ricadelide, I'll get back to you on the issues of homosexuality. Harper Collins of HarperCollins foundation wrote the NIV version and that is it. Organisations belong to people. The KJV was written by puritans with soldiers with swords to zap anyone who perverted the WORD and translation. Also, they weren't to add the purgatory trash to the translation. King James ensured it and it being perfect. Also, when they had to use translate God or any form of his deity, they had their hands washed before scripting that very word. NIV is a practical joke. The Living Bible is another issue of it's own. They are made to usher in the new level of consciousness new-agers are trying to initiate the world into.

@car-dealer,

car-dealer:

PLEASE USE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE FOR THIS REPLY!

BRETRHEN, LET'S NOT BE MYOPIC ABOUT DEUTERONOMY 22:5.

Excuse me, but why insisting on using the KJV of the Bible for Deuteronomy 22:5? Did it mention "trousers" in that verse that other versions did not mention? How is your incessant appeal to the KJV more credible than your assuming others are being "myopic" about that verse? What is the difference (if significant any at all) between the KJV and some other versions rendering that same verse in the following way:

[list]
ASV - American Standard Version
"A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God."

JPS - Jewish Publication Society Bible
"A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God."

RV - Revised Version
"A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God."

KJV - King James Version
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."[/list]

What really is the worry over the KJV, bros?

car-dealer:

WE TALK ABOUT SACRIFICE. IF GOD TELLS US TO SACRIFICE, WON'T WE
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT TROUSERS THAT LADIES CANNOT DO WITHOUT THEM; IF ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF SACRIFICE! ROMANS 12:1-2; 14:12-13; 1ST CORINTHIANS 6:19-20.

None of those verses you quoted has the word "trousers" in any translation I've read! If you have a translation of the Bible that screams against trousers, please post it to edify us. Thank you.

car-dealer:

IF YOU'RE AGED, YOU'LL AGREE WITH ME THAT THE BATTLE AGAINST TROUSER FOR WOMEN IS A RECENT THING. IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS, IT WAS ODD TO SEE LADIES ON TROUSERS.

Just because society considered it 'strange' or 'odd' to see women in trousers in the good ol' days does not mean that society defines the Christian faith for women. One could argue by the same inference that it was socially odd (and still is) for men to wear nose rings, earrings, or jewels of sorts - and yet the Bible clearly indicated that men wore them in the "good ol' days" (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 8:24; Luke 15:22; James 2:2). The point is, you don't define the Christian faith by what "society" considers odd - for if it were up to society to lead us, we would be complete strangers to our own domain!

@car-dealer,

car-dealer:

BUT ALAS YOU EVEN FIND LADY-MINISTERS THESE DAYS USING IT ON THE PULPIT.

If it's just merely a problem against trousers, wahala plenty for ground be that! In the first place, you would be necessitating a question of trousers on women even in professional vocations. Try the "overalls" lady-engineers wear for their professional jobs. and what about women officers in the various forces - Police, Air Force, Navy, etc.

However, your problem seem to be that trousers are 'wrong' for women because they use it "on the pulpit". One would need to ask if the "pulpit" is the disqualifier for "trousers", or we need something more definitive. Rather, is the question not about whether wearing trousers or not constitues "sin"? Who defines "trousers" as synonymous with sin?

car-dealer:

IT'S A SHAME THAT AS THE CHURCH IS BECOMING MORE WORLDLY, THE WORLD IS BECOMING MORE CHURCHY! THAT WE CAN SEE AS THE HIGHER INSTITUTIONS & SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE NOW MAKING MOVES TO STOP LADIES FROM USING TROUSERS AND PUTTING ON VARIOUS SKIMPY CLOTHINGS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION.

Governmental policies and jurisdictions will not "save" or make anyone "holy"; for if the heart has not been touched by the power of the Cross, it is a mere exercise in futility to clean the outside of the platter and leave the inside still full of dead men's bones (Matt. 23:25-28).

car-dealer:

THIS PROBLEM IS NOT ONLY IN NIGERIA. SO, LET'S NOT THINK THAT IT'S A LOCAL PROBLEM.

Aye.

car-dealer:

EVEN MEN NOW GO ON PLAITED HAIRS, USE EARRINGS, MAKE-UPS et cetera- THAT'S THE EFFEMINACY WE HAVE IN 1ST CORINTHIANS 6:9-10.

Is it now a matter of "plaited hair" or about "trousers" for women? If it's now a matter that spills over to men possessing and possibly using earrings, then males used them back in the good ol' days, remember? Who defined them as 'effeminacy' back then (especially in one instance in Exo. 3:22 where God Himself instructed such things be put upon their sons)? Wetin you get to say about that one? See again:

[list]
Exo 3:22
"But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians." (see also Exo. 11:2)

Exo 32:2 & 3
"And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people (certainly included the men) brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron."

Exo. 35:22
"And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD."[/list]

You see, it's not the way you're unduely worrying over these things that scores the point. We need to read some good balance in your inputs (and please try to use lower case - all capitals in your post is considered "shouting yelling".

@car-dealer,

car-dealer:

2ND TIMOTHY 3:1-5; 4:3-4.

DON'T SAY: "I CAME INTO THE WORLD TO MEET WOMEN USING TROUSERS & SO, I'LL KEEP ON USING IT." LOOK FOR THE ORIGIN. GO TO GOOGLE & CHECK HISTORY FACTS AND KNOW THE MAIN REASON WOMEN STARTED USING TROUSERS.

Where are the "trousers" in the verses you quoted above? And since we can't find it so, could you please share your findings on the history of women wearing trousers - so we can also see the history of men wearing trousers also?

car-dealer:

HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT: WHY ARE MEN NOT PUTTING ON GOWNS, SKIRTS AND BLOUSES et cetera. OR ARE MEN NOT IN THE ERA OF LIBERTY? THE FACT IS 2ND CORINTHIANS 4:4.

The apostle did not condemn "trousers" or "gowns/skirts" in 2 Corinthians 4:4. There he was referring to the Gospel, rather than to fashion dilemma.

Now, it is interesting to observe your query about men not putting on "gowns, skirts and blouses et cetera". Hmm. Have you ever wondered why men actually wore skirts back in the good ol' days? Lol. . just let's put this rigid, cut-and-dry rules of men aside and go back to the WORD to see where men wore 'em stuff that you worry about (please take special care here - because I won't be responsible for a heart attack):

[list]
1 Sam. 24:5
"And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt."

