NBC Offends Christians Again

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

the entertainemnt industry is NOT about legislating morals..The RR is.

---

This is misguieded at best and ignorant at worst.

Hollywood has a set of morals they wish to legistlate. One only need to review the amount of money contributed by Hollywood to political campaigns to see that is true. Hollywood has been one of the biggest forces behind gay rights.

Furthermore, the Religious Right not only has a legeslative agenda, they also try to win hearts and minds - as does Hollywood.

The culture war has two battle fronts. One is legislative and the other is for hearts and minds.

Quote:

---

Hollywood is NOT the third link. EGW has already pointed out who the third link is- SPIRITUALISM....

---

One has to be willfully ignorant not to see all the spiritualsim in Hollywood. Sister White states that immortality of the soul is the foundation of spiritualism. How many movies are there about ghosts, spirits, the dead returning as angels, etc? If one pays attention they will notice that Hollywood productions talk more about karma than sin. Hollywood is as saturated with spiritualism as roofing felt is with asphalt.

I don't want to discount the fact that spiritualism has also entered into Catholism and Protestantism but not to the same extent as it has in Hollywood. I see Hollywood slowly catching on to the fact that Christians can produce a profit. I suspect that as the final days come upon us, Protestant America will begin to win the culture war and Hollywood will unite with it. Instead of pushing its current agenda, it will incorporate it with that of the Religious Right. Then the threefold union will be complete.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The Bible commands the believer to rebuke. 2 Tim. 3:16.

---

No it doesn't. Context shows a priviate instruction to equip a person for public works. You are taking the verse out of context and applying it to a different situation.

Quote:

---

Satan wants us to go to extreame and either do this without love OR not do it at all. When we use the Bible to correct, it is God that is correcting and the Holy Spirit that does the convicting. We are just a tool.

---

And while I don't like to focus on Satan, I do agree that we are tools...The question is whether we are tools of Satan or of God. I tend to think that God doesn't like the reference of humans to being tools...I think He likes humans to be redeemed and therefore witness's for Him. Not rebukers or tools...

What you are asking is whether it is alright to rebuke people and if the Bible gives support to rebuking in the negitive sense of the word. People, more often than not, ignore rebukes because it comes from others that they don't know, in this case Christians. That is why Phillip Yancy makes the case that Christians who demostrate against homosexuals don't really save souls..nor win people to Christ.

It is a prinicple that supposed christians ignore when they are yelling and screaming vile things to the homosexual community of eternally burning, and calling them faggots and such. Those demonstrations are wrong, and it sets the rest of Christianity up for a fall.

I am sorry Shane, but such attitudes are nothing more than deception of a supposed christianity that is not there.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

That is why Phillip Yancy makes the case that Christians who demostrate against homosexuals don't really save souls..nor win people to Christ.

---

That is a different context. Notice the verses I quoted were in the context of warning Israel. Today that means people that are in the church. Yancy is talking about reaching those outside the church. Rebuke is not an effective means of evangelism.

"He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee." Prob. 9:7, 8

Warning others in the church about the dangers of the entertainment industry cannot be compared to public demonstrations against homosexuals. That is apples and oranges.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

The danger is when

the Religious Right

, combined with Vatican and eastern religion, oppose the law of God by promoting Sunday legislation.

---

I'm pleased to see that at least now you are admitting they will, in fact, be key participants in the unfolding drama to come. ("Paranoia" has nothing to do with it, Shane, and you should know by now throwing that word around is a cheap shot which amounts to nothing with me. I will not permit you to unsettle me or provoke a reaction from me with unoriginal name-calling.)

Quote:

---

• Opposing gay marriage is not the same as promoting Sunday legislation
• Opposing sex and violence on TV is not the same as promoting Sunday legislation.
• Opposing no-fault divorce is not the same as promoting Sunday legislation
• Opposing sex education in public school is not the same as promoting Sunday legislation.
• Opposing evolution taught in the public schools is not the same as promoting Sunday legislation.
• Opposing pornography is not the same as proposing Sunday legislation
• Opposing abortion on demand is not the same as proposing Sunday legislation

---

You are absolutely correct in one respect: opposing ANY of these things is not the same as proposing legislation -- Sunday oriented or not. HOWEVER ... working to implement legislative measures which will bring the justice system and law enforcement to bear in legally coercing adherence from others upon any or ALL of these points is QUITE ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY -- and is ONE THAT partakes of the same spirit as Sunday legislation, because the key word here is not "Sunday", but "legislation." And that spirit is: we will FORCE others to adhere to our understanding of God's word by using political and legislative power against them.

