Open Blogging 06/27

You may also like...

154 Responses

  1. Erunner says:

    If you or anyone you know could use one touch ultra test strips for diabetes I have a lot I need to get to someone else. If you’re interested contact me at I also have lancets. And if you don’t know they are quite expensive. I’ll arrange to mail them to you. They expire in October.

  2. Linnea says:

    Good morning all…

    It’s a sunny, sunny day where I am, which means HOT!

    Isn’t it funny (not really) how canning fruit is done in the hottest part of the summer? I’m off to sweat over the stove making apricot jam.

  3. Linnea says:

    Hi E!

  4. Erunner says:

    Hi Linnea!

  5. Ms. ODM says:

    It’s difficult for me to listen to confirmed bachelors pontificating about marriage. The bottom line is — the Christian reaction is not so much against gay people, but FOR God’s definition of marriage.

  6. Michael says:

    Ms. ODM,

    I’m all for God’s definition of marriage.
    However, I’ve seen it compromised and defiled so much in the church, that I can’t help but wonder who is being judged (if anybody) in this matter.

  7. JoelG says:

    #2 – I stand guilty. Which is why we need #1

  8. Xenia says:

    For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

    I Cor 14:8

  9. Michael says:


    I would argue (vociferously) that the uncertain sound was how we have treated marriage and family in the church.

    We can and should stand on the biblical definition of marriage, but we should practice it ourselves first.

    How the “battle” is engaged is another whole topic …

  10. Xenia says:

    We can wring our hands over past mistakes and sins for a while but eventually we have to look at the battle that is upon us now, even if our own sinful actions are the cause.

  11. Michael says:

    I’m not talking about hand wringing.
    I’m talking about repenting for mocking God in how we’ve treated the institution and the ones affected by that mockery.
    As I read the Bible the battle is spiritual and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal…but we continue to depend on carnality to win the day.

  12. Babylon's Dread says:


    As a pastor who has fought for marriage for 40 years… I just want to remind you that our congregations and the world BEAT HELL OUT OF US for resisting divorce and remarriage accusing us of making it the unpardonable sin. Now we get hell beat out of us for losing that war and thus having no moral authority for this one.

  13. Anne says:

    Great mini Things I Think, Michael.

    Sometimes it seems like there is a pantheon of Father Gods, Jesuses and Holy Spirits if you just observe all the different ways the gospel is explained and lived. Especially lived. I think the most incredible form of revival, the most significant “signs & wonders” that would shake up the church and those outside its walls woud be a revolution of truly being known for love for one another and true care for “the least of these”.

    The recent exposes regarding GFA do not surprise me. I think anyone who has worked in parachurch ministries or other non-profits would notice that much of the energy and fundraising is used to build and maintain the organization with only a small trickle reaching the ones advertised as being their reason for existing.

    I worked for three years with a well know homeless ministry in OC. I could tell you many stories about how meeting the needs of the homeless was the last priority of a lot of our activities.

    One example that sticks with me though, is leadership having the women in the center I worked in remove all the food from one wall of shelves in the pantry so they would have empty shelves to photograph for that season’s fundraising. We usually got lots of donations of food and clothes but the org needs cash.

    Most programs like this advertise for certain, real needs. But they are actually “juicing” (a term used by one of the admins) people’s sympathy to get cash to pay salaries, expand infrastructure, advertising, more fundraising etc.

    Another practice I’ve seen in both religious and secular orgs is called “creaming”. Rather than providing services to the neediest, often most poor and beset with physical and mental health challenges, folks are accepted into programs based on what the admins consider will be the greatest succeeders. They need to have high success stats to maintain ability to get grants etc. Although the picture in the lobby of main office was the iconic photo of mother with kids in old car, the success stories I saw photos and testimonies used to advertise from were moms and kids who were referred by family (one’s dad a physician in a very rich enclave of OC) as a sort of scared straight, saturate them with Jesus ploy. Many of the women had places to live once they finished the program and some were even working making $15 an hour or more ( more than us case managers). After they ‘graduated’ from program they would be returning to lifestyles that even many middle class and working poor could not imagine. It was mind boggling to me! Especially with the number of truly homeless, destitute living in the shadows in OC. The really homeless women did have access to shower once a week at a men’s shelter and eat one meal daily there. They did do some good, for which those who received any kind of help were grateful. But I always imagined how much good could have really been done if so much of the resources they were bringing in went actually to helping the least of these rather than maintaining the organization.

    When individuals and smaller groups give sacrificially to help the needy my heart sings. Many who I’ve met on these pages are doing that kind of love daily. I think the best revival would be eschewing mega anything and spending our time and resources reaching out to others directly.

    This can be done even for over seas ventures. There are many smaller groups who provide direct aid. Even sending funds to individuals, smaller churches in these areas rather than going through the large agencies. You may not get a tax credit for your benevolence but you will know your help is getting into the hands of actual folks who need. It.

    There are agencies that have their priorities straight. Read their financials on the front end and you won’t be as shocked as many supporting GFA have been.

    I know that because of the wonderful relationships I’ve been able to form here, that many of you continue to pray for me despite my unbelief. I appreciate the love it represents.

  14. Michael says:


    You may well have engaged that battle bravely.
    I have hundreds of examples over more than a decade of blogging where the clergy were the ones mocking God and left a trail of broken women and children.
    We made divorce and remarriage in all of it’s forms an acceptable sin because it was one we cherished.
    Now the chickens have come home to roost and we need to figure out where to go from here.

  15. Xenia says:

    I should explain what I mean by “battle:”

    Our enemies are not flesh and blood but the the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. This enemy is not fought by means of politics and voting. There may have been a time decades ago when this might have been effective but that ship has sailed years ago.

    An evangelical neighbor who is dubious of my Orthodoxy told me recently that the Christians of our community need to band together (she included me, I was rather surprised to hear) and pray for each other and to support each other in the face of what she considers to be terrible times ahead. Since she is not an alarmist (rather the opposite) and is a bit of a prophet (in her own way), I am inclined to believe that she is right and that her goal of uniting the local Christians in an underground support system is probably what we will need to be doing in the not-so-near future. She is divorced; I am not going to tell her “fix that divorce and remarriage and then we can talk.”

    This battle is fought by prayer and individual Christians and congregations pursuing personal holiness. Fasting wouldn’t hurt, either.

  16. Xenia says:

    For a while I thought some mythical “moral majority” of righteous, god-fearing Americans would rise up and set things aright but I now realize that there is no such group left in America, if there ever was.

  17. Anne says:

    #12 so much for God in you being greater than the world. Maybe it would be more accurate to say caving to popular opinion of culture/congregants was having the heaven beat out of churches to maintain pew sitters and cash flow…..

  18. Babylon's Dread says:

    America blessed women to kill their babies by deeming them not human …abortion exploded. Gay marriage has now been blessed by the freedom writers. It too will explode. What you bless increases. America has blessed self-will. We have blessed the pursuit of happiness. We are numb to dead fetuses and I expect we will be numb to human sexuality soon enough.

    Still the question for believers is whence comest truth? How do we know something is true. Epistemology is trending toward the masses. Our knowledge comes from self-revelation these days not any perceived bits of divine revelation.

    I am amused at talk of divine judgement. We are simply left to our own devices which are more than adequate for the job. It will take a very long time for us to tire of these scorpion whips we have woven.

  19. Jim says:


    Respectfully, there is no hand wringing over past mistakes. The very current ugly truth is that marriage in the church looks exactly like marriage outside the camp. 50% fail.

  20. JoelG says:

    “Now the chickens have come home to roost and we need to figure out where to go from here.”