Psa. 133:2 -- "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments."

Zec. 8:23 -- "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you."[/list]

How far with those verses - all from the KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible?

car-dealer:

ROMANS 1:25, 28-32; LUKE 16:15.

Where did you read the word "trousers" in those verses?

Cheers all the same.

car-dealer:

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A LADY ON TROUSERS TRYING TO PISS IN THE PUBLIC?

I SAW ONE IN A PUBLIC FUNCTION. NAY, IN AN INTERNATIONAL WORSHIP PROGRAM!
. . .

AND YOU KNOW, CORRUPT MINDS WILL BE GLAD TO WATCH SUCH B.F. WITHOUT PAYING A DIME.

I THINK IF SHE WORE A SKIRT OR TIED A WRAPPER, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SUCH AN EMBARRASSING SIGHT.

Hmmm. . . na wa for you. Wetin carry your eyes go her direction when she wan piss? You see how una dey take cause problem for una sef and yet blame women for your worries! "If your right eye causes you to sin, then . . . for it is better for you to enter life with just one eye, than make we pluck am for you and you lose efrytin for wetin no consyn you!" (BTW, that's not KJV - it's em. . . em. . . _{*she's still searching for the name of the translation*})

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

Pilgrim, I mentioned nothing about Eve and trousers.

Not in many words; but you certainly made a broad statement to the point that the reason why "all women" have difficulty giving birth is because they wear trousers. My query was simply to take you back to Eve who knew nothing about trousers, and yet it was said to her: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" (Gen. 3:15). How do you explain your broad statement about women wearing trousers against the backdrop of what is stated in that verse?

Ivvie:

If you are a true child of God, you would fast as you seek the Lord to know what his opinion is.

I no fit laugh. Just because you can't hold your statements together, you now suppose I'm not a "true" child of God! Thank you plenty. But sorry, God has NO opinions to offer His children on any matter - His WORD is clear, and that alone is what makes a believer thoroughly furnished unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Ivvie:

This is being broken Christian. Unfortunately, sermons and foundational messages are not preached in churches anymore.

Maybe in your quarters they're no longer being preached, and I would be sorry to hear that. However, I know quite a lot of churches today where solid ministry is being given to believers.

Ivvie:

Instead, prosperity messages and dancing is what the compromise is. Don't be carnal, it is a sin and God detests it.

The real compromise is the self-acclaimed folks who don't have the slightest clue of what they say and yet assume they hold ace to 'correct' others.

[list]Dancing - Exo. 15:20; Psa. 14:3; 150:4; Eccl. 3:4; Jer. 31:13.

Propserity - Psa. 122:6; Isaiah 55:11; 1 Cor. 16:2; 3 John 1:2.[/list]

In as much as we all know for a fact that God hates sin, what is even more sinister to Him is people claiming to know better and yet unwittingly denouncing what He has not denounced. One should be acreful to be balanced y going to the WORD of God and settling their thoughts there, rather than advancing a spirituality that, when queried, can hardly be sustained by Scripture.

Ivvie:

There is a lot more to the pant thing that meets one's understanding. Pants do nothing but the repercussion of the disobedience is what the matter is. I hope you understand what the brush paints.

I simply don't understand no 'brush paints' if one is splashing paints all over the canvas and calling it "a cow eating grass"! If it is too much to ask for a balanced defence of what people are forcing into Scripture which is simply not there, they could as well clad themselves with sackcloth and ashes as a sign of their advanced spirituality. What I am after is food from God's WORD; and not any desperate panic measures to force-fit "trousers" into Deuteronomy 22:5.

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

ricadelide, I'll get back to you on the issues of homosexuality. Harper Collins of HarperCollins foundation wrote the NIV version and that is it. Organisations belong to people.

There again. Before you get back to us on the above, would it be too much to ask that you distinguish between "writing" the Bible and "translating" it? Unless you just want to maintain an obstinate position without a foundation, the issue here should at once be clear to you that HarperCollins did not "write" the NIV. If you insist on pushing your persuasion, we would like for you to clarify the following --

* who is "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_%26_Row]Harper Collins[/url]" of "HarperCollins foundation"?

* in what year did "Harper Collins" write the NIV Bible?

* in what language did "Harper Collins" write the NIV Bible?

* how long did it take "Harper Collins" to write the NIV Bible?

* when did "Harper Collins" deliver 'his' NIV Bible to a committee to "translate"?

Here's an excerpt as regards the translation of the NIV:

[list]
The translation took more than ten years and involved 100 scholars from the USA, Canada,
the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of theologians
includes over 20 different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists,
Lutherans, Anglicans, and many more.[/list]

When you distinguish between "writing" the Bible and "translating" it, then you mind find material enough for your persuasion that "Harper Collins of HarperCollins foundation wrote the NIV version and that is it."

Ivvie:

The KJV was written by puritans with soldiers with swords to zap anyone who perverted the WORD and translation. Also, they weren't to add the purgatory trash to the translation King James ensured it and it being perfect. Also, when they had to use translate God or any form of his deity, they had their hands washed before scripting that very word. NIV is a practical joke. The Living Bible is another issue of it's own. They are made to usher in the new level of consciousness new-agers are trying to initiate the world into.

Same problem with your assumptions about who "wrote" the Bible. The KJV of the Bible was not "written" by Puritans - for there is a huge difference between "writing" a document and "translating" it, if only you could settle down a bit more and check your thoughts carefully before posting.

My wrong, I meant Isa 14 .12 instead of Isa. 16

Pilgrim,


Encyclopedia's are at libraries, research and let that be your starting reference. Spend time before you meet your conclusion. That point was made by ricadelide and he made a point and I addressed it. I am not assuming here. If you haven't done your homework, don't conclude that I am assuming.

The president is not the first man ruling the U.S. There are elites behind, bankers and other powers. He is simply the front man. The pope in the catholic church is not the head or the highest authority, there is still another pope. He is the one in black. The one in white is the front man. The bible addresses uppermost authorities with another name. All you've written about NIV is what they want you to believe (and that is even if you are accurate about what you've written).

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

Pilgrim,

           Encyclopedia's are at libraries, research and let that be your starting reference.   Spend time before you meet your conclusion.  That point was made by ricadelide and he made a point and I addressed it.    I am not assuming here.  If you haven't done your homework, don't conclude that I am assuming.

Until you post your own research, the points still stand out clear that you have assumed what you can't defend.

Ivvie:

           The president is not the first man ruling the US. There are elites behind, bankers and other powers.  He is simply the front man.  The pope in the catholic church is not the head or the highest authority, there is still another pope.  He is the one in black.  The one in white is the front man.  The bible addresses uppermost authorities with another name.  All you've written about NIV is what they want you to believe (and that is even if you are accurate

I think this is all too predictable! The issue was your assertions about the NIV which you've simply scooted away from addressing, nay - defending - your statements. How does that relate to the President of the United States and the Pope of the Catholic Church? Abi na them write the first edition of the NIV again?

@ Pilgrim.1

Thanks for the comment on the CASE of my lettering.

We should be frank with ourselves that it's not all that some of us desist from because of our faith that are mentioned point blank in the Bible!
e.g. abortion, polygamy, drug abuse & addiction, smoking, examination malpractice et cetera (though these are still subjects of contention).

We know about direct and applied (by inference) cases.

I want to believe that the case of trousers for women come under applied cases like the examples i gave above. YES! trouser was not mentioned in the Bible directly but we that stand against trousers for women are doing so by inference on Deuteronomy 22:5.
I can't really understand the agitation this particular thing is causing. Can't women do without trousers?

Well Pilgrim.1, you can go ahead and tell your fiance/hubby/boys et cetera to plait their hair, use the ear, nose & other rings, put on a skirt & blouse, gown et cetera but remember 1 Corinthians 14:40!

NOTE: Please look up the meaning of "skirt" in a dictionary. There are different meaning for that word. So don't assume Saul, Aaron et cetera wore a skirt as we know it to be. (SKIRT also refers to the part of a garment (eg. an overall) from the waist downward especially, when you can tie/belt such garment at the waist region).
Therefore, a gown and the likes have skirt.

May GOD enlighten us the more.

@car-dealer,

car-dealer:

Thanks for the comment on the CASE of my lettering.

Easier to read now - and much appreciated.

car-dealer:

We should be frank with ourselves that it's not all that some of us desist from because of our faith that are mentioned point blank in the Bible!
e.g. abortion, polygamy, drug abuse & addiction, smoking, examination malpractice et cetera (though these are still subjects of contention).

And there are more than those that we could easily go to the Bible and demonstrate how they affect out faith - so, no wahala.

car-dealer:

We know about direct and applied (by inference) cases.

I want to believe that the case of trousers for women come under applied cases like the examples i gave above.

You meant to say 'direct and implied', for "applied" is quite a different thing entirely (although you tried to qualify the latter in parenthesis as meaning 'inference'). The problem with many people not being able to handle this subject properly is that they want to force-read "trousers" into the Bible by 'direct and applied' means, which is simply doing "eisegesis" instead of exposition or exigesis.

car-dealer:

YES! trouser was not mentioned in the Bible directly but we that stand against trousers for women are doing so by inference on Deuteronomy 22:5.
I can't really understand the agitation this particular thing is causing. Can't women do without trousers?

Women are not agitating for anything - and they can do without trousers if it helps the men worry less. The problem is that many people have tried to use Deuteronomy 22:5 as proof-text for disavowing "trousers on women" whereas the text does not teach that. You can't argue that "trousers" are meant only as a masculine term; for you would have to ask yourself what men were wearing prior to the evolution of 'trousers'. Oh yes! men were wearing "various forms of skirts and dresses" - and no one made noise back then as to men wearing these clothing of 'feminine' connotations. Why is it that when men want to practise their upgraded cultural disenchantments, they would have to pick on women to blame their woes on? This blame-game started from Genesis 3 when Adam blamed his palava on Eve ("the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me. . . " - vs 12) Una no dey tire to blame everything on women?!?

car-dealer:

Well Pilgrim.1, you can go ahead and tell your fiance/hubby/boys et cetera to plait their hair, use the ear, nose & other rings, put on a skirt & blouse, gown et cetera but remember 1 Corinthians 14:40!

This is laughable. If you had something to share on the subject, we would read it well - instead of towing the predictable back-off hoot for not being able to do so. I merely teased you with Biblical verses on those issues which you have not considered - seeing you were simply following the popular tradition of men who don't understand what Deuteronomy 22:5 is all about. Of course, there should be decency and order in what we do (1 Cor. 14:40) - and can't women be decently dressed in trousers so that men order their thoughts appropriately? There are decent, smart, and sensible dress-sense for women that include trousers:

[img]http://careers.slu.edu/images/Attire/FemaleBusDress1.jpg[/img]

. . . and you can find several others which do not violate the sense of decency and order. The problem with some mindsets is that they've settled poorly on the idea that anything in "trousers" (whether it looks decent and orderly or not) just has to be slammed with a religious baton as damned! It's time for the Church to wake up and rediscover their God-given gift of discernment.

car-dealer:

NOTE: Please look up the meaning of "skirt" in a dictionary. There are different meaning for that word. So don't assume Saul, Aaron et cetera wore a skirt as we know it to be. (SKIRT also refers to the part of a garment (eg. an overall) from the waist downward especially, when you can tie/belt such garment at the waist region).
Therefore, a gown and the likes have skirt.

Okay, thanks. Take a look at the following and come back so we could talk some more. Some of us who have held water-tight ideas and have tried to force-fit them into Scripture need to set our thinking straight. Here's something to whet your research: "history of fashion by period" - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_fashion).

car-dealer:

May GOD enlighten us the more.

Amen - and we ought to help others think in a balanced way on this subject with help from God.

Cheers.

@ Ricadelide

The NIV bible is also known as the homosexual version.

Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins and Zondervan published the NIV version. King James is credited to the King James version. Puritans wrote it under his authority. We don’t make references to the puritans but King James. It is the same thing with AT&T with the pornography business. You never hear so about AT&T but they aren’t innocent in that line of field. Light has nothing to do with darkness and darkness cannot produce light and it’s so for the reverse.

