How Christian Colleges Become Bastions of Unbelief
What happened to so many once-Christian colleges in the United States? Two fine books describe the decline. George Marsden's 462-page The Soul of the American University shows how once-Protestant universities became secular look-alikes. James Burtchaell's The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from Their Christian Churches uses 868 pages to show not only how schools moved from liberal theism to secularism but how, before that, they moved from theologically conservative to liberal stances.
I'll try to give the high points of 1,330 pages in fewer than 1,330 words: Three central messages are (1) Follow the money, (2) Watch the college president, (3) See what the college does with Darwin....
Mike wrote: Bro John, you keep moving the devil around like that, he'll get dizzy for sure. Perhaps the notes in the Geneva are of the devil as well?
The NASB got virgin right, but the footnote wrong? What is a maiden, biblically speaking? Was Mary a maiden or not? The reason Isaiah 7:14 is given a footnote is because the Hebrew word translated virgin may also be translated maiden.
You're absolutely right Mike.
However, when there are more than one possibles for the translation, the translator must use his wits and expertise to ascertain which is the correct one.
Observe:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Now note that in this text, The Lord is giving A SIGN!
Now it is NO SIGN for a damsel, a maid, or a young woman, to conceive and bear a son.
But for something impossible, namely a virgin to conceive and bear a son, now THAT is a SIGN from God.
And not only a sign, but his very name (or title) should be Immanuel, which being interpreted is, "God with us". So this miraculous birth was to be the Incarnate God, a doctrine under attack. Guess who by?
John UK wrote: Ah, the devil is in the footnotes. Here is the devil's signature: NU
Now come on John. Poor old Satan worked long and hard over history to get people to reject the Bible. So don't be too hard on old Nick. It wasn't until the 19th century that he managed to get a couple of his minions, Liberal Anglican heretic idolators, Westcott and Hort to rewrite the Greek text and destroy what God had ordained His Church to use since 1611.
Back then in the 1880's most learned Christians rejected the RV written by Westcott and Hort and nobody then in ecclesia expected anybody to use it. But Satan persevered.
Eventually Mr Nestle and Mr Aland came along 1898ff, and took up the cudgel and wrote their own version incorporating the W & H higher criticism version. Satan was very pleased.
In due course Satan convinced some in the church that most folks were too thick to understand the Word of God KJV, which God Himself had been using for centuries. And they decided to write the modern versions using N&A and W&H corrupted texts. Thus they produced the myriad of books which do not agree with each other and thereby helped produce the doubt that we have the Word of God today. Satan is very happy with the confusion thus produced in churches today.
Sorry, I did get all my 5 cents in the last comment. In 1 Thess 4:15 the word prevent means that we who are alive will not stop God from calling those who are died. Col 2:8- Here my way translation of this verse " Beware lest Jim tries to decay your love for word by plundering it with Greek and Hebrew, after the tradition of Baptists preachers, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Titus 2:13- Ever heard of a printing error? And for the the it- in the first verse John the Baptist said he saw the saw the Holy Spirit come down as a dove that why the Holy Spirit is called it here. For Romans 8:16,26; 1 Peter 1:11; here why, 1. It shows what area the Holy Spirit carries 2. It keeps us from doing what the Pentecostals are doing Doug says, But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil. I say --ANYTHING-- that keeps the reader from studying and searching the scripture, and asking what it means is evil and sin.
Mike wrote: Isaiah 7:14 NASB "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." Matthew 1:22,23 NASB "Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”"
Yes, that should read RSV changes 'virgin' to 'young woman' while NASB has "maiden" in a footnote.
SteveR wrote: John UK The RSV & NASB further undermine the Virgin Birth by altering Isaiah 7:14 to read young woman instead of 'virgin' Many foundational doctrines of our precious Faith are under seige in these versions. Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, The Ascension, Atonement for Sin, The Judgment, The Trinity among others Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 NASB "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."
Matthew 1:22,23 NASB "Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “ Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”"
John UK wrote: Yes indeed Steve, amen to all that. Regarding the Luke 2:33 text, it is interesting to note that the Westcott and Hort text is correctly translated "father", which immediately leads one to suspect that the W & H greek text is derived from a corrupted ms, probably deliberately, that the grand doctrine of the trinity may be abolished. The church I first attended, for about ten years, used the NIV, and I was unaware of these things at that time.
W&H didnt have to use their imagnations for Luke 2:33, they just copied the Catholic Bible. At least the Catholics will include in their commentaries "Ver. 33. In the Greek, Joseph and the mother of Jesus. (Bible de Vence)" Im really not knocking the RCC, as St Jeromes 'et erat pater eius et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo' is reasonable....but the Greek to Latin loses its full meaning when translated into English
SteveR wrote: John UK The RSV & NASB further undermine the Virgin Birth by altering Isaiah 7:14 to read young woman instead of 'virgin' Many foundational doctrines of our precious Faith are under seige in these versions. Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, The Ascension, Atonement for Sin, The Judgment, The Trinity among others Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Yes indeed Steve, amen to all that.
Regarding the Luke 2:33 text, it is interesting to note that the Westcott and Hort text is correctly translated "father", which immediately leads one to suspect that the W & H greek text is derived from a corrupted ms, probably deliberately, that the grand doctrine of the trinity may be abolished.
The church I first attended, for about ten years, used the NIV, and I was unaware of these things at that time. Indeed, it takes some research and reading to get to grips with it. Thankfully, there are those "Valiant-For-Truth" men (and women) who have taken the trouble to evaluate all these new developments in Bibles, and have found them all wanting - and that, without excuse, given the technology available.