Quote:

---

Ellen White pointed out that Protestant America (

what we now call the Religious Right

)

"will be foremost in stretching its hands

across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience." p. 588

---

Again, glad to see you are finally acknowledging that indeed, this segment of society will play a key role in the crisis ahead. I just hope you don't imagine they are not already gearing up for it with preliminary measures and activities partaking of essentially the same spirit, for indeed they most certainly are. This does NOT mean that every individual in that camp has this attitude or is to be condemned. As the issues heat up more and more, those on the side of Christ will see the gross disparity between His character and the principles of HIS kingdom versus what is shaping up into "the beast" -- and will of course disassociate from it.

Quote:

---

Here we see a threefold union. We see the Vatican,

the Religious Right

and... spiritualism...

---

Third time's the charm ...

[Dr. Shane]

Protestant America in Ellen White's day had a big issue they wanted to legislate. They wanted to force others to change their behavior. They wanted to ban alcohol. They wanted to make the sale and transportation of alcohol a crime. Ellen White supported this cause so much that she said Adventists should vote for it even if it meant voting on Sabbath.

Protestant America is responsible for the abolition movement that ended slavery. Protestant America is responsible for women's sufferage which gave women the right to vote. Protestant America is responsible for the civil rights movement that made black Americans equal with others. So Protestant America has a history of pushing legislation that forced others to change their behavior.

The fact that Prostant America has a political agenda is not a red flag of danger. It is when Protestant America, or what we call the Religious Right, proposes legislation that is contrary to the Law of God that we are to see the red flag. Will the Religious Right do that? Yes, it will. However that is not to say that those alive today that support a ban on abortion and gay marriage are the same that will support the Sunday law any more than those that supported prohibition did.

We need to evalute each issue on its own merits. When we let our fear of a Sunday law impact our position on abortion, gay marriage, entertainment or a host of other issues, we let paranoia influence us.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Protestant America is responsible for the abolition movement that ended slavery. Protestant America is responsible for women's sufferage which gave women the right to vote. Protestant America is responsible for the civil rights movement that made black Americans equal with others. So Protestant America has a history of pushing legislation that forced others to change their behavior.

---

All of these statements are HIGHLY debatable, as it depends upon at which segment of "Protestant America" one is looking. There were bigger, stronger, and more numerous segments of "Protestant America" either opposing or standing directly in the way of ALL of these things, each during their given time.

Quote:

---

The fact that Prostant America has a political agenda is not a red flag of danger. It is when Protestant America, or what we call the Religious Right, proposes legislation that is contrary to the Law of God that we are to see the red flag. Will the Religious Right do that? Yes, it will. However that is not to say that those alive today that support a ban on abortion and gay marriage are the same that will support the Sunday law any more than those that supported prohibition did.

---

OK so if I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that the central issue here is NOT one of character/spirit -- the desire to coerce the consciences of others -- but rather one of whether the specific legislation is "against the Law of God"?

That helps me understand better how you see the whole conflict. However, I sincerely believe that Revelation 13 in the light of the broader view of the entire Great Controversy between Christ and Satan itself, as well as the writings of Ellen White, clearly define the core issue here as the spirit of coercion pitted against that of persuasion in an atmosphere of respect for freedom of choice. I sincerely do not believe the issue is merely whether the proposed legislation itself "lines up" with the law of God or not, but rather, that the core issue is how God's character is represented.

