Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[Steven Avery]

Forgive me an observation, but you come across as more of a coward than a noble servant kicking the dirt of a heathen from your sandals.

You can make any observation you want, any forgiveness you will need to seek first from God. Clearly you are simply burning the bridges more thoroughly.

However, we are distractive to the forum at this point, at a time when even Will and muz seem to be onboard. Thank you guys for posting.

Cab, I suggest if you have anything to say to me further, try a direct message. And if there is a moderator I do hope they will take note so the forum can stay on track.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[dreadknought]

Hi bereancam,

Reasonable question. Thanks. This question of early usages is something I looked into a while back and discussed with Tim Warner, who has the most voluminous information at:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/false_teachings_of_arius.htm
The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18 - Tim Warner

Notice the Nicene Creed compared to the Arian Creed. btw, Tim did miss some references on both sides, such as the only-begotten-Son references in the Apostolic Constitutions, and the mixed referencing from Athanasius and Cyril and he didn't discuss later references like the Council of Chalcedon. However overall his article is the single best.

The first key issue is the Bible, John 3:16 and other verses.

Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree:
the LORD hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,
in that he hath raised up Jesus again;
as it is also written in the second psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Hebrews 5:5
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son,
to day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:
and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through him.

Only begotten God, unless you claim the minority reading of John 1:18, is totally absent from the Bible. While only begotten Son is pure and true Bible, consistently, fluidly, beautifully. So how anybody can know to know the word of God and accuse against John 1:18 above in the King James Bible is very strange. I think perhaps you would grant that, Bereancam but now want to study whether "only begotten God" is also potentially proper Bible usage and whether it was in fact an aspect of the early 3rd-century Arian usages. Which is fair enough and something I always appreciate learning more about as well.

The next issue is the early church writers and the Arian controversies of the 3rd century. There is material on this from Dean John Burgon, Tischendorf and others. After that maybe we can get into the fifth century writers and creeds and also the Reformation view, if desired. However right now I will be heading to work, and all of this takes a spot of time to research, think, study and writer properly.

As for you question about discussing Bible verses, we have excellent edifying discussions on the WhichVersion forum, (There is also a web-forum AV1611 which would probably be very interested in these questions, at least about John 1:18.) I do not think such discussions are able to go far here on Theology-Online, where Mormons and skeptics and railing false accusers hijack the discussion and there is essentially no integrity moderation. I have left this venue before, for those types of reasons, and now that the debate is over, I only plan to tie up loose ends from this debate and move on. However the loose ends could include more on our discussion here on John 1:18. Probably more on Warfield's pseudo-inerrancy. Maybe a final review of the debate. Anyway, I appreciate that this time you brought something of substance to the floor. Such has been almost non-existent here.

Shalom,
Steven

And this is your answer? Why am I not suprised? :bang: Good luck!



Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

 

[CabinetMaker]

You can make any observation you want, any forgiveness you will need to seek first from God. Clearly you are simply burning the bridges more thoroughly.

However, we are distractive to the forum at this point, at a time when even Will and muz seem to be onboard. Thank you guys for posting.

Cab, I suggest if you have anything to say to me further, try a direct message. And if there is a moderator I do hope they will take note so the forum can stay on track.

Shalom,
Steven

We are on track. I have asked you to defend your position on the KJV which what this thread is intended for. You have declined to do so. I have attempted to to engage you in furthering those discussions. Again, you have declined to do so. I find your refusal to talk with anybody who does not agree with you very telling. I am trying to make sure the other viewers of this thread see that you do not answer difficult questions regarding your claims about the KJV. You and brandplucked continually attempt to reform any debate you are in to avoid addressing information and factual evidence the directly contradicts your position.

 

[Varangian]

We are on track. I have asked you to defend your position on the KJV which what this thread is intended for. You have declined to do so. I have attempted to to engage you in furthering those discussions. Again, you have declined to do so. I find your refusal to talk with anybody who does not agree with you very telling. I am trying to make sure the other viewers of this thread see that you do not answer difficult questions regarding your claims about the KJV. You and brandplucked continually attempt to reform any debate you are in to avoid addressing information and factual evidence the directly contradicts your position.

And you're surprised by any of this happening while engaging in debate with a KJVO type? :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

And you're surprised by any of this happening while engaging in debate with a KJVO type? :chuckle:

:sigh: No, I'm not.

