Inclusive Bible Laguage?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Cindy

Don't even think about it!!!!!!

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

you can't have it both ways. you said the bible was the inspired word of God then you said Paul was a first century jew and that wearing veils was cultural before paul. so which is it inspired or cultural?

you did not address women keeping silent in the churches and not having authority over men. check your posts. i just did. is that inspired or chauvinistic cultural context? if not was it the correct hermeneutics?

Wow...being inspired and having content that dealt with issues in Paul's day are not contradictory.

[Praxeas]

So should we assume you reject the bible as inspired?

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Wow...being inspired and having content that dealt with issues in Paul's day are not contradictory.

so if Paul's content was cultural and does not apply today, then using father and son instead of creator and redeemer could be cultural also.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

so if Paul's content was cultural and does not apply today, then using father and son instead of creator and redeemer could be cultural also.

That it could be is irrelevent. You are confusing interpretation with changing what the bible says

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So should we assume you reject the bible as inspired?

i'm not saying the bible isn't inspired. but i'm not a fundamentalist that thinks it is infallible and i think that much of its' content is cultural that doesn't apply to all times and all circumstances. we can find truth in other writings and cultures. no need for a closed canon.

[jen4yeshua]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

thanks for your comments jen but using creator is not changing gender, it is gender neutral and it is a biblical title of god, not a new title.

I know, but the reasoning behind the change you are referring to is similar to what I have described. As I said earlier, there is a trend among pagan women to refer to God as a woman. The changing of scriptures in the way that you are describing, in my opinion, is a step in that direction. If someone is reading that version of the bible, are they going to pray to the creator, baptise in the redeemer and pray to be filled with the sustainer? Very generic, and reminds me of the early Catholic church melding together pagan symbolism and practices with Christianity so as not to offend. Or was there a different agenda? I am sure that there are those with reasons for wanting this change that are entirely different than the reasons you have described, but they are not going to be discussing those agendas openly in this kind of setting. Names matter. Scripture matters. Otherwise everything is relative and we don't need to stand for anything unless if suits us.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

i'm not saying the bible isn't inspired. but i'm not a fundamentalist that thinks it is infallible and i think that much of its' content is cultural that doesn't apply to all times and all circumstances. we can find truth in other writings and cultures. no need for a closed canon.

You sound pretty sure it's not.

But let me point out that God created Adam first not Eve. He created a man. No that was not cultural since no humans existed

Was it a cultural thing to refer to gods as "father" only? No. There were many female goddesses.

As I said, God identified Himself as "Father".

Despite priestesses and Queens ruling nations in the culture of the day, God declared the priest to be a male and the king to be a male.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

thanks for your comments jen but using creator is not changing gender, it is gender neutral and it is a biblical title of god, not a new title.

That IS a gender change, from masculine to neuter

BTW it looses it's paternal and parental meaning. No Father to child relationship for us. It makes little sense

It also eliminates any idea that Jesus is the Son Of God...
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Really? To be consistent we'd have to pervert both words to Creator. Is that really what Jesus meant?

We can no longer cry "Abba!" because of the feminists and their liberal supporters.

Inheriting the Father's kingdom loses meaning

Maybe some liberal can demand "If Jesus can't have a Father, why should anyone else? Let's remove any and all mention of fathers and mothers"...

Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"

Loses it's meaning

2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

Loses it's meaning

Gal 4:2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.
Gal 4:3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Loses it's meaning

Col 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

Loses it's meaning

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?

Loses it's meaning

Heb 12:9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
Etc