Those of us who have responded to the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ recognize profoundly that His death on the cross has not merely called us to freedom but has provided us with freedom where none existed before (because we were slaves to sin and our sinful natures). We also recognize that the only service acceptable to God is that which is voluntary, rendered from a willing heart. Human conscription of any type toward a forced outward conformity to God's laws is not how the Kingdom of God is to be established. Moreover, such coercion is contrary to the principles of God's Kingdom. (Obviously I'm just giving a very broad overview of these matters; to explore each in depth with corresponding Bible verses would require me to write a book and there are already several out there on this subject.)

Quote:

---

We need to evalute each issue on its own merits. When we let our fear of a Sunday law impact our position on abortion, gay marriage, entertainment or a host of other issues, we let paranoia influence us.

---

I do agree that we should evaluate each issue on its own merits, but what is this "our position" business? I do not see that there is any one-size-for-all position on these issues that alone exclusively is "Christian" ("ours") while others by default must therefore NOT be Christian. I find nothing in the Bible whatsoever to suggest there is one specific "correct" position on how the Christian is to view, meet and deal with these matters in the world in a socio-political context -- let alone that such a thing consists of what the "religious right" imagines it to consist of!!!

For me, as a Christian, my first duty is to bear witness to the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ and to uphold the truth about our Creator in light of the issues of the great controversy. It was for this larger purpose that our church was even raised up at all; restoring "lost" things like the Sabbath are subsidiary to this great work and grand reason for being established. Our Creator God has demonstrated Himself to be One who would rather humble Himself infinitely and lay down His own life for us than to trample upon our free will. God never wanted robots; never wanted a forced conformity to His laws or will. His act of creation was the manifest expression of His desire for love -- to give love and to be loved in return -- and His design was that obedience on our part was ever to be voluntary and willing -- not exacted from us. If we are to manifest the character of Christ in this world we must also do likewise, and in the battle to save souls and against sin and wickedness, must refuse to resort to Satan's methods of manipulation, coercion, exaction, conscription, and brute force.

Here I stand, I can do no other. May God help me.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

All of these statements are HIGHLY debatable

---

Not among historians. Without Protestant America being politically active, slavery would have never been abolished, women would not have gained the right to vote (at lease not when they did) and the civil rights movement would have never taken place. Of course not all of Protestant America acted as a group. Nor do they today.

Quote:

---

you are saying that the central issue here is NOT one of character/spirit -- the desire to coerce the consciences of others -- but rather one of whether the specific legislation is "against the Law of God"?

---

BINGO! That is Adventistism. Christ died on the cross because He couldn't change the law of God. We are not opposed to laws that regulate behavior between man and his/her fellowman. We are opposed to laws that regulate behavior between man and God. Earthly governments have the right to pass laws that regulate behavior between their citizens. They do not have the right to pass laws to regulate behaviors between their citizens and God.

The case can be made that speed limits "coerce the consciences of others" as do tax laws, enviromental laws, divorce laws, mandatory education laws, etc. Yet civil government has the right to pass any and all such laws.

The govenment doesn't have the right to pass a law that mandates everyone support a church, requires church membership in order to hold public office or forbid a religious rite like baptism.

[Nicodema]

Shane, I have no doubt that when the Sunday law business comes down the pike, they will make all the same arguments you have just made. They will insist that this IS, in fact, something that regulates the behavior between citizens, is for the greater good of society (as those opposing gay marriage claim for their cause), etc.

So OK, fair enough, this is your understanding and thus this is where you draw your line. But they will come along and erase your line, Shane, and claim your justifications as their own. I guarantee it. There will be no difference. The understanding I have derived from Scripture shows me the difference very clearly. Yours to me is very vague and easily smudged, and allows for God to break His own Law and violate His own character to accomplish His ends. I just cannot see it that way, sorry.

I also must disagree with your statement that your understanding constitutes Adventism. Shane where do you think I got mine? Christ did not die on the cross because He "couldn't change the law of God." Christ never intended nor attempted to change the law of God. He died on the cross to fulfill the natural consequence of disobedience and wages of sin in our behalf, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He died that we might have a CHOICE about whom to serve. He did NOT die so His followers could create a fake kingdom of God by making human laws which coerced adherence to their understanding of the word of God. None of the apostles went into politics. They went into the world and turned it upside down completely outside the system. That's because they were working for the REAL Kingdom of God.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

That is a different context. Notice the verses I quoted were in the context of warning Israel. Today that means people that are in the church. Yancy is talking about reaching those outside the church. Rebuke is not an effective means of evangelism.

