members, click to sign in..

2,535 active users!Bandwidth
THURSDAY
APR 24, 2014
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
Broadcasters
Local Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -2 hrs
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
StoresNew Stuff!
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2014 | TIPS Subscribe to the breaking newsWhat is RSS?
COVER Page ALL News CHOICE VIDEOS User COMMENTS
SATURDAY, MAR 9, 2013| 71 comments
Creationist Ken Ham Blasts Robert Jeffress for Anti-Young Earth Remarks
Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church of Dallas has come under fire by creationist Ken Ham, after the Texas preacher suggested that the universe might indeed be 13.7 billion years old, as modern science claims.

"It is so distressing that so many of our Christian leaders don't seem to understand that to accept man's fallible beliefs of billions of years, Big Bang etc, they are really undermining the authority of God's Word," Ham, president/CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis–U.S. and the Creation Museum, wrote on his Facebook page on Thursday.

"To send a signal to coming generations that one can accept such false ideas like the Big Bang and billions of years they are taught at public school and secular colleges (and many compromising Christian Colleges) is a major factor why so many of the coming generations begin to doubt the authority of the Word of God," the creationist added. ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.christianpost.com

Answers Academy: Big Bang
|  START  |  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Genesis: Reclaiming Culture • Ken Ham | 5/22/2003
•  Answers Academy: Big BangJason Lisle | 6/1/2005
•  Was Darwin Right? Part 2Dr. Terry Mortenson | 1/16/2009
•  Six Creation Days: Rejected • Ken Ham | 11/27/2009

   04/17/14  |  NBA Star Stuns Some With His Comments About Creation • 2 comments
   04/16/14  |  Bill Nye Says He Wanted to Expose Why Ken Ham and Creationists... • 10 comments
   04/16/14  |  High noon at Bryan College • 1 comments
   04/07/14  |  Bryan College could lose faculty over creationism dispute • 4 comments
   03/28/14  |  Paul Madtes stands against the Church of the Nazarene’s academic... • 2 comments
MORE RELATED ( CREATION ) NEWS | MORE..
   04/22/14  |  IRS Confirms Abortions are Eligible for a Tax Deduction • 2 comments
   04/20/14  |  China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within... • 14 comments
   04/16/14  |  SermonAudio Tip: SermonAudio App v2.2 for Android Mobile Devices • 48 comments
   04/16/14  |  As Titanic sank, he pleaded, 'believe in the Lord Jesus!' • 10 comments
   04/13/14  |  Feminists Go Bonkers Over Kirsten Dunst’s One, Simple Comment • 40 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   02/07/14  |  Bringing the Gospel of John to Every Home in Austin, TX • 31 comments
   01/07/14  |  SermonAudio Partners with RFC for the 2014 Family Conference at... • 1 comments
   01/01/14  |  Happy New Year from SermonAudio! • 29 comments
   12/10/13  |  SermonAudio Broadcaster Loses Historic Church Building To Fire • 3 comments
   07/27/13  |  3 Dead When Bus Carrying Teens Crashes in Indiana • 34 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..

COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 71 user comment(s)
News Item3/16/13 4:48 AM
Problems  Find all comments by Problems
Mike wrote:
Problems, the issue isn't any ol words vs His Word, but whether his truth and grace can be limited to/by one group of translators' words.
If only it was that simple Mike. There is a vast difference in the texts used by the church of by gone days and the text in vogue now. Once we get past the textual problem we have to contend with translational philosophy - dynamic equivalence vs literal etc.

Why did God bother to give his Word? So that the wisdom of man could have an input into these matters?

