New phone

I don't like to spend money.  :)

Except when I think something will make a good gift, or if it's a good deal.

We have been without a home phone for many years now.  With our cell phones and the internet, there didn't seem to be a need for one.  But sometimes the cell phone's battery is dead or I leave the house with it and there's no way for the children at home to call me.  We got a third cell phone.  I thought I'd never ever have to think about getting another phone.  What if both Max and I are out and there's no phone at home?  That doesn't happen very often but I thought it would be good to get a phone for the house after all.  Walgreens had the MagicJack at 20% off earlier this week.  I took the plunge.  For $32, I think even if I only use it infrequently, it would have served its purpose.  We'll get it set up and give you our "home" phone number soon.  And of course, give a review about it, too.

Be very careful writing a book

I want to write a book on homebirth, from a Christian perspective.  Chris and I have already talked about the importance of not giving medical advice.  That's really hard to not do.  I believe having a baby is safer at home.  That would technically be medical advice.  What if I actually wrote my book and a Christian read it and had her baby at home and her baby died?  What if she read my own account of having a baby unassisted and was persuaded to do the same and her outcome was not good?  Would every single writer in all of internet blogsphere rise up to condemn me for brainwashing that poor woman?  Probably.  I believe sales for Michael Pearl's book To Train Up a Child will suffer severely as a result of the death of a child by parents who read the Pearls' book.  But that will be nothing in comparison to the damage of their reputation. How many people have read their book and didn't abuse their children?  It doesn't matter.  One death is one too many and if the Pearls can be blamed, that just solves a lot of questions like why parents would kill their children?  Well, people have been doing it for a long time and for the last 40 years, it's been legal to kill our children, as long as they haven't been born yet.

Would it have been better had the Pearls not written their book?  Maybe.  But maybe those parents would've killed their child anyway.

Overpopulation is a myth

Just do the math.  And watch these little videos.

Contrast

this with Mark Driscoll's birth-control-is-good-stewardship talk.

Good list

Great checklist on humility.

Not enough?  Here is a second list.

Church

I just heard a sermon online that made me so very thankful for our church.  Our little church has only a few families, but two elders who love us.  Chris told me several times how much he appreciated the time he spent with our pastor before he left for his class. 

I know every speaker addresses his audience.  Mark Driscoll may be hip and cool but he sure knows how to make fun of people.  Does no one in Seattle homeschool?  How can he get away with dissing (I know my language is pretty bad...bad company corrupts?) such a huge group of people?  What got him started on his rant about homeschooling was talking about Mary Pride and how she became an advocate of homeschooling.  He said, "I will tell you that sometimes homeschooling networks are petri dishes for legalism and self-righteousness, fundamentalism and sectarianism and all kinds of other ism.  It's religion at its worst.  We're the good people, they're the bad people.  We know we're the good people because we make our own clothes.  Our wife has a dress with a really big collar.  We don't use birth control.  We breastfeed til they're 27.  We read the King James Bible.  That's what I'm talking about.  That wasn't very nice.  NO, but it was very funny.  And it's very accurate."  What he was preaching about was on birth control.  He wanted to contrast between the prominent women who are against birth control and so he said that what these women wrote aren't all bad, but they dared to say that birth control was not good.  He did his homework and knew who he's up against:  Nancy Campbell, Mary Pride, Vision Forum, Nancy Leigh, and those religion at its worst homeschoolers.  I was really surprised at what I was listening to.  I wasn't going to use his name at first, but I guess if he's going to throw in all those names, he wouldn't mind if I gave him some publicity, too. 

He really was just preaching to the choir.  To the choir that is pro-choice.  Pro-choice about having their say in having children.  Or not.  I wonder if he felt threatened by those "legalists" who argue against birth control.  Or maybe he just wants to reassure his followers that he's behind their pro-choice stance and actually would be willing to condemn those who are against it.  He has nothing to worry about.  Nearly everyone is on his side.  Hardly anyone goes into marriage without having a prescription for the Pill.  And they dutifully get back on it they go in for their 6 week appointment after their baby is born.  If he wanted to preach a show stopper, all he needed to say was to let go and let God.  But that message would not be pro-choice.

