Another big collection today!
The Good:
How ‘LBGT-Affirming’ Is Like KJV-Onlyism. Really good comparison. The only problem I found is some things labeled as KJVO church behaviors SHOULD BE the same in ALL churches (e.g. church discipline for fornication and fostering young earth creationism).
Jesus and the Law of Moses: the Woman Caught in Adultery. One item addressed here is a question I’ve always asked about those charging the woman — if she was caught in the act, where is the guilty man?
Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? A great way to deal with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ false teaching about Jesus.
The Bad:
Lou Engle’s love affair with Rome.
Shame on Michael Brown for promoting false prophet Jonathan Cahn.
Speaking of Cahn, he doesn’t like to be exposed.
Avoid any teaching by Lisa TerKeurst—she’s a false teacher!l
The Ugly:
Shawn Bolz practices that which is forbidden by God, and is of the occult. However, he is really just pretending — LYING. The man cannot be a real believer, let alone a pastor.
What Seventh-day Adventism hides from outsiders.
Rome is again offering a plenary indulgence for getting out of purgatory — a non-existent place—for idolatry. This is a horrid sham which proves again that Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical, man-made organization which blasphemes God on a daily basis.
Steven Furtick. This is what the modern worldly Church has devolved into. The people following Goatherd Furtick are definitely not sheep.
The Church by the Glades is NOT a Christian assembly.
The humorous
— although there is a whole lot of truth here! A fellow believer said he doesn’t think this is honoring God, but I think that any time we expose false teaching it honors God, and if the satire/sarcasm bothers you, think about how Elijah poked fun at the Baal worshipers!
I wouldn’t be surprised if THIS is true!
Joel Osteen’s tortured Bible verses.
3 comments:
Great roundup, as usual.
I LOVE how Elijah mocked the Baal worshipers. One of my favorite passages.
Sir Mins,
I am not publishing your comment because it is nothing but sarcastic attacks on the comparison of the "LGBT-Affirming" Christians and KJV Onlyism. You make it clear you are solid KJVO, which is in fact a very aberrant false teaching, very cult-like to boot. And I have on my shelves (and have read) Burgon's books (who died before the majority of the findings of old manuscripts), Moorman, Waite, Cloud, et al, defenders of the KJVO stance (I ignored Ruckman because he is just a first rate kook, to say it politely).
All these people just assert some manuscripts are worse because of where they came from, and they just assert that the the newer old Greek manuscripts are more accurate than the old ones, because the type of the old ones never wore out and that's why they are still extant, etc. I have studied the KJVO position for almost 25 years and find very little substantive claims.
False teachings are not given an audience on my blog. You can look at the labels on the right side of this blog to see "KJV Only" and use that link to see all my articles about KJVO or links to articles at other sites, all dismantling the KJVO position. That is my response to your sarcastic ad hominem comment.
Sir Mins,
Examine these sensible remarks from James White concerning the usage of circular reasoning by King James only advocates in his book titled The King James Only Controversy, p. 167-169:
-“Over and over again, KJV Only advocates accuse the new translations of changing this or altering that. They say the NIV deletes this or adds that. It is vitally important to make sure we see through this kind of argumentation before we begin the work of examining many specific differences between the KJV and modern translations. We wish to think clearly and honestly about this topic, and to do this we must point out the most fundamental error of the KJV Only position...A circular argument is one that starts with its conclusion; that is, you assume the point you are arguing for right from the start, and then ‘prove’ it by using it as your basis.…Circular arguments are, by nature, irrational...KJV Only books, articles, and tracts share this common feature. What is the writer’s bottom-line assumption? That the KJV is the only true English Bible (maybe the only true Bible in any language!), the standard by which all others are to be judged...This can be seen by looking at the terminology employed. ‘See how the NIV deletes this passage….’ ‘Note how they have changed God’s Word here to say….’ ‘Here they have altered the text to say….’ In each case the KJV Only advocate is using circular argumentation. How? The assumed standard is the KJV. Why is the KJV the standard? Why not the Geneva Bible, or the Bishop’s Bible, or the Great Bible? Could we not choose any one of these earlier English translations and then make up page after page of comparisons showing how the KJV altered this or changed that? As long as we allow the AV defender to determine the grounds of the argument by assuming the KJV to be the standard of all others, we will get absolutely nowhere...The KJV must stand up to the same standards as any other translation. It cannot be made the standard by which all others are judged; it must take its place as one translation among many so that it can be tested just as the NIV or NASB or ESV. In some places it may well excel; in others it may lag behind...But we must be careful to avoid making the basic error of setting up one translation as the standard over all others. Our standard must always be found in the question, ‘What did the original author of Scripture say at this point?’ We first must be concerned to know the words of Moses and David and Isaiah and Matthew and Paul; the words of the KJV translators may be important, but they cannot take precedence over the words that were the direct result of divine inspiration.”
Post a Comment