Re:Modern Translations

[vernecarty]

Hi Verne!

  You are proving yourself to be courteous and measured in your responses in the face of some strong disagreement, and for this you are to be commended.

  I keep raising the fact that Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill in missing text in his Greek translation of the small portion of Bzyantine family texts that he had available because I have yet to receive an answer from you other than a denial that says I am not correct.  

The argument that because Erasmus had a limited number of MSS means his work was suspect is the specific charge I was addressing Mark. I am simply saying that the discovery of numerous additional documents confirm the accuracy of the ones he actually worked with. There is no dispute that Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus disagree with over 95%  of extant MSS. That was the simple point I was making.
In a larger sense, the fact that there is so much agreement does indeed speak favorably for the preservation of the Scriptures, a point made well by Metzger. Where differences from the KJV occur in modern translations, I believe they are important enough to warrant further inquiry, the above fact notwithstanding.
I simply believe that the texts used for many modern translations are not the most faithful to the originals and that this is attested to by the fact that the vast majority of extant documents disagree with them. I hope that clarifies my point somewhat.

 

  Re. Bruce Metzger:  The quotes offered seem to be in error in your estimation, but I am unable to notice anything in them that would cause me concern.  You will have to explain your objections to these words of Dr. Metzger in order for me to understand the point you are trying to make.

The point on which I strongly disagee with Metzger is his contention that the early believers were somehow confused as to what was "Scripture" and this was stated in his first quote.
This is a view held my many textual critics and explains the remarkable liberties they often take with God's word in espousing so-called "dynamic equivalency".

The interview has few things (the passage in John being one such item) that I disagree with and that is why I posted it, in a spirit of fairness. I also wanted to illustrate that despite Metzger's stated position on the reliability of the process of textual criticsim as practiced by modern day scholars, one cannot escape the fact that the product of the two family of texts undeniably are at odds in many places and they cannot both be correct.
This is why I think it is much more critical to actually talk about what our various versions say, rather than trying to navigate the incredibly difficult and erudite field of modern textual criticims and scholastic opinion.
It seems to me that if we can explain satisfactorily to ourselves and others the basis for all these variant readings and omissions, it becomes far easier to show how they were arrived at via textual criticism. This is what in my view has been missing in the entire discussion of those defending the modern versions- namely, why do they say the things they do??!!

 

Re. verse comparison:  Erasmus made textual choices when he compared the Bzyantine Greek texts that he had.  All ancient and modern translators have done exactly the same, because there is not just one text.

  To compare English translations today, with an eye toward discerning what is the true original, is an excersize in futility.  
                                 
 

Not necessarily Mark. The comparison of English translations does indeed presume that one would be willing to expend some little effort to obtain at least a working knowledge of the original Greek text. It does not take much to determine if words used in the english translation are truly found in the original text.
The vast mahority of variant readings that I have cited are amenable to this kind of inquiry. I know there are other matters that would indeed take considerably training for one to be able to render an informed judgment but a determination of what words were or were not present in the source text is not one of them. I would be happy to provide examples if that would be useful.
There are countless examples of modern translations using language that is not supported by any source text - even the ones  I consider corrupt!
Verne

[outdeep]

Dear Friends,

May we continue our worship by singing number 782 in our Hymms To Lousy Melodies Hymbook?  Let us sing slowly, reverently as unto Him.

Did we beat this thread to death?
Still there's more to follow
Can't we give it all a rest?
Still there's more to follow

Chorus:
More and more
More and more
Always more to follow
Oh, the matchless, verbal wit
Still there's more to follow

Round in circles here we go
Still there's more to follow
Covr'n ground walked here'to'fore
Still there's more to follow (Chorus)

Will this maddness ever end?
Still there's more to follow
We debate, but we're still friends
Still there's more to follow (Chorus)


  ;DSorry, I couldn't resist . . .

[vernecarty]

Dear Friends,

May we continue our worship by singing number 782 in our Hymms To Lousy Melodies Hymbook?  Let us sing slowly, reverently as unto Him.