I was discouraged after listening to his sermon (rant against people who are against birth control) but I know that I don't need to be.  There are people who are turning away from their own understanding and desiring God to be fully in control of their fertility and rejoicing in an abundance of children.  Many of these people are homeschoolers and I guess that's why Mark Driscoll felt compelled to attack this particular group of people.  But it all makes sense really.  It takes a homeschooling family to go against the norm.  To say no to birth control.  To continue to welcome children into their families.  It's distressing, though, to see Christians being hateful about the very things that they should rejoice in.  I'm learning that if someone holds a conviction, there will be criticisms about being legalistic and judgmental.  I should have made a count of how many times Mr Driscoll used those words.  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  :)

Mark Driscoll is wrong in what he was preaching.  He may feel comfortable in limiting the size of his family, but that surely is not God's intent.  If God intended to give us small families, He would do it.  He doesn't need us to preempt him and make our bodies incapable of having children.  Do people not believe in prayer anymore?  If a couple didn't want to have any (more) children, and they thought it important enough to bring it before God, wouldn't God answer?  Well, of course, God would.  He would either bless them with children or not.  Where is the faith?  Daily faith in trusting in God to be wiser than we are.  Faith that says that we will be content in whatever situation.  Faith that believes God's promises to take care of us always.


It's just saying yes.  Yes, God.  Lots of children?  Yes, God.  Even when I'm tired of breast-feeding?  Yes, God.  Mark Driscoll gave a few examples about people who are in situations where they felt that being on birth control would be in their best interests.  He said that he could see the wisdom in that.  But does he see God's wisdom?  Does he see that God uses difficult situations to conform us to Christ?  No.  Let's just focus on what is at hand.  And say no to God.  Birth control is not just making a choice against children, but  a choice against God. 


How can we not keep our children at home?  Not only will they hear all this pro-choice propaganda from the world, but they will surely hear it from God's people.  Mark Driscoll is smart to know that the homeschool movement is big.  Too big to be stopped by the government.  Or the church.  He knows that people who teach their children themselves will most likely produce children who think differently.  I pray that God will give us many generations who aren't afraid of having too many children.  May our children rise up and say yes to God.  Yes to children.  Yes to asking God for more faith, rather than appealing to the pharmaceuticals for answers.  Yes to a life that is not about what feels right but living by His Word.

A doctor who practices medicine God's way? Wow, just wow!

Another great post from baylyblog.com.

This is Christianity in practice. 

Thank you, dear God, for giving us godly examples on what we're to do when you convict us of something.  May you bless Dr Miller abundantly and use her mightily.

What happens when people don't use birth control?

God blesses. 

Do people listen to lyrics?

God is in control.  He always has been and always will be.  We were at the grocery store this afternoon when I ran into someone from our old sister church.  She told me that a speaker on time management will be at the church tonight.  We went.  It was just what we needed to hear.  Of course.  God is in control.  I don't even need to ask questions like, what if I didn't find out about the speaker until it was too late?  If that was so, God didn't want us there. 

The speaker recited the lyrics to this song at the end of his talk:

 Cats in the Cradle
by Harry Chapin


  My child arrived just the other day
He came to the world in the usual way
But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay
He learned to walk while I was away
And he was talking before I knew it and as he grew
He said, "I’m gonna be like you, Dad,
You know I’m gonna be like you"

And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man in the moon
When you comin home, dad, I don’t know when,
But we'll get together then, Son,
You know we'll have a good time then.

My son turned ten just the other day
He said "Thanks for the ball, Dad, come on lets play
can you teach me to throw?" I said, "Not today,
I got a lot to do" He said "Thats okay"
And then he walked away but his smile never dimmed
And said "I’m gonna be like him, yeah
You know I’m going to be like him"

And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin home, dad, I dont know when,
But we'll get together then, Son,
You know we'll have a good time then.

