Bible
With USA banks defaulting it is assuring to know God’s Bank will never default.
“That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” (2 Timothy 1:14)
‘The good thing that Paul referred to surely involves God’s “gift” that young Timothy was given as he entered the ministry. All gifts include the gift of “power, and of love, and of a sound mind” that God has given to all of us (2 Timothy 1:7). The Holy Spirit deposited that gift in us, and we are expected to guard it through the same Holy Spirit.
The action and responsibility are ours. The means by which we obey is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who entered our bodies at the time of our salvation (1 Corinthians 6:19). That unique down payment of the triune Godhead (Ephesians 1:14) made it possible for us to keep the good with which He entrusted us. The breadth of God’s gift to us is beyond imagining, but there are a few insights that may help us understand His bounty.
In the most broad perspective, we are given “to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:11). That gift requires that we be given “the mind of Christ” so that we may grasp these great spiritual truths (1 Corinthians 2:16). The deposit that God placed with us is not a leap in IQ or mental ability. It is truly a “new man” that God has empowered to be “renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Colossians 3:10).
But this great spiritual capacity must be guarded. There is no guarantee of spiritual wisdom this side of eternity. We must beware “lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). God has made it possible for us to gain the wisdom of holiness so “that [we] might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). HMM III’https://www.icr.org/article/13993/
This is the introduction to a five part series by David Daniels on the Septuagint. This is subject is very important as the use of the Septuagint has affected many areas of study. Dr. James J. S. Johnson wrote in a 2019 Dean Burgon Society article that “There is a growing potential in Christian circles, especially within the creation science community for promoting and advocating the Greek Septuagint (“LXX”) version of the Old Testament, as if the LXX’s content was more reliable than the content of the providentially preserved Masoretic Text (MT) of the Old Testament.”
Please take time to go and watch the other five parts of this video series! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9dztt0evpQ&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnRh2YgrQvayYlEItaAoISWA&index=2
If you know the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Saviour you already know how ridiculous and anti-biblical the above video is.
Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
‘Brett McCracken is the senior editor and director of communications at The Gospel Coalition and an elder at Southlands Church. He released his ‘Best movies of 2022’ and unsurprisingly, at least one of the films is full of graphic sex and nudity.
Last year his top 10 movies featured many that were rated ‘R’ for language, violence, and frequently for scenes of sex and nudity. Then he released his top 20 TV shows, and they were also full of sex and nudity, including graphic scenes of homosexuality. He would later suggest that watching this sinful content makes him better at evangelizing. ‘https://protestia.substack.com/p/the-gospel-coalitions-2022-best-movies
Trinitarian Bible Society Conference 11 Nov 2022. speaker Rev Christian McShaffrey
It is no surprise that society is ant-god but one would think a Christian denomination wouldn’t be. Well, think again.
‘4. The Episcopal Church drops gendered pronouns for God
An Episcopal Church resolution in 2018 called upon the denomination’s General Convention to “avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God,” with an amended resolution later calling on Episcopalians to “utilize expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition and, when possible, to avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God.”
Episcopal News Service, the denomination’s official mouthpiece, later rebuffed widespread criticism of the move and painted the legislative effort as expansive rather than reductive.’https://www.christianpost.com/news/stanford-adds-american-to-its-list-of-harmful-language.html?page=5
‘A Man was born and lived in the Middle East many centuries ago who has vastly influenced my life. I cannot look at a sunset, watch hummingbirds hover at my kitchen window, observe the intricacies of a rose, or hear the lisping of a child singing, “Jesus Loves me this I know,” without thinking of that Man and His lasting impact upon the world.
When Christ was born in Bethlehem, God came to visit the earth with His plan for every person’s personal redemption.
However, Christ did not accomplish what is normally considered greatness during His more than three-year ministry. He did not raise or lead an army yet has more followers than any military leader; he never wrote a book, yet more books have been written about Him than any other person who has lived. He did not pass any laws yet his command to love those who hate you and love your neighbor turned a violent, vicious, and vile culture into a thriving civilization.
He was hated by Rome, the world’s mightiest power, but it now stands in ruins as revealed by a few destroyed buildings and a few ancient roads. His words have been used as the foundation for the founding of nations and famous historian Will Durant declared, “The triumph of Christ was the beginning of democracy.”