Did we beat this thread to death?
Still there's more to follow
Can't we give it all a rest?
Still there's more to follow

Chorus:
More and more
More and more
Always more to follow
Oh, the matchless, verbal wit
Still there's more to follow

Round in circles here we go
Still there's more to follow
Covr'n ground walked here'to'fore
Still there's more to follow (Chorus)

Will this maddness ever end?
Still there's more to follow
We debate, but we're still friends
Still there's more to follow (Chorus)


  ;DSorry, I couldn't resist . . .

Not so! by Jove, there's still life here
So let's not be so shallow
While the endless moderns dare
Spew forth more to swallow

Debate! brave lads, and make your case
Lest minds become too narrow
Present your facts, with all due haste
And truth's sharp piercing arrow.

Now Dave, see what you have provoked?  
Verne
p.s you'd better be careful, there's more where that came from...

[Oscar]

Verne,

In your last reply to Mark C. you said:

"There are countless examples of modern translations using language that is not supported by any source text - even the ones  I consider corrupt!"

You have said you have a working knowledge of Spanish, so here's an example of what you are talking about.

Yesterday I was doing some reading for a paper in a local MacDonald's.  A Mexican lady walked past where I was sitting and entered the ladies room.  Her daughter, however, did not follow her but rather made a turn into an area that holds a brightly colored cube about four feet tall  with funny pictures on it.

The mother, who could not see her from the door of the restroom called her to "come right now."  The child responded, "Ya voy."   That literally means, "I go now" or "I am going now."

But what the child meant, and then acted out, was, "I am coming right now."

What she meant was not contained in the verb she chose to use.   She said, colloquially, "Ya voy."  Literally she meant, "Ya vengo."   This is quite common, and good translators know all about these things.

When I took Spanish in college I would not have understood what the child meant. My literal understanding of what she said would have confused me.  After several years of interacting with Spanish speaking students, I got it.

I think the method you describe as "a working knowledge of greek" is inadequate to acheive your goal.

Thomas Maddux

[sfortescue]

Verne,

...

You have said you have a working knowledge of Spanish, so here's an example of what you are talking about.

Yesterday I was doing some reading for a paper in a local MacDonald's.  A Mexican lady walked past where I was sitting and entered the ladies room.  Her daughter, however, did not follow her but rather made a turn into an area that holds a brightly colored cube about four feet tall  with funny pictures on it.

The mother, who could not see her from the door of the restroom called her to "come right now."  The child responded, "Ya voy."   That literally means, "I go now" or "I am going now."

But what the child meant, and then acted out, was, "I am coming right now."

What she meant was not contained in the verb she chose to use.   She said, colloquially, "Ya voy."  Literally she meant, "Ya vengo."   This is quite common, and good translators know all about these things.

When I took Spanish in college I would not have understood what the child meant. My literal understanding of what she said would have confused me.  After several years of interacting with Spanish speaking students, I got it.

I think the method you describe as "a working knowledge of greek" is inadequate to acheive your goal.

Thomas Maddux

Perhaps it's short for, "Ya voy a venir."

One problem that I've found in my attempts at translating Russian into English is that their system of declining nouns provides a means of cross reference between remote parts of the sentence, such that extra words in English are needed in order to fill in connections implicit in the declensions.  Unlike Spanish, the syntax of Russian is very similar to English so that a lot of it can be translated nearly word for word, but there are some semantic quirks such that some sentences have to be completely rephrased.

The quote of Proverbs 26:23 raises the issue of the NIV being called a translation, when it is actually more like a paraphrase.  This seems slightly dishonest to me.

Proverbs 22:28
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

As for the question of which manuscripts are better, I think that neither side of the debate has conclusively decided the matter.  It is best to ensure that all the evidence is preserved for evaluation by anyone in the years to come who may be more enlightened.  Art restoration is done on the principle of causing minimal damage so that future restorers who have more skill will not be disappointed.  I wonder whether all of the newly discovered manuscript evidence is in the hands of trustworthy people?

On trust, I agree with Verne that those doing the work need to be above reproach.

