A New Jersey megachurch's latest effort to better engage with culture by embracing some of pop culture's most popular songs reignites the debate over whether churches should utilize secular music to be relevant.
While Liquid Church is using songs like Adele's "Rolling in the Deep" and Bruno Mars' "Grenade" as part of its "Pop God" sermon series this month, some point to the danger that lies in "using cultural mediums to transfer sacred messages."
Dr. John Hardin, a writer for 9Marks, a Washington, D.C. organization that helps "church leaders define success as faithfulness to God," cautioned in an email to The Christian Post that "the methods and the messages carry with them the DNA of the culture from which they were taken."...
kenny why haven't you taken offense with the KJV for blaspheming the Holy Spirit?
Doug Kutilek wrote: ...the KJV shares this distinction only with the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and to a lesser extent with the RSV and NRSV translations of the apostate National Council of Churches. If it were the NIV or the NASB and not the KJV which had this feature in common with these notoriously unreliable versions, it would be shouted from the rooftops by Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger, Cloud, and the rest of the KJVO rabble. But because it is the KJV, they are silent as a tomb, and are very accommodating to this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
To call any person, but especially to call one of the Persons of the Trinity by the English pronoun "it" is degrading and debasing, and is inexcusable. The correct pronoun--the ONLY correct pronoun--in such a case is "He."
I cut and paste and use URLs, such as the excellent one above, because of the limited space we have on SA. I think you'll find the above self-explanatory.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I never got to ask those folks who believe in using the Psalms only for church music--how do they praise, Jesus? While there are a few psalms that make a reference to Jesus, at least I think there is a good argument for that, there is none that mention Yeshua directly, if my memory serves? I would hope that you do the psalms in Hebrew, because no doubt they would sound much better than in Elizabethan English.
God wrote the Book, Jim. Well at least the KJV. In the Book called the Bible is recorded by God Himself the praise Book of Psalms, He ordained for worship. If you use mans myriad versions then invariably you will reject the Book of Psalms written by God. Mans sing songs are entertainment for sinners and have grown worse in the Liberal churches today. Thus the seed planted ended up bringing the worship/praise of God into pop groups and other daft ideas. Thus why not use what God recorded and ordained. BTW Christ Jesus is what the whole OT/NT Bible, Counsel of God is all about.
Catholic monks have been singing these every day for centuries. Whatever Catholics do, we should do the opposite.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I never got to ask those folks who believe in using the Psalms only for church music--how do they praise, Jesus? While there are a few psalms that make a reference to Jesus, at least I think there is a good argument for that, there is none that mention Yeshua directly, if my memory serves? I would hope that you do the psalms in Hebrew, because no doubt they would sound much better than in Elizabethan English.
I never got to ask those folks who believe in using the Psalms only for church music--how do they praise, Jesus? While there are a few psalms that make a reference to Jesus, at least I think there is a good argument for that, there is none that mention Yeshua directly, if my memory serves?
I would hope that you do the psalms in Hebrew, because no doubt they would sound much better than in Elizabethan English.
Good points, Neil and King James I Erasmus was a very dedicated Catholic, or Desiderius Erasmus [A great Anglican?] As I pointed out you can get a very well laid out 1611 AV with the e-Sword computer program. Of course you can get later and much more accurate Bibles such as the Darby, RV, or ESV with that program as well.I certainly wouldn't waste any money on getting a copy of the AV, except perhaps The Ryrie KJV Study Bible Hardback-Red Letter if you already don't have his commentary in a better Bible.
Jess Helms wrote: As far as the apocrypha is concerned, it was a part of the initial copies, but that was shortly removed...it had no influence on the text of Scripture.
The AV 1611 title page includes that all 73 books are: “Appointed to be read in Churches.” Why were all of these books self-authenticating in the 17th Century but only 66 in the 21st Century? Did the Holy Spirit change His mind and the Canon of Scripture? Might He change the Holy Writ again?
I won't get into some argument about versions, as no light, but much heat is generally created. I'll just say that my Yes is as good as a NO on the AV 1611. It'll never be "proved" what Bible is God's until He returns...no one around today was there to see the originals. As far as the apocrypha is concerned, it was a part of the initial copies, but that was shortly removed...it had no influence on the text of Scripture. As for the Identity movement or radical black movements, Satan would certainly use the Bible that God honors. I find it so interesting how the "KJV" is the one Bible that is constantly attacked in and out of the pulpit. We are free to use whatever Bible we want. I just have no confidence in a bible that calls the Lord Jesus Christ a begotten god or removes 1 John 5:7. The best friend I have in the world uses the NASV and we differ absolutely on this issue, but he's still my best friend. Let's hold each other up in prayer from our respective positions, the Lord will judge.