Christ’s command for sexual fidelity in the husband-wife relationship raised women from being without any rights as nonpersons to incredible love, respect, and almost worship status. His disciples built hospitals, schools, rest homes, etc., all over the world. The major universities in Europe and America were founded by His dedicated disciples. His Sermon on the Mount set a new standard for man’s treatment of his fellow men, the epitome of personal morality.
Slavery had always been an accepted and approved fact of life, yet His followers abolished it in England and America since He told His followers we should treat others the way we want to be treated. That forbids all slavery. When the famous agnostic and critic H. G. Wells was asked who had left the greatest legacy in history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.”
Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan wrote of him, “Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries…It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray.”
Christ was the motivation for the world’s famous paintings, sculptures, and architecture yet He was a simple carpenter.
His followers taught that men must work hard to provide for the family; build a business, pay good wages to employees; etc. This was the foundation for free enterprise that provided strong nations and much personal happiness. It is responsible for the modern free enterprise system that has brought security, freedom, independence, happiness, etc., to millions of people for two thousand years.
Christianity played a significant role in shaping Western civilization where each person had personal worth and could expect, even demand, justice from kings, parliaments, and courts.
Inspired and influenced by Christ’s message, Christian churches and missionaries have been at the forefront of providing relief to communities around the world affected by natural disasters or violent conflict.
At this time of the year, the world’s attention is on that Man’s birth, but the account is usually tainted by many mistakes, misconceptions, and misuse of Christmas. The season has been hijacked by the greedy to make a buck and by the profligate to provide an excuse for excess—even obscene parties and orgies.
We assume that Mary rode a donkey from Nazareth to Bethlehem but there’s no mention of a donkey. Nor is there a mention of an innkeeper only that there was no room in the inn. There’s no mention of a stable filled with oxen, donkeys, etc., and there’s no mention of animals at His birth. In that day and place, mangers were common feeding boxes kept in the main room of village houses because the animals were often housed just a few feet away in an adjacent room.
There is no indication the star hovered over the manger on the night Jesus was born. After all, the star was to guide the wise men not others. When the angels announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds watching their flocks by night (Luke 2:8–11), they weren’t told to look for a star. The star was given not to the shepherds but to the Magi. The shepherds were told “And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12).
According to Matthew, Magi (meaning magic-practicing priests) visited King Herod, seeking the location of this new King of the Jews. The wise men from “the East” (India, Persia, and Arabia) came hundreds of miles with hundreds in their entourage to celebrate His birth. Their journey probably lasted a year or more and involved hundreds of soldiers, animal wranglers, cooks, advisors, etc. People did not travel for months through the difficult and dangerous territory without the protection of soldiers, abundant supplies, etc.
Many have questioned the reality of pagan wise men making such a trip because of a strange star and an obscure Scripture passage. However, such critics overlook that Jews were a major portion of the population in Persia and Babylon, with roots going back hundreds of years. It is only reasonable that when exiled Jews heard of the birth of a new king, they were stirred to know more. Moreover, they were motivated to find Him asking, “Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.”
The origin of Jews in Persia (Iran), possibly 20% of the population, is connected to the transportation of Jews of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. from Samaria (capital of Israel) to Media and Persia following a three-year siege by Assyria. This is called, the ten lost tribes of Israel. The people of Samaria were removed to Persia and replaced with non-Jews from other conquered territories with the expectation of them disappearing as separate entities.
The remaining two Jewish tribes known as Judea in the south were taken into captivity in 587 B.C. and the city of Jerusalem including Solomon’s Temple was destroyed. Jews settled down in Babylon and lived in peace, although in captivity, for 70 years. Then the famous “Cyrus Declaration” allowed the Jews, living in exile beside the Euphrates River to choose to return to their homeland of Judea to start life anew and to reestablish their religious practices by rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.
Those Jews who remained had a continuous presence in Babylon (Iraq) from Jerusalem’s fall to the time of Cyrus (whom God called anointed) who invaded Babylon in 539 B.C. and freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Many Jews chose not to return to Jerusalem since they had settled down for two generations in Babylon. The Persian or Babylonian descendants were, in my opinion, ancestors of the “wise men.”
When the Magi asked Herod about the child’s birth, he knew nothing and was perplexed that a rival had been born. Hearing of this new King of the Jews disturbed him, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where Christ was to be born. Matthew 2:5 says, “And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet.”
The wise men found Christ in a home, not a stable, with his mother, where they give Him gold, frankincense, and myrrh. There’s no mention of three wise men or kings, just three gifts. Far from being kings, they were probably astrologers, either Jews or those greatly influenced by Jewish colleagues.