Jeremiah 35:13-14,19
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD.  The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me. ...  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

I don't think that it is reasonable to call people who consider the King James Version better than the NIV extremists.  The sons of Jonadab might be considered extreme in their abstinence from wine, but the Lord honored them for keeping their father's tradition in resisting the moral decay of their time.  Our own time is marked by significant moral decay in like manner.  Those who resist this decay should not be belittled.

I sometimes wonder whether a few of those with the most extreme arguments are fakers intending to discredit the cause they seem to be defending.

Beware of the illusion created by the big-money propaganda campaign to promote the NIV.  Remember the way lawyers successfully defended O.J. even though the evidence against him was overwhelming.

[vernecarty]

Verne,

In your last reply to Mark C. you said:

"There are countless examples of modern translations using language that is not supported by any source text - even the ones  I consider corrupt!"

You have said you have a working knowledge of Spanish, so here's an example of what you are talking about.

Yesterday I was doing some reading for a paper in a local MacDonald's.  A Mexican lady walked past where I was sitting and entered the ladies room.  Her daughter, however, did not follow her but rather made a turn into an area that holds a brightly colored cube about four feet tall  with funny pictures on it.

The mother, who could not see her from the door of the restroom called her to "come right now."  The child responded, "Ya voy."   That literally means, "I go now" or "I am going now."

But what the child meant, and then acted out, was, "I am coming right now."

What she meant was not contained in the verb she chose to use.   She said, colloquially, "Ya voy."  Literally she meant, "Ya vengo."   This is quite common, and good translators know all about these things.

When I took Spanish in college I would not have understood what the child meant. My literal understanding of what she said would have confused me.  After several years of interacting with Spanish speaking students, I got it.

I think the method you describe as "a working knowledge of greek" is inadequate to acheive your goal.

Thomas Maddux

Tom you make some good points and I certainly know my own limitations when it comes to linguistics. There are however certain things that I do understand and which no one on your side of the argument has been able to answer to my satisfaction.
I will give a simple example.
The denial that Jesus Christ was God incarnate is a gnostic heresy. On that you and I will readily agree. We would also agree that there are numerous passages in the NT (despite the claim of a man like Edwin Palmer) that clearly attest to this fact. In fact ALL of scripture is intended to display and disclose who Christ is.
One of the ways in which the deity of Christ is presented in the Scripture is in the manner in which he addresses God. He calls Him  Father and He uses the genetive case.
The Scripture clearly tells us that the Jews fully understood what he was implying in this and attempted to stone him for what they considered blasphemy.

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 5:17-18  

Tom I am directing this query to you and to Mark perticularly.

Please sit down with as many English Bibles as you have, any copy of the Greek NT you care to work with, and the Bible in any other language you have even a minimal working knowledge of, then please explain to me the following.

On what linguistic, manuscript, or literary basis do some modern translations of the Bible systematically replace the genetive case in Christ's reference to God as Father, with the definite article?
This is an honest query and I realise that there may be a good answer.
I sat down with my Bibles and took a long hard look. I consulted no expert. I invite you to do the same and please tell me what you conclude and if you think this is important.
Believe it or not, I greatly appreciate you guys and continue to learn a lot from your sharp counters,  I trust that in eveything Christ alone will be magnified.
Verne

[vernecarty]

As for the question of which manuscripts are better, I think that neither side of the debate has conclusively decided the matter.  It is best to ensure that all the evidence is preserved for evaluation by anyone in the years to come who may be more enlightened.  Art restoration is done on the principle of causing minimal damage so that future restorers who have more skill will not be disappointed.  I wonder whether all of the newly discovered manuscript evidence is in the hands of trustworthy people?

It seems to me that the theory on which Westcott and Hort predicated their rejection of the TR (older is necessarily more accurate) has been thoroughly (and with good reason) rejected by modern scholarship, yet that consideration alone in the minds of many justify their contention that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts are superior.
While this position is in no way probative, I find it truly astonishing that despite the clear history of transmission of the Scriptures of God via the church, some readily accept the fact that we were without an accurate copy of the Sciptures for some fifteen hundred years of church history and that this situation was only remedied with the coming of the RSV in 1881.

On trust, I agree with Verne that those doing the work need to be above reproach.

This is in my view the only really useful lesson I took from my Geftakys experience. When it comes to people representing themselves as God's servants, I am ruthless. The standard is impeccability. If the standard is not met, get the h-e-double toothpicks out...(pardon my french but I feel that strongly.) God demands holiness in those bearing the vessels of the sanctuary.

I don't think that it is reasonable to call people who consider the King James Version better than the NIV extremists.  The sons of Jonadab might be considered extreme in their abstinence from wine, but the Lord honored them for keeping their father's tradition in resisting the moral decay of their time.  Our own time is marked by significant moral decay in like manner.  Those who resist this decay should not be belittled.

I sometimes wonder whether a few of those with the most extreme arguments are fakers intending to discredit the cause they seem to be defending.

Beware of the illusion created by the big-money propaganda campaign to promote the NIV.  Remember the way lawyers successfully defended O.J. even though the evidence against him was overwhelming.

Stephen I could not agree more. I recognize the danger of becoming strident exactly because some of us this feel this is so critically important. I have had the opportunity to particpate in exchanges between very able scholars on both sides of the discussion and have been quite instructed by the gracious manner of so many on both sides. There are very good men on both sides of the argument and I have learned a lot from these men.
I have been very much discouraged by how few Christians seem to have any interest whatsover in the topic, and how fewer yet are even aware of the many differences that exist among Bibles today.
Verne

[al Hartman]

Jeremiah 35:13-14, 19
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD.  The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me.
...  Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.

I don't think that it is reasonable to call people who consider the King James Version better than the NIV extremists.  The sons of Jonadab might be considered extreme in their abstinence from wine, but the Lord honored them for keeping their father's tradition in resisting the moral decay of their time.  Our own time is marked by significant moral decay in like manner.  Those who resist this decay should not be belittled.

Stephen,

     By omitting verses 15-18 of Jer 35 from your quotation, you obscure the point that God, through Jeremiah, was holding up the sons of Jonadab as an example to disobedient Israel and Judah:  God rewarded the house of Jonadab because they had obeyed the word of their father, while He (God) was bringing judgement against His people who had disobeyed His word, even though He had promised Himself to be a Father to them if they obeyed Him.  The issue addressed is obedience to the word of the Father, irrespective of men's assessments of what constitutes moral decay.

     Anyone who has suggested on this thread that some KJV advocates are extreme has done so, not on the grounds that they "consider" one translation "better than" another, but that some insist upon the KJV over all others, and that they belittle all who disagree with their findings/opinions.  I have personally held in my hand a KJV bible in which the first several pages were dedicated to discrediting each and every other English translation in current use, as if the Word of God itself is not sufficient to speak for itself, or the Holy Spirit unable to convict of the truth without the help of critics.

I sometimes wonder whether a few of those with the most extreme arguments are fakers intending to discredit the cause they seem to be defending.

Beware of the illusion created by the big-money propaganda campaign to promote the NIV.  Remember the way lawyers successfully defended O.J. even though the evidence against him was overwhelming.

     Excellent points, both, and well worthy of consideration.

 ...I trust that in eveything Christ alone will be magnified.
Verne

     Amen, Brother!  It is He and He alone that we must never lose sight of; Who must never be less than the very Center of our attention and focus...

al

[Mark C.]

Hello Everyone!

  I know that trying to engage in this kind of conversation will be boring for many, and possibly appear off point for this BB, but I do think that it can be relevant.

  I understand that many who read may think the arguments of the KJV only people are silly, and in some instances I would agree, but most of these people are serious committed Christians.

  What is the value of this discussion then?  IMHO, it is not that we would become great Bible students, but that we might learn what it means to think in spiritual terms.

  In this argument we are having there are two decided views on what it means to hear God speaking to us today.  

  One side views that God is concerned with a very strict precision re. what we believe about him, and this means God demands of us purity of theological knowledge.  This is of course why the KJV only folks must believe that God has preserved an exact represenatation of the original autographs for us today.  Without the orignal words to learn as a basis for faith there is left some gray area that must be filled by our own thinking processes.