    Where else can we failures go? To Jesus for mercy everyday. And not calling our bad choices good in Gods eyes, but our past choices, nonetheless. Then we take the mercy we beg for to world that needs to know there is now no condemnation in Jesus. I can’t do anything about my moral failures but beg for mercy. The world needs mercy.

  21. em says:

    Xenia #8 – i’ve had that verse running thru my brain ever since i heard Obama try to sing “Amazing Grace” at the funeral yesterday… a different context, tho… and it was better than i could do

  22. brian says:

    yes much to think on I do hope all of you have a nice weekend.

  23. em says:

    BD is correct, damned if we do and damned if we don’t – but not by God, praise Him

    the seeker friendly love to say Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship – it is – but i don’t think they have a clue as to what that really means… you can’t understand grace until you fear the Lord… IMHO

  24. em says:

    #13-IMO …. i don’t think the problem of exploitation of the Faith could be explained any better than Anne just did – they will all go the way of Judas in the end… it is not what Jesus meant when he encouraged doing it unto the least of these… and yet, human nature is going to run through our organized gatherings until the end…

    by the time this scenario reaches the end, as i read it, human viewpoint will dominate, so… maybe, the end *is* near… dunno

  25. Ms. ODM says:

    #12 — Dude, you said it!! Amen!!

  26. says:

    The only thing about the future which seems certain to me is any “leader” in the church who wishes to really rake in the moolah, will have it VERY easy to do so.
    Not since Y2K has the church been so ripe for the new doom-n-gloom manuals.
    I can’t get over the irony as more “bad” prophecies unfold before us, how good it is for the church.
    All of the “why don’t we be like the early church” pontifications (obviously they never met them as it was corrupted pretty early), I think the current church’s capitalist response would have them scratching their heads.
    I’m with Michael, had we spent more energy fixing our marriages in the church, it would be better now-and I’m not talking about more conferences, books, or marriage breath mints.

  27. Ms. ODM says:

    BD – re #18 — As a prophecy watcher, I do not speak of God’s judgment coming down just because of the pile-up of national sins in America. The reason this particular sin being legalized is very prophetic and ominous is because of the prophecies in the Bible comparing the time of the end to the time of Noah and Lot. “Evil continually” and sodomy — in that order. That spells curtains for a nation that has “in God we trust” on its money and monuments. To whom much is given . . .

  28. Ms. ODM,
    First off we should be judged for having put “in God we trust” on anything. That in itself is worthy of judgement. btw – which god is that anyway?

    It’s the same when the president says “God Bless America” and the Mormon, the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist etc all say amen.

  29. This whole same sex marriage is not a religious issue at all – it’s purely political and cultural. I don’t see the Jews and Muslims getting all upset – why? because they are not concerned with what the world does, they care what their organizations do. They don’t care that pork eating is done by others – just “not in our house”

    If it were a religious issue, perhaps the government would order the Jews to stop publishing certain passages in their bible.

  30. Xenia says:

    Re: Dread’s #12

    Do any of you remember the days when no church would hire a divorced pastor? In my hometown in North Carolina the local SBC was excoriated for not allowing divorced persons to hold an office. People got mad and left. I suspect that people on this very blog would have been critical, too. People are extremely critical of the Roman Catholics for their strong stand against divorce. How many here agree with all the rigmarole a divorced Catholic has to go through to get back in the church’s good graces? It’s a fiasco, frankly, but I give them credit for trying their best to keep families intact.

    Conservative churches do not preach that divorce is a good thing, ever. What has happened is that people get divorced anyway and most churches just try to find some reasonable way to receive divorced people back into the fold and not leave them out in the cold like the RCC does. Isn’t that what you all have been talking about here the past few days? Grace?

    All conservative churches preach that it is God’s desire that people remain faithful to their spouses and stay married to them. You can’t force people to stay married. Weren’t you all upset with a recent situation where a church made people sign some sort of covenant that disallowed divorce?

    People are sinners and get divorced. American churches have tried to put the pieces back together again. People were able to get divorced so easily and readily because of the change in divorce laws. As Dread says, you bless something and it increases.

    Now this new thing has been foisted upon us. The US White house lit itself up with rainbow lights. I am horrified and ashamed to be an American this day but all is not lost: I have a better citizenship Elsewhere.

  31. EricL says:

    The LGBT lobby has already announced their next target: employers. It will probably start with a few smaller businesses that are openly hostile to the LGBT, but within 5-10 years the target will shift to non-church Christian organizations. If your Christian college, hospital, homeless shelter, or aid organization gets any government money (grants, student aid, research dollars, aid help) then the hammer will fall hard.

    I think the organizations will either 1) fold to the pressure like World Vision almost did or 2) try to renounce all government assistance. I don’t think #2 will even work, since their employees are not all religious instructors nor are the organizations actual churches.

    I think that within a decade, we will see the end of para-church organizations, including Christian Liberal Arts colleges. I hope I’m wrong, but I think they won’t be able to resist the combined strength of LGBT activists+ media+ government agencies+ courts.

  32. “Now this new thing has been foisted upon us.”

    How has it been foisted on you? It makes no demands on you personally – it makes no demands on your family or church. All this did was affirm that homosexuals can now participate in a government sanctioned life event.

    See, there is nothing in our marriage laws that gives anyone the “right” to be married in a church.

  33. EricL says:

    More clarification on my comment @31. I think if all this happens, God can use it to strengthen the church. We will be forced to do our aid-work though our local congregation, to do our missions from with the church/ denomination, and so on.

    My sister belongs to a small church denomination (they would detest being called that- but that is what they are) here in CA that doesn’t have its own college. Instead, they have a “house” near every UC and Cal State campus where they have their kids stay when going to college. Older church couples live at these houses/ small apartment complexes and serve as mentors. The rest of us may be forced to do something similar, once the Christian colleges are forced to submit to the LGBT agenda.

    Good things can come out of this, as the church is refined.

  34. Xenia says:

    Read a little Russian and French history, MLD.

    If you don’t think this thing isn’t going to snowball into something that does affect you personally, I think you are in for a surprise.

  35. Xenia – this could happen in the USA without same sex marriage. I don’t think that Russian or French religious freedom fell because they legalized homosexual marriage.

    You may read the Russian / French history more than I do but I think your read it wrong. 😉
    I lived in France from 1960 – 1963, they were very active and free in their church going. They have since pissed away the freedoms they had voluntarily.

  36. JoelG says:

    Xenia it’s still still hard to believe God would let a murdering reprobate like David contribute to his Word. Talk about no standards.

  37. Xenia, if it were up to you, would you outlaw divorce and homosexuality?

  38. Xenia says:

    If it were up to me, I would outlaw public homosexuality (put them all back in their closets) and I would use the standard that Christ gave for divorce.

    As to David, he himself never really recovered from his murderous, adulterous escapade and Israel was divided not long after the death of his son Solomon.

  39. Xenia says:

    I don’t think that Russian or French religious freedom fell because they legalized homosexual marriage.<<<

    That's not what I was getting at. My point, poorly made I agree, is that even "Christian" countries can find themselves in the hands of hostile secularists and all Christians can find themselves affected.

  40. Xenia says:

    The crazy thing about this conversation is that 50 years ago everyone would be agreeing with me.

  41. SJ says:

    Bree Newsome scaled the SC capital flag pole today and took down the stars and bars in protest. Pretty rad…

  42. Erunner says:

    In the midst of the gay marriage conversation I am reminded of the tens of millions of unborn children that have been sacrificed to the altar of choice. If you want to talk about impending consequences for sin I might start here. How the world has changed in my lifetime…… In the 70’s and 80’s the church was saying things couldn’t get worse. How wrong they were.