While many of the above mistakes surrounding Christ’s birth are minor, bigger mistakes are being made by professing Christians with a deleterious impact on their children.
Parents must not fall into the quicksand of modern celebration by succumbing to the Santa Claus myth which distorts the truth of Christ’s birth by subtly blending truth with the myth of Santa Claus. Parents must never lie to their children about Santa Claus, making him similar to Christ who knows when you’ve been good or bad. Santa now is a big man in a red suit with God-like qualities. All of this teaches the child to believe that, just like Santa, God can be pleased with “good works,” done in order to earn His favor. Also, they teach that no matter how bad the child has been, he will still be rewarded by God just as Santa never failed to bring gifts.
Each nation comprises all kinds of people: atheists, humanists, secularists, do-gooders, good-doers, traditionalists, religious people of hundreds of religions, church members, nominal Christians, and dedicated Christians. Most of these people celebrate Christmas, at least a secular Christmas. But then, a secular Christmas, while entirely legal, is not celebrating Christmas.
Some people have an affinity toward snowmen, Rudolph, a jolly old man, gifts, wild parties, elves, and reindeer. That may be your thing, but it isn’t Christmas. Neither are toys, tinsel, and trees.
A significant criticism of Christmas is that it is so commercial, and the message of a baby being born (incarnate God) who would bear the sins of mankind is lost in all the buying and selling, drinking and carousing, giving and getting. However, that does not negate the true meaning of Christmas; after all, man has corrupted everything from sex, the family, the church, etc. What’s wrong with families making an untainted Christ-honoring celebration of His birth?
Colossians 2:16 declares, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” It is each person’s decision as to what they will celebrate. But it must be sincere and not contrary to Scripture.
It must be remembered that there are precedents for making much of His birth. After all, the shepherds caused a big stir about it. The angels made a big deal out of His birthday. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
The early churches met each Sunday to commemorate His death and resurrection. And there is no scriptural command to go to church on Sunday. The early Christians met daily and later changed it to Sunday. As circumstances changed, they adjusted as long as no Scripture was violated.
The ultimate reason for the season is to recognize, repent, and receive the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ as the gift of personal salvation—the most important, inspiring, and illustrious events in history. Moreover, it would seem unusual if those events were not recognized as such by His followers.
Whatever you do about Christmas, what will you do about the Santa thing? What will you tell your children? A big mistake is made if you confuse Santa and the Savior. It is already being done because “Santa knows when you’ve been sleeping; he knows when you’re awake; he knows if you’ve been bad or good.” Sounds like the omniscient God to me.
Furthermore, if you support receiving gifts because you’ve been good, you promote the heretical teaching that one must earn his or her salvation. Another horrific result is the children may not believe their parents when they tell the truth about Christ after deceiving them about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
Christmas should be a time of fun for children; however, parents must not instill a lifetime heresy in them. Mary Ann and I never spoke about Santa or discussed it with our children since they were bright enough to know a big fat man could not ride around the world in a sleigh pulled by reindeer and get it done in one night. Furthermore, they knew he could not get down the chimney and eat cookies and milk in every home. Besides, we didn’t have a chimney.
When children ask about Christmas, they must get the right story, not some mindless myth. Go on, if you must, with the Santa stuff but be sure they know it is a myth. You might suggest that they not discuss Santa with their friends. My four-year-old (at the time) daughter was told by her older sister that Santa was a myth, and she told her pre-kindergarten class, causing a sobbing brouhaha with fellow students. I was the school administrator, and the teacher had to calm her whole class. I suggest you require your children not to share with Santa believers that he is a myth. It is the job of parents.
My wife Ellen’s three-year-old Jennifer asked her, “Is there a real live Santa Claus man in this whole world of ours?” Her mother told her the true meaning of Christmas and that people made up Santa for fun. When asked by her pastor’s grown son, what Santa brought her, she replied, “Philip, you know there is no real live Santa Clause man in this whole world of ours.”
For sure, Santa is a myth, but Christ is the reality who was born of a virgin—becoming human so He could die for us providing eternal salvation for those who trust Him by faith.
Wise men still seek Jesus.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/mistakes-misconceptions-and-misuse-of-the-christmas-story-that-misrepresent-the-magnitude-of-its-message
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14)
‘Editorial introduction: The verse above is well-known to all. It has been read in the churches since the time of the Apostles and sung by congregations since the second century. It can therefore be mentally jarring to hear modern translations of it read during the advent season.
