No one knows everything, except God.
No one has all the answers, except God.
We have to learn from one another.
21.12.21
16.12.21
Fundamentalist an angry man?
Christian Fundamentalism makes a lot of angry men and women.
A lot of Christian Fundamentalists are angry men.
Why?
They fight with Roman Catholics, then they fight with Reformed theologians, then they fight with Charismatics, they fight with Evangelical, they fight with Pentecostal churches, they fight with Liberals and modernist, they fight with their wives, they fight with brothers in Christ, they fight with their sons and daughters, they fight among fundamentalists, they fight among themselves, they fight day in day out, they called themselves the spiritual militants, 21st. Century Reformers, in the end, too fight with Lord Jesus Christ.
That is why a lot of Christian Fundamentalists are angry men. They are fighters without peace.
One of them whom I knew, hung his son upside down, and bitten him with his belt! His son did not forgive this old fundamentalist forever! And the old man died in regrets. A lot of people said he is a good old fundamentalist.
Many of these fundamentalists are cruel and cold blood! What they want is to win an argument!
13.12.21
How the Gospel Takes Root in ‘Crazy Rich’ Singapore
Raman: On the surface, Singapore looks like a nation that is well “Christianized,” with more than 800 churches in a small island (278 square miles) of 5.8 million people. But while Christianity here can appear robust and strong—with several high-profile megachurches that have gained international fame and recognition—much of it is theologically weak and shallow. Many churches preach heavily moralistic sermons or, on the other hand, proclaim “hyper-grace,” subtly (if not overtly) proclaiming the prosperity gospel. There is a great need in Singapore for more theological depth.
The whole article can be seen at:gospel-takes-root-crazy-rich-singapore/
12.12.21
Fallacy of once saved always saved.
Some theologians taught their students in their Bible Colleges, once saved always saved.
This is the right doctrine of salvation.
But there is a fallacy about this doctrine.
Since they thought that they are saved with eternal security. It is not wrong to sin.
What kind of sin?
Attacking brethren in Christ. Attacking, persecuting brethren in Christ until they are frustrated, is okay because they will not lose their salvation. If they lose their salvation, they are not chosen in the beginning. They have the tendency to test and tempt people to fall away from their faith. This is the fallacy.
It is okay to fight among themselves. The division in the church is not a sin. Since we are saved, so it is not wrong to create false doctrines. They are saved once so will always be saved. It is all right to sue one another in civil court. It is all right to bear false witness to their neighbors. It is okay to attack churches, it is okay to become extremist, it is okay to become militants, it is okay to become heretics since once saved always saved.
They have this fallacy, since we are saved, it is all right to be cruel and cold blood to brethren and sisters. They are thinking that those who are saved are all strong like iron and steel, so they push the limit until some weaker brethren stumble by their cruel evil-doing and until these weaker brethren fell down. This is the fallacy of once saved always saved. They said it is not their fault, it is because those who fell away were not saved at all from the beginning. So, it is okay to create questions and doubt in those who are reading NIV. Attacking evangelical churches is okay.
These theologians are still thinking they are born-again Christians.
I am amazed by this so-called once saved always saved fallacy, in giving license to these theologians to persecute Christians.
They said those who are saved are always saved, they will stand to the end, those who fail, they are not born again, they are not been chosen by God from the beginning.
10.12.21
John Sung was a “charismatic”
John Sung’s ministry demonstrates the power of the Holy Spirit to bring physical healing and deliverance from evil spirits. In that sense, Sung was a “charismatic,” though he did not accept Pentecostal theology or an emphasis on spiritual gifts and supernatural events. On the contrary, Sung taught that true conversion will lead to a life filled by the Holy Spirit, who will gradually conform Christians into the moral likeness of Christ. Though God worked countless miracles through John Sung, Sung always emphasized love more than power, holiness more than miracles. Copied from https://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/the-life-and-ministry-of-john-sung
One thing we must take note, John Sung did not want to see us overemphasize Charismatic gifts or on rites.