  43. Linnea says:

    I am mentoring a student intern at work. We had lunch yesterday, and she identifies as an agnostic. She said the most shocking thing about her university experience was how out of the closet and in your face was the homosexual movement. That says something to me…someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in God was shocked about how out there homosexuals were on her campus. I don’t think the nation realizes how “out there” this whole idea of gay marriage is….

  44. “The crazy thing about this conversation is that 50 years ago everyone would be agreeing with me.”

    I agree with you and with those from 50 years ago that divorce and homosexuality are wrong. But in our society, I have a very little voice in trying to stop people from doing wrong. I have very little voice in what happens in the big C church and have some voice in what happens in my local church.

    The point is, I am not going to attribute future actions of God because of what we do in this sinful world.

    Disobedience is a hallmark and famous attribute of Christians – many times in the New Testament, the very first act of Christians was to disobey Jesus.

  45. em says:

    i’ve said it before – homosexual proliferation is a symptom of a diseased society, not the cause of it…
    i hate what i’ve seen evolve in this nation over my lifetime, we were so unsophisticated, so willing to give God a place in the grand scheme of things… maybe marriages stayed in tack for pragmatic reasons, birth control was iffy and abortion was anathema, but libidos flourished and so did the population… so papa made the living and mama made it worth the living (ideally) – you did your shopping in a place called “downtown” and it shut down every Sunday and every night, but one…
    no TV, so no one rubbed it in that you didn’t have the newest car or the prettiest wife etc…
    the things we’re lamenting (they are lamentable) are just what society does, if given the chance… it may be the end of time or it may be a new day and a new way of doing business – dunno
    i do know that the garish lights on the White House made me want to cry though – creepy, tacky

  46. Xenia says:

    MLD, I don’t thing God is going to “do” something to the US because of our sins, I agree with you there. I think because of our sins the culture has become so decadent that we now have the spectacle of the President lighting up the White House to celebrate sodomy. That is upsetting to me and as an aside, gives the radical Muslims even more ammunition for their propaganda. All ISIS recruiters have to do is show folks a photo of the White House and a hundred new converts are won to fight The Great Satan, as they call the US.

    I think this is indicative of the US government’s (and most Americans, apparently) hostility to Christianity and I do believe this will have an effect on all Christians eventually. We no longer live in a country where Christianity is considered good, we live in a country where Christians are considered to be hateful bigots. Obama gave all conservative Christians the finger when he rainbow’d the White House. It’s like an episode out of a crazy apocalyptic piece of Christian fiction. It’s almost impossible to believe.

    But as some are saying, this might cause some somnambulant believers to wake up and start taking their faith more seriously.

  47. “I think this is indicative of the US government’s (and most Americans, apparently) hostility to Christianity and I do believe this will have an effect on all Christians eventually.”

    Why do you single out Christians – and do not include Jews and Muslims, whose holy books advocate the same thing? Jews still have Leviticus coming off the printing press daily – synagogues still pay thousands of dollars to buy new Hebrew scrolls that contain Leviticus and the Genesis verses about Adam and Eve (as opposed to Adam and Steve).
    At least reading Facebook some, I don’t see them all worried about it. They know what they will continue to do. Perhaps Christians need the faith Jews have.

  48. Xenia says:

    There is a thread on an Orthodox forum I follow about this topic.

    One member posted that a friend in Norway (which is further down this dark path than the US is) wrote something negative about homosexuality on a message forum and got a phone call from the police the next day about her “extreme views.” Good old Norway, with one of the highest “happiness quotas” in the world, has the cops calling you if you say something unPC on the internet.

  49. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Norway is happy because they have conned us into handling their national defense.

  50. Xenia says:

    You know, all those Scandinavian countries rate high on the happiness scale yet they have rather high suicide rates compared to the rest of first world countries.

    I think they are so well socialized that they feel it would be a betrayal of their group-think to admit they weren’t happy happy happy.

  51. Anne says:

    #50 Not true.
    Fact check suicide rates:
    Has links to where/how data collected.

  52. em says:

    Norway is happy because they are awash in North Sea oil revenue… no longer dependent on sardines 🙂

  53. em says:

    Scandinavians are a strange sort… passive aggressives that have mastered going along to get along… also known as “nice” like some churches 🙂
    all of Europe seems to see us as their guard dogs (and i do mean dog) … some day i’ll find old Winston Churchill’s quote that refers to us as their children

  54. Xenia says:

    Hi Anne, notice how I worded my claim (because I looked at the same list you linked to). I said “rather” high rates compared to other First World countries. Many of the highest rates are in Third World countries.

  55. Xenia says:

    I concede the point. I was going on what I had heard years ago that Scandinavians had a very high suicide rate and the list Anne linked to doesn’t really prove that out as well as I thought it did.

  56. Anne says:

    Xenia- I think the U.S. only outpaced others since the last recession and the perpetual wars we’re involved in creating so many broken vets. Whatever the reason for the increase, I do not doubt reports from years past might reflect what you posted from memory.

  57. Babylon's Dread says:

    It is very clear to me that Christians do not get the trajectory of this issue. Go back and look at the civil rights movement and see how it is perceived today and you will see how the winners and losers are going to look on this issue.

    This will much worse than people imagine on the present course. Watch any retrospective on race in this country and you will see how the media is going to tell this story. But it will be worse because of our moral intransigence. We will be existing enemies rather than relics of an unenlightened time.

  58. Michael says:

    Last time I checked ( a few minutes ago) God was still on the throne and He still is ruling and reigning.
    I’ll be damned if I’m going to join in the chorus of doom.
    I’m going to try to preach, teach, and live the Gospel and instruct others to do likewise.
    I leave the outcome to Him.
    We were instructed long ago to live as those in exile…

  59. em says:

    i think that both Michael and BD are correct and we need teachers, not motivational speakers…

    God keep

  60. Babylon's Dread says:

    Who suggested that God was not on his throne
    Who suggested that is was cause for a chorus of doom
    Who suggested that we abandon preaching the Gospel
    If you are leaving outcomes to God then why do you blog
    If you are instructed to live in exile then why raise a voice
    I am sounding an alarm because we have not even begun to taste the lash of this whip.
    I am doing nothing less that what this blog intends
    Careful about what you imply concerning your friends and advocates
    But I will receive your words in the best way and join you saying that we must not fear and we must not despair. I will join you in saying that God is good and loves us and will win.
    But he moves in orbits that are beyond our tracing and allows things we cannot fathom along the way.

  61. So Babs I am curious – what was your message to the church from your pulpit this morning? Did your message vary from plan before the SCOTUS decision, did you sound the alarm from your pulpit or did you just carry on?

  62. This was the statement of Matthew Harrison, President of the LCMS, sent out to the churches 6 weeks ago in anticipation of this ruling.

  63. Babylon's Dread says:


    Not a word. But I will soon.

  64. Michael says:


  65. Nonnie says:

    Beautiful story, London!

  66. Scott says:

    John Piper laments the “new calamity” of “So-Called Same-Sex Marriage.”

  67. Scott says:

    Excerpts from Piper:

    “The Bible is not silent about such decisions. Alongside its clearest explanation of the sin of homosexual intercourse (Romans 1:24–27) stands the indictment of the approval and institutionalization of it. Though people know intuitively that homosexual acts (along with gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness) are sin, “they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:29–32). “I tell you even with tears, that many glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:18–19).

    This is what the highest court in our land did today — knowing these deeds are wrong, “yet approving those who practice them.”

    My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us. The new thing — new for America, and new for history — is not homosexuality. That brokenness has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man. (And there is a great distinction between the orientation and the act — just like there is a great difference between my orientation to pride and the act of boasting.)

    What’s new is not even the celebration and approval of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia. What’s new is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity.”