Well he came from college just the other day
So much like a man I just had to say,
"Son, I’m proud of you, can you sit for a while?"
He shook his head, and he said with a smile

"What I'd really like, Dad, is to borrow the car keys
See you later, can I have them please?"

And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin home, Son, I dont know when,
But we'll get together then, Dad,
You know we'll have a good time then.

I’ve long since retired, my son's moved away
I called him up just the other day........
I said "I'd like to see you if you don’t mind"
He said "I'd love to Dad, if I could find the time.
You see my new jobs a hassle, and the kids have the flu.
But It's sure nice talking to you, Dad,
It's been sure nice talking to you........"
And as I hung up the phone it occurred to me
He'd grown up just like me,
My boy was just like me..............


And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin home, Son, I dont know when,
But we'll get together then, Dad
We're gonna have a good time then.

Wow!  Talk about a powerful sermon in a song.  This isn't a new song and maybe many have heard it but did they really listen to the lyrics?  Why hasn't this song prompted parents to value their children over their own lives, their work, their hobbies, their TVs, their friends, their reluctance to have their children take over their lives?  I know the answer.  It's just a song.  And it's only meaningful to those who already know there's a relationship that needs to be tended to.  Parents are to make the time for their children.  All day long, the Bible says.  How did schools become so important that a child's life revolved around it?  I don't really think it's the fault of the institution.  The public schools have been severely criticized for not turning out competent citizens.  Moral citizens.  Well-adjusted to life citizens.  How can an institution offer all that should come from one's parents? 

I would like someone to tell me how Christians can send their children to schools?  How can they bear to have their children be taught by ... just anyone?  How can they bear their children learning from the ungodly ways of their schoolmates day in and day out?  How can they bear to not know what's going on with their children for most of the waking day?  How can they desire that their children be out of their house from such a young age?  (It's like work hours, really.)  How have they forgotten the unkindness that schools heap upon children?  How can they keep from protecting their children from growing up in that institutional environment?

I almost forgot about what socialization does to children.  I was shocked when a boy threatened one of my children to get off the swing or else he'll make him get off.  This happened at a Christian homeschool co-op class.  I was so happy that our son didn't learn to stand up for his rights.  He got off the swing and there was no confrontation.  I'd like to think that it was our godly training that helped him to avoid a fight.  I still don't act that way so I don't think it came from me.  Psalm 1 tells us exactly what happens to a man that avoids ungodly company.  He is blessed.  Children are too precious to be thrown in the lions' den for the sake of ... what exactly?

Ken Ham has written a book that I am interested in reading.  The book description reads:

If you look around in your church today, two-thirds of the young people who are sitting among us have already left in their hearts; soon they will be gone for good.This is the alarming conclusion from a study Answers in Genesis commissioned from America's Research Group, led by respected researcher Britt Beemer. The results may unnerve you - they may shake long-held assumptions to the core-but these results need to be taken seriously by the church. Already Gone reveals:
Why America's churches have lost an entire generation of believers
The views of 1,000 twenty-somethings, solidly raised in the church but no longer attending-and their reasons why
Relevant statistical data effectively teamed with powerful apologetics
The study found that we are losing our kids in elementary, middle school, and high school rather than college, and the Sunday school syndrome is contributing to the epidemic, rather than helping alleviate it. This is an alarming wake-up call for the church, showing how our programs and our children are paying the price. 

It's about relationships.  Life, that is.  Schools don't reflect that.  The disconnect with the relationships from family and school just grows year by year.  It doesn't take long for the child to prefer the relationships of the schools that are so much easier than those at home.  After all, one doesn't have to live with those at school.