   Any deviation from perfection means, in their view, that God has somehow given man room to kind of fill in the gaps out of their own natural minds.  This is very dangerous to them because there is no room for human intellect when it comes to God's perfect purpose.  God only communicates to us via perfectly preserved exact doctinres and dictums, which we must first learn precisely to adhere to without question.

  If the above paragraph is what it means to be a Christian than salvation is based on a person's perfect education and just as perfect adherence to that indoctrination.

 It is my belief that salvation is based in the love of God and that is revealed in the simple Gospel message.  That does not mean that we should not learn, and be faithful to, the essential doctrines of the faith, rather that we should not make perfect knowledge an idol in our lives; God is perfect, but we will always be very far from perfect in our knowledge of God and His purposes.

   The other side believes that God has given man intelligence, and this ability to think is able to understand what God intends to communicate in a broader sense then just fidelity to a catechism.   What I mean by "the broader sense" is not the seeing of Scripture as "myth," or in any other speculative modernist sense, but understanding that the words of the Bible themselves are meant to present to us Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  

  Take for example the Pharisees:  They were notriously strict in their preservation of the tradiition of Scripture.  They found security in their faithfulness to every jot and tittle of the Word of God, but this led to totally missing the Spirit of the message as revealed in the coming of the Messiah.  These Pharisees only had the pure message of God and yet it was folks like heretical Samaritans, illiterate prostitutes, Gentiles, and the like, who recognized and recieved Jesus!

  We see through a glass darkly, and that would be true if we even had the original autographs and understood all the nuances of the original languages.  Metzger understood this, in re. to the quote that Verne provided, in his recognition that the early church probably was not perfect in their understanding of what was cannonical vs. just a letter sent to their church from a minister of Christ in many cases.

  There is no threat in discovering that Erasmus did the best he could with what he had, but fell short of providing a "Textus Receptus" that preserved the original autographs because God adequately preserved what we need to know to find Him and His redemption.

  What ministers Christ to the world more?  Having the original autographs and memorizing them backward and forward, or having only a Gospel of John from the New English Bible and sharing the Gospel with others from it?  This, IMHO, is the difference between thinking in a literal religious sense vs thinking in a spiritual sense.

                                      God Bless,  Mark C.  

[vernecarty]

I would also pose the question:
Is there an attack of the enemy on the Word of God today, and if there were, what form would it take?
Verne

[Mark C.]

Good question Verne!

  I believe the enemy's best course of action to defeat the Bible would be to develop pseudo religions that are based on what portends to be a bible believing point of view.

  Paul battles largely were against those, like in the book of Galatians, who argued for a need for believers to augment their faith with a reliance on their own merits.

   John's epistles appear to face the beginnings of the Gnostic error.  These false teachers used the Bible and pretended an allegiance to God, but their interpretations of the Bible were twisted to lead people away from the Gospel of God.

  Satan, in the two above examples, transformed himself into "an angel of light," and "a minister of righteousness."  Apparently these ministers preached from the Bible, and not from spurious unknown texts, as they were received into Christian gatherings.

  The Devil is great at accurately quoting scripture (out of context and with an erroneous interpreation), and what this shows is that his most effective means to combat the Bible is not to attempt to offer spurious translations, but to take God's words themselves and then say, "hath God said?," and then go on to a twisted interpretation that makes God into someone who is less than the loving and liberty giving God that He is.

  The Apostolic church had the teaching of the Apostles, the Gospel tradition, and the OT, and Satan seemed to work by twisiting these God ordained witnesses into something other than what they were intended for.  

   The ability of Satan to take what Christians considered God's authoritative message and to twist it was such a powerful deception that those following this thought they were actually serving God, while doing the opposite.

   If the Devil had tried to get Christians to follow what was questioned as being authoritative, such as an altered Gospel of Mark, they would have seen right through it because they had copies to compare it to and it was well established in their minds what was in the Gospel.

                                         God Bless,  Mark C.











                                                                                     

 

   

[vernecarty]

I agree. The devil is going to find some means to rally the world around a common theology. I think one can make a credible case that some of the chages we are seeing in some modern versions opens the door for debate on matters Christians have long thought settled.
There are now some "ministers" claiming that the Bible does not explicty forbid sex outside the marriage covenant.
Why is that?
You cannot find the word "fornication" in many modern versions.
Verne

[Mark C.]