Some translations even seem to be communicating an entirely different message. Were the angels continuing to proclaim God’s universal benevolence toward all people (v. 10) or only his particular grace to “those with whom he is pleased” (ESV)?
This confusion is due not to any difference in translation philosophy, but to a textual variant. A textual variant is a difference between the wording of two or more manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and, in the case of Luke 2:14, the difference consists of a single letter.
Many claim that textual variants affect no doctrine, but this is clearly a case in which the interpretation and application of a verse is affected by the presence or absence of a single letter. So which reading is correct? What did the angels actually say?
Below is an essay (lightly edited) by the late John William Burgon (1813-1888) in which he defends the traditional reading by tracing its consistent use throughout church history and by showing how the few witnesses against its authenticity are at discord among themselves.
We encourage all Christians to study his argument and also to share it with their pastors so that the good news which rang out of heaven on the night Jesus was born will continue to be heralded in the churches and to all mankind.
– Christian McShaffrey
A more grievous perversion of the truth of Scripture is scarcely to be found than occurs in the proposed revised exhibition of Luke 2:14, in the Greek and English alike; for indeed not only is the proposed Greek text (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας) impossible, but the English of the Revisionists (“peace among men in whom he is well pleased”) “can be arrived at” (as one of themselves has justly remarked) “only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it.” [1]
More than that, the harmony of the exquisite three-part hymn, which the angels sang on the night of the nativity, becomes hopelessly marred, and its structural symmetry destroyed, by the welding of the second and third members of the sentence into one.
Singular to relate, the addition of a single final letter (ς) has done all this mischief. Quite as singular is it that we should be able at the end of upwards of 1700 years to discover what occasioned its calamitous insertion.
From the archetypal copy, by the aid of which the old Latin translation was made (for the Latin copies all read “pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis”), the preposition ἐν was evidently away — absorbed apparently by the ἀν which immediately follows. In order therefore to make a sentence of some sort out of words which, without ἐν, are simply unintelligible, εὐδοκία was turned into εὐδοκίας. It is accordingly a significant circumstance that, whereas there exists no Greek copy of the Gospels which omits the ἐν, there is scarcely a Latin exhibition of the place to be found which contains it. [2]
To return however to the genuine clause: “Good-will towards men” (ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία)
Absolutely decisive of the true reading of the passage—irrespectively of internal considerations—ought to be the consideration that it is vouched for by every known copy of the Gospels of whatever sort, excepting only ℵ A B D: the first and third of which, however, were anciently corrected and brought into conformity with the Received Text; while the second (A) is observed to be so inconstant in its testimony, that in the primitive “Morning-hymn” (given in another page of the same codex, and containing a quotation of Luke 2:14), the correct reading of the place is found. D’s complicity in error is the less important, because of the ascertained sympathy between that codex and the Latin.
In the meantime, the two Syriac Versions are a full set-off against the Latin copies; while the hostile evidence of the Gothic (which this time sides with the Latin) is more than neutralized by the unexpected desertion of the Coptic version from the opposite camp. The Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Arabian versions, are besides all with the Received Text.
It therefore comes to this: We are invited, on the one hand, to make our election between every other copy of the Gospels, every known Lectionary, and (not least of all) the ascertained ecclesiastical usage of the Eastern Church from the beginning, or, on the other hand, the testimony of four Codices without a history or a character, which concur in upholding a patent mistake.
Will anyone hesitate as to which of these two parties has the stronger claim on his allegiance?
Could doubt be supposed to be entertained in any quarter, it must at all events be borne away by the torrent of patristic authority which is available on the present occasion:
Second Century
– Irenaeus [3]
Third Century
– Origen, in three places [4]
– Apostolical Constitutions, in two [5]
Fourth Century
– Eusebius, twice [6]
– Aphraates the Persian, twice [7]
– Titus of Bostra, twice [8]
– Didymus, in three places [9]
– Gregory of Nazianzus [10]
– Cyril of Jerusalem [11]
– Epiphanius, twice [12]
– Gregory of Nyssa, four times [13]
– Ephraem Syrus [14]
– Philo, bishop of Carpasus [15]
– Chrysostom, in nine places [16]
– A nameless preacher at Antioch [17]
Note: All these were contemporaries of B and ℵ, and are therefore found to bear concurrent testimony in favor of the commonly received text.