 

[brandplucked]

Are most MV's (NASB, NIV,ESV) based on Westcott-Hort?

Are most MV's (NASB, NIV,ESV) based on Westcott-Hort?

ARE THE MODERN VERSIONS BASED ON WESTCOTT-HORT?

(If nothing else, read the quote from the UBS, Nestle 24th edition text about half way down)


The theories of textual criticism which underlie the Westcott-Hort
Greek New Testament of 1881 have been somewhat discredited by textual
critics of the 20th century. It is not surprising, therefore, that
modern version proponents today often disassociate themselves from
Westcott-Hort and claim that they merely use an "eclectic" Greek
text. ("Eclectic" means to "select or employ individual elements from
a variety of sources, systems, or styles.")

James White, author of the popular and influential book "The King
James Only Controversy," makes this claim. He says, "While modern
Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort,
one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white,
saying that all modern versions are based upon their work" (White, p.
99).

I have heard other modern version defenders imply that Westcott and
Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because "no
textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual
criticism."

This position DODGES THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WESTCOTT
AND HORT REPRESENTED THE SIGNAL DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT THAT IS REPRESENTED TODAY IN THE POPULAR THEORIES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their
predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Westcott
and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own
unique blend, and their Greek New Testament represented the first
popular departure from the Greek Received Text.

While today's textual scholars do not always admit that they follow
Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they
are powerfully influenced by the these men.

Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic alive.
He is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New
Testament and the author of many widely-used books on textual
criticism. In his 1981 book The Westcott and Hort Greek New
Testament--Yesterday and Today, Metzger makes the following plain
admission: "The International committee that produced the United
Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT
AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION"
(Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th
Century, p. 264).

In light of this admission by such a prominent textual authority,
James White needs to explain for his readers why he condemns King
James Bible defenders for claiming that Westcott-Hort are still
followed.

Brooks further states, "There is nothing unique about Metzger's
theory of textual criticism. It is simply a refinement of Westcott
and Hort's theory in the New Testament in the Original Greek (1881).
. . . this theory is dominant today in part because of Metzger's
great influence. It was the theory employed in producing the United
Bible Societies Greek text. It is the theory lying behind the Greek
text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New
Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible,
the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News
Bible, the New International Version, and to a lesser extent, also
the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible" (Ibid.).


Consider the following quotation by Ernest Cadman Colwell, a textual
scholar who published a number of widely used grammars and textbooks,
including A Beginners Reader-Grammar for New Testament Greek (New
York: Harper & Row, 1965), A Greek Papyrus Reader, with Vocabulary
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), A Hellenistic Greek
Reader (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), and Studies in
Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1969).

"THE DEAD HAND OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT LIES HEAVY UPON US. In the
early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a
failure, though a glorious one. But HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS
MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... Hort's success in
this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped-AND
STILL SHAPES-the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism
of the NT through the English language" (emphasis added) (Ernest
Cadman Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the
Corruption of the Text," The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P.
Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370).

In the introduction to the 24th edition of Nestle's Greek New
Testament, editors Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland make the following
admission:

"Thus THE TEXT, BUILT UP ON THE WORK OF THE 19TH CENTURY, HAS
REMAINED AS A WHOLE UNCHANGED, particularly since the research of
recent years has not yet led to the establishment of a generally
acknowledged N.T. text" (Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum
Testamentum Graece, 24th edition, 1960, p. 62).

James White is failing to acknowledge a fact that modern textual
authorities such as Metzger, Colwell, and Nestle do acknowledge--that
Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of
textual criticism and that the current "eclectic" Greek New
Testaments continue to reflect, for the most part, the decisions made
by Westcott and Hort. To deny their influence is similar to denying
the influence of Darwin on contemporary evolutionary thought. Many
planks of Darwin's theories have been discredited, but Darwin and his
theories are important because of their key, pivotal role in the
field.

Consider another quote, this one from Dr. Zane Hodges:

"MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY 'ADDICTED' TO WESTCOTT
AND HORT. Westcott and Hort, in turn, were rationalists in their
approach to the textual problem in the New Testament and employed
techniques within which rationalism and every other kind of bias are
free to operate. The result of it all is a methodological quagmire
where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly
nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian
who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual
matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary
critical texts" (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, "Rationalism and
Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism," Bibliotheca Sacra,
January 1971, p. 35).



