the Church has always relied upon the original language source documents as well as the preceding translations as testified by the KJV translators.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, but the difference is today, they are "trying" to tell us they "mean" something "different" than what the churches have always taught, learned, lived, preached, grew in
and loved for generations of believers. That things were "added" to God's words, and that we must use other "versions" to get a better sense of the scriptures. This is untrue, and I know this because God has already given His words perfectly to us in English, for english speaking/reading people, and we do not need another. He has control over his words, and to tell us He is NOW changing things that were already set in place for 350 years, to which most of the KJB is understandable to the common person, and if they don't understand can have very easy ways of finding out what those archaic words are. What I am trying to say, is God is not going to change from what he has already provided to us. He is not going to now, hundreds of years later, tell his faithful, no, these verses of scripture, or these words do not belong there. This is dangerous thinking to think otherwise, because someone is going to be led astray, with every wind of doctrine. These are not the days to which we should be trusting modern day scholars, using these different texts and methods to be touching the words of the Lord. The words of the Lord should be viewed by us as Holy and Pure no matter what language, as well as under HIS control and will, and not our "own will". This is not how the modern scholars, or even the common man approaches, nor believes about God's words of truth any longer. They dictate to us, that man today needs God's words in an easier to understand version. This is a bunch of lies, to deceive the naive, to believe and leave it up to what the scholars say they "think" it is and to decide what is or is not scripture (changing thier minds, and disagreeing with others - hint:chaos - not of God)without EVEN CONSULTING what it was the CHURCHES BELIEVED in generations past. This is the little opening, that heretics, and apostates have found to get in and meddle with the truth, to suit their own understanding. I do not care even if those who are Baptists are on these committees. I don't trust anyone these days, because there is so much apostacy, even in the Baptist churches. You can go ahead and rely on them, and trust them, knowing all these things, and knowing the problems with it, but I will not, and I will continue to warn others out of love first for the Lord our God and His words of truth, and for my fellow bretheren/sister in the Christ.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Again the Church has always relied upon the original language source documents as well as the preceding translations as testified by the KJV translators.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, but the difference is today, they are "trying" to tell us they "mean" something "different" than what the churches have always taught, learned, lived, preached, grew in
and loved for generations of believers. That things were "added" to God's words, and that we must use other "versions" to get a better sense of the scriptures. This is untrue, and I know this because God has already given His words perfectly to us in English, for english speaking/reading people, and we do not need another. He has control over his words, and to tell us He is NOW changing things that were already set in place for 350 years, to which most of the KJB is understandable to the common person, and if they don't understand can have very easy ways of finding out what those archaic words are. What I am trying to say, is God is not going to change from what he has already provided to us. He is not going to now, hundreds of years later, tell his faithful, no, these verses of scripture, or these words do not belong there. This is dangerous thinking to think otherwise, because someone is going to be led astray, with every wind of doctrine. These are not the days to which we should be trusting modern day scholars, using these different texts and methods to be touching the words of the Lord. The words of the Lord should be viewed by us as Holy and Pure no matter what language, as well as under HIS control and will, and not our "own will". This is not how the modern scholars, or even the common man approaches, nor believes about God's words of truth any longer. They dictate to us, that man today needs God's words in an easier to understand version. This is a bunch of lies, to deceive the naive, to believe and leave it up to what the scholars say they "think" it is and to decide what is or is not scripture (changing thier minds, and disagreeing with others - hint:chaos - not of God)without EVEN CONSULTING what it was the CHURCHES BELIEVED in generations past. This is the little opening, that heretics, and apostates have found to get in and meddle with the truth, to suit their own understanding. I do not care even if those who are Baptists are on these committees. I don't trust anyone these days, because there is so much apostacy, even in the Baptist churches. You can go ahead and rely on them, and trust them, knowing all these things, and knowing the problems with it, but I will not, and I will continue to warn others out of love first for the Lord our God and His words of truth, and for my fellow bretheren/sister in the Christ.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
These men had some difficulties with the translation and said so. They “thought” and hopefully prayed about the difficulties. They gave alternative readings for the reader to decide for themselves. They corrected the text and in at least one reading they “changed their mind” twice. They were far from perfect still wearing the gave clothes of the Church of Rome (and somewhat to this very day) from whence they came and personally this is a "red-flag" for me. The character and theology of the translators makes a difference to me, although not necessarily a decisive difference.