I've read that some people have come away from watching the movie Avatar feeling depressed.  They were awed by the glory and beauty of the imaginary utopia and then they went back to their real world.  It's sad.   I'd like to see a utopia where people didn't send their children away and where children didn't send their parents away.  That really shouldn't be an utopia fantasy.  That's how life used to be.  God intends for us to have relationships where we desire to take care of each other and live with each other.  Christians, please listen to this song and bring your children home and spend time with your children.

Movie review

I haven't watched Avatar so I cannot give a personal review but plenty of others have watched it and have given their thoughts about it.

Here's another review that mirrored my first reaction to this movie.  There is nothing new under the sun.  Everything is just a rehash of the same old, same old.

Interesting how even the New York Times sees the religiosity behind the movie.

I know my children would absolutely be thrilled to watch this movie.  It's eye candy.  I hope they don't get a chance to watch it until they are grown and can discern truth from propaganda.  I hope we will have taught them that whatever this world dreams up can never match the splendor that Heaven holds for us.  I hope they will find that even in this fallen world God has given us victory over sin and we can have abundant lives without buying into the falsehoods of imaginary utopias that make us dissatisfied with what God has given us.

What makes a blockbuster?  Money.  If enough money is sunk into entertainment, people, unbelievers and believers alike, will go and make sure their money is part of what makes history.

All the way from scratch

There's a very popular recipe for corn casserole that uses Jiffy corn mix.  It seems all the corn casserole recipes call for Jiffy corn mix.  What if one doesn't have Jiffy?  Or if one finds the ingredients objectionable?  The internet can make the switch from box to scratch very easy.  A search produces Jiffy Corn Mix Copycat recipe.  How easy is that? 

And to think that I once was unhappy that all the muffin mixes have hydrogenated oils.  Something that isn't desirable can usually lead to something that is.  Muffin mix from scratch.  Not only is it cheaper to make but much better for us.  Win win.  I'm trying to teach the children that usually we don't have to compromise our principles.  Um.  Make that, ever.  If the box has ingredients that we don't use, it means the box isn't for us.  If the box isn't for us, we can still make the dish.  I think I don't even have to own another cookbook.  Well, except for Nourishing Traditions.  Some books are just too full of good stuff.

Desiring children

My husband just told me that his gadget has an app for a fertility calendar. 

For some reason, that just sounds so funny to me. 

I need to go tell him how his love for children makes me love him all the more.

Our barber, our hero

I'm sure our boys agree that having their father cut their hair is a much better thing than having their mother cut hair.  When I've cut the boys hair, it usually has to be shaved.  Even Chris couldn't keep from laughing the last time I attempted cutting Max's hair. 

Chris really does have a knack for cutting hair.  He offered to let me cut his hair today.  I chickened out and he went to the barber.  One day, I'll be brave again.  Maybe when he doesn't have to go in to work, forever.

I did cut Grace's hair the other day.  But there wasn't much I could do to ruin that haircut.  I just snipped off about an inch and evened it up.

I think our system is good.  I do the girls and Chris does the boys.  Good thing our girls have long hair that doesn't require anything fancy.

Want to have something to cry about?

Not because it's bad, but because it's so beautiful.

http://enjoyingthesmallthings.blogspot.com/2010/01/

nella-cordelia-birth-story.html

I cried not because she had a DS baby. That was her blessing. 

I cried because God met her needs. He gave her the grace to see that her baby 
was perfectly perfect and tailored for her. He knew her frailty and did not 
condemn her for it. Instead, He provided an abundance of love and support 
so that she could not help but see and feel that her baby was a blessing. 
What touched me were the responses of her father 

and sister. They didn't sympathize with her. 
They didn't feel sorry for her. Those words 

would have been totally wrong and inappropriate. 
Instead, they gave her love. 

Their acceptance of the baby helped her. 

It would be easy to criticize her for her sadness and 
rejection of her DS baby. 

God met her in her hour of need. God always does.

I'm so glad she didn't know beforehand. 
That she didn't have months and months 

of having to deal with the fact that her baby was not what she had anticipated. 