Copied from his daily: The Diary of John Sung
Ordination Service of Pastor David Weng
DAVID WENG
PASTOR
David received his Bachelor’s degree from Far Eastern Bible College, Singapore (Bachelor of Theology, 2000) and two Masters degrees from Pensacola Theological Seminary, Florida, USA (Master of Arts in Bible Exposition, 2004 and Master of Divinity, 2006).
God has given him a wonderful helpmeet and three beautiful children, Elizabeth, Joshua, and Caleb. We welcome you to worship with us this Sunday. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. pastor@providencebpchurch.org
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=624118695674480
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2021 AT 12:30 PM – 2:30 PM UTC+08
6.12.21
My appeal to the false teachers
Friends, I have written many letters to those false teachers, they are not happy with all these letters. They hated me.
I appeal to you, false teachers, to stop provoking young people to hate fellow Christian. Stop all attacks on Christian Churches. Stop instigating young people to follow your wrong way of doing things.
Stop all attacks in your Journal, Bulletin, Sunday Sermon, Bible Study, talks, and Bible College lectures.
After all, this is your choice. You have to decide. If you want to continue to become false teachers, go ahead. There are consequences ahead of you. In 13 years, I have given my time to warn you, I have seen dangers coming ahead of you, I appeal to you to turn away from the wrong path, repent, return to the flock, unite, and not separate from one another.
I encourage you, the false teachers, to bend your knees while you are reading the Bible, asking God to forgive you, peradventure God may open your eyes to see the suffering Christ. May God have mercy unto you.
Encouragement from these false teachers
These false teachers in FEBC and some Bible Presbyterian Churches like to provoke young people. They are good at encouraging young men and women!
What did they provoke and encourage?
They provoke young people to attack pastors and leaders in the same denomination, in Bible Presbyterian Church.
Young people were instigated to attack.
The false teachers instigated these young people to attack Christian who is reading NIV, attacking those churches which are using drums in their worship, attacking fellows believers who do not agree with these false teachers. Attacking Christians who are not Reformed and Fundamental.
These false teachers are wolves in sheep clothing encouraging and provoking their students to think critically against other Christians.
These false teachers in another time and another place, in the Sunday Worship, when they are at the pulpit, will preach publicly that they are provoking and encouraging others to love and unto good work. They are king cobra with double tongues.
Surely these false teachers and false pastors' mouths are full of rubbish. One of the false teachers is Clement "the leper living in the tabernacle." Surely God is at the doorstep, may he have the fear of the Lord and stop instigating young people to sin.
5.12.21
English Bible Translations in the Twentieth Century
English Bible Translations in the Twentieth Century. At the turn of the century, Adolf Deissmann, using study of the papyri from Egypt, persuaded scholars that the NT was in the common language (the Koine) of the first century, giving impetus to an effort to present the Bible in the language of the twentieth century. Accompanying this development was the rise of archaeological discovery that gave new manuscripts of both the OT and NT. The Cairo Genizah collection of Hebrew manuscripts was found at the end of the last century, and the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. Perhaps 25 Greek manuscripts of the NT could have been used in 1611. Now over 5,400 are known. More of the Uncial manuscripts (309) were available to 20th century translators. The papyrus manuscripts (115), most found in 20th twentieth century, are the oldest extant sources for the NT text. Wider knowledge of the nature of the biblical and related languages has been gained, making for more accurate definitions. New scholarly grammars, dictionaries, and anthologies of texts grew out of these developments. Besides these matters is the simple fact that the English language continually changes so that what is understandable at one period becomes less so at a later one.