---

Now you are switching parameters of the debate, Shane. Which only shows that you KNOW that you can not sustain your side of the debate. But that is an aside. What is more to the point, is that your argument is litterally "preaching to the choir" and a strawman arguement.

Concider your last post to me that address this issue-

Quote:

---

If a warning is not sounded, many will sit in front of their televisions and absorb all kinds of wickedness. After we sound the warning, many will notice the wickedness when they watch TV and will say to themselves, "Hey, this stuff is really bad. Maybe I should watch something better."

---

Assuming that you are addressing fellowchurch members, are you not, by displaying a cultural standard, upsurping God's perogative by your attempting to convict of sin? Last time I checked, only prophets are allowed to do that, and I don't think that we have many current alive prophets who claim that title....We have alot of self-proclaimed prophets/messengers, but none recognised by the church. And the last time I checked, by self-proclaiming yourself as a prophet/messenger of God, you would be aquiring power, and thus approximating that same arguement offered by Satan to Eve of "becoming like God".

It saddens me to see this type of arguement brought about by an Adventist, as it truely does appeal tothe base emotions, although heartfully deceitful and artfully applied for phoney/erronous reasons.

I say "heartfully deceitful" because it appeals to the heart, "Wouldn't it be nice if..." but it is a base question and ignore other God given principles.

I say "artfully applied" because many within our church listen to this reasoning all the while not realizing that they are tools of the serpent.

And thus, those same people perpetuate the deception of Eve and have not learned to grow as yet.

I have given you some very powerful arguements for avoiding upsurping God's perogative powers. Nico has given some very good rebuttals to your objections regarding historical Adventism...What we have failed to do is to supplant your erronious ideas with the God given principles needed for you to make a change in your thinking. That we can not do, as time will not allow either me nor Nico [i assume] the time to do so. You need to review the context of your suppositions. I think that you will find that there is other factors that you have not appplied tothe arguements.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Shane, I have no doubt that when the Sunday law business comes down the pike, they will make all the same arguments you have just made.

---

If one is really interested in topics such as this they should buy Clifford Goldstein's book "One Nation Under God?". Also reading the Liberty Magazine will help. Those that lean more liberal will really enjoy that.

Clifford Goldstein discusses in his book that a secular Sunday law wouldn't violate religious liberty and would actually make sense. "If it's legitimate to legislate laws that 'coincide or harmonize' with the Ten Commandments or, as Ellen White said, that are based on the principles of 'the law of the kingdom of God,' the issue of church-state seperation becomes incredibly complex." (p71) "Once we concede, as we must, that the state should make moral laws, even if those morals are linked to, or are parallel to, religion, then 'secualr' Sunday legislation becomes sensible." (p.72)

This is Adventistism. As individuals we may have various political positions but as a church we are much more hesitant to take a position because we want our voice to mean more. We are like the old wise man that rarely spoke, but when he did speak everyone listened. Typically the Adventist church reserves its voice in political matters to those issues tied directly to religious liberty.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Now you are switching parameters of the debate, Shane.

---

Let me try to make myself clear.

• The Bible does command believers to rebuke and warn each other of spiritual dangers.
• Rebuking nonbelievers is not an effective means of evangelism and I cannot think of an example of it in the Bible.
• As a brother or sister in Christ, we are responsible to sound the warning but not for convicting a person of sin Once we have sounded the warning, our duty is done.
• When we use the Bible to sound the warning, it is God's warning and not ours. God sets the standard, not us.

Members of the clergy of most every denomination do this every week from the pulpet. To say they need to see visions and have dreams from God in order to be qualified is simply not consistant with Scripture. It is as I stated earlier. There are two extreames. One seeks to rebuke without love and the other seeks not to rebuke at all. There is a middle ground which is Biblical.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

There is a middle ground which is Biblical.