Instead, she just had to love her baby. And she received healing for her 
imperfect heart. It wasn't the baby's imperfections that was so sad, 
but our individual sinful hearts that 

God needs to mend. 

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;   And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.  I Corinthians 1:27-29

God gives us people to share their experience and insight

What a tremendously helpful website for parents!

They get it right, finally!

"Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It’s time to get your hands dirty. It’s time to answer the call of manhood. It’s time to WEAR THE PANTS."

You've probably already seen this ad.  I'm usually the last to know.  This is interesting advertising, isn't it?  Surely calculated, definitely daring and culturally relevant or just clever?

This post is not about whether the ad really means what it says. I don't think so.  This culture has lost the male/female distinctions and roles a long time ago.  No one wants it back. 

I want it back.  That is why I wear skirts and dresses.  That is why my girls do, too.  All the time.  Not just to church but even in work and play.  Do we have to?  Of course not.  After all, the Bible doesn't even mention the word pants.  Why that is an argument is just too silly to even bother with.  What the Bible does teach are principles that are relevant to every culture and to every age.  The Bible says that God created male and He created female.  He created man first and then woman to help the man.  That's God's design and His order.  There is a distinct role that man is to play and woman is not to play man's role.  The headship of man is not only limited to the husband and wife relationship.  Sarah Palin should not have run for vice president.  As good of a vice president or even president she may have been, she isn't designed by God to take on that role.

So, what does wearing dresses have to do with anything?  If for nothing else, it reminds me that I am a woman.  A man, in our culture, may not wear dresses.  Well, I guess it's starting to be that he could and we're to be tolerant of that.  I think we haven't gotten to the point where it's normal for a man to wear dresses.  A dress is not as convenient or practical as wearing pants or shorts.  But that can be helpful in reminding me of my role as well.  Surely, I can do practically anything my husband does.  But I am better suited to being with my children.  I can serve in the kitchen.  When I purposely choose to limit my wardrobe to dresses and skirts, I am making a statement that this attire is exactly how I like to look.  I want to be feminine.  I want to be soft.  I want to be different from my husband.  Sometimes different is good.  It brings out the distinctions better.

Could a woman appear less modest in a dress than in a pair of pants?  Yes, some women choose to reveal their bodies in a sensual way by wearing dresses.  I think wearing modest dresses and skirts that don't draw attention to particular areas of a woman's body gives a picture of femininity that wearing modest pants don't.  The main problem with wearing pants, though, is that they really aren't modest.  How many women do you see wearing baggy pants?  Pants are usually worn form-fitting on a woman.  Jeans could be the most popular kind of pants for both men and women to wear.  I made a point to look at women wearing jeans recently.  From behind, I could see her bottom accentuated and her hips moving quite plainly.  From the front, it's no better.  It's easy to see where her crotch area is.  "Pants accentuate your body," a fashion expert said but really one doesn't need to be told that.  It's evident just by looking.  Another thing I've noticed is the way a woman sits is different if she's wearing pants.  Younger women will sometimes sit with her legs quite far apart.  Straddling a chair.  Pants allow her to do that.  Sit like men.

It's only been 2 generations since women starting wearing pants.  Leaving the home to work prompted women to adopt the attire of professional workers.  There was no going back.  Most women have more pants than they do dresses or skirts.  Many young girls I know do not have any dresses.  Women who wear modest dresses these days are either at a function, at church or Amish.  My girls and I attract attention just by the fact that we wear skirts or dresses.  People actually ask me about it.  It's good to be different in a godly way.  It's my desire that this world can easily tell that there's something different with our family.  That may give us the chance to share our faith.  Even if I don't get that chance, I'm letting my family know that we're serious about our God-given roles.  If we're accused of being legalistic, so be it.  Better more modest and old-fashioned than open the door to the world's ways and fashions.  Why did women not wear pants before?  Was it because they didn't know better?  Because they had no real freedom to be like men?  I think in the past, society expected men and women to be different.  There were probably not too many stay at home dads and women who went off to the battlefields.  Reading Little House on the Prairie made me think how so many things are totally opposite now.  Laura recalls that she couldn't wait to wear the long dresses that went down to her ankles rather than the shorter dresses because that meant she was growing up.  Women were to be protected and men were supposed to be gentler around them.  Clothing really does reflect a lot about a culture.  When the communists took over China, all the old ways were despised and men and women were all mandated to wear blue uniforms.  The Chinese men and women looked so ... without individuality.  Men and women really didn't appear to be very different.  I think that's how women wearing pants are starting to appear in our culture, too.  Women are now just like men.  Like the Virginia Slims ads said, You've come a long way, baby. 