Translation theory became a factor in Bible translation in the last half of the 20th century. The extremes are paraphrase and a “wooden” word-for-word literalism. Between the extremes, one choice is “formal equivalence,” where the objective is to find a formal equivalent for the words of the text being translated. Supporters of this method suggest that it is necessary in order for the reader to know what Scripture says, and some see theological implications that, if the words of Scripture are the words of God, they should not be modified in translation more than is unavoidable. All translations may involve some interpretation, but interpretation is not the work of the translator. Another choice is “dynamic equivalence,” where the priority is to communicate effectively the thoughts of the text being translated. Supporters of this view suggest that translation should communicate with the reader as effectively as the original did with its readers, and that translating “meaning for meaning” is necessary to accomplish this. Most of the previous translations were formal equivalence, including the King James, American Standard, and Revised Standard. Several recent translations fall into each category. Notably, the New English Bible (NEB, 1961) and its revision, the Revised English Bible (REB, 1989), the New International Version (NIV, 1978), the Good News Bible (GNB, 1976), the Jerusalem Bible (JB, 1966), and its thorough revision, the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB, 1985), and the New Living Translation (NLT, 1996) are dynamic equivalence. The New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1971) and its significant revision, the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition (NASU, 1995), the King James II (KJ II, 1971), the New King James Version (NKJV, 1982), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) are formal equivalence.
The first half of the 20th century saw a spate of translations which abandoned the effort to revise the KJV and attempted to reflect new trends, each from its own viewpoint. They had a limited vogue in some circles while being criticized in others. Some were works of groups while others were prepared by one person; none seriously threatened the dominance of the KJV.
The Revised Standard Version, with its NT ready in 1946 and the complete Bible in 1952, bore the brunt of criticism of modern translations because it was the first serious challenge after 1901 to the long dominance of the KJV. It retained the Old English forms in liturgical and poetic passages, as well as using Old English pronouns when deity is addressed. Eventually an edition was issued with modifications to make it acceptable for use by Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics which is called the “Common Bible.”
The New Revised Standard Version appeared in 1989. Chaired by Bruce Metzger, the translators sought to preserve all that is best in the English Bible and to make the language as accurate and clear as possible. Significantly different from the RSV, the NRSV removed archaic pronouns and is both dignified and lucid. It is sanctioned for public and private reading by the National Council of Churches.
The British have prepared the New English Bible (1970) which represents certain trends in British biblical scholarship. The American reader will see differences between British English and American English. A revision, the Revised English Bible (1989), is strongly oriented to dynamic equivalence in translation and retains many British colloquialisms, as did its predecessor.
Roman Catholics issued the Jerusalem Bible, which with its notes is used both in and out of Catholic circles. In 1985, a thorough revision, the New Jerusalem Bible, was published. Even more fluid and readable than its predecessor, it is widely used. Of more widespread influence is the New American Bible (1970) which was used in preparing the English version of the liturgy of the Roman church. While making some concessions, its notes support Catholic doctrine.
The Jewish community has produced the New Jewish Publication Society translation Tanakh (1962–1982). This translation follows the Masoretic Text for the most part, is very readable, and is among the best translations of the Hebrew Bible.
The Living Bible (1971, LB), by Kenneth N. Taylor, is a paraphrase of the Bible, based on the American Standard Version (1901, ASV). Extremely popular in its early years, but of uneven quality, it has been much criticized. Dr. Taylor freely admits that it is not a substitute for Bible translations. Its successor is a dynamic equivalence translation from the original languages, The New Living Translation (1996, NLT), with a dual goal of reliability and readability. The NLT is the product of a large group of transdenominational scholars and leans toward inclusive language.
Those who prefer literal translation found their representatives in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) prepared by the Lockman Foundation (1971). An attempt to give the ASV new life, this effort removes many archaisms from the ASV; it reflects different judgments on textual questions from the ASV, and it places words not represented in the original text but added by the translators for clarity in italics, as did the King James Version. The NASB was significantly revised in the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition (1995, NASU). Archaic pronouns are removed and readability is greatly enhanced without sacrificing accuracy. The NASU removes many of the common objections to the NASB and is without competitors as the most accurate English translation of the Bible. An effort to preserve as much of the old as possible is the New King James Bible (1982). This is a “halfway house” for those who know that something needs to replace the KJV but who are not willing to have a translation which represents the current state of knowledge and uses current language.
