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.
I've heard this argument many times, but is carries no weight. The Holy Spirit is not contrained to time revivals with or against human publication calendars.
How is a time of 'significant blessing' a measure of translation quality, and how do you measure the blessing?
What evidence is required to prove that God has abandoned a particular Bible translation?
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?
I am not trying to pragmatic with truth, but to offer another perspective. As we talk to sinners about the gospel (and there is nothing "wrong" with that!) we will all make theological and "technical" errors (ie we will be "wrong"); but God will use us anyway.
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?
You could get extra points for withstanding unprovoked persecution without retaliation. Or for putting down the tracts and helping some homeless people...
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.
To be fair, Preacher is not being limited by his own "limited life experiences" - he is being limited by observation of the created order combined with an acceptance that God created the world in six days.
Your point of view requires a creation of greater than six days.
Firstly, the well-documented six pre-fall creation days.
Secondly, the post-fall re-creation day, when God re-created spiders with webs, frogs with tongues, eagles with talons, et cetera. You are essentially arguing that there was no eco-system before the fall, apart from the parallel processing of vegetable matter by all creatures great and small.
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.
Are you ready to answer to the Lord on the day of judgement why you yourself have judged and condemned the NIV to be a "filthy work of man"? If you are wrong, and He is in fact pleased with the NIV, where will that leave you?
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.
TBS=Trinitarian Bible Society. There are plenty of links to articles in the threads that discuss why the KJV is the only inspired word. I read an article by them on Aland. I know vehement, and the article was filth. Judge for yourself.
Preacher wrote: It was only when textual criticism reared its ugly head that everything once held dear was up for questioning.
Textual criticism relates to the process of analysing manuscript evidence to achieve the best possible reading of the text. This has been the aim of textual critics from Erasmus through to Westcott, Hort, Aland, etc. It doesn't relate to interpretation.
Also, it's not fair to say "Literal Days as He said in Genesis". The word says days, and just days. It doesn't have the word literal in it. Days is the word, literal is the interpretation. It may be the only correct interpretation, but that's what it is.
Asking the same question now a few different ways: Do you need to believe in the rapture in order to be raptured? Is it enough to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins (but not believe in a rapture) to be saved? Will those of us that don't believe in a 'rapture' be left behind.