Malenkott, Virginia Ramey was and is still a member of the NIV translating committee. She is also the author of Omnigender : A trans-religious approach && Is the Homosexual my Neighour? (A bunch of philosophies to reduce homosexuality to gang rape. Mallenkott claimed and principled that Jesus was a woman. She is also the founder of sensuous spirituality and is hell bent on eradicating true Christianity and it’s pillars (the new birth, holiness etc). Her book Out of Fundamentalism details this.


The chairman Woudstra, Martin H (PhD) of the NIV committee at the time it was written too was a proclaimed homosexual.

The whole case blew out of proportion when Carl Graham was sued for slander against the NIV by the international bible society and the NIV board. Woudstra commented that the Old Testament in particular made no reference to homosexuality.

A homosexual is clearly described in the bible as a sodomite. Somebody that is into intimacy with like gender. The original word has been reduced to a male prostitute. A male prostitute to the English understanding is a gigolo or man-LovePeddler. The street or hip word is a jigga or player. A male prostitute is one that flirts and beds with women for a price (money or material). We refer to them in the south as ballers and they are categorised by how large they live and the number of women within a certain period.

Lev 18 . 22(KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

NIV
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Detestable and abomination are two different words with two isolated reactions. One is loathsome and the other is tolerable, though not appreciated.

Deut 23 .17 & 18 - KJV
There shall be no LovePeddler of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a LovePeddler, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God
NIV
No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute [c] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both

1 Kings 14 . 24
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel
NIV
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites

1Kings 15 .12 (KJV)
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made
NIV
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22 . 46(KJV)
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land
NIV
He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa

2 Kings 23 .7 (KJV)
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
NIV
He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.

In one of Ramey’s book, she refers to Luke 10 .12’s sodomy to inhospitality.
There’s another version of the NIV that is worse. It is the NIVI is banned in the United States. It has been reformulated to the TNIV which buries gender differences.

@ Pilgrim

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God
There is no way for man around this scripture. If they decide to lurk under the cover of ignorance, the punishment is even worse.

Be careful how you talk and make references.  You argue blindly and I bet with you that your conscience tells you that you are in the wrong.  The truth is what you'd be judged by (Rom 2).  You know the truth, yet decide to deceive yourself.  God's ways don't go by democracy.  He'll put nations to hell that forget him (Psalms 9 .17).  Where is it right for a woman to wear trousers?  Where is it right for a man to be long-haired and floss on jewels?  You are twisted in your views and you interprete the bible to your own flavour instead of what it's for.

It is wrong to change the path of ancient ways (Prov 22 .28).  Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.  Century's and ages have come and gone, women have differed in dressing.  It is also foolish to think you are wiser than those that have lived before you.  There is no such thing as UNISEX or cross-dressing.  It is an abomination and it will remain like that.  Being smart and wise are two different angles and manisfestations.  A wise person learns.  A foolish person does the opposite and lets no one hear. 

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The bible has been around before you were born and it will remain after you are dead and there is nothing you can do about it.

Pilgrim, I hope you read the posts you displayed? Theology DOES NOT go with God. Theology is man's understanding. You are far from the truth. Anointing and theology cannot marry themselves. You have one or the other not both. You may not know what I am talking about because you have not born-again. One is light and the other is darkness.

You are far from being the Christ-like person that God wills and I am not concluding from assumptions but from your inputs, testimony and your reasoning.

@Ivvie,

How have you clarified your assertion that "Harper Collins" of "HarperCollins foundation" WROTE the NIV? The above rejoinder only demonstrates some ill-feelings about the NIV, but does not say anything about what you had asserted earlier. This was your statement:

Ivvie:

ricadelide, I'll get back to you on the issues of homosexuality.  Harper Collins of HarperCollins foundation wrote the NIV version and that is it.  Organisations belong to people.

Where have you clarified your assertions and made the case stand out other than come round trying to fluff it even further and obfuscate issues?

Ivvie:

Lev 18 . 22(KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

NIV
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Detestable and abomination are two different words with two isolated reactions. One is loathsome and the other is tolerable, though not appreciated.

This is simply hilarious! "Detestable" is simply a synonym for "Abomination", and there are other synonyms to those words, such as:

[list][li]execrable - (as in ""execrable crimes"[/li][/list]

[list][li]odous[/li]
[/list]

I don't see how these words are indicating that the NIV is a "satanic version" simply because it does not use the King James diction or vocabulary.


So, my dear Ivvie, please do us the honours of clearly submitting clarifications for your assertions that:

  >> "Harper Collins of HarperCollins foundation wrote the NIV version and that is it."

If you have nothing to submit thereto and clarify the issue, your bloviates here are not helping anyone nor yourself.

Cheers.

Car Dealer


Trousers were mentioned in the bible.  They were called breaches.  Dig through the original transcript and your Strong's concordance.  No where is it written that women wore breaches.  Breaches were worn also when they went to battle.  Men on earth wore breaches and the men of Israel wore breaches.  When wore gowns too but they were  just below their knees with shorts underneath as underwears.  They weren't as relaxed or loose as those of women, they were coloured differently (according to gender preferences) and women had their gowns long and gloried in how they flowed.  Men had theirs girded too.  

The image the catholics have painted Jesus is clearly unscriptural and makes no sense.   An effeminate looking man with long hippie hair.  Men don't wear long hair and the bible makes the issue clear to the extent that if you aren't even godly, God had written it on your heart that men relate to society with short hair.  

Smoking is completely idolatory.  When you smoke, you conjure spirits.  It doesn't matter how Hollywood paints it.  Tattoos and writings too were clearly stated in Leviticus 19:28.  We aren't suppose to even take a pen and write on your skin how much more tattoos.  The world is slowly returning to the dark age.

detestion and abomination do not react the same.  You can compromise when you detest something.  An abomination in some instances is never heard of, usually very rare and rarely nor ever practiced.  To detest is limited to a single or few.  Abomination encompasses and its made reference to nations.  They are not the same and your own english equates the two.

If you don't believe about Harper Collins, then don't.  Before jumping to your conclusions, read the books or sources given.  Christians don't read NIV and it will be like that.  There were more than 6 scriptures given, why did you pick yours.  There's still plenty more about NIV and misplaced scriptures but I won't get to it.