An effort to meet the needs of those who have English as a second language or those who have a limited knowledge of English is Today’s English Version (TEV), also known as the Good News Bible (1976). Recasting of language, consolidation of statements, and paraphrasing have all been employed in the effort to make the message simple enough to be grasped by the reader.
The New International Version was issued in 1978 by the International Bible Society from a cooperative project in which more than 110 scholars representing 34 religious groups participated. Abandoning any effort to revise the KJV line of Bibles, the NIV is a new translation aiming at accuracy, clarity, and dignity. It attempts to steer a middle course between literalness and paraphrase while attaining a contemporary style for the English reader but does not always succeed, leaning heavily toward dynamic equivalence and containing many colloquialisms.
The NT of a new translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, was published in 2000. The OT is due in 2004. This translation strives for “optimal equivalence,” using formal equivalence except when a formal equivalent cannot be easily understood, in those cases leaning toward a dynamic equivalent. Translated from the critical texts of the OT and NT, it is lucid, dignified, faithful to God’s word, and accurate. Wide distribution indicates it is quite popular. The HCSB answers many of the common objections to formal equivalence translations.
The ESV, English Standard Version, is essentially a literal translation published in 2001. It emphasizes “word-for-word correspondence” but also readability. It is designed for personal reading and in-depth study as well as Scripture memorization and public worship.
Eugene Peterson has completed his translation of The Message (2002). It is a contemporary language paraphrase designed to express a personal message to the reader. It is an outgrowth of his work as a pastor. It is not designed to replace the more literal translations but is for the new believer and those who need a more modern slant to enhance their understanding.
Jack P. Lewis and Charles W. Draper
Charles W. Draper with Lewis Jack P., “Bible Translations,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 214–216.
The Bible’s Preservation
A ninth reason for believing the Bible to be the Word of God is its extraordinary preservation down through the centuries of Old Testament and church history. Today, after the Bible has been translated in part or whole into hundreds of languages, some with multiple versions, and after millions of copies of the sacred text have been printed and distributed, it would be a nearly impossible feat to destroy the Bible. But these conditions did not always prevail.
Until the time of the Reformation the biblical text was preserved by the laborious and time-consuming process of copying it over and over again by hand, at first onto papyrus sheets and then onto parchments. Throughout much of this time the Bible was an object of extreme hatred by many in authority. They tried to stamp it out. In the early days of the church, Celsus, Porphyry and Lucian tried to destroy it by arguments. Later the emperors Diocletian and Julian tried to destroy it by force. At several points it was actually a capital offense to possess a copy of parts of Holy Writ. Yet the text survived.
If the Bible had been only the thoughts and work of human beings, it would have been eliminated long ago in the face of such opposition, as other books have been. But it has endured, fulfilling the words of Jesus, who said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mt. 24:35).
James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 63–64.
The Text of the Bible
The Text of the Bible. A comparison of an English Bible in the Revised Version with one in the Authorised Version reveals at once many changes. Some are due to the progress of the English language, but many others are due to what scholars call various readings in the text. The text is the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the original Greek of the New Testament. Formerly an idea largely prevailed that this text was an unchanging, unchangeable thing, preserved miraculously from ancient times. The preservation of the Bible is certainly one of the greatest miracles. When we reflect that the Bible had existed for a thousand years before printing was invented in Europe, that all copies had to be made laboriously by hand, and that thousands of copyists must have been employed, the wonder is not that there are various readings of the text, but that these are comparatively few and unimportant. The text of the Bible was preserved by human hands, working under human limitations, but the hand of God is in it too.
J. R. Dummelow, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936), xiv.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)