Need help in answering my question, Jim? First tell Doug, that in Ruth it shows what the Bible corn is. And Mr. Greek and Hebrew do you know what another why of saying James is? Jacob. And I believe Doug, never hear of "standing for what you believe in" because that's what Heb 10:3 is talking about. And the "immature" language, here two reason why it in the KJV 1. It is to tell the immature reader that he/she was breaking God's command of not taking his name in vain, that what misusing the words of God is. 2. That God thinks of us(I'm not a Westro hate-monger, I'm a Sinners in the Hand of a Anger God hate-monger)
Jim Lincoln wrote: Remember the AV is a third rate Bible, as compared to modern ones
Better to view it from a practical observation Jim. The King James has been used by God for 400 years. Whereas the modern versions were brought in to society and the church to confuse the issue confound the people and are in fact an insult to peoples intelligence, by suggesting that we cannot read the King James. Therefore there is an ulterior motive behind their modern publication.
Then of course there is the higher criticism and the fabricated texts of Westcott and Hort which many good Christians rejected in the 1880's when they were first produced. Because of this the modern versions especially the NIV (dynamic equivalence) - are inferior translations. If two anglican bishops were used today to produce a version of the Bible people would reject it and laugh at any who might accept it. Wouldn't you?
John UK wrote: I would NEVER be able to carry a "Bible" which referred to Jesus parentage as "his father and mother", showing him to be natural-born,
John UK The RSV & NASB further undermine the Virgin Birth by altering Isaiah 7:14 to read young woman instead of 'virgin'
Many foundational doctrines of our precious Faith are under seige in these versions. Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, The Ascension, Atonement for Sin, The Judgment, The Trinity among others
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Mike wrote: Thanks, John. You asked "What makes you think, if the NWT and the NIV are translated from the same greek text, that the NWT is the one incorrectly translated?" IF they were translated from the same greek, NWT says Jesus is not God; NIV says Jesus is God. The one that denies Jesus is God must be the one incorrectly translated, no?
Why so?
Could not the NWT have the correct translation, and therefore Jesus is not God?
Of course, thanks to the English translations beginning with Wycliffe, Tyndale, through to Geneva and the KJV, we have come to understand that in Christian orthodoxy, the Holy Trinity is a biblical truth, and that Jesus is God.
But what now, and in the future?
Luke 2:33 KJV 33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
This is the correct translation.
And what do the modern Bibles have here? After all, are not the modern scholars so far advanced from the translators of the KJV?
John UK wrote: --- Mike New York Welcome home bro Now you know that you never answered my question. ---
Thanks, John.
You asked "What makes you think, if the NWT and the NIV are translated from the same greek text, that the NWT is the one incorrectly translated?"
IF they were translated from the same greek, NWT says Jesus is not God; NIV says Jesus is God. The one that denies Jesus is God must be the one incorrectly translated, no?
example: John 1:1 NWT:1 "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
Jesus is a god?
JOHN 1:1 NIV "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jesus is God.
Plain enough, methinks.
If you're looking for greek text positioning, I have none, not having read them. More interesting and to the point is what the translations actually say. Greek text reference is mostly for onlyists to hide behind. (Bet they haven't read them either)
I would NEVER be able to carry a "Bible" which referred to Jesus parentage as "his father and mother", showing him to be natural-born, rather than as in the KJV and other Bibles "Joseph and his mother".
NWT + NIV + NASB =
These Bibles prove that Joseph was Jesus's father. =
Doug Kutilek wrote: And I could write at length of the KJV's fourfold reference to the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, as "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11), which in my opinion comes little short, if indeed it comes short at all, of blasphemy. Baptist theologian Emery Bancroft ascribed this horrid translation to Socinian influence among the KJV translators (see Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8). The Socinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit was roughly the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation--alone of modern Bible versions--also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it.". . . .
Charles T Russell one of the early founders of the Watchtower Society was an apostate from Reformed Bible teaching. So he was brought up with the KJV and sound teaching but then 'persuaded' that TRADITION had brought in the doctrines of the Trinity and Hell.
The eventual JW's had a hard time using the KJV due to I Timothy 3: 16 etc so followed the rejection of the received text within what they term christendom and came up with their own NWT perversion, but obviously distorting the westcott and hort text further, but that new Greek text certainly helped their own case.
'Following his analytical examination of the Bible, Russell and other Bible Students came to believe that Christian creeds and traditions were harmful errors, believing they had restored Christianity to the purity held in the first century'
The beginning of another house group?
MAYBE an apostate society didn't stick with the KJV or Reformed doctrine for very obvious reasons?
Sound doctrine whether in a comfy armchair or a solid pine worm holed olde pew
John UK wrote: --- Here's a question for you bro. What makes you think, if the NWT and the NIV are translated from the same greek text, that the NWT is the one incorrectly translated?
The NWT flatly denies that Jesus is very God, a principle they have stated in their other writings as well.
Smudger: Such smudging should be held as very thin, what with the stretching done that points might be made.
Hi Lurker: Been visiting offspring out of state. No TV watched either, so was refeshing a time. Went to a house church meeting, a reminder of what could be but for tradition.
Dr. Terry Mortenson | 1/16/2009
COMMENTS | 
john uk from wales: "
frank
no, i didn't yield to paul, but i am saying it could..."