---

I agree that there is biblical ground for 'rebuking', and it is in the HOW to rebuke. The way that you have suggested is more in keeping with the usurping of God's perogative/power. By being a witness, we have automatically 'rebuked' without really saying a word to the individual. A much stronger statement is made when one does not say, in essence, "You are wrong. I am right, and God is on MY side."

God only calls us to be witness of Him and to advocate what He has done in our lives. In this ambassadorial role, we avoid the accusatory role entirely. That role is Satan's relm alone.

Quote:

---

* The Bible does command believers to rebuke and warn each other of spiritual dangers.

---

Other than the current texts that you have shown and I have rebutted, are there other texts you wish to bring forth as evidence?

Quote:

---

* Rebuking nonbelievers is not an effective means of evangelism and I cannot think of an example of it in the Bible.

---

Agreed, but your origional statements included non-believers. You switched parameters to fellowchurch members, of which, is pretty useless in rebuking other members of the church. Not only does it smacks of "Lording it over" others, it presumes the taking on of power reserved for God alone. It does not allow God to convict of sin.

Quote:

---

* As a brother or sister in Christ, we are responsible to sound the warning but not for convicting a person of sin Once we have sounded the warning, our duty is done.

---

Again, this is a "how do you sound the warning" statement. More often than not, it is to rebuke another member in every sense of the word. In such situations, teaching a member the doctrine is more important than rebuking them.

Quote:

---

* When we use the Bible to sound the warning, it is God's warning and not ours. God sets the standard, not us.

---

But you are still the conduit in which sets the standard. It is YOUR understanding that sets the standard, even though you use God's word. It is YOU that proscribes to the other what the standard is as YOU understand it. You are still attempting to convict,,,..Not a good idea .

Quote:

---

Members of the clergy of most every denomination do this every week from the pulpet.

---

And that is why they do not have the power of God.

Quote:

---

To say they need to see visions and have dreams from God in order to be qualified is simply not consistant with Scripture.

---

I never said thet clergy were to have dreams and visions. That relm of influence belongs to God and whom He bestows it. Usually, it is a prophet.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Clifford Goldstein discusses in his book that a secular Sunday law wouldn't violate religious liberty and would actually make sense. "If it's legitimate to legislate laws that 'coincide or harmonize' with the Ten Commandments or, as Ellen White said, that are based on the principles of 'the law of the kingdom of God,' the issue of church-state seperation becomes incredibly complex." (p71) "Once we concede, as we must, that the state should make moral laws, even if those morals are linked to, or are parallel to, religion, then 'secualr' Sunday legislation becomes sensible." (p.72)

This is Adventistism. [sic]

---

Shane, this thinking is not Adventism! Clifford Goldstein was not ADVOCATING the contents of that passage by writing it, but ILLUSTRATING the very same thing I am attempting to illustrate: that once people concede to the notion that the State should make moral laws parallel or linked to religion, the rationale for a Sunday law is in place.

Shane, by decontextualizing your selected quotation, you have just made my argument for me, silly!

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

When we use the Bible to correct, it is God that is correcting and the Holy Spirit that does the convicting. We are just a tool.

---

Hmmm ... I know this is the "platonic ideal" here, but it is often not the reality. Sadly, many "use the Bible to correct" in a fashion that is not of God, and therefore not only wound and alienate others, but God have mercy, plant poisoned associations in their minds with the sacred text (wrangled and misused in their careless hands) on top of it all, thus making it even HARDER for them to perceive the Holy Spirit applying the word HIS way. It is neither sufficient NOR "safe" to assume that using scripture AUTOMATICALLY equates to God doing the correcting and the Holy Spirit doing the convicting. MUCH rests upon the HOW of that use.

Quote:

---

Shane said:

The Bible commands the believer to rebuke. (2 Tim. 3:16 quoted).

Satan wants us to go to extreame and either do this without love OR not do it at all.

---

I can agree with you that there is an appropriate method, and that is of course to speak the truth in love. Speaking without love (readiness in one's heart to prefer to DIE for the one to whom one is speaking than to wound or alienate them further from the throne of grace is how I define that "love"), or conversely not speaking truth at all, are not acceptable alternatives.