Hi Verne,

  I really don't think that people will rally around any kind of theology, in the sense that they will be drawn to certain kinds of ideas.

  The kind of deception that leads "ministers" to twist morality would go on even if every other word in the Bible warned against fornication.   This, IMHO, is not the problem, nor have I ever heard of anyone making a decision like this based on a modern translation.

  We make immoral choices because we desire them, not because some minister tells us that it is okay.  People will pick churches with ministers that support what they want to hear ("ears that tickle").

  GG's preference for the KJV, and his very strict ministry re. morality, did not prevent his own pursuit of clear violations of even what most of the world would consider bad.  I remember GG remarking in his ministry how he corrected a waitress because she called him "honey" once.  His remarks continued, " nobody calls me honey but my wife!"

  I think the Elmer Gantry styled minister, who is also very orthodox in his doctrine, is far more destructive to Christian witness than a modernist who believes that the Bible is myth.  Not that the latter is correct, but at least he honestly proclaims his disdain for the Bible as authoritative.

 Even a poorly educated born again Christian will instantly reject the modernist, but the same Christian might get involved in a group like the Assembly and follow an individual like GG, because he proclaims such a high Christian standard.

  That was why I was attracted to the Assembly.  They had a much higher level of moral and spiritual desire than I noticed in the "worldly churches."  When GG preached that we must have purity of heart and absolute commitment to Jesus Christ, from the depth of my heart I prayed that God might make me as perfect as GG was.  He would stare down at us as he preached and I felt like he could see into my heart and knew all my secret sins.

  What the "One World Religion" will find orientation around could look more like radical fundamental Islam than some kind of liberal Christian theology.  If strict laws against adultery and sex outside of marriage is what we think is of the greatest concern then the Moslem faith is closest here to what God wants.

  The Devil is fine with us teaching strict morality, as in Islam, as his main goal is to obfuscate the message of salvation through grace.

  The world's hope is in hearing that their best attempts at achieving morality are in vain and that God has provided all the righteousness we need in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  Also, the Christian life must be lived on this strong foundation of a gift based relationship, vs. self improvement methodologies.  

  Whatever the "One World Religion" will be it will not have the paragraph above in it.  Rather, it will probably promote a high degree of allegiance to a strong moral code, and a commitment to charitable social actions that are designed to serve the one world government.

         -----The Gospel,---- is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.--- For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last---. Rom. 1:16-17 NIV.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.

                                     

[vernecarty]

Hi Verne,

  I really don't think that people will rally around any kind of theology, in the sense that they will be drawn to certain kinds of ideas.

By theology I mean a unifying concept regarding that which is spiritual. I believe we already see this in nascent form in all false religions, namely the achievement of some sort of "Christ-consciousness" by virtue of subscription to some method or mentor.
For this kind of ecumenical transformation to be effective, the most difficult task will be to dislodge the Lord Jesus Christ from the unique positin he holds in this regard.

He alone is the Christ!

I thinnk it is critically important to not only have the right message, we must also be crystally clear about the messenger.
Any diminishment, no matter how seemingly trivial, when it comes to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is call for immediate alarm.
In this regard you are far more gracious to modern versions than I am prepared to be.
You and I have both seen those boasting in their own spiritual erudtion as self-procalimed "ministers" who do not see their own poverty and are clearly not holding the head.

I have never met a true servant of Jesus Christ that had to tell that to you.

 The kind of deception that leads "ministers" to twist morality would go on even if every other word in the Bible warned against fornication.   This, IMHO, is not the problem, nor have I ever heard of anyone making a decision like this based on a modern translation.

  We make immoral choices because we desire them, not because some minister tells us that it is okay.  People will pick churches with ministers that support what they want to hear ("ears that tickle").

Being able to point to an ambiguous verse in the Bible can and is indeed used to ensnare the unwary. I have had a supposed believer try to tell me that there is no such person in the Scriptures as Lucifer. Based on what his NIV teaches, he is absolutely right.