--------------------------------------------------
But the difference is, that the KJB translators, and the people who requested this translation, had recently come out of the Church of Rome. We see today, they are "yoked with the Church of Rome". Then they were coming out. Today, they are sadly going back in. This is a big difference.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
These men had some difficulties with the translation and said so. They “thought” and hopefully prayed about the difficulties. They gave alternative readings for the reader to decide for themselves. They corrected the text and in at least one reading they “changed their mind” twice. They were far from perfect still wearing the gave clothes of the Church of Rome (and somewhat to this very day) from whence they came and personally this is a "red-flag" for me. The character and theology of the translators makes a difference to me, although not necessarily a decisive difference.
--------------------------------------------------
But the difference is, that the KJB translators, and the people who requested this translation, had recently come out of the Church of Rome. We see today, they are "yoked with the Church of Rome". Then they were coming out. Today, they are sadly going back in. This is a big difference.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
With this in mind, perhaps you can be the first one here to prove that doctrines have been omitted from MV's. Not that a text here or there is different but rather something that the Bible has always said and has always been believed by the church that MV's have arbitrarily deleted.
Lacy Evans
New Member
A doctrine is a teaching.
The KJV teaches that the moon is female. This is a beautiful picture of how the bride (church) reflects the light of the husband (Christ) and produces no light of her own. The NIV leaves it out. There. Proof.
-- King James
Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
-- New International
Isaiah 13:10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.
Ezekiel 32:7
Matt 24:29
Mark 13:24
Lacy
Yes. And they still held many beliefs in common with them. For instance Bishop Andrewes who supervised the whole effort preached that the Eucharist was both sacrament AND SACRIFICE- continuing the Romish error. They also believed in baptismal regeneration and saw the organized church as a vehicle for salvation.
This is an incredibly false statement. The closest to a "fundamentalist" translation committee ever assembled was the NASB committee. They were made up of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. The Lockman Foundation website will confirm this.
Further, I don't think the NKJV was produced under Catholic influence except that of Erasmus.
If you have proof to the contrary, I am sure that most of us would be appreciative.
Finally, the Catholics don't ruin everything they touch. I as a fundamentalist would be very wary of anything produced with the help of RCC scholars today, especially if their work had not been critically reviewed by fundamental Bible believing scholars. However, you can't have it both ways. The TR/KJV were directly influenced by works of the Roman Church- the Vulgate, Douhay-Rheims, Erasmus' texts, etc.
The Bible teaches that we are not to use unjust balances. That is what KJVO's do. That is what you do Michelle. You judge MV's by standards that the KJV itself cannot meet. If you are looking for a Bible that has no links to any unbeliever or Catholic or liberal or some other group that we fundamentalists reject then you aren't going to find it.
If you are going to impugn or call into question the faithfulness of solid born again Christian scholars... would it be too much to ask that you actually back it up with proof?
To falsely accuse a brother and then not repent when challenged is sin.
If that's an omitted doctrine, then the church (female moon) stops shining because Christ (the male sun) stops shining on it. Are you saying that the KJV teaches the doctrine that Christ will stop shedding his light on the church, and that the NIV does not teach this doctrine. I would say that's a point in the NIV's favor.
A doctrine is a teaching.
The KJV teaches that the moon is female. This is a beautiful picture of how the bride (church) reflects the light of the husband (Christ) and produces no light of her own. The NIV leaves it out. There. Proof.
-- King James
Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
-- New International
Isaiah 13:10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.
Ezekiel 32:7
Matt 24:29
Mark 13:24
Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]I am no willing defender of the NIV... I don't own one nor want one. However, are you claiming that the NIV does not teach that the church is the bride of Christ?
Are you saying that unless gender is always reflected in the translation of pronouns that the translation is incorrect and changes doctrine? If the KJV does not translate a pronoun with the implied gender of the original languages are you willing to make the same criticism of it?
What if the KJV doesn't translate the definite article when it exists in the original texts? Would it be fair to say that it "changes doctrine"?
For example, 2 Peter chapter 1. The list of Christian virtues listed in vss 5-7 have the definite article "ho" in the Greek. As you'll notice, the KJV translators decided that those God inspired words were unnecessary and left them untranslated.
The fact is, they did no harm to the text and saying they did would be a stretch... on the magnitude of the one you presented against the NIV. The moon in English can be referred to poetically as a "her" but technically it is an "it". The NIV does not doctrinal harm to the concept of the Christ-church/groom-bride theme in the passages you listed.
Scott, very good post, now get back in your foxhole, the facts are not allowed in this type of thread.
I have stopped answering michelle's arguments directly, since she relies on the mysticism of special revelation to come to her conclusions instead of the word of God.