  68. Xenia says:

    This upcoming 4 of July? I don’t plan to have a BBQ and enjoy the fireworks. I plan to observe it as a day of mourning for our country. Prayer and fasting are the order of the day.

  69. em says:

    reading this thread, a couple of things come to mind… loved the article on the doctor with one exception and it is an important one – IMV – that we will have to come to terms with now:

    in his article the author observes: ” we shouldn’t tolerate religious bigotry against gays (which the latest Supreme Court ruling may chip away at). But we also shouldn’t tolerate another kind of narrow-mindedness, irreligious bigotry against people of faith. Diversity is a virtue, in faith as well as race.”

    now he is speaking in a secular context and i fully appreciate the graciousness in his words and his intent…

    we who are hard over in God’s camp, knowing that the Book we trust with our very lives condemns the homosexual lifestyle and there is only one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (to quote and old chorus) have a problem – we have got to stand, we don’t want to be in your face offensive, nor do we want to be mealy-mouthed compromisers… so…

    my question is, how are we to go about this now, both as individuals and as a Body? – BD is correct in saying that we’re heading into treacherous waters ahead – i think we need forums and teachers – this is a time and place where i’d prefer to stand firm and not dance – i confess i’m confused as to how to plant my feet… er… something… 🙂 🙂 🙂

    perhaps it is all in God’s hands and beyond our control, but that sounds so platitudinous… dunno…

  70. em says:

    #70- there’s one answer to my question – i must be in a negative frame of mind as the thought crossed my mind: wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone who named the Name of Christ in this nation followed Xenia’s lead… and then i thought, we’d never give up the parade and fireworks because Americans think that the celebration is far too important … sigh

  71. Linnea says:

    Hoping all is ok Michael…you’re in my prayers…

  72. Michael says:


    Thank you!
    I’m ok…Monday mornings are just really busy.
    I’m recovering and glad to see your husband is on that path as well.

  73. em says:

    yes, what Linnea said…

    i’ve been thinking about what i couldn’t find an answer to yesterday… thinking about the examples we have – John the Baptizer and Stephen and, of course to some extent. our Lord… truth is, the Church has very little influence among the influential in this nation anymore (yes, i think we did at one time)… and now we are in a similar situation to two thousand years ago… i’m thinking this morning that we mind our own business (God’s Kingdom – heaven knows, we all need to grow in Christ) and stay out of politics and government (exception=occupation – one’s individual role in government as elected officials, judges … whatever)…
    when the time comes, if it does, be prepared to give an answer – that’s not the same as in your face confrontations … thinking…. 🙂

  74. London says:

    Kind of excited. I’ve been on a project the last few months that’s been a bit difficult, not just because of the work being a stretch for me, but also the group dynamics are wacked.
    One of the first weeks I was here, I found out about a “hip/trendy” but small church that had mid-week services. I drove over one weds nite but chickened out before going in.
    A few traffic laden months later, I find myself staying in a different town and MUCH closer to my client….and right across the street from said church. LOL. Gotta love how that stuff works out.
    I definitely don’t agree with everything they do/teach, but I’m looking forward to hanging out there this weds night iand seeing what’s up.

  75. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    What say ye?

  76. “What say ye?”

    That Christianity has no lack of crazy people.

  77. Michael says:

    I say it would make a great double feature with “Hee Haw”…

    It’s what happens when you hand hillbillies a camera.

  78. Michael says:

    The producer of this film, the eminent Steve Anderson, is also a Holocaust denier.
    He also believes all gays should be killed.

  79. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    I wasn’t speaking on Anderson as a person or the holocaust or gays. What say ye regarding what was presented concerning translations of the bible and these verses being left out?

    Has anyone here taken the time out to search out to see if these things the messenger has put forth has any substance. If so, I would like to know.

  80. Michael says:

    There are any number of scholarly books on textual criticism and translation. I suggest reading one. Just to be clear…I will mercilessly mock this sort of ignorant crap and I will do so every time someone is foolish enough to post it. It is utterly without substance and accuses good brothers and sisters who have forgotten more about the Scriptures than these yokels. The video I posted will be s good place to start learning something …

  81. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I agree with Michael. I am sure after 30 yrs of pounding the “newer” translations that people still argue the point.
    This has been thoroughly put to bed – even in light of the fact that the Apostle used the KJV. 😉

  82. Bob says:

    I watched Michael’s version and I believe James White nails it at 2:01 – 2:07.

    He will not be drawn into the esoteric arguments of Mr. Anderson.

  83. Bob says:


    Don’t be drawn into looking for fault in the translations as Anderson and any like would have you do. Essentially they are attempting to draw people to themselves and not to Jesus our Messiah.

    It is easy to get confused, but consider this; Using the “Google Translator” online simply attempt to translate a common US English phrase into a foreign language and then using that translation translated it back.

    “My Car is red and has a very big and powerful engine.”

    Google Translation:
    “Mein Auto ist rot und hat einen sehr großen und starken Motor.”

    Now translate that German back to English using the same translator:

    “My car is red and has a very large and powerful engine.”

    Now let’s take a Bible Verse:

    Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”


    “Jesus antwortete: “Wahrlich, wahrlich, ich sage euch: Wenn jemand nicht aus Wasser und Geist geboren wird er nicht in das Reich Gottes kommen.”

    Back to English:

    “Jesus answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he not enter into the kingdom of God”

    The point is even with a mechanical translator like Google small differences are there. Now take the many prejudices, educational, cultural and doctrinal backgrounds of the translators and there will be differences from the original texts.

    To say KJV only is simply ignorance and reveals the ignorance of the one making the statement.

  84. Michael says:

    Daniel Wallace is an actual NT scholar.
    He speaks to this nonsense.

  85. Michael says:

    More from Dan Wallace;

    “One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.”

  86. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    So the response is a quote from someone else.

    The question was has anyone here done research in depth on this themselves. If so, what did they find out and what valid points were brought to our attention by Anderson.

    I am familiar with the arguments, but I have also done the research which took me about 2 years or more to complete, over 15 years ago.

  87. Michael says:

    I quote people and have studied under people who are actual scholars in the field, not some nutcase whose “scholarship” includes denying the Holocaust and has absolutely no background in the original languages or church history.

    I warn you…I have no tolerance for this stuff and will not entertain this garbage either politely or gently and will have no part in exposing people to such ignorance.

    These arguments are ludicrous and shameful and I will treat them as such and I don’t give a hoot in hell how offensive I sound in doing so.


  88. Michael says:

    There are sites that revel in this sort of crap.
    This is not and will never be one of them.
    This stuff will be attacked, stomped, spit at, and cursed here.

    What that video and those people do is twist and distort the Word of God, ignore and twist history, and make all of us who have given our lives to study the Word of God look like the village dunce.

    I hate it and I won’t put up with it.

  89. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Translation Philosophy: as noted in the ESV

    “In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a “thought-for-thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the “essentially literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for-thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.

    Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception.

    Michael, not all translation are as you exampled, that is word for word, Nor are the words used necessarily translated correctly as it may not have a word in the given language, so then what “seems” right is used.

    As for scriptures totally left out——as exampled by Anderson, this is inexcusable and cannot be justified. Well that is, unless you want it to fit a particular cut of theology, or say, want things to be more grace oriented than what God intended to then accommodate a more liberal school of thought. Not saying you, Michael—just saying.

  90. Michael says:

    Hey Uriah,

    Go find out where and why certain verses were “left out”.
    It has nothing to do with theology or being liberal and that is an example of a really ignorant statement and shows a complete lack of competence when discussing translation philosophy and textual criticism.

    You don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about because everything you’ve learned you’ve learned from incompetent, biblical dwarfs.