Did you read Is 14 .12? Jesus was substituted for Lucifer. That should be clear to any reasonable Christian. If you can't see that, then you need deliverance.

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God
There is no way for man around this scripture. If they decide to lurk under the cover of ignorance, the punishment is even worse.

And who says that you will escape the punishment of your own fallacies posted to mislead others in what you cant defend?

Ivvie:

Be careful how you talk and make references.  You argue blindly and I bet with you that your conscience tells you that you are in the wrong.

You're not my conscience - and thank you, my conscience is amazed at your bloviates which up until now you still keep us waiting as to the "Harper Collins" you asserted WROTE the NIV, and yet you've been unable to show us clearly how that is so.

Ivvie:

The truth is what you'd be judged by (Rom 2).  You know the truth, yet decide to deceive yourself.  God's ways don't go by democracy.  He'll put nations to hell that forget him (Psalms 9 .17).

I haven't discussed democracy with you - and sorry, I don't read anywhere in the WORD that God would put anybody in hell for having lived in a democratic country. The same Romans you quoted enjoins you to obey your civil givernments and pay your taxes (Romans 13) - tell me if you will escape Hell for adjudging others to that place and yet you live in a democratic country. Please don't make me laugh.  

Ivvie:

Where is it right for a woman to wear trousers?  Where is it right for a man to be long-haired and floss on jewels?  You are twisted in your views and you interprete the bible to your own flavour instead of what it's for.

Please do me one favour and save the noise: show me WHERE the Bible condemns TROUSERS as plainly as you can from ANY translation of the Bible! Your twisting Scripture to harangue the subject does not bring you any closer to an understanding you simply don't possess. Until you do so, please don't try to read the word "trousers" into the Bible where it does not teach your views.

Ivvie:

It is wrong to change the path of ancient ways (Prov 22 .28).  Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Please show me from the Bible - any translation at all - where the ANCIENTS were condemning trousers! You don't even know your own history, but just snatching words here and there to clobber others with. Show me in the Bible that Moses and all the ancients were wearing "trousers", and on account of which they restricted the use of trousers to Jewish men!

Ivvie:

Century's and ages have come and gone, women have differed in dressing.  It is also foolish to think you are wiser than those that have lived before you.  There is no such thing as UNISEX or cross-dressing.  It is an abomination and it will remain like that.

You see how you knot yourself into further bloviates?    Tell me that Deuteronomy 22:5 was also speaking about "UNISEX", or where did I post issues on that? And if you were wiser for the game, you would have taken a look at what the ancients wore in their time before trumping up some more noise about those who lived before you!

Ivvie:

Being smart and wise are two different angles and manisfestations.  A wise person learns.  A foolish person does the opposite and lets no one hear.

Yes, that's true. Perhaps if you had taken the time to learn and not force your own assertive noise, we would not have to keep our fingers crossed for your manifestations of poor understanding. Should we also go on fasting for you?  

Ivvie:

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The bible has been around before you were born and it will remain after you are dead and there is nothing you can do about it.  

What's all the sobbing about? The one thing I asked you guys to do, you have woefully failed to do. SHOW ME WHERE in the Bible godly men condemned "trousers" - that's all I asked! If you have nothing to offer and your pride went burst, please note that quoting all verses on condenation and hell against me will only show you up for your duplicity - which is not my worry!

I have an assignment for you: go through the Bible, and make a list of the dress codes of men and women who lived before you, then come back and let's discuss this issue. Keep the condemnation and hell-mongering at home, and let's discuss. If you have nothing to offer, then sidon look and don't invite what you can't endure. Fair enough?

_{Na my own I dey jeje. . . if you nor like my posts, pass on jejely!}  

Cheers.

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

Trousers were mentioned in the bible. They were called breaches. Dig through the original transcript and your Strong's concordance. No where is it written that women wore breaches. Breaches were worn also when they went to battle. Men on earth wore breaches and the men of Israel wore breaches.

Please post us some of those places where you find that "breaches" explains the word "trousers"

Ivvie:

When wore gowns too but they were just below their knees with shorts underneath as underwears. They weren't as relaxed or loose as those of women, they were coloured differently (according to gender preferences) and women had their gowns long and gloried in how they flowed. Men had theirs girded too.

Doublespeak! So, it's alright to condemn "trousers" with Deuteronomy 22:5; but it is excusable to apply the same verse for what you denounced as "UNISEX"! Men and women wore "gowns" - and you didn't find anything to say as to what gender the word "gowns" applied to?!? Please humour me more.

Ivvie:

The image the catholics have painted Jesus is clearly unscriptural and makes no sense.

Okay. I'm waiting for a nice picture of Jesus in "trousers". Just one - photoshop or any other painting will do, thank you.

Ivvie:

An effeminate looking man with long hippie hair. Men don't wear long hair and the bible makes the issue clear to the extent that if you aren't even godly, God had written it on your heart that men relate to society with short hair.

Hehehe. . . tsk, tsk: remember the angel's warning to Samson's parents before He was born? No razor was to come upon is head! Should we assume he went naturally bald from birth? Chei. . I wan die for laugh!!

Ivvie:

Smoking is completely idolatory. When you smoke, you conjure spirits. It doesn't matter how Hollywood paints it. Tattoos and writings too were clearly stated in Leviticus 19:28. We aren't suppose to even take a pen and write on your skin how much more tattoos. The world is slowly returning to the dark age.

How desperate you guys are! Is this where the simple issue of "trousers" has taken you guys to? Lol. . . please deal with the present one - and we shall have occasion to go on to other subjects. Abi?

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

detestion and abomination do not react the same. You can compromise when you detest something. An abomination in some instances is never heard of, usually very rare and rarely nor ever practiced. To detest is limited to a single or few. Abomination encompasses and its made reference to nations. They are not the same and your own english equates the two.

Okay. Let me show you something from your own version - the King James Version >>

[list]Deuteronomy 7:26
"Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing." (KJV)[/list]

No vex, but that's how I read it in the KJV. Now, do you have another version/translation that you use to show the "compromise" you speak about?

Meanwhile, here's another comparison chart for you on those synonyms:

[list][li]ABHOR -- (to find "repugnant" >> loathe, abominate, execrate)[/li][/list]

[list][li]DETEST[/li] -- (to "dislike intensely" >> feel antipathy or aversion towards / hate[/list]

. . add those to the examples I gave you earlier and tell me what significant departure you find between those words. And please, could you kindly clarify on what you meant by the following:

Ivvie:

Detestable and abomination are two different words with two isolated reactions. One is loathsome and the other is tolerable, though not appreciated.

Please, which of those words ("detestable" and "abomination" is "tolerable"?!?

Please don't come back excusing it. Just simply show me what you're about and turning words on coarse lines here. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

Ivvie:

If you don't believe about Harper Collins, then don't. Before jumping to your conclusions, read the books or sources given. Christians don't read NIV and it will be like that. There were more than 6 scriptures given, why did you pick yours. There's still plenty more about NIV and misplaced scriptures but I won't get to it.

I asked that you simply show me where "Harper Collins" wrote the NIV - that's all. Don't pretend that is too much for you to demonstrate. Who is the man called "Harper Collins" of "HarperCollins foundation" that WROTE the NIV as you asserted? If you can't show or demonstrate that you're being honest and sincere, kindly go back and retract that statement.

Second, could you please let me know which translation that best suits you and would assure your place in heaven? I'd like to know - and then we can examine the number of verses that are your worries.

Ivvie:

Did you read Is 14 .12? Jesus was substituted for Lucifer. That should be clear to any reasonable Christian. If you can't see that, then you need deliverance.

Where have I assume that Jesus was substitute for Lucifer, Ivvie? I don't think your panic measures are working in your favour. You made an assertion that I simply want you to clarify - that's all; and if you can't do so, simply go back to God and speak to Him about your condition. He is merciful and will set you straight. If you can't do that, please be our guest and continue to show us just how troubled is your soul, abi?

Cheers.

Ms. Pilgrim

Detest is a derivative of abomination.  It doesn't hold up as the word abomination itself.  With respect to democracy, my point of view was that people lurk under the confidence that everyone participate within a certain guilt thus rendering the action justifiable.  In that context of the word abomination and detestable, they don't play along especially in today's english.  God is not a God of confusion.  A contrite heart is all he seeks for.  Lev 18 .22 was one of many scriptures pointed out.  You only pointed one out and expanded on it.  The WORD cannot be changed.  If you don't research the issue about NIV and it's bare roots, don't make reference to anything.  I have sourced out and if you can't take the time to research through before concluding, then keep the opinion to yourself.  The truth is always the truth, you don't have to believe it; it doesn't make it any less of the truth if you don't believe it.  The homosexuality is one of the many issues of the NIV bible.  There are plenty more that I won't discuss on this thread.  I did my homework 3(1/2) years ago when God first convicted me about the NIV.  God doesn't lie and when he says something, your opinion is worthless, then useless.  You can deceive yourself by playing in ignorance but cannot override what God says.  Believe me, the NIV isn't a bible to count on.  Many of the scriptures have been lifted.  For instance, the Lord's prayer that everyone recites.  It is incomplete in the NIV version.  Luke 17 .36, 18 .11, Mark 9 .44&&46 is not in the NIV versus KJV.  They have been ommitted in the NIV.  There are footnotes stating this verses have missing manuscripts.  You are not to add nor remove from the WORD of God. 

There is a spiritual principle, when you seek, you will receive. Start digging for the truth.

Pilgrim

The truth is that you don't know where and what I am talking about.  We are talking about two different things.  You decode the bible differently and haven't known the Lord well enough to understand what I am making reference to.  You only know me as Ivvie but don't know what I do till I tell you or you get to know me.  I have an understanding of you because you have blown yourself wide open.  This post initially was referenced to rede,  who asked me and not you and I specified when I replied the post.  The second was for Cardealer.  I don't believe you are trying to make trouble or create friction.  This post is making references to Redeem and it's principles.  Meaning, pentecostal and not baptist, santification and not hooligalism, a quite, contrite, meek spirit and not hostile spirit.  Born-again and consecration and not being the natural man but regenerated.  Christians baptised with water and fire.  If you are not part of redeem and cannot understand it's rules and principles, you should have nothing to do with it.  There is a reason for it and it did not originate from man.

Believe me, you do not know what I am talking about and the counters have relayed.  The summary of the whole pant-dressing thing is what we denote as the spirit of Jezebel.  That seals it.  Sprit-filled Christians with no deceit will verify that the church has been infested with this spirit.

With reference to Isa 14 .12, Jesus Christ is also referred to as the Morning Star (Bright and Morning Star).  You should know the names of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit if you are a Christian.  By their fruits, ye shall know them.  The words in the bible are God's breath and is spirit.  You cannot understand the WORD with your intellect.  Those that know what I am talking about know what I am talking about.  We are not on the same page. 

You shouldn't hinder God's word like that.  It is better to be quiet and do seek the understanding yourself than to burst out in and to conclusion about something you know nothing about.  Jesus said it's better to have a stone around your neck in the ocean than what awaits you.

God has promised that the earth will be rid of all these perversion before the second coming lest he'll visit the earth with wrath.  The cross-dressing, perversion etc will be rid off (no doubt).  A few of the prophecies are to yet to be fulfilled.  Most of them have (very few left).  It won't matter what anyone's opinion is.

I will rest my case here because Titus 3:9 deems my discussion with you as inappropriate.  My conversation with you is over.

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

Detest is a derivative of abomination. It doesn't hold up as the word abomination itself. With respect to democracy, my point of view was that people lurk under the confidence that everyone participate within a certain guilt thus rendering the action justifiable. In that context of the word abomination and detestable, they don't play along especially in today's english. God is not a God of confusion. A contrite heart is all he seeks for. Lev 18 .22 was one of many scriptures pointed out. You only pointed one out and expanded on it. The WORD cannot be changed. If you don't research the issue about NIV and it's bare roots, don't make reference to anything.

I don't see how you have tried to clarify the issues you raised. You made a claim as regards "detestation" and "abomination" - how have you actually returned to clarify that they are worlds apart, and one is "tolerable"? Just how have you clarified the issues you raised?

Ivvie:

I have sourced out and if you can't take the time to research through before concluding, then keep the opinion to yourself.