My scriptural support for this decision is as follows, from the AV
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
I have stopped answering michelle's arguments directly, since she relies on the mysticism of special revelation to come to her conclusions instead of the word of God.
My scriptural support for this decision is as follows, from the AV
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
My guess is that you could trace it back to the days of pagan idolatry when the moon and sun were worshiped as gods... perhaps even married to one another.
Yep. I was right.
http://www.irishsculpture.com/04.htm
I think that concept is still prevalent in astrology today, maybe?
Lacy Evans
New Member
Here's how. If it doesn't affect salvation, it might affect your walk.
http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article430.cfm
Lacy
Lacy said "Here's how. If it doesn't affect salvation, it might affect your walk."
That article said "As can be seen from the sample in Isaiah, other "bibles" fail to give a gender for the sun or moon. The KJV consistently from Genesis to Revelation gives the sun as a "he" and the moon as a "she". It never misses a lick. It does the same with other dualism's such as the Heaven and the Earth, etc. "Who cares? What's the difference?" To start with, beautiful pictures have been removed. Pictures that would not only teach much truth about the relationship between the objects specified, but would in turn teach much truth about the proper roles and functions of husband and wife, which would, as well, show forth much truth concerning Christ and the Church."
Does that mean the KJV teaches that Jesus was created on day 4 of the creation week? Thanks, but I'll pass on this doctrine and this whole silly line of argumentation about sun-gender proving KJVonlyism.
That article said "As can be seen from the sample in Isaiah, other "bibles" fail to give a gender for the sun or moon. The KJV consistently from Genesis to Revelation gives the sun as a "he" and the moon as a "she". It never misses a lick. It does the same with other dualism's such as the Heaven and the Earth, etc. "Who cares? What's the difference?" To start with, beautiful pictures have been removed. Pictures that would not only teach much truth about the relationship between the objects specified, but would in turn teach much truth about the proper roles and functions of husband and wife, which would, as well, show forth much truth concerning Christ and the Church."
Does that mean the KJV teaches that Jesus was created on day 4 of the creation week? Thanks, but I'll pass on this doctrine and this whole silly line of argumentation about sun-gender proving KJVonlyism.
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Has your son recovered Spiritually, or should we pray for this recovery to occur?
Thank-you for asking, robycop3 and thank-you, Trotter for adding him to your prayer list. No, he has not recovered and it has costed him so much, including the wife of his youth, his firstborn son, a burned home, etc; yes, he is saved, but has lost the assurance of that salvation thanks to their brainwashing. He is daily being chastened, but still he refuses to come out.
I would frequent the threads on "Tongues" here when the poster called "oneness" was on, and also MEE, who is still here. BroDHK has helped me tremendously. Most everyone knows about our situation and how I will never cease trying to get my son out.
I am surrounded by hundreds of 'Apostolics', as they call themselves, & they are building a multi-million dollar tabernacle over behind me(we are a small rural town). The irony is that I get along better with them than with the worldly baptists who live here. My prayer is that the Lord will send a man here to combat the heavy tongues' traffic in the area.
Thank-you for asking, robycop3 and thank-you, Trotter for adding him to your prayer list. No, he has not recovered and it has costed him so much, including the wife of his youth, his firstborn son, a burned home, etc; yes, he is saved, but has lost the assurance of that salvation thanks to their brainwashing. He is daily being chastened, but still he refuses to come out.
I would frequent the threads on "Tongues" here when the poster called "oneness" was on, and also MEE, who is still here. BroDHK has helped me tremendously. Most everyone knows about our situation and how I will never cease trying to get my son out.
I am surrounded by hundreds of 'Apostolics', as they call themselves, & they are building a multi-million dollar tabernacle over behind me(we are a small rural town). The irony is that I get along better with them than with the worldly baptists who live here. My prayer is that the Lord will send a man here to combat the heavy tongues' traffic in the area.
What doctrines about Christ (sun) and the church (moon) is the KJV teaching in these verses?
Isaiah 24:23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.
Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Isaiah 24:23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.
Rev 8:12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Lacy Evans
New Member
Natters
Thanks for reading the article. I was not trying to prove KJVOism. One small point like that would be insufficient proof. I was just responding to a challenge to show a doctrine left out of the NIV. I did that.
God decides what is important. The gender of the moon may seem insignificant when examined in isolation. But many times one little picture like that opens up other substantial truths.
If you follow the Male-spirit, Female-soul picture out you will find out alot about yourself that was hidden in an NIV.
Lacy