71

News Item3/15/13 11:48 PM
David Preston | Centreville, VA  Contact via emailFind all comments by David Preston
Frank,

You should read my comments carefully.
1. My mother speaks Spanish. I gave her a Spanish Bible. I never attacked anybody but corrupt versions. I have a little more grace than you. I have family friends who use the Message and they are saved by the blood of Jesus. Was Augustine saved even though he was a papist?
2. When I spoke of milk I spoke of it as using it as good vs. bad analogy not about someones maturity level. I drink organic milk. Milk that is from cows that are grass fed and not injected with vaccines and hormones are the good cows. You left out the "organic milk" from your reply.
Also which version do you use? Does it have 1 John 5:7? There are doctrinal differences in new versions. Name me one KJV Only person? I don't know any.
I type all this with peace and charity,
David

70

News Item3/15/13 8:08 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
Problems wrote:
Of course the Holy Spirit is essential. But, if any ol words will do, then why did God give us His Word?
Maybe because he meant to communicate truth and grace it, yes?
Problems, the issue isn't any ol words vs His Word, but whether his truth and grace can be limited to/by one group of translators' words.
69

News Item3/15/13 7:25 PM
Problems  Find all comments by Problems
Mike wrote:
The argument over versions could get some legs under it if words, and not the Holy Spirit, conveyed God's word. Do we understand the difference between printed words and the word of God? If it is said that the saved are predestined to it, then so-called false versions are irrelevant to their salvation or lack of it. It is the Holy Spirit working in a sinner's life that brings him to the point of repentance and conversion. It is nonsense to suppose the Holy Spirit's work is hampered or enhanced by a particular version, as though it were in some fashion superior to him, or an "elect" might get missed if he used the "wrong" version. A Bible needs the Holy Spirit to make it understood. The Holy Spirit doesn't need a special version to help him do it.
Of course the Holy Spirit is essential. But, if any ol words will do, then why did God give us His Word?

Maybe because he meant to communicate truth and grace it, yes?

68

News Item3/15/13 5:19 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
John UK wrote:
More tongue-in-cheek rhetoric, Mike?
It's quite a gift you have.
Thanks, bro. I'll accept the tongue-in-cheek compliment.
67

News Item3/15/13 4:15 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Mike wrote:
The argument over versions could get some legs under it if words, and not the Holy Spirit, conveyed God's word. Do we understand the difference between printed words and the word of God? If it is said that the saved are predestined to it, then so-called false versions are irrelevant to their salvation or lack of it. It is the Holy Spirit working in a sinner's life that brings him to the point of repentance and conversion. It is nonsense to suppose the Holy Spirit's work is hampered or enhanced by a particular version, as though it were in some fashion superior to him, or an "elect" might get missed if he used the "wrong" version. A Bible needs the Holy Spirit to make it understood. The Holy Spirit doesn't need a special version to help him do it.
More tongue-in-cheek rhetoric, Mike?

It's quite a gift you have.

66

News Item3/15/13 3:15 PM
Unprofitable Servant | Georgia  Find all comments by Unprofitable Servant
Mike wrote:
The argument over versions could get some... The Holy Spirit doesn't need a special version to help him do it.
True, it is the work of the Holy Spirit, but He uses means. We don't have people instantaneously converted randomly just because they are driving down the highway. I know you believe this. I was stating that one of those means is the seed of the Word of God, and quoted (more or less) 3 different verses that demonstrate that, more could be used. If the other versions that were not KJV were not the Word of God, as implied in earlier posts (not yours), then the material the Holy Spirit uses would not be present. We must be born of Spirit because if any have not the Spirit of God, he is none of His. Thanks for your comment Mike and keeping things in perspective.
65

News Item3/15/13 2:57 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
David Preston wrote:
Frank
You bear false witness brother. I never said "Since David is saying that if someone is a mature Christian, then he/she will only use the KJV, then he is saying that if you don't use the KJV, then you are immature and won't grow because you are taking tainted milk." You put words in my mouth. My mother speaks Spanish I gave her a Spanish. When did I ever say "kjv." Why don't you answer some of my earlier questions! As for using " charity and peace," I meant it from my heart I don't want war against fellow Christian's.
As far as I am concerned, you attacked the character of those that don't use the KJ. Immaturity (still using milk) in an adult is a character flaw. Since you enjoy "word games", please remember I said "as far as I am concerned". Now, to answer your question as best as I remember, please note the following.