    You really don’t want to do this here…

  91. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    “I will mercilessly mock this sort of ignorant crap and I will do so every time someone is foolish enough to post it. It is utterly without substance and accuses good brothers and sisters who have forgotten more about the Scriptures than these yokels. ”

    That certainly will insure that truth wins out, huh.

    How is that tactic any different than what we hear in the church when the leadership wants the congregation to be silent regardless of the obvious being exposed.

  92. Michael says:

    I would not let a JW or a Mormon proselytize here, nor will I let these dumb ass conspiracy theories be given any credibility.
    They are not truth, they are damnable lies and I won’t be party to doing anything but exposing and mocking them

    If you don’t like it, start your own damn blog and let the hillbillies have free reign.

    Ain’t gonna happen here.

  93. Uriah,
    I hope in your study that you did not come to the conclusion that you need a “word for word” translation – there is no such thing. All translations are thought for thought. You would not be able to understand a “word for word” translation.

  94. Michael says:

    More from Dan Wallace:

    1. Perhaps the number one myth about Bible translation is that a word-for-word translation is the best kind. Anyone who is conversant in more than one language recognizes that a word-for-word translation is simply not possible if one is going to communicate in an understandable way in the receptor language. Yet, ironically, even some biblical scholars who should know better continue to tout word-for-word translations as though they were the best. Perhaps the most word-for-word translation of the Bible in English is Wycliffe’s, done in the 1380s. Although translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was a slavishly literal translation to that text. And precisely because of this, it was hardly English.

    Similar to the first point is that a literal translation is the best version. In fact, this is sometimes just a spin on the first notion. For example, the Greek New Testament has about 138,000–140,000 words, depending on which edition one is using. But no English translation has this few. Here are some examples:

    RSV 173,293

    NIV 175,037

    ESV 175,599

    NIV 2011 176,122

    TNIV 176,267

    NRSV 176,417

    REB 176,705

    NKJV 177,980

    NET 178,929

    RV 179,873

    ASV 180,056

    KJV 180,565

    NASB 95 182,446

    NASB 184,062

    NLT, 2nd ed 186,596

    TEV 192,784

    It’s no surprise that the TEV and NLT have the most words, since these are both paraphrases. But the translations perceived to be more literal are often near the bottom of this list (that is, farther away from the Greek NT word-count). These include the KJV (#12), ASV (#11), NASB (#14), NASB 95 (#13), and RV (#10). Indeed, when the RV came out (1881), one of its stated goals was to be quite literal and the translators were consciously trying to be much more literal than the KJV.

    Some translations of the New Testament into other languages:

    Modern Hebrew NT 111,154

    Vulgate 125,720

    Italian La Sacra Bibbia 163,870

    Luther 169,536

    French Novelle Version2 184,449

    La Sainte Bible (Geneve) 185,859

    3. The King James Version is a literal translation. The preface to the KJV actually claims otherwise. For example, they explicitly said that they did not translate the same word in the original the same way in the English but did attempt to capture the sense of the original each time: “An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie.”

    4. The King James Version is perfect. This myth continues to be promoted today, yet even the translators of the KJV were not sure on hundreds of occasions which rendering was best, allowing the reader to decide for himself. Again, the preface notes: “Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded… They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.” The original KJV had approximately 8000 marginal notes, though these have been stripped out in modern printings of the Authorized Version. Further, some of the typos and blatant errors of the 1611 KJV have continued to remain in the text after multiple corrections and spelling updates (weighing in at more than 100,000 changes) through the 1769 edition. For example, in Matthew 23.24 the KJV says, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” The Greek means “strain out a gnat.” Or the wording of Hebrews 4.8, which says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Instead of ‘Jesus,’ Joshua is meant. It’s the same word in Greek, but the reader of the text will hardly think of Joshua when he or she sees ‘Jesus’ here since ‘Joshua’ is found everywhere in the OT.

    5. The King James Version was hard to understand when it was first published. Again, the preface: “But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar.” The reality is that the KJV was intended to be easily understood, yet today this 400-year-old version is difficult to comprehend in all too many passages.

    6. There has never been an authorized revision of the KJV. There were three overhauls of the KJV up through 1769, involving more than 100,000 changes (the vast majority of which merely spelling updates). The KJV that is used today is almost always the 1769 revision. And the Revised Version of 1885 was an authorized revision of the KJV. It used a different Greek text than the KJV New Testament had done.

    7. The Apocrypha are books found only in Roman Catholic Bibles. Although the Apocrypha—or what Catholics call the Deutero-canonical books—are an intrinsic part of Roman Catholic translations of scripture, a number of Protestant Bibles also include them. Even the King James Bible, a distinctly Protestant version, included the Apocrypha in every printing until the middle of the nineteenth century. To be sure, the apocryphal books were placed at the end of the Old Testament, to set them apart (unlike in Roman Catholic Bibles), but they were nevertheless included.

    8. Homosexuals influenced the translation of the NIV. It is true that a woman who later admitted to being a lesbian was a style-editor of the NIV originally, but according to Dr. Ken Barker, one-time editor of the NIV, she had zero say on the content of the NIV.

    9. No translation can claim to be the word of God except the King James Bible. It may seem as though we are beating a dead horse, but the KJV-Only crowd is persistent and continues to exercise an inordinate role in some circles. In the preface to the KJV, the translators noted that the king’s speech is still the king’s speech even when translated into other languages. Further, even poor translations of the Bible deserved to be called the word of God according to the preface to the KJV. And yet, in all particulars, only the original Greek and Hebrew text can be regarded as the word of God. Something is always lost in translation. Always.

    10. Modern translations have removed words and verses from the Bible. Most biblical scholars—both conservative and liberal—would say instead that the KJV added words and verses, rather than that the modern ones have removed such. And this is in part because the oldest and most reliable manuscripts lack the extra verses that are found in the KJV.

    11. Essential doctrines are in jeopardy in modern translations. Actually, no doctrine essential for salvation is affected by translations, modern or ancient—unless done by a particular cult for its own purposes. For example, those Englishmen who signed the Westminster Confession of Faith in the seventeenth century were using the KJV, yet it is still a normative doctrinal statement that millions of Protestants sign today even though they use modern translations.

    12. “Young woman” in the RSV’s translation of Isaiah 7.14 was due to liberal bias. Actually, ‘young woman’ is the most accurate translation of the Hebrew word ‘almah. Although this created quite a stir in 1952 when the RSV was published, even the NET Bible, done by evangelicals, has ‘young woman’ here. The TEV, REB, and NJB also have ‘young woman’ here. And it is a marginal reading found in the NIV 2011, TNIV, and NLT. The NRSV has a marginal note that indicates that the Greek translation of Isaiah 7.14 has ‘virgin’ here.

    13. Gender-inclusive translations are driven by a social agenda. In some instances, this may be the case. But not in all. The NIV 2011, for example, strives to be an accurate translation that is understandable by today’s English speaker. And the translators note that the English language is changing. In reality, the older gender-exclusive translations may miscommunicate the meaning of the Bible in today’s world if readers understand the words ‘men,’ ‘brothers,’ and the like in numerous passages to be restricted to the male gender. Translations must keep up with the evolution of the receptor language. For example, the RSV (1952) reads in Psalm 50.9, “I will accept no bull from your house.” In today’s English, that means something quite different from what the translators intended! The NRSV accordingly and appropriately renders the verse, “I will not accept a bull from your house.”

    One of the great challenges in English translations of the Bible today is to avoid language that can become fodder for bathroom humor. Or, as one of the translators of the ESV once mentioned, a major challenge is to remove the ‘snicker factor.’

    14. Red-letter editions of the Bible highlight the exact words of Jesus. Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.