Fifth Century
– Cyril of Alexandria, fourteen times [18]
– Theodoret, four times [19]
– Theodotus of Ancyra, five times [20]
– A homily preached at the Council of Ephesus on Christmas-day, AD 431 [21]
– Proclus, archbishop of Constantinople [22]
– Paulus, bishop of Emesa (preached before Cyril of Alexandria on Christmas-day) [23]
– The Eastern bishops at Ephesus, collectively, AD 431 [24]
– Basil of Seleucia [25]
Note: These witnesses were contemporaries of codex A.
Sixth Century
– Cosmas, the voyager, five times [26]
– Anastasius Sinaita [27]
– Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria [28]
Note: These were contemporaries of codex D.
Seventh Century
– Andreas of Crete, twice [29]
Eighth Century
– Cosmas, bishop of Maiuma near Gaza [30]
– John Damascene [31]
– Germanus, archbishop of Constantinople [32]
To these twenty-nine illustrious names are to be added unknown writers of uncertain date, but all of considerable antiquity; and some are proved by internal evidence to belong to the 4th or 5th century [33] — in short, to be of the date of the fathers whose names sixteen of them severally bear, but among whose genuine works their productions are probably not to be reckoned.
One of these was anciently mistaken for Gregory Thaumaturgus [34], a second for Methodius [35], a third for Basil [36]. Three others, with different degrees of reasonableness, have been supposed to be Athanasius [37]. One has passed for Gregory of Nyssa [38]; another for Epiphanius [39]; while no less than eight have been mistaken for Chrysostom [40], some of them being certainly his contemporaries.
Add one anonymous church father [41], and the author of the apocryphal Acta Pilati, and it will be perceived that eighteen ancient authorities have been added to the list, every whit as competent to witness what was the text of Luke 2:14 at the time when A B ℵ D were written, as Basil or Athanasius, Epiphanius or Chrysostom themselves. [42]
For our present purpose, they are Codices of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. In this way then, far more than forty-seven ancient witnesses have come back to testify to the men of this generation that the commonly received reading of Luke 2:14 is the true reading, and that the text which the Revisionists are seeking to palm off upon us is a fabrication and a blunder.
Will anyone be found to maintain that the authority of B and ℵ is appreciable, when confronted by the first fifteen contemporary ecclesiastical writers above enumerated? Or that A can stand against the seven which follow?
This is not all however. Survey the preceding enumeration geographically, and note that besides one name from Gaul, at least two stand for Constantinople, while five are dotted over Asia Minor; ten at least represent Antioch; and six other parts of Syria, three stand for Palestine, and twelve for other churches of the East: at least five are Alexandrian, two are men of Cyprus, and one is from Crete.
If the articulate voices of so many illustrious Bishops, coming back to us in this way from every part of ancient Christendom and all delivering the same unfaltering message — if this be not allowed to be decisive on a point of the kind just now before us, then pray let us have it explained to us — what amount of evidence will men accept as final? It is high time that this were known.
The plain truth is, that a case has been established against ℵ A B D and the Latin version, which amounts to proof that those documents, even when they conspire to yield the self-same evidence, are not to be depended on as witnesses to the text of Scripture. The history of the reading advocated by the Revisionists is briefly this: It emerges into notice in the 2nd century; and in the 5th disappears from sight entirely.
Enough and to spare has now been offered concerning the true reading of Luke 2:14, but because we propose to ourselves that no uncertainty whatever shall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labor if, in conclusion, we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and shell to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in.
Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (ℵ A B C D), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices ℵ A B C D hereabouts, by collating the context in which Luke 2:14 is found, viz. the thirteen verses which precede and the one verse (v. 15) which immediately follows.
If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant, who sees not that the last pretense has been taken away for placing any confidence at all in their testimony concerning the text of v. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence of a single letter?
He will find, as the result of his analysis, that within the space of those fourteen verses, the old uncials are responsible for fifty-six “various readings” (so-called). Singly, for forty-one; and in combination with one another, for fifteen.
So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no less than seventy times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase, they contrive to omit nineteen words, to add four, to substitute seventeen, to alter ten, and to transpose twenty-four.
Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall into ten different combinations: viz. B A, for five readings, B D for two, ℵ C, ℵ D, A C, ℵ B D, A ℵ D, A B ℵ D, B ℵ C D, A B ℵ C D, for one each.
A, therefore, which stands alone twice, is found in combination four times, C, which stands alone once, is found in combination four times [43], B, which stands alone five times, is found in combination six times, ℵ, which stands alone eleven times, is found in combination eight times, D, which stands alone twenty-two times, is found in combination seven times.