However I would like to direct your attention to 2 Corinthians 3:9: "If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!" And in this respect, note my current signature line quote (which is there to remind ME, not there to point fingers at anyone else.)

[Dr. Shane]

"Once we concede, as we must, that the state should make moral laws, even if those morals are linked to, or are parallel to, religion, then 'secualr' Sunday legislation becomes sensible." (p.72)

The "we" Clifford Goldstien is referring to are Adventists. The book was written for the church. That is in context. When he writes, "Once we concede, as we must..." He is stating that as Adventists we shouldn't make silly arguments like saying that morality shouldn't be legislated. Please, if anyone is intested in this subject, get the book and read it.

Quote:

---

I can agree with you that there is an appropriate method, and that is of course to speak the truth in love. Speaking without love (readiness in one's heart to prefer to DIE for the one to whom one is speaking than to wound or alienate them further from the throne of grace is how I define that "love"), or conversely not speaking truth at all, are not acceptable alternatives.

---

In this it seems we agree completely. I read once where Ellen White said if we do not love a person enough to die for their salvation, we are not in the condition needed to rebuke them. Rebuke must always be in love.

In this thread however, we are talking more about warning. It is like if you see a movie that is PG-13 and it contains nudity so you warn others not to watch it.

Rebuking and warning are related but not exactly the same.

[Nicodema]

I will do better than get the book, Shane, I will ask Cliff myself what he meant when I see him next Sabbath.

[Dr. Shane]

Ask him about this quote too.

Quote:

---

How do we - who believe in God's law - respond to attempts to promote morality based on that law, especially when Ellen White wrote that "in the law of the kingdom of God who rules the sinless inhabitants of heaven are found the principles that should lie at the foundation of the law of earthly governments"? If religion is tied to morality, and morality is tied to politics, then inevitably religion will affect politics, and the last thing those who believe in God's law ought to do - or even appear to be doing - is fight every attempt to legislate those principles out of fear that each step brings us closer to the "mark of the beast." (p. 71)

---

[Nicodema]

That may indeed be his view, then, and I misread your first quote. My error. Perhaps I will check out the book then before attempting to discuss the matter with him. I want to make certain I know what I'm dealing with.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

In this it seems we agree completely. I read once where Ellen White said if we do not love a person enough to die for their salvation, we are not in the condition needed to rebuke them. Rebuke must always be in love.

---

Now there is a "samantical" problem here. Either that, or you are changing parameters...What you are describing is holding one accountable for his actions. "Accountablity" is not the same thing as rebuking, and holds a different connitation than rebuking.

Quote:

---

In this thread however, we are talking more about warning. It is like if you see a movie that is PG-13 and it contains nudity so you warn others not to watch it.

---

Here again, you change the parameters. Now we are 'warning', not rebuking...As for your illustration of nudity in the PG-13 movie, I am more likely to be informing a fellow church member who shares roughly the same values

I do in Christian films in the hopes of helping him decide weather the film is worth wasting his money than I am in warning him/her about the violation of christian ethics in viewing the film.

Quote:

---

Rebuking and warning are related but not exactly the same.

---

Definately, we agree with that...

[Dr. Shane]

A segmant of the Religious Right does like to play the victem which is the case, or appears to be, with this Brittny Spears/Will & Grace story. Really, the cooking scene may be offensive but SO IS THE ENTIRE WILL & GRACE SERIES! I think they frame it wrong. Instead of trying to make themselves into presecuted Christians, they should just show how spiritually unhealthy television is for the Christian believer.

[Nicodema]

Where are we going with this?

[Clio]

Where did you find this graphic? It's like something out of my nightmares... Yikes.

[Nicodema]

It was online somewhere. Says it all, dunnit?

[Clio]

Uh-huh....

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Uh-huh....

---

The person that must be forced to accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit, will hate the Originator of those gifts as well as His followers, and will look with disdain, repugnance, and hostility on all who attempt to live in peaceful coexistence with those who see reason behind their principles.

[:"red"] "Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy Though I fall I will rise;Though I dwell in darkness, the LORD is a light for me" [/] Micah 7:8 NASB