    15. Chapter and verse numbers are inspired. These were added centuries later. Chapter numbers were added by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the early 13th century. Verse numbers were not added until 1551. Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Stephanus), a Parisian printer, added verse numbers to the fourth edition of his Greek New Testament. The pocket-sized two-volume work (which can be viewed at has three parallel columns, one in Greek and two in Latin (one Erasmus’s Latin text, the other Jerome’s). To facilitate ease of comparison, Stephanus added the verse numbers. Although most of the breaks seem natural enough, quite a few are bizarre. Neither chapter numbers nor verse numbers are inspired.

  95. Michael says:

    The old canard that new versions “leave out” certain verses is actually a problem of the KJV “adding in” verses that are not in the earliest manuscripts, but are scribal additions to the text.

    Most translations note all these places in the footnotes as should be done when there is disagreement.

  96. Michael says:

    Five more from Dr. Wallace;

    There’s an old Italian proverb that warns translators about jumping in to the task: “Traduttori? Traditori!” Translation: “Translators? Traitors!” The English proverb, “Something’s always lost in the translation,” is clearly illustrated in this instance. In Italian the two words are virtually identical, both in spelling and pronunciation. They thus involve a play on words. But when translated into other languages, the word-play vanishes. The meaning, on one level, is the same, but on another level it is quite different. Precisely because it is no longer a word-play, the translation doesn’t linger in the mind as much as it does in Italian. There’s always something lost in translation. It’s like saying in French, “don’t eat the fish; it’s poison.” The word ‘fish’ in French is poisson, while the word ‘poison’ is, well, poison. There’s always something lost in translation.

    But how much is lost? Here I want to explore five more myths about Bible translation.

    Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

    This myth involves a naïve understanding of what Bible translators actually did. It’s as if once they translated the text, they destroyed their exemplar! Sometimes folks think that translators who were following a tradition (such as the KJV and its descendants, the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJB, NRSV, and ESV) really did not translate at all but just tweaked the English. Or that somehow the manuscripts that the translators used are now lost entirely.

    The reality is that we have almost no record of Christians destroying biblical manuscripts throughout the entire history of the Church. And those who translated in a tradition both examined the English and the original tongues. Decent scholars improved on the text as they compared notes and manuscripts. Finally, we still have almost all of the manuscripts that earlier English translators used. And we have many, many more as well. The KJV New Testament, for example, was essentially based on seven Greek manuscripts, dating no earlier than the eleventh century. Today we have about 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, including those that the KJV translators used. And they date as early as the second century. So, as time goes on, we are actually getting closer to the originals, not farther away.

    Myth 2: Words in red indicate the exact words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth.

    Scholars have for a long time recognized that the Gospel writers shape their narratives, including the sayings of Jesus. A comparison of the Synoptics reveals this on almost every page. Matthew quotes Jesus differently than Mark does who quotes Jesus differently than Luke does. And John’s Jesus speaks significantly differentyly than the Synoptic Jesus does. Just consider the key theme of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics: ‘the kingdom of God’ (or, in Matthew’s rendering, often ‘the kingdom of heaven’). Yet this phrase occurs only twice in John, being replaced usually by ‘eternal life.’ (“Kingdom of God” occurs 53 times in the Gospels, only two of which are in John; “kingdom of heaven” occurs 32 times, all in Matthew. “Eternal life” occurs 8 times in the Synoptics, and more than twice as often in John.) The ancient historians were far more concerned to get the gist of what a speaker said than they were to record his exact words. And if Jesus taught mostly, or even occasionally, in Aramaic, since the Gospels are in Greek the words by definition are not exact.

    A useful distinction is made between the very words of Jesus and very voice of Jesus, known as ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox, respectively. Only rarely can we say that we have the very words of Jesus, but we can be far more confident that what is recorded in red letters in translations is at least the very voice of Jesus. Again, if ancient historians were not as concerned to get the words exactly right, we should not put them into a modernist straitjacket in which we expect them to be something they were never intended to be.

    Myth 3: Heretics have severely corrupted the text.

    This myth is usually promoted by King James Only folks who assume that the manuscripts that came from Egypt were terribly corrupted. A more sophisticated approach seeks to demonstrate this in passage after passage. For example, would orthodox scribes begin the quotation of Isaiah 40.3 and Malachi 3.1 in Mark 1.2 with “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet”? The alternative reading, found in the majority of manuscripts, reads “As it is written in the prophets.” But the earliest, most widespread reading is “in Isaiah the prophet.” It looks as though the later scribes were troubled by this attribution and they ‘corrected’ it to be more generic so as to include Malachi.

    What is overlooked in the approach that assumes that the earlier manuscripts were corrupted and produced by heretics is the fact that virtually all Gospels manuscripts harmonize. That is, in parallel passages between two or more Gospels, virtually all manuscripts, from time to time, change the wording in one Gospel so that it duplicates the wording in another. Would heretics do this? It represents rather a high view of scripture—or, as Paul said in another context, zeal that is not according to knowledge. Further, the great majority of these harmonizations are either found in isolated manuscripts or in later manuscripts. This tells us that the tendencies of the earliest scribes was to harmonize, but because such harmonizations are done sporadically and in isolation they are easily detected. And later scribes produced their copies in great quantities in a heavily concentrated area, resulting in a more systematic harmonization—again, something that is easily detected.

    This finds an apt analogy in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. When the beleaguered hobbits meet the dark stranger, Strider, at the Prancing Pony Inn, they are relieved to learn that he is on their side. He is Aragorn, and he tells them that if he had been their enemy he could have killed them easily.

    There was a long silence. At last Frodo spoke with hesitation, “I believed that you were a friend before the letter came,” he said, “or at least I wished to. You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would—well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.”

    Likewise, the readings of the oldest manuscripts often has a way of making Christians nervous, but in the end it seems fouler but feels fairer.

    Myth 4: Orthodox scribes have severely corrupted the text.

    This is the opposite of myth #3. It finds its most scholarly affirmation in the writings of Dr. Bart Ehrman, chiefly The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and Misquoting Jesus. Others have followed in his train, but they have gone far beyond what even he claims. For example, a very popular book among British Muslims (The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: a Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments by M. M. Al-Azami) makes this claim:

    The Orthodox Church, being the sect which eventually established supremacy over all the others, stood in fervent opposition to various ideas ([a.k.a.] ‘heresies’) which were in circulation. These included Adoptionism (the notion that Jesus was not God, but a man); Docetism (the opposite view, that he was God and not man); and Separationism (that the divine and human elements of Jesus Christ were two separate beings). In each case this sect, the one that would rise to become the Orthodox Church, deliberately corrupted the Scriptures so as to reflect its own theological visions of Christ, while demolishing that of all rival sects.”

    This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Even Ehrman admitted in the appendix to Misquoting Jesus, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” The extent to which, the reasons for which, and the nature of which the orthodox scribes corrupted the New Testament has been overblown. And the fact that such readings can be detected by comparison with the readings of other ancient manuscripts indicates that the fingerprints of the original text are still to be seen in the extant manuscripts.

    Myth 5: The deity of Christ was invented by emperor Constantine.

    This myth was heavily promoted in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. He, in turn, based his allegedly true statements (even though the book was a novel, he claimed that it was based on historical facts) on Holy Blood, Holy Grail (by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln). The evidence, in fact, that the deity of Christ is to be found in the original New Testament is overwhelming. A look at some of the early papyri shows this. In passage after passage, the deity of Christ shines through the pages of the New Testament—and in manuscripts that significantly predate Constantine. For example, P66, a papyrus from the late second century, says what every other manuscript in John 1.1 says—“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It predates the Council of Nicea (AD 325), which these skeptics claim is the time when Constantine invented Christ’s divinity, by about 150 years! P46, a papyrus dated to c. AD 200, plainly speaks of Christ’s divinity in Hebrews 1.8. The list could go on and on. Altogether, we have more than fifty Greek New Testament manuscripts that are prior to Constantine’s reign. Not one of them denies the deity of Christ.