Women have the liberty to wear pants.  They can try for equality in any area of their lives.  For me, there is liberty in knowing that I've left the pants-wearing part of my life behind.  I used to think that I could do whatever I wanted to.  Now I don't even want to.  Whenever I feel that I need to remind myself to be submissive to my husband and not usurp my role as wife and helpmeet, I think of a young lady from a church we used to go to.  She wore the pants in her house, literally and figuratively.  A scene I remember is a gathering we were at and this young lady ordered her husband to change the baby's diaper.  He humbly submitted even though she wasn't doing anything that should've prevented her from taking care of the baby.  I remember thinking that surely that is not a picture of the Bible.  

My body was made for my husband alone to enjoy.  I feel more clothed and less sensual wearing skirts and dresses.  That may be reason enough for me not to wear pants.

Is this ad going over well with the feminists?  Of course not.   How typical.

A picture is worth a thousand words

Here is someone who is showing that abortion really is about babies.

In case you can't see the picture in the link, it's of a woman who is very much with child.  On her belly she wrote the words, My baby is pro-choice.

HT

Bible Translations

I didn't realize that the ESV was published in 2001.  And that so much has already been said about this translation.

This is what I know so far about the ESV.  It's good.  Everyone says so.
Is it as good or better than the KJV?  I'm not so sure.  The sentence structure and phrasing, at times, sound awkward.  In Mark 3:28, the ESV is the only version that used "man" instead of "men".  Also, in this verse, "children" is used when the Greek word is sons.  Hmmm.  And I thought the translators were trying for a decidely different translation than the gender-neutral ones.  :)
Genesis 12:3 doesn't sound grammatically correct with the word "him" but just weird.

Is it easier to read than the KJV?  I think that depends whether you're used to the KJV.  I am familiar with the KJV and so I don't find it difficult to read.  The archaic words are like any unfamiliar words we come across.  We look them up.

Sometimes it actually hinders to update words.  Here are the verses that the ESV uses "pregnant" instead of the archaic "with child".  I know hardly anyone says "with child" when they talk about a woman who will have a baby.  But that's exactly the whole point.  Our language will keep on changing.  The further we get away from God's truths, the more our language will reflect that.  Do my children know what "with child" means?  Of course they do.  It means that there is a baby growing within the mother.  Is it necessary to update this so that modern readers can understand?  I don't think so.  There are further implications of updating very important terms in the Bible. 

Other times when an updated word is used, the meaning just doesn't quite give the picture that is contextual.  "Awe" doesn't give the same idea as "fear".  For those who don't like it when words become too explicit and graphic?  The ESV handles it much more tamely in Ezekiel 16:25. In I Timothy 4:7, almost every translation uses "old wives' tales" but the ESV chooses to be non-sexist instead and renders it an innocuous "silly myths".  Can a Bible translation be PC? 

The ESV does not use italics to show when words were being added to the text for clarification purposes.  This may not be a big deal, but it makes food for thought, especially in cases like Psalm 53:1.  The fool may be saying, "NO! God," though the translators added, "There is no God."