I think your remarks are becoming even emptier. What did you source out? What is the result of your sourcing out that you've posted? What is the significant distinction you've made between "detest", "abhor" and "abomination"? Don't you even give a moment's thought that simply making blank statements without proof is not helping you any nearer to what you'd like us to check on? What's al the fuss about the KJV and the NIV that up until now you still haven't said anything cogent other than your seething hate for NIV and the mysterious "Harper Collins" that nobody knows about?

Ivvie:

The truth is always the truth, you don't have to believe it; it doesn't make it any less of the truth if you don't believe it.

Telling straight-faced lies and labelling it as "the truth" is even more sinister than the homosexuals you're seeking to discredit. If you're confident of telling and sharing truth, please post issues to clarify the assertions you've been making up until now and yet have not been able to deal with. What's so difficult in facing up to the fact that you are not being honest and sincere about the lines you're posting?

Ivvie:

The homosexuality is one of the many issues of the NIV bible. There are plenty more that I won't discuss on this thread. I did my homework 3 years ago when God first convicted me about the NIV. God doesn't lie and when he says something, your opinion is worthless, then useless. You can deceive yourself by playing in ignorance but cannot override what God says. Believe me, the NIV isn't a bible to count on. Many of the scriptures have been lifted. For instance, the Lord's prayer that everyone recites. It is incomplete in the NIV version. Luke 17 .36, 18 .11, Mark 9 .44&&46 is not in the NIV versus KJV. They have been ommitted in the NIV. There are footnotes stating this verses have missing manuscripts. You are not to add nor remove from the WORD of God.

God doesn't lead people for 3 years bantering lies just to keep a sanctimonious aura. Get done with it - or get busy clarifying your accusation against a mysterious man called "Harper Collins" or the "HarperCollins foundation". If you're telling and sharing truth, it shouldn't be hard to post the same. If it's all duplicity, one lie leads to another then to another and another. . . and where liars can't have their way, they salnder others and quote texts on going to hell.

If you've got issues with the HarperCollins foundation - go take it out on them. Don't pretend to have been under God's conviction for 3 years in order to assert what you can't defend.

Cheers.

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

The truth is that you don't know where and what I am talking about. We are talking about two different things. You decode the bible differently and haven't known the Lord well enough to understand what I am making reference to. You only know me as Ivvie but don't know what I do till I tell you or you get to know me. I have an understanding of you because you have blown yourself wide open. This post initially was referenced to rede, who asked me and not you and I specified when I replied the post. The second was for Cardealer. I don't believe you are trying to make trouble or create friction. This post is making references to Redeem and it's principles. Meaning, pentecostal and not baptist, santification and not hooligalism, a quite, contrite, meek spirit and not hostile spirit. Born-again and consecration and not being the natural man but regenerated.

My dear Ivvie, the Forum is a public place where people discuss issues. If you post anything, there's no rule that says someone else may not comment on it - unless it's a locked thread. As long as it's open, anyone is free to comment or post what they want to.

Your assuming a superior riole not assigned you by anybody to pass remarks in such a public place as consigning people to hell is not to be taken lightly. If you can't discuss and feel that you can't have your way, going further to say that other discussants are not born again when you haven't even been able to discuss issues is not a better alternative to clarifying your views.

I asked questions on the issues you posted: you have not returned answers. After having tried to assume the role of divine judge on me, the best you can do is pretend to remember the original topic of this thread and what it is all about? Just now? Whaetevr happened to the NIV, Harper Collins, the "detestations", "abominations" and the "tolerable", as well the "trousers" and "breaches"? Where did you begin to spin off the thread until you suddenly woke up to remember the thread wasn't going where you were leading it to at all?

Ivvie:

Believe me, you do not know what I am talking about and the counters have relayed. The summary of the whole pant-dressing thing is what we denote as the spirit of Jezebel. That seals it. Sprit-filled Christians with no deceit will verify that the church has been infested with this spirit.

We'v gone past the days of shallow deception from super-spiritualists who talk so much about "the spirit of Jezebel" and yet can't show the "truth" they so boast about as being in the KJV. If you lay claim to any truth - as you have done - please simply show the same from the Bible. The real issue about the Jezebel spirit is to seduce people with a counterfeit spirituality which the "Jezebel-accusers" cannot find in the WORD of God!

Before you use such terms or any other, please simply go to the WORD, harvest your FACTS, save your fancies, and share what you hope would edify people. Failing that would only too predicatbly bring you back to spot 1 where you resort to overblown accusations against others.

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

With reference to Isa 14 .12, Jesus Christ is also referred to as the Bright and Morning Star. You should know the names of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit if you are a Christian. By their fruits, ye shall know them. The words in the bible are God's breath and is spirit. You cannot understand the WORD with your intellect. Those that know what I am talking about know what I am talking about. We are not on the same page.

The simple issue is your assertion about "trousers" and "breaches". Even if you want to use the KJV, please show us where it appears and save all this dramatized hyperventilations.

Ivvie:

You shouldn't hinder God's word like that. It is better to be quiet and do seek the understanding yourself than to burst out in and to conclusion about something you know nothing about.

Thank you - if only you had been quiet and reserved your remarks about my spiritual standing on what you don't know.

Ivvie:

Jesus said it's better to have a stone around your neck in the ocean than what awaits you.

Yes - and we should suppose He made that statement concerning women wearing "trousers" that are not in the KJV or NIV Bibles? Please.

Ivvie:

God has promised that the earth will be rid of all these perversion before the second coming lest he'll visit the earth with wrath.

That's another matter entirely - and I'd advise that you go study prophecy deeply before you attempt to engage any discussions on that. I won't be as condescending if you let a slip on that subject.

Ivvie:

The cross-dressing, perversion etc will be rid off (no doubt). A few of the prophecies are to yet to be fulfilled. Most of them have (very few left). It won't matter what anyone's opinion is.

And all that is supposed to be the issue on "trousers", NO?

Ivvie:

I will rest my case here because Titus 3:9 deems my discussion with you as inappropriate. My conversation with you is over.

I know - people who've always tried to pander their own super-spirituality very quickly come to their end when they engage pilgrim.1. I'm not here to win any argument; but this nonsense that so many Christians parade today as "truth" that they can't defend from God's WORD should stop! Biblical truth is simple and straightforward; and if you can't share it because you don't have it, why try going around to promote fallacies that only compounds your case?

Regards whenever you choose to come back and share simple truth.