MY VERSION IS PERFECTLY INERRANT AND INSPIRED. Oh and so is the KJV. There are no doctrinal issues that are in conflict.

Now, Lord willing, this will be my last post on this issue. It is a very divisive issue for those on the attack, which leaves those of us who are defending somewhat confused. None of us non-KJV users said anything negative about the KJ.

64

News Item3/15/13 2:53 PM
jamesc | fallbrook, ca  Find all comments by jamesc
Mike wrote:
The argument over versions could get some legs under it if words...
True. You must be born again by the Spirit... (John 3), and I have to clarify you can't do it yourself.

Romans 10:14-17. Acts 2:41. There was no complete "Bible" existing when the apostles preached in Acts. They only had the Law and the Prophets.

63

News Item3/15/13 2:44 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
The argument over versions could get some legs under it if words, and not the Holy Spirit, conveyed God's word. Do we understand the difference between printed words and the word of God? If it is said that the saved are predestined to it, then so-called false versions are irrelevant to their salvation or lack of it. It is the Holy Spirit working in a sinner's life that brings him to the point of repentance and conversion. It is nonsense to suppose the Holy Spirit's work is hampered or enhanced by a particular version, as though it were in some fashion superior to him, or an "elect" might get missed if he used the "wrong" version. A Bible needs the Holy Spirit to make it understood. The Holy Spirit doesn't need a special version to help him do it.
62

News Item3/15/13 2:31 PM
jamesc | fallbrook, ca  Find all comments by jamesc
John UK wrote:
Ha! I'm outta here - someone's got to make the tea.
James, I'll have to get back to your very important question later, but just a quick note, that if a Bible is said to be the word of God, it MUST be inerrant, otherwise it is NOT the word of God. The claim of many today that "the originals" were inerrant is a clever manipulation of evangelical thought, trying to mould it into unbelief.
Thanks John (and Frank). I see your point. This logic is definitely something the cults (JW, Mormon, Catholic, Cheap-Grace folks, etc.) use to attack Sola Scriptura. Thanks for your patience.
61

News Item3/15/13 2:20 PM
David Preston | Centreville, VA  Contact via emailFind all comments by David Preston
Frank
You bear false witness brother. I never said "Since David is saying that if someone is a mature Christian, then he/she will only use the KJV, then he is saying that if you don't use the KJV, then you are immature and won't grow because you are taking tainted milk." You put words in my mouth. My mother speaks Spanish I gave her a Spanish. When did I ever say "kjv." Why don't you answer some of my earlier questions! As for using " charity and peace," I meant it from my heart I don't want war against fellow Christian's.
60

News Item3/15/13 2:19 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Frank wrote:
Then they should be separated from as if they are not in the faith and God will sort it all out in the end. I believe that the Holy Spirit would not allow a genuine believer to use the versions you are speaking of. He wouldn't let a believer use the JW scriptures or the Mormon scriptures, or the Message and I'm sure there are dozens more. Or, attend a Catholic church.
This is going to fast for my old brain and I can't edit fast enough.
Ha! I'm outta here - someone's got to make the tea.

James, I'll have to get back to your very important question later, but just a quick note, that if a Bible is said to be the word of God, it MUST be inerrant, otherwise it is NOT the word of God. The claim of many today that "the originals" were inerrant is a clever manipulation of evangelical thought, trying to mould it into unbelief.

59

News Item3/15/13 2:19 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
jamesc wrote:
John, I agree with you. Purposeful removal/changing of Scripture in translation is of the devil (e.g. NWT). I have a problem with NLT and other "living translations" and these idolatrous comic-book bibles for the carnally minded.
Doesn't the doctrine of inerrancy/infallibility apply only to the original manuscripts? Assuming the original was preserved in the translation(s), it would seem to me that inerrancy applies to the translation. Again, you probably know more on this than me.
My last post on this issue. To say that the original manuscripts were infallible and God-breathed, but not our translations means that our translations contain errors. If that is true, then we don't have the word of God because who says where those errors are. John and I agree on this thought, but I have a much better way of looking at that statement than he does.