White and others attempting to discredit the defense of the King
James Bible claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because
(they say) "the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the
Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on
an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."

This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the
issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is
almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 IN SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURES
FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT.

For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the
same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45).

Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses
(WH--193, UBS 185).

Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord
(WH--221, UBS--212).


The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible
Societies' text differ only in relatively minor points. BOTH
REPRESENT THE SAME TYPE OF TEXT WITH THE SAME TYPE OF DEPARTURES FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT. They follow the type of text found in the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which the Reformation era Greek editors
believed was a doctrinally corrupt text that was modified during the
theological battles occurring in the two centuries after the apostles.

The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first
widely-accepted departure from the Received Text in the
post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend
directly from the W-H text. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is very
significant and its editors are highly significant to the history of
textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance
of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably
trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something.

Article by David Cloud

 

[CabinetMaker]

Brandplucked,

I see you have quoted a lot of scholars to support your position. Can you quote any scripture to support your claim of authority?

Also, your last post in the one on one thread was more than just a little disappointing. You continue to press a label onto Muz while doing nothing to offer any meaningful support for your stated position in your opening post. Muz has sated what he believes about the bible and you refuse to acknowledge his statements and instead keep pressing him to say what you want to hear.

I hope that you will cease to press Muz on issues he has already addressed and make more fully develop scriptural support for your position.

 

[AVBunyan]

Based on what? What authority does the KJV have to be used as the standard against which all other texts are judged.

1. Based upon the authority of the witness of history

2. The miraculous fruits in the lives of sinners and saints since the AV came out

3. No proven errors ever found in the AV

4. The fruits of the MVs in creating confusion and helping to produce the most ignorant, fleshly, worldly, and most spiritual ignorant saints ever

5. The exalted place it gives to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ vs. the low rating the MVs give to the Saviour

6. The ease of memorizing vs. the MVs

And a few more...

 

[CabinetMaker]

1. Based upon the authority of the witness of history

Fair enough.

2. The miraculous fruits in the lives of sinners and saints since the AV came out

There weren't miraculous fruits any prior to 1611? That doesn't sound right.

3. No proven errors ever found in the AV

This statement is just wrong. The KJV went through several editions to correct spelling errors and printing errors.

4. The fruits of the MVs in creating confusion and helping to produce the most ignorant, fleshly, worldly, and most spiritual ignorant saints ever

Can you offer some supporting evidence for this statement? Can you show me, for instance, where the NIV has caused somebody to be "ignorant, fleshly, worldly, and spiritually ignorant"?

] 5. The exalted place it gives to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ vs. the low rating the MVs give to the Saviour

I use the NIV and I have never seen Jesus placed in a low rating. There was discussion in this thread about the KJV having problems with the translation of Christ's position in the Godhead.

] 6. The ease of memorizing vs. the MVs

I have never found the KJV easy to memorize but that is just me. People don't talk that way any more so it makes it hard sometimes for me to get the cadence down.

And a few more...

Lets see them.

 

[AVBunyan]

I use the NIV and I have never seen Jesus placed in a low rating. There was discussion in this thread about the KJV having problems with the translation of Christ's position in the Godhead.

The NIV doesn’t low rate the person of Christ? Here are just 3 out of many – these are enough for me to flush the NIV down.

AV - Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, [worshipping] him,
NIV - Mat 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, [kneeling down], asked a favor of him.

AV - Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and [worshipped] him,
NIV - Mat 8:2 A man with leprosy came and [knelt] before him and said,

One can kneel without worshipping but since Origen had issues with the deity of Christ hen he changed worshipping and worshipped in places.

AV - Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from [everlasting]. Here Christ is eternal.

NIV - Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from [ancient times."] Here Christ is from time – not eternal – again Origen never did like Christ being deity.

Now there are about 1,000 more examples where the MVs low rate the person and work of Christ. If you don’t have any problem with the NIV with the above then what is your problem? Is your doctrinal conscience seared with a hot iron?