Young man wrote: Erasmus is an evangelical Catholic.
How so? That is in principle a contradiction in terms. In what substantial way did he dispute basic Catholic doctrines? I can find no evidence he shared the Reformers' views on justification & grace. In fact he opposed them; see the written debate he had with Luther on free will, for example.
That being said, he was a fine scholar, as even Luther admitted.
One way to get a free 1611 AUTHORIZED version of the 1611 Bible, is to get the free E-sword computer program and download the 1611 KJV. The latest version of this program also supports SA sermons, which is of course a plus. But it looks like a handy way, at looking at the apocrypha. This is a good way or form to have of a Bible, which you will rarely use since it is free, or if you look up things in it quite a bit then it still is quite handy.
TS wrote: But please remember that the Nasb and modern versions contain contributions from the Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort, who were a couple of heretics. ---
The Bible, even the KJV, contains contributions by at least a murderer and an adulterer. Your point? And the KJV was certainly influenced by an English king, but we don't hold his divine right claptrap against him, do we?
Jim Lincoln wrote: If you want an English version that is closest to the original languages, you should get the NASB
But please remember that the Nasb and modern versions contain contributions from the Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort, who were a couple of heretics.
In the 1880's Westcott and Hort wrote their own version of the Bible. When it was sent to America they rejected it as inaccurate and badly translated.
I guess this very sensible action missed Nebraska.
I would suggest you read the complete, though quite lengthy, Comparing Bible Translations. There are just so many better versions, and yes I would include the new KJV along with those versions--though other people do not, to be a substitute for the AV. By the way, do you have the real AUTHORIZED version of the Bible which as the marginal notes, the apocrypha, and the preface in the KJV? ( KJV 1611 Edition Bible [Hardcover] ) As a great piece of literature, one should have a good copy of it, but as a Bible is too closely associated with,Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists
The Bible teaches that God inspired the writers of Scripture. It also teaches that God will preserve His Words. I've read enough of the academic experts to know that the answer to this question isn't there. Look at the fruit of the Bibles. We had a Bible, the Authorized Version for some 300+ years in obedient churches, which enabled responsive reading, poetic language that is relatively easy to memorize, and a Bible that is outside the line of Roman Catholic manuscripts. Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, Gipp, and all other KJV defenders have done some good work. And being men are flawed. I've used the KJV, NASV, and the NIV. I'm back to the KJV for good. They are different in less than 10% of the text, but carefully examine where they differ. I've never found a "problem" text in the KJV that can't be reconciled, including "How old was King Ahaziah." THe KJV is the only version that has it right! Anyway, if God's preservation is not infallible, then what good is a perfect Word handled by fallen men for 2,000 years?
Kenny are you actually saying that the KJV's translators were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Or are you saying that the original authors who penned the original manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew were inspired.
The Holy Spirit literally breathed the words of Scripture that Lincoln is referring to into the minds and hearts of the men who penned them. They reveal the very mind of God and they contain all that we need to know regarding all of life and our eternal destiny. I love those words and they have been my constant companion for most of my life. I love the God who gave them.
For someone like JL who apparently considers himself to be a follower of Christ (I don't believe that) to speak or write about the inspired words of Scripture in that way is incomprehensible. You could almost expect as much from a rank infidel but for someone to claims the name of Christ and who appears to spend 99% of their time cutting and pasting links on a good Christian website is inexcusable. I'm not offended personally - I am sickened and disgusted. I am reminded of when Peter told Simon the Sorcerer, "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee".
Some may think I'm making more of this than need be but I take Jesus' words regarding blasheming the Holy Spirit very seriously. Jim Lincoln should, too.
TS wrote: More blasphemy Jim. God does not use a quote "third rate Bible," u/q. and HE did not use such a book for four hundred years of Church building either. You must stop insulting the Lord Jim. As for works the Lord would NOT use! HE would not use the work of heretics such as your brothers Westcott and Hort the Anglican Liberals, who helped write the modern versions such as your NASB. Matt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. So Jim, you had better not continue your blasphemy of the Holy Spirit whose chosen sword is the Word of God, and HE has been using it in english as the KJV for many centuries. Eph 6:17 ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
49
There are a total of 68 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
Well, amusing except after you listen to that stuff for a while. 
Erasmus was a very dedicated Catholic, or 
brassitude: "
john uk
note,
1. it is foolishness to post under your moniker..."
