If it is, my question would be: Is this the wisest investment of funds for a printed gospel for evangelistic purposes in 2008?

simpleton wrote:
No new version has yet been accompanied by any remarkable revival-new versions have not come out of any time of significant blessing. When you prove God has abandoned that so called authorised version I will take note.

How is a time of 'significant blessing' a measure of translation quality, and how do you measure the blessing?

Mike wrote:
As many as are necessary

May I suggest that, laying the subtleties of theological difference aside, that this question could be answered on the basis of intent and effect?

If the intent of telling a (presumably unbelieving) sinner that God loves them is to give them false assurance that God will not pour out his wrath on them in the day of judgement, then it is clearly wrong. The effect will be continued and hardened unrepetence.

If the intent (and God-willing the effect) is to lead people to repentence and salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ, can it be wrong?

Aidan McDowell wrote:
My preferences are irrelevant.

I think this closely reflects the categorisation of views on most points of theology here.

Hardy Harhar wrote:
So, if teens are going to be inspired by a video game, what we need is a Christian video game where the main character, Johnny B. Good, gives out tracts, preaches the Gospel on the street, leads lots of people to the Lord, and starts a revival in the little town where he lives. Could we do that and get some teens to imitate that?

John Yurich wrote:
If I received a Koran on the front deck I would tear it up and use it for toilet paper.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
...praying for a non-Christian shouldn't be one's highest priority.

San Jose John wrote:
You sound like you're allowing your own limited
life experiences to limit your own capacity
to visualize possible pre-fall conditions.
Maybe Spiders didn't spin webs before the fall.
Maybe frogs didn't have those tongues before the fall.
(etc.).
May God be pleased to grant you the wisdom to see
beyond your limited experiences, lest you unintentionally
"lock yourself out" of learning more Biblical truth.

Your point of view requires a creation of greater than six days.

Firstly, the well-documented six pre-fall creation days.

lyn wrote:
God does not use any sinful being for His holy work.

pastor_d wrote:
If you believe the doctrine that I previously stated and you use an NIV. Please put down that filthy work of man and pick up a KJV.

Preacher wrote:
BTW what is TBS? And are you sure they do not really rant and villify but just stand up vehemently for the truth?
It seems that as soon as you valiantly oppose a popular trend you are branded a ranter and a villifier.

Preacher wrote:
Does that mean you have my telephone number?

I've chosen to interpret it the nice way, that essentially says:

You think I'm wrong about the second coming, but it's not the basis of my salvation, but I should be careful not to oppose God's truths amongst all that.

Preacher wrote:
This is all from clearly documented evidence.

Preacher wrote:
It was only when textual criticism reared its ugly head that everything once held dear was up for questioning.

Casob wrote:
Actually. Lone Wolf, I usually answer most of the questions put to me unless they are asked from the premise of false doctrine.