A few links regarding the NIV and others that took me less than 20 seconds to find:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/deity.htm
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/chrdei.html
http://www.learnthebible.org/Only Begotten Son.htm
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=niv
http://www.calvarypandan.org/kjv.htm

There are so many more and you know it but you will find something wrong with their comparisons like most AVs (AV Correctors) do.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

Can you offer some supporting evidence for this statement? Can you show me, for instance, where the NIV has caused somebody to be "ignorant, fleshly, worldly, and spiritually ignorant"?

Forgot this one...

Just read the lives of the saints of years past when there was only an AV and then compare their lives with the MV readers today - a blind man can see it.

I am not saying I put myself in the years past believers either.

The saints of old (from 1611 to @1880 or so) were different.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The NIV doesn’t low rate the person of Christ? Here are just 3 out of many – these are enough for me to flush the NIV down.

AV - Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, [worshipping] him,
NIV - Mat 20:20 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, [kneeling down], asked a favor of him.

AV - Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and [worshipped] him,
NIV - Mat 8:2 A man with leprosy came and [knelt] before him and said,

One can kneel without worshipping but since Origen had issues with the deity of Christ hen he changed worshipping and worshipped in places.

AV - Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from [everlasting]. Here Christ is eternal.

NIV - Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from [ancient times."] Here Christ is from time – not eternal – again Origen never did like Christ being deity.

Now there are about 1,000 more examples where the MVs low rate the person and work of Christ. If you don’t have any problem with the NIV with the above then what is your problem? Is your doctrinal conscience seared with a hot iron?

A few links regarding the NIV and others that took me less than 20 seconds to find:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/deity.htm
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/chrdei.html
http://www.learnthebible.org/Only Begotten Son.htm
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=niv
http://www.calvarypandan.org/kjv.htm

There are so many more and you know it but you will find something wrong with their comparisons like most AVs (AV Correctors) do.

God bless

The translations are different, I freely admit that. But it is only by a historical view that you claim the KJV is better. There is no scriptural authority behind your claim so there is no way to determine what GOD said about which translation is "best" or "prefect". Can you show someplace where God or Jesus said the KJV was the only bible He considered perfect?

If you cannot, then the verses you quoted above demonstrate nothing more than a difference in translation. Based on what I know about translating documents, I find the modern translations to be more accurate. They are based on more manuscripts than were available to the KJV translators. It has been proven through experiments that the more inaccurate manuscripts you have to work from, the more likely you are to reproduce the original document. The multiple sources make it possible to determine when a scribing error has occurred.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Forgot this one...

Just read the lives of the saints of years past when there was only an AV and then compare their lives with the MV readers today - a blind man can see it.

I am not saying I put myself in the years past believers either.

The saints of old (from 1611 to @1880 or so) were different.

Lets see, Mother Tressa lived after 1880 and Catholics use the NASB as I recall. Do you consider the life of Mother Tressa to saintly or not? Please explain.

 

[AVBunyan]

If you cannot, then the verses you quoted above demonstrate nothing more than a difference in translation.

1. Does the NIV in Mic 5:2 teach that Christ was not from eternity? Yes or no

2. Are you ok with substituting kneeling for worshiping?

As for mother Theresa - lost people can live better than true saints at times - exceptions prove the rule. Because you can find one example does not disprove my theory. I'm looking at the whole.

 

[brandplucked]

The big apostasy since the modern versions on the scene

The big apostasy since the modern versions on the scene

Originally Posted by AVBunyan
4. The fruits of the MVs in creating confusion and helping to produce the most ignorant, fleshly, worldly, and most spiritual ignorant saints ever

Can you offer some supporting evidence for this statement? Can you show me, for instance, where the NIV has caused somebody to be "ignorant, fleshly, worldly, and spiritually ignorant"?

Here is plenty, and these guys aren't even King James Bible onlyists.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005335

From the Wall Street Journal, editorial page.
HOUSES OF WORSHIP

Christian Teens? Not Very.
Many hold mushy beliefs antithetical to the creed.
BY DALE BUSS
Friday, July 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

When I'm teaching Sunday school, I'm encouraged by what I hear from the teenagers at my evangelical Christian church in suburban Detroit. They seem to understand--and, more important, to believe--the bedrock tenets that will help them hew to orthodoxy throughout their lives and make them salt and light in the world.

But the hard numbers say otherwise. It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical to the creed. The forces of moral relativism and "tolerance" have gotten to them in a big way. In fact, some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today.

About one-third of American teenagers claim they're "born again" believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings." And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life.

Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism's central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes--and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute.

"When you ask even Christian kids, 'How can you say A is true as well as B, which is the antithesis of A?,' their typical response is, 'I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me,'" says George Barna, president of the Ventura, Calif.-based research company. "It's personal, pragmatic and fairly superficial."




Some commentators produce even more startling statistics on the doctrinal drift of America's youth. Ninety-one percent of born-again teenagers surveyed a few years ago proclaimed that there is no such thing as absolute truth, says the Rev. Josh McDowell, a Dallas-based evangelist and author. More alarmingly, that number had risen quickly and steadily from just 52% of committed Christian kids in 1992 who denied the existence of absolute truth. A slight majority of professing Christian kids, Mr. McDowell says, also now say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred.

"There's a greater disconnect now than ever in the history of the church in America between what a Christian young person says they are and what they actually believe," says Mr. McDowell, who has ministered mainly to youth for more than 30 years. "Christianity is based on truth; Jesus said, 'I am the truth.' But you have an overwhelming majority even of Christian kids saying there is no absolute truth."

Catholics have noticed the trend as well. A few weeks ago, in fact, Pope John Paul II specifically warned several U.S. bishops about the "soulless vision of life" that seemed to be overtaking America, urging them to "confront directly the widespread spirit of agnosticism and relativism which has cast doubt on reason's ability to know the truth," especially among youth.

Indeed, the consequences of this theological implosion now pervade the thoughts and actions of believing teenagers, following the moral breakdown of the broader American culture. Here's one practical example: Only 10% of Christian teens believe that music piracy is morally wrong, according to a recent Barna survey, not all that different from the 6% of their non-Christian peers who feel the same way.

Then extrapolate the situation to other possible big-picture results. Nearly 60% of evangelical Christian teenagers now say that all religious faiths teach equally valid truths, according to Mr. McDowell. It's bad enough that they seem to have been co-opted by relativism from within our culture and even from within the church and family. But it's even more disconcerting to realize that we're relying on this generation for the future defense of Judeo-Christian civilization against the highly motivated forces of militant Islam.

Perhaps it's counterintuitive to believe this problem is as severe as that outlined by Messrs. Barna and McDowell. After all, we're told that spirituality is de rigueur among youths these days and that Christianity is right up there. But this zeitgeist largely reflects a pseudo-faith that is fed by a steady diet of pop-culture feints, from the allegorical "Lord of the Rings" movies to the T-shirt that recently adorned Pamela Anderson saying, "Jesus is my homeboy."

The kids in my Sunday School class really do understand that. It's their peers I'm worried about.

Mr. Buss is a journalist and author in Rochester Hills, Mich.


Will K

 

[brandplucked]

Mother Teresa was not a Christian

Mother Teresa was not a Christian

Lets see, Mother Tressa lived after 1880 and Catholics use the NASB as I recall. Do you consider the life of Mother Tressa to saintly or not? Please explain.

It is not that surprising to see the world, Catholicism, and liberal Protestantism offer unqualified applause to Mother Teresa. More significant and difficult to understand is the applause given to her by those that claim to be Bible-believing Christians.

Let me repeat, I am not doubting the goodness of Mother Teresa's work from a temporal, human, earthly perspective. Yet the most important question in regard to any religious work is whether or not it is acceptable to God, whether or not it is grounded and settled in the Truth. The Bible says, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

The Lord Jesus Christ warned that performing wonderful works in His name is not evidence of salvation.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and IN THY NAME DONE MANY WONDERFUL WORKS? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23).

Thus we see that the Lord Jesus Christ solemnly warned that MANY who will do wonderful things IN HIS NAME will turn out to be unsaved people who did not know Him in truth.



The only way we can know for sure what is genuine and what is counterfeit is to test it by the infallible Word of God. T

Those who carefully test everything by the Word of God today are commonly counted as hateful troublemakers by many within mainstream evangelicalism, but the Bible warns that those who are not careful are foolish. "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going" (Proverbs 14:15). The wise man knows there are many spiritual dangers. He is aware that he has a formidable spiritual enemy who transforms himself into an angel of light and whose ministers transform themselves into ministers of righteousness.

"Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Because of these spiritual realities, the wise Christian is extremely cautious. He does not gullibly accept someone as a genuine Christian because of a mere profession or because of "good works." He investigates what gospel the person holds, what Christ he is trusting, what spirit he is following.

