What is Scripture?

[natters]

Lacy said "I was just responding to a challenge to show a doctrine left out of the NIV. I did that."

No you didn't - if you did, you showed how the KJV teaches that Christ will stop shining on his church.

Lacy said "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."

Not necessarily truths, but purely subjective applications of scripture out of context.

If you follow the "Male-spirit, Female-soul picture out you will find out alot about yourself that was hidden in an NIV."

And also potentially avoid coming to strange, subjective ideas that are not Biblical.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by natters:
What doctrines about Christ (sun) and the church (moon) is the KJV teaching in these verses?

Natters I want you to study the terms "type" and "anti-type". You got em switched man!


Jesus is the Lion of Judah. That doesn't mean that Daniel was thrown in to a den full of Jesuses.

All I said is that the KJV reveals the moon (and the human soul) to be female. Don't get silly.

Lacy

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Sorry GG, but I remember you defending our ole friend "Precepts" too. I've seen Michelle's oneupmanship attitude, and her detractors as the gracious ones. Sorry, that's the way I see it!

"Sorry Orvie~but I've seen some of you go after the jugular vein too many times and I will defend the innocent everytime".

 

[Charles Meadows]

I wonder how Ol' Precepts (aka Ricky Underwood) is doing. I kinda miss having him around!

 

[natters]

Lacy said "All I said is that the KJV reveals the moon (and the human soul) to be female. Don't get silly."

No, that's not all you said. You said that Isa 13:10 teaches the doctrine that the moon (church) reflects the light of the sun (Christ), and that the NIV leaves this doctrine out. I disagree that Isa 13:10 teaches this doctrine in any translation, for if the KJV teaches it here, then the KJV also teaches that Christ will stop shining on the church.

The problem is, this is not a doctrine in this verse in the first place, it is out-of-context subjectivity.

 

[Lacy Evans]

I hate arguing about what I said. It drives me nuts. I know what I said.

Go back and read what I said.

I said the KJV reveals the moon to be female.

I then gave one reason that might be important (The church reflecting the light of Christ.) (Hint! Hint! This is not the doctrine, it is a REASON!)

Then I gave FOUR verses which refer to the moon as "her". (To prove the above doctrine) I just gave references to the last three because it was not necessary to show the whole verse to my point.

The problem is, this is not a doctrine in this verse in the first place, it is out-of-context subjectivity.

The problem is, you're having trouble following a line of thought.

Lacy

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

I think this might be a wonderful description of the rapture of the bride of Christ prior to tribulation (the Day of the Lord).

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "I think this might be a wonderful description of the rapture of the bride of Christ prior to tribulation (the Day of the Lord)."

Christ stops shining on the church at the rapture? Ah yes, this must be another example of literal interpretation.

Lacy said "I said the KJV reveals the moon to be female. I then gave one reason that might be important (The church reflecting the light of Christ.) (Hint! Hint! This is not the doctrine, it is a REASON!)"

Scott J asked for an omitted doctrine. You responded with this stuff about Isa 13:10 and the church reflecting Christ's light. You derived the doctrine that the moon is female from Isa 13:10 - my point is that if you derive that from the verse, you must also derive what the verse says as a whole - Christ will stop shining on the church. If this verse is not about Christ stopping shining on the church, it is not about Christ or the church in the first place, and thus does not support the idea that the moon is the church, or that the moon is female (ever hear of personification? metaphor?)

Greek, Hebrew, French, etc. use gender in their grammar. Using female gender for the moon does not mean the moon is female any more than the Holy Spirit is female for also using feminine form in the grammar).

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------

Greek, Hebrew, French, etc. use gender in their grammar. Using female gender for the moon does not mean the moon is female any more than the Holy Spirit is female for also using feminine form in the grammar).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with the article, to which gave very sound biblical reasons as to why he did. God put it there for a reason.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle said "God put it there for a reason."

The reason is God wanted to give us the doctrine that "the moon is female"? So if I find a verse in a Bible that has a masculine or neuter pronoun for the moon, that's a false doctrine?

If God put these there for a reason, then why did the KJV remove gender in other places where gender is used? God put those there for a reason to, but the KJV translators took them out. How are those places "preserved"?

It seems to me that KJVonly people are grasping at straws and coming up with anything to defend their view, no matter how ridiculous, and end up creating more problems than they solve.

 

[superdave]

Whatever the reason, has anyone answered what the original language has as the gender for moon?

And if it is as you say, that the KJV refers to the Sun as he and the moon as she, is that because the manuscripts indicate such gender, or because the translators thought of the sun as he and the moon as she.

(Michelle, I know that whatever the KJV has is the right interpretation, so don't bother. I was wondering about the actual facts)

 

[HankD]

Ohoh, The OT uses the feminine gender of the Spirit of God in the Hebrew. The Greek NT uses neuter and masculine (pneuma is neuter).

Gender in Hebrew is not female-male (sex) as much as it is feminine-masculine (submissive-dominant), there is a difference.
On page 25 of Biblical Hebrew the author TW Nakarai says that gender in Hebrew and other Semitic languages is not determined by sex, though in many cases the words for male beings happen to be masculine and those for female beings happen to be feminine. He says that it appears the fundamental basis for determining gender is whether a being or thing is animate (m) or inanimate (f) active (m) or inactive (f) and/or evident (m) or obscure (f).

Although generally the word Spirit is feminine in Hebrew it can and does take the masculine form as well as other Hebrew words as explained by TW Nakarai above.

HankD

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The reason is God wanted to give us the doctrine that "the moon is female"? So if I find a verse in a Bible that has a masculine or neuter pronoun for the moon, that's a false doctrine?

If God put these there for a reason, then why did the KJV remove gender in other places where gender is used? God put those there for a reason to, but the KJV translators took them out. How are those places "preserved"?
--------------------------------------------------

Based upon what the above statement says, it appears to me that you did not even read the article - and only care to argue.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

and only care to argue

michelle my dear are you looking in the mirror as you say this?

HankD

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:

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. [/QB]

So are you saying that when Paul wrote the letter to Philemon that it was also a letter to you? So Onesimus is your slave who escaped?

I would never say that scripture shouldn't be applied. But none of it was written to you. Not even all of it was written for you. Some of scripture is not even able to be applied. If you believe all of scripture was for you then tell me how Pauls instruction about Onesimus was written to you. The point is that you can learn from it but the instructions were directed at Philemon.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
I want you to think about how your view of second inspiration and how it parallels that of how Mormons claim their books came into being and how Muslims claim their books came into being.
--------------------------------------------------


You already should have a very clear understanding of my position and why, as well as the testimony of my faith in Jesus Christ.
This above statement is just another one of your strawman tactics and is irrelevant to this issue.


What makes a Morman and a Muslim different than a christian is their belief in a false god and a false jesus. I am a blood bought, born again child of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Yes, but your theory of inspiration is quite the same as Mormonism and Islam. According to you there is room for inspiration after the canon was closed and scripture completed.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I would never say that scripture shouldn't be applied. But none of it was written to you. Not even all of it was written for you. Some of scripture is not even able to be applied. If you believe all of scripture was for you then tell me how Pauls instruction about Onesimus was written to you. The point is that you can learn from it but the instructions were directed at Philemon.
--------------------------------------------------

Through the examples given, we learn and understand HOW and WHEN to apply what the Holy Spirit teaches us. It is learning through example. (James 5:10, 1 Peter 2:21, Jude 1:7)The instructions are directed at us personally, on how we are to behave with one another, love one another and treat one another in the Lord Jesus Christ. Was that particular letter written directly to me from Paul? No. But, you don't know what God knows either. This letter might be meant for certain of God's people today, to which he speaks directly to them from it, in their time of need.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Yes, but your theory of inspiration is quite the same as Mormonism and Islam. According to you there is room for inspiration after the canon was closed and scripture completed.

According to our theory of inspiration, which book did the KJV translators add to the canon?

Lacy

 

[natters]

michelle said "Based upon what the above statement says, it appears to me that you did not even read the article - and only care to argue."

I did not read the whole article. It was too long, and too many inconsistencies for me to follow. That does not change the point about grammatical gender not being physical gender.

BTW, if God put these there for a reason, then why did the KJV remove gender in other places where gender is used? God put those there for a reason to, but the KJV translators took them out. How are those places "preserved"?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Yes, but your theory of inspiration is quite the same as Mormonism and Islam. According to you there is room for inspiration after the canon was closed and scripture completed.
--------------------------------------------------

According to me? When did I ever say that I believed that there was "new" doctrines and "new" prophecy being given? Do you doubt that God inspires people today?

New World Dictionary

Inspire: 1. to inhale 2. to stimulate or impel, as to some creative effort, 3. to motivate as divine influence 4. to arouse (a thought or feeling) in (someone) 5. to occasion or cause

guidance: 1. a guiding; leadership 2. advice or assistance

guide: 1. to point out the way for; lead 2. to direct the course of; control

providence: 1. provident management 2. the benevolent guidance of God or nature


I do not deny the power or authority of God Almighty of any of these things concerning his words, or over his creation. They are NOT IN CONTRADICTION to the scriptures, and are actually CONFIRMED in the scriptures and the EVIDENCE He has provided. The opposite view of this, is to think that God has not control, guidance, providence, inspiration or care, concerning his words. I much rather believe these things, than the opposite, ecspecially considering what the value of God's words are to us, and how important they are to HIM. How exactly God does this? I do not know, and ONLY HE KNOWS. I can only see WHAT He has done - preserved and provided them for us perfectly.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle