Posted on 06/30/2003 12:23:12 PM PDT by stands2reason
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Battle of Biblical Proportions: The cost of a gender-neutral bible.
HarperCollins's purchase of Zondervan Corp. in 1988 has paid off handsomely, in huge profits in the fast-growing Christian-publishing market. But these days, Zondervan/HarperCollins is also dealing with a self-made dilemma that would challenge Solomon: how to promote simultaneously both the most beloved literal translation of the Bible, the New International Version (NIV), and the most polarizing new rendering, the gender-adjusted Today's New International Version (TNIV).
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I dont think so
also - you indicate that using one of these perverted Bibles might help those whose sexuality is perverted to come to Christ? How would this work since our Lord Jesus Christ Himself has seen to it that the original languages of the Scriptures we have received use masculine words but in an inclusive way?
because I trust that God will work upon thier hearts and work through the scripture despite the watering down
aside - I appreciate talking without whacking each other over the head
He, at first, deferred to the definition of "hyper-Calvinism" found in the A Brief Critique of Hyper-Calvinism thread posted by P-Marlowe.:
Attention Religion Forum Members!!! Test your Bible Knowledge!
Posted by connectthedots to Jean Chauvin
On The Smokey Backroom 03/07/2003 1:49 PM EST #209 of 243After reading the article posted by P-Marlowe and Palmer's book, you will know why Palmer was a hyper-Calvinist, and proud of it. I agree with the article posted by P-Marlowe.
__________________________________________________________
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies
(Notice that connectthedots claims that Edwin Palmer was "proud" of his alleged "hyper-Calvinism". If Edwin Palmer was "proud" of his "hyper-Calvinism" it should be extremely simple for connectthedots to produce his evidence that Palmer is indeed a "hyper-Calvinist".)
connectthedots has declared that he "agree[s] with the article posted by P-Marlowe." Even though he deferred to the definition as presented in the article of that thread, he never would explicitly state in his own words what that defintion was.
The article of that thread defines a "hyper-Calvinist" as one who stresses the Sovereignty of God at the expense of the responsibility of man.
I have repeatedly called on connectthedots to post his evidence, which he claimed to have, that Edwin Palmer teaches doctrines which stress the Sovereignty of God to the expense of the responsibility of man.
He has yet to do so. Rather, he thinks it is proper for him to lay a charge against someone and when he is called to task to prove this charge, that the person calling him to prove the charge has the responsibility to show the look for the evidence. This is rather elementary debating tactics: Lay a charge and require others to look for evidence themselves which would support your charge rather than you presenting evidence yourself.
Recently, however, connectthedots has changed his accepted defintion of "hyper-Calvinist".
Now (in Post #433 of this current thread), connectthedots claims that when he refers to a "hyper-Calvinist", he is referring to one who is "blindly defensive of Calvinism".
connectthedots has obviously abandoned his previous accepted definition of "hyper-Calvinism" to a definition of a more general nature.
Nowhere in the article posted by P-Marlowe is a "hyper-Calvinist" defined as one who merely is "blindly defensive of Calvinism".
A "hyper-Calvinist" now, according to connectthedots is one who is "blindly defensive of Calvinism". This, of course, begs the question as to whether Edwin Palmer's defense of Calvinism can be said to be "blind". Edwin Palmer, being highly educated and accomplished in the Reformed school of thought, most certainly is a defender of Calvinism. However, I don't think it is possible to claim Palmer to be defending Calvinism "blindly".
So, even with his newly aquired definition of Calvinism, I don't think connectthedots will be able to show any evidence whatsoever that Edwin Palmer is a "hyper-Calvinist".
Yet, he continues to propogate this claim.
Any credibility that connectthedots has remaining has just evaporated in the intense heat generated from all the hot air coming out of his mouth.
Jean
I beg to differ on that. If they pick up that paricular version, they won't pick up a legitimate version or a translation since the reason they gravatated to it are because truth enrages them. Besides, the angry womyn isn't interested in God's word. She's interested in justifying her anger and getting even with men.
Indeed he will. He's laughing himself silly at "Christians" who promote this, for ANY reason. People WANT to be deceived.
A little to much time spent with those Dutchmen? ;)
While I admire your optimism I doubt that the Holy Spirit will be present to help with that task since it is NOT god's word. This Bible is an abortion of God's word and people who seek out this version clearly have an axr to grind. In this book they will find satisfaction for that as well as justification for their troubled outlook.
But you forgot to mention that it was installed "between" the Old and New Testaments so as not to be confused as inspired scripture...And since it was not, it was quickly removed from all future King James Bibles...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.