  97. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    As many here may know, I think Don Stewart is the smartest guy in CC – he may not be the wisest, but he does have the brain power when it comes to this kind of stuff. Back in 1996 when he hosted TEMA with Chuck Smith, he used to do 2 shows a week by himself.

    CC had always been a big KLV clan and would use the same old blasts against NIV. One show Don went through about 50 NIV variations and validated everyone of them as legitimate. My eyes almost popped out and later that year he ended up off the show and back in Australia with a one way ticket.

    But those who know this stuff – well they know it.

  98. Michael says:

    I get so frustrated with this nonsense.

    “Prove that all the great scholars who worked on these translations weren’t working for the devil”.

    You’ve got to be kidding…

    Let’s start a new one…

    We know from history that King James was as gay as a spring morning.
    How could this have not affected the translation?
    There most be hidden affirmation of the gay agenda in the KJV…

  99. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I am at the 2 hour mark on the James White interview (I took a couple of breaks.). He must be on valium – I have never seen him this nice and calm. Gives me hope for myself. 😉

  100. Michael says:

    If James conducted himself this way all the time his effectiveness would increase tenfold…

  101. Em says:

    “young woman” kerfuffle … i remember it well … it seems to me that Isaiah would not have referred to a sexually active girl as a young woman… even if he’d chosen a word for “virgin,” doubters would simply have said that she was just a nice girl and remained such until impregnated… so many are going to rue the day that they took on the task of editing the Book to suit their bias when they meet the Author

    just sayin… dunno, tho… do i ? 🙂

  102. Michael says:

    I teach from the ESV and before that I taught from the NASB.

    All the major translations are good in their own way and all have weaknesses.

    The best version is the one you’ll read.

  103. Bob says:

    “incompetent, biblical dwarfs.”

    When I was in High School I had an instructor who was very good natured, with out a doubt the finest teacher and motivator I have ever known and was both a Jew and short in actual height. We, cocky teenage mutant boys, would fondly call him, “the short Jew,” to his face.

    His response was this, “In a land of mental giants you all are mere pygmies.” He wasn’t too far off.

    Michael, thank you for bringing back fond memories.


    I don’t need to quote others because I too have done the leg work over the years and if you hold to Anderson’s position the you are wading in difficult if not dangerous waters. But, I don’t believe there is anything I could write which would persuade you otherwise.

  104. Michael says:


    Glad something positive came out of the discussion. 🙂

    People that believe this junk cannot be persuaded…but Wallace and others do an excellent job of doing so for those interested in truth.

  105. Michael says:

    This is the filth that Uriah thinks we should take heed to on historical matters…unbelievable.

  106. ( |o )====::: says:

    “vile son of hell” is just a tad over the top, Michael.

  107. Xenia says:

    I know a Holocaust denier (Anne knows who I mean) who is most certainly not a “vile son of hell” although he is most definitely mistaken.

    Calling a brother in the Lord such a terrible name is…. well, you decide what it is.

  108. Anne says:

    Xenia is correct regarding one of my oldest and dearest friends. It has made for some interesting conversations to be sure. We are able to calmly talk about this and other matters we may disagree about because of our longstanding friendship without rancor. Occasional frustration to be sure though!

  109. Michael says:

    This is a man who wants to murder the gays, send most Christians to the pit, and claims that one of the greatest crimes of the century never happened and those who say so are liars.

    That is just the top of his resume.
    He is evil.
    I edited for everyones sensibilities….

  110. Michael says:


    Anderson does not consider you or I to be brethren “in the Lord”
    In fact he has stated on numerous occasions that both of our traditions are Satanic.

  111. Em says:

    very many folk of my generation (coming up on 80 now) have family or friends who survived – or didn’t – the Nazi attempt at purifying the planet … to chose to deny the event as a horrible fact of history is creepy…
    i would have nothing to do with such a person, no matter how sweet they are, unless, of course, they are mentally challenged …
    do these same people deny Stalin’s purge? or Pol Pot’s massacres?

  112. Michael says:

    This guy is going to get somebody or a bunch of somebodies killed with his rhetoric.
    Then he will be used as an example of the “Christian” church and we will all pay for not speaking out.

    My apologies to those who were offended by my label…over the top, yes, sinful, maybe.
    I haven’t decided on that one yet.

  113. Michael says:


    Denying the Holocaust is laying the foundation to do it again.

  114. Anne says:

    My exposure to Anderson is limited, thankfully. My initial and ongoing impression of him is that he is a con man. I don’t think he really cares or hates or believes as deeply as he spouts off on any issue. My feeling is that he’s found a way to make some bucks fleecing those who already believe a lot of what he says and ‘pay’ for the validation of their own already strongly held beliefs. He’s found a niche market – kinda like Limbaugh. Playing a role others are happy to pay him to play. I suspect seeing him in a coffee shop, market, hearing him talk in normal conversation, his voice and whole persona would be different. He’s acting in my opinion. Acting wrong, spouting hate & evil, to be sure. I could be mistaken. Often am.

  115. Em says:

    Michael, the next purge is lurking now, waiting just beneath the surface … it’s the same mindset that crucified Christ – IMHO

  116. Michael says:


    In my darker moments, I agree.
    It’s this kind of rhetoric that will be used to justify it.

    I will say that the only amusing thing here is that when Xenia rebukes me I feel like a little kid who got caught doing something really bad.

    I never felt that way when I was a little kid, so Xenia is a very influential person in my life… -)

  117. Michael says:


    Anderson has been around for a long time.
    I’m not sure he’s acting.
    I do think someone will decide he’s right and blood will be shed.

  118. Anne says:

    My old friend is no longer as adamant a denier as he was years ago. He still thinks numbers are inflated and it is kept on the forefront of our minds for political rather than humanitarian reasons. His reasoning is that if it were out of compassion and wanting to prevent future genocides, the nation and its allies would have done and be doing more about other genocides of the past and present. He struggles with the idea that the Jewish massacres, whatever the number, are somehow more important, special, than all the other millions of lives wiped out. The Holocaust was a terrible, terrible thing. Genocide in any time period against any people is just as terrible. Whatever the numbers.

  119. Bob says:


    ” My initial and ongoing impression of him is that he is a con man. I don’t think he really cares or hates or believes as deeply as he spouts off on any issue. ”

    Not true this man does these rants and escapades everywhere he goes. Google on the Web or, search for him on youtube. He has run-ins with everyone including police and US Border Patrol. He is more like a violent hearted Kent Hovind than anything else.

    The man is a testosterone fueled personality who is more like a certain German man than Jesus.

    And for Michael’s interest he is on record spouting his hatred for anything Reformed.

  120. Bob says:

    Just think a certain German Leader version of Kent Hovind.


    He does keep things interesting.

  121. Em says:

    ” it is kept on the forefront of our minds for political rather than humanitarian reasons.” yes, i agree with your friend on that… the Jews are using it still…
    but, if it wasn’t, there’d be no Israel today… kind of like our slavery survivors and their descendants… if we’re not reminded, we forget pretty fast or worse move into denial?

  122. Em says:

    #120 – 🙂 “I never felt that way when I was a little kid, so Xenia is a very influential person in my life”

    then i’d say that God has blest you, Michael… 🙂

  123. Anne says:

    Thanks, Bob, for setting me straight. It’s just hard to imagine someone that maniacle 24/7. Guess that’s what makes them maniacs….