Was Mother Teresa a regenerate Christian? To what eternal destiny did she lead those to whom she ministered? This is the important question, no matter how unpopular it might be even to consider making such a "harsh" and "unloving" judgment.


WHAT MOTHER TERESA BELIEVED

Mother Teresa was a thorough-going Catholic, a faithful daughter of Vatican II. She was a great worshiper of Mary; she believed the wafer of the mass is literally and actually Jesus Christ.

In June 1986, Mother Teresa spoke at the second annual Rosary for Peace gathering. She said, "Generously give your child to be consecrated to God. The greatest gift God can give to a family is to have a son to be a priest at the altar, at whose absolution a sinner full of sin becomes a sinner without sin. Pray that one or two of your children be consecrated that you may grow in holiness. Make your family one heart full of love, the heart of Jesus through Mary" (The Tidings, Los Angeles, California, June 20, 1986).

Thus Mother Teresa believed that the Catholic priest has the power to absolve sinners of sin and that we come to Jesus through Mary.



Mother Teresa Believed All Men Are Children of God

In her speech before the United Nations in October 1985, she said, "We gather to thank God for the 40 years of the beautiful work of the United Nations for the good of people. No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us--we are all children of God. ... When we destroy an unborn child, we destroy God" (Christian News, Nov. 11, 1985, p. 17).

Mother Teresa called AIDS sufferers "children of God" and said, "Each one of them is Jesus in a distressing disguise" (Time, Jan. 13, 1986).

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times told the story of Mother Teresa sheltering an old Hindu priest. "She nursed him with her own hands and helped him to die reconciled with his own gods." This is exactly what the Missionaries of Charity do in Kathmandu, Nepal, as we shall see later in this report from the interview with Sister Ann.

In the biography Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, she is quoted by Desmond Doig as follows: "If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we ... become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are ... What God is in your mind you must accept."



When Mother Teresa died, her longtime friend and biographer Naveen Chawla said that he once asked her bluntly, "Do you convert?" She replied, "Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how to worship him" ("Mother Teresa Touched other Faiths," Associated Press, Sept. 7, 1997).

The fact that so many modern day evangelicals would go all ga ga over this deceived woman is just one more sign that we are indeed in the apostasy.

Will K

 

[CabinetMaker]

1. Does the NIV in Mic 5:2 teach that Christ was not from eternity? Yes or no

No, it translates it as from ancient times. However, it offers a footnote indicating the the verse can be translated as "Or from days of eternity".Micah 5:2 (New International Version)


2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins [b] are from of old,
from ancient times. [c] "

Micah 5:2 (King James Version)


2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

2. Are you ok with substituting kneeling for worshiping?

The difference in translation does not bother me, in fact, I think that kneeling before Christ is a better translation. Christ always said we to worship His Father, not Him. Jesus directed us to pray to His Father in the name of the Son. We are not taught to pray to Christ directly.

As for mother Theresa - lost people can live better than true saints at times - exceptions prove the rule. Because you can find one example does not disprove my theory. I'm looking at the whole.[/quote]
One exception disproves your rule. You made a blanket statement and it was wrong. The life of a saint is not determined by the bible they read, it is determined by their love of and obedience to God.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Here is plenty, and these guys aren't even King James Bible onlyists.
{deleted for sapce}

Interestingly enough, the article did not mention any translation of the bible. It did not compare teens using the KJV against teens using any other translation. It did not offer any controls to account for factors such as peer pressure and uninvolved parents. In short, the article discussed a very real problem concerning faith in America and in American teens in particular, but offered no evidence to indicate that Bible translations play a part.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is not that surprising to see the world, Catholicism, and liberal Protestantism offer unqualified applause to Mother Teresa. More significant and difficult to understand is the applause given to her by those that claim to be Bible-believing Christians.

Let me repeat, I am not doubting the goodness of Mother Teresa's work from a temporal, human, earthly perspective. Yet the most important question in regard to any religious work is whether or not it is acceptable to God, whether or not it is grounded and settled in the Truth. The Bible says, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

The Lord Jesus Christ warned that performing wonderful works in His name is not evidence of salvation.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and IN THY NAME DONE MANY WONDERFUL WORKS? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23).