@ivvie

My brother abeg no let this pilgrim winch jezebel control you o! Na so, she de do, de jump from religious thread to religious thread to de find wahala wey no concern am. Na yab i use yab am drive am comot catholic thread. She no go gree hear your own and she go de find your trouble de go. She go just de ridicule you de go. Instead free am follow better people for this thread yan o. If she no gree, yab am well well make she jump go another thread. The girl na spiritual winch and very soon she go de threaten you make you no tasi am o! Just make e de carry im winch de go jeje before hin fumigate this topic with hin misyan. No expect any sensible debate with this winch o! Na so so i wise pass you yan and you fit backslide come go de follow hin beliefs.

Meanwhile carry go, i de gbadun your discussion on this topic.

@ orobo 50cl

orobo 50cl:

@ivvie

My brother abeg no let this pilgrim winch jezebel control you o! Na so, she de do, de jump from religious thread to religious thread to de find wahala wey no concern am. Na yab i use yab am drive am comot catholic thread. She no go gree hear your own and she go de find your trouble de go. She go just de ridicule you de go. Instead free am follow better people for this thread yan o. If she no gree, yab am well well make she jump go another thread. The girl na spiritual winch and very soon she go de threaten you make you no tasi am o! Just make e de carry im winch de go jeje before hin fumigate this topic with hin misyan. No expect any sensible debate with this winch o! Na so so i wise pass you yan and you fit backslide come go de follow hin beliefs.

Meanwhile carry go, i de gbadun your discussion on this topic.

Thanks for your counsel.  No doubt, that is deep.  If that is her character, busy-bodying with an intention to hinder the truth, she is seriously mistaken.  Tsunami, Katrina etc is an indication that these last few days are critical.  I won't waste my time with her as scripture declares : Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 
Everybody seeks the truth, one way or the other in today's time.  This is a period where the truth is demanded in every phase of life.  From Desert Storm to Enron, Exxon CEO to the Texas State University president.  The time has passed when people did not care or were less concerned. 

It is true that nothing sensible will come from her.  I will stay away.

Regards, Orobo 50

u guyz shld be careful d way u discuss things of the Lord lest u commit blastphemy

That is what 50cl is warning about, making argument with someone that makes fun out of throdding the truth.

dis is goin 2 be the last time i'll post here. i'm out

madam Ivvie, please educate us on what you know and what you are about, as Christian brothers and sisters, could you please trace/elucidate the connection between trousers and 'Jezebel spirit'? Can trousers/pants designed specifically for women be regarded as 'cross-dressing'?

I know I'm not a scholar like you, but I would like you to base your assertions on the Word so we can confirm it from there, you outburst claiming people die because they wear trousers and that equals being taken over by spirits was very alarming. I want to learn from you as I have from others on these issues. we are supposed to exhort and teach each other, and that is what I desire on this subject.


Any opinion we have that is not grounded in God's Word cannot be from Him, Let us base it on the Word and move from there.

Thanks

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:

Thanks for your counsel.  No doubt, that is deep.  If that is her character, busy-bodying with an intention to hinder the truth, she is seriously mistaken.

I'm glad to see you back - only this time you retruned to even cheapen yourself further. I don't go about as a busy-body, and it is clear from all my posts that rather than "hinder" truth, I'm asking you guys to face up to the assertions you've posted and have been unable to defend. Let me make something clear to you:

There are just two serious possible results from "Christians" being dishonest when discussing issues publicly.

(a) if you make statements that you pretend to be taught in God's WORD but can't defend, what do you suppose the unbeliever would do? I've seen once too many times where such people are hindered from coming to the truth of God's WORD because too many "Christians" are busy lying to the public. The result is that unbels always resort to such fallacies coming from "believers" and reference such unfortunate statements as their reason for not receiving Christ.

[list][li]Ivvie, you made categorical statements about a "Harper Collins" of the "HarperCollins foundation" who WROTE the NIV - where have you clarified that assertion?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Ivvie, you made categorical statements about all "women that wear trousers" have the spirit of incubus, and that is "the reason why they have difficulty giving birth and dying when trying to conceive" - where does God say so in His WORD?[/li][/list]

[list][li]Ivvie, you made categorical statements about "trousers" being called "breaches" in the Bible - did you ever post any reference to clarify where you read that?[/li][/list]

Now if you claim to be "born again" and so spiritual that the rest of us can no longer understand God's WORD simply because we're asking you to clearly show what you're stating from God's WORD - and yet you've been UNABLE to simply and clearly show it - does it not clearly establish the case that you're not being honest? The result of such attitude is that unbelievers will take your statements and hold other Christians accountable to your unfortunate arguments, as if Christians teach that women have difficulty in child birth and die as a "result" of wearing trousers! Where did the Bible say so, Ivvie?

(b) the second problem from "Christians" making dishonest statements is that they cause further divisions in the Body of Christ so that God is no longer glorified in His truth. All we ask is that you show us from God's WORD "whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). I'm not the only one making such requests - others have plainly asked you to "PLEASE, PLEASE and PLEASSSEEEEE point us to the part of scripture where you got this from" - and up until now you have declined to share WHERE in God's WORD you find the things you cannot defend. Rather than doing that, you have assumed to be the spiritual denominator of other believers - look at what you came back posting:

[list][li]If you are a true child of God, you would fast as you seek the Lord to know what his opinion is[/li][/list]

[list][li]"You argue blindly and I bet with you that your conscience tells you that you are in the wrong. . . It is also foolish to think you are wiser than those that have lived before you."[/li][/list]

[list][li]"You may not know what I am talking about because you have not born-again.  One is light and the other is darkness."[/li][/list]

Just simply because your assertions were queried, you assume to have arrived and become the judge of others. I thank you so much; but you simply haven't made any good impression of what you're trying to represent. That is why I left a clear message in my previous reposte: this nonsense that so many Christians parade today as "truth" that they can't defend from God's WORD should stop! By making dishonest statements, being unable to defend them, then arrogating superiority to yourself to become the denominator of other people's spirituality is hardly a godly display of the Christian virtues you claim to represent.

It is time for Christians to shed the cloak of duplicity and stand for Biblical truth and integrity that will bless lives into God's purposes. If it's such a difficult thing to be honest, why cause further havoc and put people off from Christ?