And now — for the last time we ask the question — with what show of reason can the unintelligible εὐδοκίας (of ℵA B D) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of the whole body of Manuscripts, uncial and cursive, the great bulk of the Versions, and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) church fathers exhibited above?’https://www.textandtranslation.org/the-textual-variant-in-luke-2-14/
‘”God didn’t talk in person to His creation anymore after the Fall in Genesis 3.”
Hearing my professor say this, in his Unity of the Bible course, wouldn’t have been so shocking if it hadn’t happened in Fuller Seminary, which was once considered one of the most conservative seminaries in the country.
As we all know, God spoke directly to Cain in the very next chapter, Genesis 4! But this professor never changed his notes to match the Bible. His mind was made up.
The professor was Dan Fuller, son of the founder, Charles E. Fuller (whose preaching had led to Jack Chick’s salvation).
At Fuller, it wasn’t long before I found myself questioning everything I had believed about God and the Bible. We were frequently challenged to think differently and question our currently held beliefs. I think you will be quite surprised by what other Fuller Bible “scholars” believed.
This is Paul Jewett. He taught us that Adam didn’t find a companion until he looked and saw one of the apes. He said, and I quote, “That one over there. I think it’s something in the eyes.” So Dr. Jewett, this champion of women as pastors, taught that the first woman was literally an ape.
This is Dr. Ralph P. Martin. He changed the meaning of a couple of Greek words in Acts 1 to make it as if Luke and Acts were written in the 2nd century, contradicting the Bible, which says Luke was an eyewitness.
This is Dr. Lewis B. Smedes. Like a confrontational talk-show host, he would try to tear down each class member’s faith in the 10 Commandments. He’d arrange us in a circle and make up tear-jerking scenarios, where breaking a commandment seemed like the only thing you could do, to solve the problem he made up. And when someone finally emotionally broke down in class, he would say in front of the others, “So you don’t really believe in that commandment, do you?” He took pleasure in tearing people’s faith into shreds.
These are Drs. Hubbard, LaSor and Bush. They wrote an Old Testament Introduction text that said Ezekiel was a reformer who wanted to make a bigger Jerusalem temple. But alas, his plans didn’t work out. (That’s Ezekiel 40-48). They said that those chapters were simply Ezekiel’s wish-fulfillment dream, not from God. So they believed the Bible was written by man, not inspired by God.
Dr. Bob Schaper, my homiletics professor, said two things I still remember, almost word-for-word: “If we had a Polaroid camera, we would not have seen God forming man of the dust of the ground and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life.” And “If we had a Polaroid camera, we would not have seen Jesus ascend to heaven. ‘Heaven isn’t up.’” And nobody questioned it! Yet Acts 1 plainly says Jesus “went up” before their eyes, while they watched. But Dr. Schaper never let the facts get in the way of his beliefs.
Oh, and one more thing. All the professors here, as far as they had said and I was told, were evolutionists. They thought creationism was a fairy tale, and that Genesis 1-11 was just poetry.
This is who trained thousands of present pastors and professors when they went to Fuller seminary, as I did. And they are only the tip of the iceberg.
Listening to my professors talk, was like dissecting dead things. These professors were perfectly happy to pick up the dead and rotting corpses of supposedly ancient Bible texts, cut out what they wanted, throw the rest away, and sort of “Frankenstein-together” a Bible out of the rotten remains of whatever they found.
But God’s words never died. They are living! The Bible’s words are “quick” —and they are powerful. They change lives.
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
“Quick” means “alive.” God’s words are quick and powerful, not dead and powerless.
“Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29). God’s word burns and breaks whatever God wants burnt and broken. That’s powerful.
In short, God’s words are an extension of God. They are powerful, like God. They do what God wants, when God wants, how God wants. God’s words are alive. When I approach HIS Book I can find out what my heavenly Father thinks, what He wants, and what will make Him happy.
The Bible is not like any other book. It is God’s Book! But my professors treated their own words as if they were more important than God’s words. And they taught the sons and daughters entrusted to them to doubt the Bible and trust them.
There is a solution. You can inoculate your sons and daughters against these kinds of faith-destroying professors. Teach them to trust the preserved words of the living God, in English, the King James Bible. As far as these seminaries, “let the dead bury their dead” (Luke 9:60).’https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=Seminary-Professors
whatyareckon 