Philippians 2:6 in the ESV reads, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped".  Sounds ok.  But English could be so much more precise than that.  The KJV translates this verse like this, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".  What difference does this make?  The word "being" easily can be understood not only to mean the deity of God, but that Jesus has always existed with God.  A mountain out of a mole hill, perhaps.  Especially since most people know that Jesus is God.  Or do they?  Many people acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus, but they definitely don't want to say that He always was and forever is God.  I John 5:7 in the KJV clearly teaches the doctrine of the trinity, whereas the ESV opts out of the very important words, "these three are one" .

Something I found very peculiar was that I couldn't find some verses in the ESV.  No kidding.  I'm not talking about the NIV here.  I thought the ESV was  "the direct descendant of the historic King James Bible."   Maybe I don't understand what I read.  I couldn't find Matthew 12:47 (even the NIV had this verse), Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14,
Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Luke 9:55 (a few words were there), Luke 9:56 (again, only a few words), Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37 (This verse being left out makes me very sad.  Isn't a confession of faith in Jesus Christ so very important before baptism?), Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, I John 5:7. 

It's surprising to me how similar the ESV and the NIV translations are to each other.  In I Samuel 6:19, the number of men differs significantly from the ESV (and the NIV) with the KJV.  The ESV and the NIV also share many of the missing verses from the New Testament.  I take this to mean that the translators used the same texts to translate the ESV as did the NIV, maybe?  I understand that the ESV is based upon the RV, which does not use the same texts to translate from as does the KJV.   I didn't realize how different the ESV is from the KJV until I looked up all those verses above.  I think for me to ditch the KJV in favor of a translation that differs so widely from it, I'd have to be convinced that the translators of the KJV were in error in the texts they used in translating.  How does God promise to preserve His word but then gives different translators different manuscripts to use? 

Is the Bible just another book that we need to constantly update so that it can keep up with us?  What I see happening is different publishing companies coming up with translations catering to certain groups and to humanist philosophies.  Would anyone be surprised if publishing companies wanted to make different Bibles for money?  Why do these publishers tempt little girls to get their parents to spend more? 

The reason for this post is because of the subject matter, of course.  The Bible is God's Word and the treatment of it should be of interest to any believer.  The KJV Bible is the translation I prefer to use so the main focus of this post is in contrasting between these two versions.  The KJV will never fall out of favor, I believe.  It has withstood the test of time as a reliable English translation.  The reason I chose to explore the ESV is because there are so many good endorsements for it.  Sometimes there is a reason to switch to something new.  The reason may be that the older thing just won't serve as well.   This could be the case for the microwave oven.  It can heat and cook foods faster than a conventional oven can.  But has it been proven to cook foods as safely as a conventional oven.  I believe research shows that it does not.  But in the case of mammograms, thermography should replace it since it doesn't use radiation.  But these examples really are irrelevant to Bible translations because the Bible is in a class all by itself.  The main reason for rejecting the KJV is because of the outdated language.  The ESV website claims that, "modern readers find the KJV’s archaic words and sentence structures difficult to understand."  I really don't believe this to be an obstacle that impedes our understanding of the Bible.  The "thees" and "thous" and other archaic terms actually remind me that this is not just another book.  I need to treat God's Word with a seriousness that shows my faith in Him.  Another reason for writing this post is so that I can see that there is merit in good translations other than the KJV.  I am prone to stick with what I like.  But I've come to see that different Bible translations can be helpful.  I regularly use this online parallel Bible.  1 Corinthians 11:5 uses the word, "unveiled" in some translations, which may give a clearer picture of the headcovering in this verse. 

A certain precious young man I know (it's interesting how this little word "know" encompasses so much in the Bible.  God knows His children in the way that He loves them.  A good translation of the Bible isn't just having the right modern words, it's getting to know God through the whole counsel of God.) might say that we'll just agree to disagree about Bible translations.  That is not the point I'd like to make.  It's good to know the strengths and weaknesses of the different translations of the Bible.  And it's interesting to note that different denominations favor different translations.  It'll be funny to be known by what church you go to by the translation you carry, isn't it?  In the end, though, I'm certain that no matter how many translations come and go, God's Word will stand.