Thus we see that the Lord Jesus Christ solemnly warned that MANY who will do wonderful things IN HIS NAME will turn out to be unsaved people who did not know Him in truth.



The only way we can know for sure what is genuine and what is counterfeit is to test it by the infallible Word of God. T

Those who carefully test everything by the Word of God today are commonly counted as hateful troublemakers by many within mainstream evangelicalism, but the Bible warns that those who are not careful are foolish. "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going" (Proverbs 14:15). The wise man knows there are many spiritual dangers. He is aware that he has a formidable spiritual enemy who transforms himself into an angel of light and whose ministers transform themselves into ministers of righteousness.

"Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Because of these spiritual realities, the wise Christian is extremely cautious. He does not gullibly accept someone as a genuine Christian because of a mere profession or because of "good works." He investigates what gospel the person holds, what Christ he is trusting, what spirit he is following.

Was Mother Teresa a regenerate Christian? To what eternal destiny did she lead those to whom she ministered? This is the important question, no matter how unpopular it might be even to consider making such a "harsh" and "unloving" judgment.


WHAT MOTHER TERESA BELIEVED

Mother Teresa was a thorough-going Catholic, a faithful daughter of Vatican II. She was a great worshiper of Mary; she believed the wafer of the mass is literally and actually Jesus Christ.

In June 1986, Mother Teresa spoke at the second annual Rosary for Peace gathering. She said, "Generously give your child to be consecrated to God. The greatest gift God can give to a family is to have a son to be a priest at the altar, at whose absolution a sinner full of sin becomes a sinner without sin. Pray that one or two of your children be consecrated that you may grow in holiness. Make your family one heart full of love, the heart of Jesus through Mary" (The Tidings, Los Angeles, California, June 20, 1986).

Thus Mother Teresa believed that the Catholic priest has the power to absolve sinners of sin and that we come to Jesus through Mary.



Mother Teresa Believed All Men Are Children of God

In her speech before the United Nations in October 1985, she said, "We gather to thank God for the 40 years of the beautiful work of the United Nations for the good of people. No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us--we are all children of God. ... When we destroy an unborn child, we destroy God" (Christian News, Nov. 11, 1985, p. 17).

Mother Teresa called AIDS sufferers "children of God" and said, "Each one of them is Jesus in a distressing disguise" (Time, Jan. 13, 1986).

The April 7-13, 1990, issue of Radio Times told the story of Mother Teresa sheltering an old Hindu priest. "She nursed him with her own hands and helped him to die reconciled with his own gods." This is exactly what the Missionaries of Charity do in Kathmandu, Nepal, as we shall see later in this report from the interview with Sister Ann.

In the biography Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, she is quoted by Desmond Doig as follows: "If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we ... become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are ... What God is in your mind you must accept."



When Mother Teresa died, her longtime friend and biographer Naveen Chawla said that he once asked her bluntly, "Do you convert?" She replied, "Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you've found God, it's up to you to decide how to worship him" ("Mother Teresa Touched other Faiths," Associated Press, Sept. 7, 1997).

The fact that so many modern day evangelicals would go all ga ga over this deceived woman is just one more sign that we are indeed in the apostasy.

Will K

And yet, for all of her theological differences, she "sold" everything she had to follow Jesus. Christ teaches us that what we do for the least among us we do to Him. She took Him at His word. The Catholic Church offered her retirement about any place she wanted to go and she stayed in the slums of Calcutta till the day she died.

We all have our theological flaws. You hold to KJV-onlyism. I hold to open theism. Catholics hold to Mary and the Mass. In the end, Mother Tressa sold all that she had or ever could have to minister the least among us. We sit at the end of our keyboards verbally sparing over doctrinal trivialities while she loved and served God everyday. None are perfect and I do not know her relationship with Christ. However, we know Christians by the fruits of their labors and her labors were fruitful.

 

[AVBunyan]

No, it translates it as from ancient times. However, it offers a footnote indicating the the verse can be translated as "Or from days of eternity".Micah 5:2 (New International Version)

I don't care about footnotes whether they are in the MVs or the AV - what they (NIV translators) put in the text is what they believe to be so and it come from Origen who did not believe Christ was eternal.

The text of the AV is the word of God not the footnotes.

So, the NIV teaches false doctrine there in Mic 5:2 so it should be chunked.