 GG's preference for the KJV, and his very strict ministry re. morality, did not prevent his own pursuit of clear violations of even what most of the world would consider bad.  I remember GG remarking in his ministry how he corrected a waitress because she called him "honey" once.  His remarks continued, " nobody calls me honey but my wife!"

The level of the man's ignorance is amazing. I find it hard to believe that he did indeed prefer the KJV when I so oftern heard him correct it with his superior:

It reads this way in Nestle's

 I think the Elmer Gantry styled minister, who is also very orthodox in his doctrine, is far more destructive to Christian witness than a modernist who believes that the Bible is myth.  Not that the latter is correct, but at least he honestly proclaims his disdain for the Bible as authoritative.

 Even a poorly educated born again Christian will instantly reject the modernist, but the same Christian might get involved in a group like the Assembly and follow an individual like GG, because he proclaims such a high Christian standard.

I have to say a hearty amen to this.
I have learned to pay little attention anymore to what people say. I want to know all about their manner of life.
Some people most loudly trumpeting their own holiness, if the truth were known, would run for cover...

 

That was why I was attracted to the Assembly.  They had a much higher level of moral and spiritual desire than I noticed in the "worldly churches."  When GG preached that we must have purity of heart and absolute commitment to Jesus Christ, from the depth of my heart I prayed that God might make me as perfect as GG was.  He would stare down at us as he preached and I felt like he could see into my heart and knew all my secret sins.

  What the "One World Religion" will find orientation around could look more like radical fundamental Islam than some kind of liberal Christian theology.  If strict laws against adultery and sex outside of marriage is what we think is of the greatest concern then the Moslem faith is closest here to what God wants.

  The Devil is fine with us teaching strict morality, as in Islam, as his main goal is to obfuscate the message of salvation through grace.

  The world's hope is in hearing that their best attempts at achieving morality are in vain and that God has provided all the righteousness we need in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  Also, the Christian life must be lived on this strong foundation of a gift based relationship, vs. self improvement methodologies.  

  Whatever the "One World Religion" will be it will not have the paragraph above in it.  Rather, it will probably promote a high degree of allegiance to a strong moral code, and a commitment to charitable social actions that are designed to serve the one world government.

         -----The Gospel,---- is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.--- For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last---. Rom. 1:16-17 NIV.

                                             God Bless,  Mark C.
                                     

The advent of the new world religion will be accmpanied by a display of amazing signs and wonders. It will no longer be possible for anyone on either side to fake it.
Today many of us can and do.
Verne

[Mark C.]

Hi Verne,

  I trust you had a good Sunday.

   I think that you do have it correct when you state that the religion that will eventually unify the world behind the Anti-Christ will be a phony version of Christ.

 But, and maybe, that pseudo Jesus would look more like what Paul warns about in his epistles as Christ as an example and moral teacher only, but without the message of salvation through grace.

  Whether I believe that the Devil's name is Lucifer, Diablo, or any other name does not lead to salvation, nor lead me away from the same.

 The Modern translations (with the exception of the JW Bible and the like) clearly present Jesus as God (JN. 1 and etc.) and the message of redemption through this same Jesus is accurately presented.

  Choosing which scholar to believe based on their character has some difficulties.  How do we really know someones real character?  If, as Paul stated, false teachers can transform themselves into angels of Light, they may appear to be godly and good family men.  With a scholar we may never get a chance to meet or know more about them than their work.

   Where I do think we must be careful about character is in regard to those who interpret God's word and bring it to us, because that is a spiritual endeavor, vs. a solely scholastic one.  

   It could be a reaction to my Assembly days, but my interpretation of godliness in a teacher is far different than it used to be.  Just because a man has an outwardly clean life (no divorces, bankruptcy, or possibly a struggle with alcohol in the past) it doesn't mean that I'm ready to accept what he teaches.

  Mormans and JW teachers would qualify as godly if good clean living were what approved their teaching.

   If I hear a preacher get up and talk about how deeply he struggles with sin, and than goes on to talk about how grace has helped him, I am more likely to believe that is message is inspired of The Spirit.

                                           God Bless,  Mark C.