Here is what I said to him below. He has already lost a debate with me on this issue.

MY VERSION IS PERFECTLY INERRANT AND INSPIRED. Oh and so is the KJV. There are no doctrinal issues that are in conflict. I proved this to you before.

58

News Item3/15/13 2:12 PM
jamesc | fallbrook, ca  Find all comments by jamesc
John UK wrote:
1. Ah yes bro, but there are many others who are using versions simply because the word "hell" has been removed, as also the word "blood". If they are not in the text, they will not be preached on. If you see what I mean. I have spoken to many MV-Onlyists and they seem to have this attitude, they will not talk about hell. Apostasy?
2. Oh yea, we agree wholeheartedly!
______________
James, do you regard - as I do - the Geneva Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God? No need to answer if you do not want to.
John, I agree with you. Purposeful removal/changing of Scripture in translation is of the devil (e.g. NWT). I have a problem with NLT and other "living translations" and these idolatrous comic-book bibles for the carnally minded.

Doesn't the doctrine of inerrancy/infallibility apply only to the original manuscripts? Assuming the original was preserved in the translation(s), it would seem to me that inerrancy applies to the translation. Again, you probably know more on this than me.

57

News Item3/15/13 2:10 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
John UK wrote:
1. Ah yes bro, but there are many others who are using versions simply because the word "hell" has been removed, as also the word "blood". If they are not in the text, they will not be preached on. If you see what I mean. I have spoken to many MV-Onlyists and they seem to have this attitude, they will not talk about hell. Apostasy?
2. Oh yea, we agree wholeheartedly!
Then they should be separated from as if they are not in the faith and God will sort it all out in the end. I believe that the Holy Spirit would not allow a genuine believer to use the versions you are speaking of. He wouldn't let a believer use the JW scriptures or the Mormon scriptures, or the Message and I'm sure there are dozens more. Or, attend a Catholic church.

This is going to fast for my old brain and I can't edit fast enough.

56

News Item3/15/13 2:01 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Frank wrote:
John UK. I disagree that real Christians will speak less and less on the blood of Christ and hell because of modern translations; at least the ones I would use. We are saved through the cross (the blood) and if we aren't saved we will undergo God's wrath (hell).
God perfectly preserves His word and perfectly conforms His children into the image of His Son. Mankind can't undo that regardless of how hard they try. You and I will agree on this thought.
1. Ah yes bro, but there are many others who are using versions simply because the word "hell" has been removed, as also the word "blood". If they are not in the text, they will not be preached on. If you see what I mean. I have spoken to many MV-Onlyists and they seem to have this attitude, they will not talk about hell. Apostasy?

2. Oh yea, we agree wholeheartedly!

______________

James, do you regard - as I do - the Geneva Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God? No need to answer if you do not want to.

Thank you for your edit.

55

News Item3/15/13 1:59 PM
jamesc | fallbrook, ca  Find all comments by jamesc
John UK wrote:
Sure, if you are trying to convince people that there is not one version of the Bible which is inerrant and inspired. The Reformers were not of your ilk.
Did the puritans/reformers use the Geneva or KJV? Luther, Wycliff, Tyndale all did translations before 1611. Which church produced the KJV (anglican/ church of england?)?

Anyway I'm not an expert on translations. I just read some history about it. The Gospel is most important and I see we are on the same side (i.e. 5 solas).

Sorry for claiming you were kjv-onlyist.

54

News Item3/15/13 1:49 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
jamesc wrote:
I don't like the NIV (I like the ESV/NASB). I like the KJV too.
Me too! If someone presented an argument using the KJV, it wouldn't faze me in the least. John UK understands the gospel message better than anyone I have ever read and he only uses the KJV. But, while he is a proponent of the KJ, he isn't like this David fellow.

John UK. I disagree that real Christians will speak less and less on the blood of Christ and hell because of modern translations; at least the ones I would use. We are saved through the cross (the blood) and if we aren't saved we will undergo God's wrath (hell).

God perfectly preserves His word and perfectly conforms His children into the image of His Son. Mankind can't undo that regardless of how hard they try. You and I will agree on this thought.

John also said the below.

Sure, if you are trying to convince people that there is not one version of the Bible which is inerrant and inspired. The Reformers were not of your ilk.

MY VERSION IS PERFECTLY INERRANT AND INSPIRED. Oh and so is the KJV. There are no doctrinal issues that are in conflict. I proved this to you before.

53

News Item3/15/13 1:48 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Frank wrote:
Sorry brother, I edited my earlier comment and answered that question.

I remember debating with Lurker one time and he said the KJV more correctly translated a word than my NASB, alien versus pilgrim. I researched and agreed with him. That is the way I look at it.

Sure, you are quite correct. So long as a Bible has "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbour as yourself", there is no limit to how godly a man may become.

However, I "prophesy" that in years to come, there will be less and less preaching on hell, and on the blood of Jesus as the means of salvation, due to the version being used.

jamesc wrote:
...I'm just wasting my time.
Sure, if you are trying to convince people that there is not one version of the Bible which is inerrant and inspired. The Reformers were not of your ilk.
52
There are a total of 71 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 | last
Last PostTotal
Medical Marijuana Shop to Spread the Gospel and Heal the Sick?
carl haydock from england: "what would they say if u said god told me he didnt say..."
-2 hrs 
Michelle Obama Declares Naps More Important Than Church
phillip gray from gordo, al: "wrong!!!!! :("
-5 hrs 51 
Southern Baptist Summit: ‘Stop Spreading Falsehoods
nrc: "lol how did we miss that one? :d"
-6 hrs 


My Jesus, I Love Thee
William Boekestein
Loving the Incarnation (2)

Sunday, September 29, 2013
Sunday - AM
Covenant Reformed Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Rev. John S. Mahon
1: The Obedient Parent

Big Sky Fellowship FDS 2014
Grace Community...
Play! | MP3

E. A. Johnston
Deceived Church

Ambassadors For Christ Intl-US
Special Meeting
Play! | MP3

Sponsor:
Antichrist Unmistakably Revealed!

Free MP3s By Charles Spurg­eon, Jon­athan Edw­ards, Rich­ard Benn­ett, Greg Price, et al.
ow.ly/w6len

Sermon:
Theonomy versus Apostasy
Robert Rubino






                   
We have the truth and we need not be afraid to say so. ... J. C. Ryle
Site-Wide RSS & Podcast | Help
Select Podcast Format | Help

HTML Embed | More
Flash Widget | More
Our Staff Picks | Info
Featured Sermon | More

City: Austin, TX
Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal
MOBILE
iPhone + iPad New!
Church App
Android New!
Kindle + Nook New!
BlackBerry
Windows Mobile, Nokia
ROKU TV
Kindle Reader

FOLLOW
Staff Picks Feed
Site Notices
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
HELP
RSS & Podcasts
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Favorites
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

NEWSLETTER
View Latest Issue
Subscribe
Unsubscribe | Change
Privacy Policy
SERVICES | ALL
Local Church Finder | Info
MP3 Play & Download
Mobile Apps
Podcasting
Video Support
Live Webcasting
Transcription Service
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domains
QR Codes New!
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Sermon Browser
HTML Codes | WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Upload via Email
Auto-Upload Sermons
Auto-Blog Import
Picasa | API | FTP | Dropbox
ABOUT US
SermonAudio.com is the largest library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide. All broadcasters must adhere to the Articles of Faith.
Our Services | Testimonials
Broadcast With Us!
Support Us
Advertising | Local Ads

CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Copyright © 2014 SermonAudio.com.