When our kids ask a spiritual question, they deserve a substantive, truthful answer. Too often, though, we insist on feeding them theology we have first cut into bite-sized pieces: a simplified Bible story, a single Scripture verse, a personal testimony of our own experience. But children can, and should, learn large concepts, tooâ€”salvation, atonement, sanctificationâ€”words they will hear throughout their lives, and the ones for which they may someday have to make a defense.
During Lent, Christians often discover or revisit spiritual disciplines to incorporate into family life. While Lent is drawing to an end, these disciplines are useful for every season of the Christian's life, and I'd like to suggest that we commit to systematically answering our kids' questions about faith. Our family does this through a practice called catechizing. Though many Protestants mistakenly think so, it's not merely...
Sorry about the homonym for "sheep," and it shouldn't have been "cheap."
Ah, if you used James Strong's Concordance (It's really should be part and parcel of any AV edition, you will find this definition for:
Strong's Concordance (Unicorn) wrote: 07214: 7214 r'em reh-ame' or rieym reh-ame'; or reym rame; or rem rame; from 7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness):--unicorn. see HEBREW for 07213
He will come closer to the correct interpretation of the words in the AV, than just trying stumble through or, you could just get a Comparative Study Bible, and see how the better translations handle terms!
Jim Lincoln wrote: But hey, be happy I or the author didn't use terms like those of a mythical animal that never existed such as unicorn!
Jim. You really need to brush up on your english language and the correct definition of words.
Hence FYI Unicorn:- early 13c., from Old French unicorne, from Late Latin unicornus (Vulgate), from noun use of Latin unicornis (adj.) "having one horn," from uni- "one" (see uni-) + cornus "horn" (see horn)."
This is what comes of using the nasb which is influenced by heretics and the vatican.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary wrote: Kid: 2. A young child or infant; hence, a simple person, easily imposed on. [Slang] Charles Reade
it even goes back that far, children are more goats than cheap, until they get educated.
But hey, be happy I or the author didn't use terms like those of a mythical animal that never existed such as unicorn!
People know what the work "kid" means in the context of the article or my message, so be happy he and I at least use English, that is understandable in the 20th-21st century, not something outdated from the 17th.
John Beechy wrote: The primary "textbook" for children (not little goats) should be the English scriptures. All the subjects are contained therein. Very few other "textbooks" are needed.
Amen to the above.
I agree with your sentiment regarding calling children "children" and baby goats "kids". I was curious, did some searching and I found the following to be interesting...
Matthew 13:55 - But in the next breath they were cutting him down: "We've known him since he was a kid; he's the carpenter's son. We know his mother, Mary. We know his brothers James and Joseph, Simon and Judas. - The Mess
No, you shouldn't have big theology for little kids, nor even big theology for big kids!
1 Corinthians 13 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.---NASB
But even quite young children, well those with good rote memories, can present the Gospel, as my pastor pointed out when you show kids of all ages the The Roman Road, don't get distracted and go down a bunch of different rabbit trails