  124. Michael says:


    I agree.

    You also have that authority, as does Anne.
    Someday I’ll figure out why I listen to certain people…but not today. -)

  125. Michael says:


    I’ve always had a gut level revulsion toward Anderson and a fear that he will incite something awful.
    When I see him on my blog referred to as some sort of authority I lose what little is left of my sanctification.

  126. Michael says:


    Thanks for the back up. 🙂

  127. Michael says:

    I’m off…I have to finish preparation for tonights message.
    I’m teaching the book of Amos for the first time…and the minor prophets are quite a challenge.
    Once again I’m learning that what makes God angry isn’t necessarily what makes us angry today…

  128. Em says:

    #131- without the 4 gospels, i doubt that i would ever have found reason to worship God, but we need more knowledge of the writings of the Prophets to understand His holiness – or at least, i do…
    understanding His holiness (not the Pope) makes the Crucifixion knee-knocking breathtaking – at least for me it does

    God keep

  129. Xenia says:

    Thanks, Michael.

    I just think we need to be careful who we claim are vile sons of hell.

    I appreciate your editing your post, thanks again.

  130. Xenia says:

    By the way, just because someone doesn’t believe I am a Christian doesn’t mean I don’t believe they are Christians!

  131. Anne says:

    Michael- I understand and share your revulsion and concerns for the hate he spews. Being a former born/bred Texan and New Mexican, I have known and even been related to folks who eat up his type of rhetoric like it was ice cream on a hot July day, almost salivating for their chance to participate in another revolution, with God on their side, of course. Some of these were people I cared deeply about. Breaks my heart often. Which is fair I guess since they are broken-hearted about me being a left coast, granola eating, peace freak. The day you stop reacting passionately about the things you care about, I’ll get worried and call the paramedics. Over-reacting, then re-adjusting course if necessary is better than apathy IMV. Keeping it all tempered with grace and compassion the biggest challenge for me. Especially in election years :mrgreen:

  132. Michael says:


    Thanks for the support.
    I knew I’d over reached decency last night, but I was too damn mad to care.
    This guy hits almost all of my buttons…hard.

    I almost just moderated the video that was posted, but I knew I would be accused of “suppressing the truth”.

    The fact that there are people who believe that this guy knows any “truth” about Scripture or history makes me insane.

    Next time, I’ll just nuke it and save us all my drama.

  133. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    “This is the filth that Uriah thinks we should take heed to on historical matters…unbelievable.”

    This is not a true statement.

    I asked if anyone here had done research on the topic presented beyond quoting material like Michael did.

    I don’t agree with Anderson’s opinion about the Jews, Holocaust, or even what he puts forth about the gays. However, this doesn’t mean that what he put forth regarding the KJV hasn’t any validity. Too often, when a person might be wrong on some things, we just write off whatever else they might share on a topic. Michael decided to do like Anderson, and went over the top and failed to addressed the topic with any degree of civility and research done aside from those who disagrees with the KJV position. In other words, just like Anderson thinks about the Jews, Holocaust, and LGBT’s, Michael, you lost it and went overboard yourself. Then directed a statement about me that is untrue—and for what purpose, Michael—-to negate anything I have to share as well, maybe??

    I glad to see you have calm down. My posting on this was not to cause any offense but to get a response from anyone who had done as I had asked. I guess not, huh.

  134. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    I wonder if anyone had gone quietly and peacefully to speak to Anderson regarding his attitude, belief, and presentation on those things concerning the Jews and the LGBT. Maybe I will someday——-if the Lord directs and provides a way to do so.

  135. Uriah,
    Anderson makes his living by people trying to correct him. It’s a cash cow for him. If he ever agreed that he was wrong, he would need to go get a job at Dairy Queen.

  136. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Really, have you spoken to him in private. Did he tell you this? Or is this an educated guess that you are offering?

    It would seem to me that he would be willing to sit down with one or more Christians, who were filled with the Holy Spirit, not given to sarcasm, sober/mindful, truly loved him, and able to hear, as well as, to be heard, while remaining calm and not so quick anger, when and if certain theological or social issues buttons/riggers might be presented.

    Might be good to bathe oneself in prayer and then fast beforehand, as well.

  137. Michael says:

    “My posting on this was not to cause any offense but to get a response from anyone who had done as I had asked. I guess not, huh.”

    That is deeply offensive.

    Understanding biblical translations and church history involves reading scholars who have studied the matter and whose publications have been reviewed by other scholars for quality and depth and accuracy.

    I have spent many, many hours immersed in those works over the years.

    A responsible person answers the insane assertions of an Anderson in that video with the works of those men.

    I did so, with Dr. Wallace and Dr. White.
    I could have posted a whole lot more from other scholars whose work has blessed the entire church.
    These insipid, ignorant lies have been refuted ten thousand times if someone simply reads the material available.

    From now one I will not even allow such hysterical lies and foul allegations to be posted here lest I have to spend another day repenting and lest any innocent person be swayed by the ignorance presented.

    I will simply put the nonsense in moderation.

  138. Michael says:

    You must have missed the 2 hour plus video where Dr. White tried to reason with him.
    It didn’t work.

  139. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    But you would also have to love the Jews as well, or you might find more in common with him, than what he needs to hear, to know, and to understand.

  140. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    I didn’t miss it—I just don’t agree with him.

  141. Michael says:


    You said people needed to address him and my point was that they have.
    If you don’t agree with him, that’s entirely your problem.
    You kick against the goads of truth.

  142. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    I’ve always have liked this one article written on this topic:

  143. Michael says:

    If you like the KJV, by all means have at it.
    It’s a decent translation.
    It is in no way more the “word of God’ than the modern translations.

  144. Here is the point that Uriah is missing. Anderson uses his KJV only schtick to justify a God who is a hard taskmaster and one who shows little grace.
    Anderson also uses it as a version that withholds salvation and denies efficacy of God’s word.

    How many times in the White interview did he say or allude to the KJV being the only translation that keeps sinners out of heaven. He states gays cannot be saved, Jews cannot be saved – he even told James White that the Bible cannot save Mormons.

    The only 2 people I have seen on this blog who support that view are Uriah and her alter ego.

  145. Uriahisaliveandwell says:

    Again, I don’t agree with all that Mr. Morris has put out there, but it was his article that prompt me to spend the better part of 2 plus years in tracking down all that was written, along with understanding the particular school of thought, theology, and or other perspective each held towards God, the Written Word, and other or their own traditions.

    Simply because I too noticed important verses being left out along with very different meanings put in or replacing them, thus causing confusion and a drastic change among what it means to be born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, and thus, a Christian.

  146. I also have trouble with the concept that there has been no development in translation techniques, the ignoring of better manuscript quality over the years and just the lack of awareness that modern people just have more at their disposal.

  147. Now, I will agree that there are bad translations out there – but they are bad just because they are bad and it is obvious that the translators were trying to make a point.

  148. Michael says:

    Verses haven’t been left out.
    Scribes added to the word of God.

    That should be a problem for you.

  149. “and a drastic change among what it means to be born again, filled with the Holy Spirit, and thus, a Christian.”

    Well you do stick to your guns and walk step by step with Anderson – the 2 of you make it clear that salvation does not come by the work of God and him alone, but (and Anderson did say this) by the Bible version you read.

    Yes, I agree, that does make a HUGE difference in what it means to be born again, filled with the Holy Spirit and thus a Christian.

  150. Uriah,
    This would be a question that would clear up a lot for me. Can you tell me a couple of missing verses in a translation I may use that you think makes my witness to someone else lacking? If only I would add “this missing verse” I would be more effective in presenting the gospel?

    Now, I will offer up that it is a “works” verse and NOT a gospel promise verse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading