Mark Driscoll’s sermon on Philippians is fantastic. Click here to d/l and/or listen to it.

Pay close attention to the definition of religion and religious people in the first half.

Edit: I typed a bit too fast. This isn’t a sermon on all of Philippians, it is the 11/19 sermon on the first bit of chapter 3.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

78 Comments(+Add)

1   Chris Rosebrough    
December 17th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

This is a WONDERFUL sermon. Strong, in your face, bold, blunt, expository, TRUE. I couldn’t agree with Driscoll more! Amen and Amen!

2   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 17th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Good sermon.

3   Chris Rosebrough    
December 17th, 2007 at 8:19 pm

I particularly loved Driscoll’s clear, Christ-Centered presentation of the gospel and his strong warning against adding works and “religion” to Christ’s work. I plan on passing this one around myself.

4   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 17th, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Driscoll’s always good like that. The only bad thing about his preaching is that so many young ministers try to emulate it. Which is a problem because none of them can pull off what he does.

5   David Muller    http://blog.thewebsiteguy.com.au
December 17th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

That’s the first Driscoll sermon I have heard, and there was a disappointing lack of potty language and emerging concepts. Not like what I was told by ODM’s. I liked it.

6   tom m    
December 17th, 2007 at 11:57 pm

hello Rebels

Brilliant. You’ve found you’re new name, ‘Rebels’, and now you’re finally admitting it. That’s all i was asking for.

7   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 18th, 2007 at 8:17 am

This whole series on Philippians has been fantastic! It’s too bad that the publishing companies are only interested in his topical studies.

8   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 8:34 am

Yep, all them “emergents” are Arminian…

Huh?

iggy

I still do not know if I consider Mark “emerging” as once he was… yet he still seems to be in some of the same books them other guys are in.

9   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2007 at 8:53 am

Well, Driscoll’s pretty much distanced himself from most of the EC thing now, although he still ticks off the ODMs. If you ever get a chance to read Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives, he pretty much says all he can to separate himself from it. I’m kind of surprised he even contributed to the book, actually.

10   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 18th, 2007 at 9:13 am

Phil,
As much as he distances himself in word from certain emergents he still embraces the core beliefs that got him into that world in the first place, and he still embraces emerging leaders like Dan Kimball.

11   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 18th, 2007 at 9:20 am

tom m,

The term “rebel” in this context was chosen specifically by Mark to connote the fact that Christianity, by its very nature, is rebellious to the world system — and to some degree, even moreso today. Further, many of the themes that are in Phillipians show shine a bright light on the antithetical nature of Christianity as opposed to modern belief.

So yeah, I’m a rebel.

12   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am

Seriously, do you think Tom M’s cat died recently?

13   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 18th, 2007 at 9:33 am

Nah, Tom M just seems bitter that the world is passing him by. He’s probably angry that Woolworths is no longer around.

14   nc    
December 18th, 2007 at 10:27 am

Rebels?

If Rebel is what you are labeled when you don’t want to bow to certain HUMAN preferences elevated to the moral imperative… then I’m glad to be one.

If being a Rebel means I no longer acknowledge the institutional gate keepers who have no real ecclesiastical authority other than tenure at some trade school for pastors posing as a place of theological education….then I’m glad to be one.

If being a Rebel means I’m allowed to disagree according to the dictates of my conscience…then praise God for it.

If being a rebel means that my and my friends actions garner a reaction that exposes the heart of people and their fear of loss of control…then tattoo it on my forehead.

(I’m so proud to be one because our actions have disclosed the bankruptcy of Christians who show their devotion by their anger.)

If being a rebel means that those who have wielded control in our churches by putting everyone else on the defensive with finger pointing and image driven stinking piousness are now being questioned….I’ve done the Church a service.

If being a rebel even means destroying some people’s confidence in the institutional church (because FOR SOME it is the only means for them) to get them off their rear ends and BE the Church…then I’m unrepentant and proud of my “rebellion”.

If people actually shut their mouths and listened you’d see, even in the people with whom you strongly disagree, a deep desire to be faithful…

That’s not rebellion to God or the Bible…

but it might be rebellion to people who don’t deserve my loyalty or my “followership”.

It might be rebellion to others imposing their middleclass social respectability posing as Gospel living.

It might be rebellion to a life of dishonest hiddenness.

It might be rebellion to the idea that local churches are places for Christians to hide and “gut it out” until the end.

It might be rebellion to hiding in our “god-buildings” assuring ourselves of our safety and the good news of our own righteousness.

It might be rebellion to a culture of shame and repression.

And all of those things deserve deconstruction and Destruction.
All of those things merit revolt.
All of those things should, frankly, make a faithful Christian go anabolic because it represents the betrayal of the gospel and the same sin of ancient Israel who navel-gazed, kept some external laws, but was deeply and profoundly lost.

I’d rather follow a guy who is honest about his faults, lives openly as he repents and converts, who occasionally cusses and enjoys a beer, but has a heart for the lost and is actually sharing the gospel…

Than some self righteous know it all pastor with a bad haircut and an ill fitting suit who thinks he’s some kind of defender of the faith because the hill they die on is 19th C. revivalist hymn-singing, not going to movies and not drinking. (for starters)

No other law, but love.
No other hope, but Christ.
No other truth, but God alone.

15   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am

Couldn’t have said it better nc,

Count me in as a part of that rebellion!

Joe

16   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am

nc, good points and Mark would probably agree with you (though, since I’m not in Sun Valley, I can’t read his heart). And he definitely delineates between religion and Christianity in this message.

But his original notation of using the word “rebel” (from an earlier message in this series) was in the context of rebellion against the world. So my earlier post was to try to seek some commonality with tom m, and illustrate for him that (even if he thinks we’re nuts), he should aspire to be a rebel in that context — and it doesn’t require that he discontinue a lot of other stuff.

(Though, it’d be a lot easier.)

17   nc    
December 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am

I get it…

But we can’t find commonality if we’re not also honest about what hinders it…

just my nickel..

18   tom m    
December 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Come out of the closet, come out of the closet boys and girls. The time has come. I’m sure it will be very refreshing to finally shed ‘all’ those nasty traditional gospel restraints and to be free….oh so free. Own it.

Nobody is saying that you’re nuts, not at all, just dishonest. I’m sure that you all have a very wonderful church experience, loving relational times and so forth, that is not the issue. These things may be easily produced as a “human product” and are made effectual by drawing strongly upon emotionalism. Interestingly enough, this emotionalism is often mistaken for the ‘moving of the spirit’. The problem here is that what always comes with ‘another gospel’ is ‘another spirit’ [2 Cor. 11:4].

This is what the apostle John calls the “spirit of error”. [1 John 4:6] ….aka the ’spirit of the age’.

Also, certainly the concept of rebelling against the world is easily understood. The problem I am speaking to is that of rebelling against the Word of God.

Here is the charge, once again, that your message, the “Nouveau 2.0″ ‘gospel’, has changed in it’s very essence the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that in being unwilling to admit to this is to be dishonest.

For one extremely critical point, by your own “Narrative statement” the Divine inspiration of the Word of God is denied, making it, rather, a human product of what you call ‘inspired men’:

Mars Hill opening statement:

“We believe God inspired the authors of Scripture by his Spirit to speak to all generations of believers, including us today. God calls us to immerse ourselves in this authoritative narrative.”

Nowhere does the Lord say in his Word that he “inspired the authors”….to produce an “authoritative narrative.”

..for an even clearer statement of this very idea, see if this quote rings a ‘Bell’:

“The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—”discovering the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat.” [1]

[1]http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html

That’s an incriminating statement is it not?

Now this presents a huge problem for anybody that claims to be a Christian, because to adopt this position puts one into direct opposition with God the Holy Spirit, for he says:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” [1 Tim. 3:16]

In other words, the scripture itself is ‘inspired’, not the men, and, the scripture is “given”, not the men, and furthermore, that it is no “narrative” by any means, but that every single word is profitable. These two positions are irreconcilable.

(btw 2 Peter 1:21 does not apply here, it refers to O.T. prophets only, who spoke audibly to the people….not to mention also that they are not said to be “inspired men”)

Any person who rejects this puts themselves over and above the Author of the scriptures, and is in dangerous territory, which is that of blaspheming the Spirit. One of the two is not telling the truth.

A man who takes this position may lay claim to a lot of things but in truth, the name “Christian” is not one of them, and any person who follows such a one is headed down a blind path with no compass.

It’s very interesting also, that having gutted the ‘core’ of the gospel, as has been established, and replacing it with ‘community’, etc., the Nouveau 2.0 parallels exactly the agenda of the globalist architects for the communal societies of their planned future.

Point is this, tell the truth. Why should you be trying to force people to accept your new updated narrated 2.0 version, and then cying “foul’ when they will not.

It’s simply not going to happen, ever. What you’ve got is something that in it’s very essence is different, so come right out with it, as is the case here:

“This is not just the same old message with new methods,” Rob says. “We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life.” (quoted from same article linked above)

Own it, and have a great time at it, but don’t cry when someone says “hey, don’t call that stuff christian”. It is not.

One more thing, what will you do with these scriptures:

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power…”
[1 Thes. 1:7-9]

How about believing them?

19   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Tom – wrong Mars Hill. Your argument is invalid. We are talking about Mars Hill Seattle, not Grand Rapids. Mars Hill Seattle has Mark Driscoll, who has publicly stated he disagrees with Rob Bell.

Did you get your research degree from the Ken Silva School of Logic?

20   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Ouch.

21   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Oh I believe them, I just don’t think you’re obeying the whole council of Scripture and I honestly hope you repent before God steps in. (See, I could be an ODM if I wanted to be)

22   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Mars Hill Seattle’s Doctrinal Statement (on the Scriptures)

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible, and God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Matthew 5:18; John 16:12, 13).

For more: http://www.marshillchurch.org/content/DoctrinalStatement

23   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

WOW, Matt, you’ve been en fuego lately. Tom M, you are a fool, sir.

24   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pm

I’m off both caffeine and diet sodas. Just water. :)

25   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pm

LOL, all that effort for naught, Tom!

26   nc    
December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

To be clear:

Rebelling against a HUMAN interpretation of the Gospel that has been elevated to absolute despite its being glaringly incomplete is NOT rebellion against God’s Word. It’s a good and right rebellion against humans for the sake of being faithful to the Word…however you conceive of it.

But that is too bad that all that work was expended and we’re not even talking about Rob Bell…

Tom M,

Nobody is crying foul that people aren’t accepting someone’s perspective. What we’re crying foul over is the kind of dishonest whining that accusation even is.

If you think there’s a nouveau gospel being preached, good for you. Don’t change. Be faithful where you are. Nobody is trying to force anyone to believe anything. But on “your side” I see people trying to shame people into conformity.

We don’t care if you don’t like certain methods.
We don’t care if you only like certain kinds of music.
We don’t care if you like a certain approach to preaching.
We don’t care if you have any differences with others.
We DO care about you being faithful where you are as you best understand it.
We DO care about you returning the same kind of courtesy.
You come to this site “on blast”, kick people in the shins, they RIGHTLY critique your behavior and then YOU cry foul.

And, I always say, it’s brilliant…you try to neutralize the critique you deserve by accusing people of doing what YOU actually are doing.

It’s brilliant.

You want us to be honest.

If you’re so “right”, show us the way, O honest one.
How about being honest that you’ve probably conflated your beliefs with the Word of God and so the rebellion you “hate” or “discern” is really a resistance TO YOU and your values/methods? That’s called insecurity. That’s called transference and projection. That’s called being neurotic.

If you are so right, perfect and founded on Absolute Truth then why do you have to freak out about any disagreement?

Aren’t you right? Hasn’t God spoken?

Yep. That’s confidence there, buddy.
The shrieking from some quarters only reveals a theology of God in their practice that is really sorry.

Ultimately, the difference is I’m ok with disagreement. Most of us here are.

And we represent a wide variety of perspectives.
And NO this is not a “emergent” dominated site. And everyone who says it is speaks a hellish lie.

It’s a site that’s dominated by a desire for honesty and the simple fact that even if you are correct in your critiques of Rob Bell you still have an equally important responsibility before God to not be a jerk about it.

To the crooked all things appear crooked.

27   tom m    
December 18th, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Where’s the joy, rebels?

*Mars Hill Seattle’s Doctrinal Statement (on the Scriptures):

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally inspired word of God, the final authority for faith and life, inerrant in the original writings, infallible, and God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Matthew 5:18; John 16:12, 13).

*Mars Hill Grand Rapids (i presume):

“We believe God inspired the authors of Scripture by his Spirit to speak to all generations of believers, including us today. God calls us to immerse ourselves in this authoritative narrative.”

Two diametrically opposed views, hmmm…..pitting the two extremes against each other, disagreements between the Two MH pastors, etc. Looks like the classic thesis + antithesis = synthesis……aka Hegelian Dialectic.

In addition, this little disclaimer in the Seattle statement….”inerrant in the original writings” is another way of saying that we cannot really trust the bible that we have in our hands..i.e. the KJV. The door has been left open, and mark these words, this will actually be one of the next big pushes of deception coming down the pike:

i.e “Our bibles are not accurate enough, we’ve got to go back to the original languages, and wouldn’t you know it, there’s only certain teachers who are able to interpret it correctly for us.”

Hear it now, believe it later.

Not buying.

Who are you trying to fool?

ciao

28   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Wow…a KJV-only’er. That explains a WHOLE lot Tom…

I thought those only existed in legend…

Seriously, though,

1) I don’t see “diametrically opposed views” in the two Mars Hill statements – one is didactic and one is narrative, but both speak the same truth.

2) There’s no problems going to the original manuscripts (or at least the earliest ones we have) for translations. Any linguist knows that there is no exact 1:1 match between any two languages, and that you can pick up nuances from an original language that you might miss in the translation.

3) The KJV is about as bad a translation as you can come by today (and no, the Message is a paraphrase, not a translation, so I don’t count that). The OT portions of the KJV are English translations from Latin (Vulgate) from the Greek (Septuagint) from the Hebrew (original text).

But hey, what do I know – if the KJV was good enough for Paul and Jesus, who am I to question that?

29   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 9:15 am

tom m-

This has nothing to do with Hegelian Dialectic. If you read the post, this is about a sermon preached at Mars Hill Seattle. This has nothing to do with Rob Bell. Why don’t you listen to the sermon and then comment?

Coincidentally, MHS uses the ESV, considered by many to be the best current translation, even by many of the ODMs.

“inerrant in the original writings” also means that our translations aren’t inerrant. We have great translations, just not perfect translations.

30   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 9:17 am

Tom M,
Have you ever studied any of this or are you just right?

31   Neil    
December 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am

That raises an interesting thought – if we claim translations are as inerrant as the originals, then they are as inspired as well. The men and women who as moved by the Holy Spirit in their translating as the authors were moved in their writing…

I wonder how one determines which translators are so moved and which are not?

32   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am

Neil,
That’s easy. They’re the one’s that agree with Tom M and can insult people he disagrees with.

33   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 9:23 am

Let’s be honest, KJVism is borderline heresy and is certainly idol worship.

34   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am

tom m -

Regarding Rob Bell, who you brought up. Your arguement is a irrelevant thesis.

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the formal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn’t address the issue in question. “Ignoratio elenchi” can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; “elenchi” is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.

35   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 9:49 am

I love Tom… he’s a hoot.

He reminds me of a guy who once told me I was going to hell for “studying” the mid trib view…

Gotta love the self righteous… they need Jesus so bad.

Praying for you Tom…

In Christ,
iggy

36   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am

Chris Rosebrough,

I just wanted to let you know Tom thinks of those who liked this sermon… though he never listened to it or has seemed to figure out it is Mark Driscoll and not Rob Bell… but who cares about facts when you can toss a bunch of people on the coals of hell to your own satisfaction… so welcome to the apostate club! LOL!

This is what the apostle John calls the “spirit of error”. [1 John 4:6] ….aka the ’spirit of the age’. ~ Thus sayeth the tom m

Just spreading the love,
iggy

37   nc    
December 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am

I like the NRSV too…ESV is great…NIV sucks…

38   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am

NC,
Would you mind defending that statement…NIV sucks….from a textual criticism view? I’d like some references

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am

Actually, I prefer the NIV for general usage, as it tries to bridge the gap between literal word-for-word translation and translation based on meaning (Dynamic Equivalence).

When I’m doing word studies, I’ll go to more word-for-word translations (or do some Greek/Hebrew lookup), along with comparing multiple translations of the same passage to see what nuances the translators were wrestling with.

40   tom m    
December 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Tried the Non-Inspired-Version (btw where’s Acts 8:37….MIA, one of many, oh not important), then tried another one but it was Not-A-Solid-Bible either, then they said here’s another new one, it’s the new ’standard’ (sez who?), but it turned out to be just another Error-Saturated-Version.

If we don’t have a trustworthy bible after lo these many years then God has failed to keep (preserve) his Word as He promised.

(I know all the arguments…save your breath)

All of them are flat soda…no pop, no fizzle, no power. Go KJV and you’ll never go back.

Incidentally, regarding the “original languages” subject, if you following the trail back through the the confusing labyrinth you will find yourself smack dab in the middle of the “Hebrew Roots Movement”, whose goal is to bring all of ‘christiandom’ back under the umbrella/control of Judaism, believe it or not….this includes even thou oh emergers.

Hear it now believe it later.

Ig, i’m well aware of who preached the sermon in question, and that i did not directly address the topic at hand….my topic was ‘rebellion’ and so i took from his title and jumped on it. Just like that. Oh well

41   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

The idol of version worship. Some are good, some not so good. I like the KJV but I use many others. We should not worship translations.

42   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Excellent, Tom. I can now completely ignore you, as you’ve apparently not read #2 in our section “On Commenting”

We might not take you seriously if you post random verses (particularly in King James English) and don’t explain your exegesis from said verses. In fact, unless you believe the 1611 KJV is the only legitimate translation (in which case we probably won’t take you seriously – “after all, it was good enough for the apostle Paul, so it should be good enough for us…”, as the argument goes…), we would greatly appreciate using a translation which utilizes contemporary English, there are a number of translations to choose from which eschew ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ and the like.

Having read your tripe the past few weeks, I can firmly add you to the “not take you seriously” file and pretty much ignore your rantings from this point out.

If you’re not even in the realm of reality on Bible translation, how can we expect you to be in said realm on its interpretation?

Certainly, you might argue that this is an ad homenim argument, but I would suggest that it is germain to all of our discussions. It’s like trying to discuss politics with someone who believes that Skull and Bones and/or the Illuminati is already running our government.

43   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

But they are!

44   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

But they are!

Careful, Kyle – you don’t want to get added to the list with tom ;)

45   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

The NIV is the version that the Illuminati want you to read…

46   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

An Illuminati sighting. You guys are blind to the tri-lateral commision!

47   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Ig, i’m well aware of who preached the sermon in question, and that i did not directly address the topic at hand….my topic was ‘rebellion’ and so i took from his title and jumped on it. Just like that. Oh well

Which goes to show that you are more interested in your own “conspiracies” than the message of Jesus Christ.

If you lift Jesus up, HE WILL draw all men unto him… not if you lift up some conspiracy then they will see Jesus…

John 12:31-32
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Judgement already came… at the Cross…Satan lost… A translation did not die on the Cross for me…

BTW Jesus used the rather bad translation called the Septuagint… just read the OT verses in the NT and see they do not match… the essence is there (and sometimes added editorial, but you need read a bit of Justin Martyr to see this) yet Jesus had no issue quoting that translation.

iggy

48   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Did Jesus speak greek? I really am not sure, I thought he spoke aramaic? I know that was the commonly used translation but don’t you think they also used the hebrew OT also.

49   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Did Jesus speak greek? I really am not sure, I thought he spoke aramaic?

Actually, most of the Roman world spoke Greek as a second “common” language – much like English today. There is also a great deal of scholarship in the wake of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls which suggest – contrary to Catholic tradition – that Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the common language in Israel. This is based both on the DSS findings and comparisons of known Hebraisms to New Testament Texts (primarily the synoptics) which seem to have been literally translated from Hebrew to Greek.

50   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Tom,
This may come as a shock to you, but the verses “left out” of modern Bibles were left out because they were added to the manuscripts as time went on.

IN fact the additional verses added to 1 John 5 were added by Erasmus (who put together the textus receptus) after a manuscript was suddenly found by the Catholic church which included those verses when he refused to add them on the say-so of the RCC. So enjoy your Catholic translation.

51   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

yeah but there is no way to now for sure if he did speak greek, we can assume but you know what that does.

Also are there spefics quotes of Jesus speaking aramaic. Im thinking when on the cross when He cried out to God.

And Tom we all now that the only “inspired” english translation is the “Message”

52   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

The KJV came about because a homosexual (King James) who was married to a brow beating Catholic (his wife there, hero) found a way to make his wife happy (get rid of the Geneva Bible) and his lover (Will Shakespeare) happy. The KJV is translated from older texts and let’s be honest it has a lot of problems.

53   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I thought the main bible Bill S. used was the geneva bible.

54   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

OK, Let’s have a Bible history lesson. Who knows what kind of notes were written in the margins of that Bible?
Yes, IGGY–who doesn’t have me on his blog roll but he has Matt who hasn’t posted since last year–that is correct, there were notes deriding the Catholic church in it.

55   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 4:56 pm

So Kyle, that assumption is correct. But KJ had his translators hide some wonderful gems in the text for his gay lover, Bill S as you put it.

56   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

What gems do you mean? I had no clue Bill S. was gay? I really do not think that King Jimmy was sitting with the translators and telling them how to do it. Not sure though. I understand the variants in the KJV and how they got there. never heard that King Jimmy personal changed the texts though?

In the G Bible, it was reformed notes by John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby.

Where there notes in the KJV?

57   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

No notes in the KJV my friend. But yes, there is a little “tribute” hidden in the KJV for the Shake

58   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

like what?? This sounds interesting!!

59   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Sorry Kyle, I gotta run to the store. Do some research. In the Psalms.

60   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Even the original manuscripts were translations through the prisms of writing styles, personalities, and other human literary peculiarities. We have made the writings the miracle when in reality the miracle is that the Holy Spirit can take those finite human words and communicate the eternal truths of God to a finite human reader/listener.

61   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pm

By original manuscripts do you mean the autographs?

I don’t think it is amazing that He can communicate but that He choose to do so.

i will look into that pslams thing never heard that b4.

62   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

I mean the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

63   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Ummm…Do you mean the piece of paper that Paul would of written one(we don’t have these) or the copies there after. Because the atuographs(the bible) is God-breathed so how could it be a translation?

I do understand that he used humans and did not dictate the bible. But I would hardly cal it a translation. It truly is a mircale that the bible has been presereved. We have over 5,000 copies of the NT with a varient of around 99.5-99.9%. The next in line is the Illaid by Homer ther are around 450, can’t remeber exact, with a 95% varients. So the NT we have is the most accuracte document ever on the planet. We now for sure what the NT really said 2,000 years ago and that is a miracle. It is not something that happens all the time!

64   tom m    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

hello sitting ducks,

note: hear it now, believe it later

p.s. that would be ‘germane’

65   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

The originals are translations from the infinite to the finite, from the ouitside time and space to our reality. If God did not actually dictate words, then they were translations, accurate translations of course, but look how there are so many interpretations.

So in essence, God’s truths were translated into human words.

66   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

HI floating fish?!?!?!?!?!

67   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Yes but because made us in His image he can communicate with use clearly. The many intepations come from unlearned men that distort and twist the bible. The bible in away is a different incarnation. It is both God’s words to men and men’s words to men. But that does not mean it is a translation.

68   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

They are the spiritual truths of God, inherant fully in the eternal Word, translated into Hebrew and Greek.

69   Kyle in WI    
December 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Well got go, going out carolin’ talk with you guys later!

70   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Tom, Based on my understanding of Scripture you are a fool. Therefore, I’m just gonna ignore your posts from now on. Lest you think I’m just being mean, here’s verses for you to consider. (You might want to especially consider the Is. passage)

A fool’s mouth never fails to get him into trouble. His speech has many words (Ecclesiastes 5:3); he multiplies words (Ecclesiastes 10:14). A fool’s words are not gracious (Ecclesiastes 10:12), and his lips do not nourish others (Proverbs 10:21). His mouth invites ruin (Proverbs 10:14). He spreads slander (Proverbs 10:18). Even worse, he spreads error concerning the Lord (Isaiah 32:6).

71   merry    
December 19th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Kyle, when you come back read Psalm 46. Count to the 46th word from the beginning, and then go to the end and count 46 words back. Put those 2 words together. (Shakespeare was 46 at the time of this translation.) Now go to verse 10 and count 6 words in and look at the 6th and 7th words. Then count 4 more after the 6th word (10th word) and put that word in front of the 6th and 7th words. Hope this makes sense.

72   merry    
December 19th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Psalm 46
1God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

2Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

3Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains SHAKE with the swelling thereof. Selah.

4There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

5God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.

6The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

7The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

8Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.

9He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the SPEAR in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.

10Be still, and know that I AM God: I WILL be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

11The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

73   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Merry,
You took my fun away. :) But she’s right. That was a common way to pay “homage” to someone who was very important to you in that day and age. Will Shake’s writings are full of this type of thing. Any honest student of history who doesn’t go to it with an agenda has to admit that there is significant evidence that Jim and Will were doing evil things in the sight of the LORD.

74   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Kyle,

In the scripture you will note that the quotations used are from the Septuagint… not the Hebrew scripture. This also cause Justin Martyr a bit of “textual criticism” in his debate with a educated Jewish writer of the time. The debate was very cordial and both held great respect for each other… Justin Martyr lost though when he quoted a passage that he was very proud of that stated, “The LORD reigns from the tree, he is robed in majesty;” The Jewish scholar looked up the verse in the Hebrew bible, and could not find it… Justin claimed the Jew took it out, yet it was added and was never and still is not part of the text… so even way back then there was some translation confusion.

Yet, they are finding contrary to Mel Gibson’s assertion, (not that the movie itself was not moving) is that most spoke Greek… Hebrew was not spoken as much and Aramaic was a common language… but to do commerce and to speak to philosophers as Paul did would have been in Greek not Aramaic. Jesus was not that much before Paul as you know and would speak to both Jew and Gentile so would most likely have used Greek as it was the common commerce language.

I think that there is some very good things in the KJV and I use the NKJV myself. One must realize that some texts come from Alexandria and will have a bit of a “Gnostic” twist… as Origin and Clement of Alexandria both accepted Greek philosophy as good… Origin has “gnostic” writings that are not “Gnostic” but he used the word like we would use “spiritual” or “knowledge from God” today. Clement taught that we could be relevant to our culture by knowing the teachings of the Greeks. He taught that all truth is truth and it is still truth even if they did not get the whole story right… Tertillian thought otherwise…

(Incidentally you can directly trace the linage of Calvinism to Clement of Alexandria and Origin and the acceptance of Greek philosopher which was steep in Gnostic teachings which in turn inspired Aquinas, then Augustine and then Calvin….even Calvin quotes Plato, yet take Plato’s thoughts in a different direction… which is the “soft Gnosticism that Tony Jones was speaking of that J Mac teaches… but that is a side note.)

The other texts are not from the Alexandrian schools and do not have the “Gnostic” touch… I see them as more pure myself, but that does not justify an “anointed translation” by far…

iggy

75   merry    
December 19th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Joe, do you think he would have found that perusing through the entire book of Psalms?? :) I thought I’d be nice and tell him. Although he could have googled it and found it right off anyway. LOL.

76   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

OK… that Shakespear thing seems a bit silly…

iggy

77   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 19th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Iggy,
Do the study. Culturally study that time period. You can’t deny it. Secondly, I’d disagree with you that Jesus probably spoke Greek (although that has been commonly accepted) the last 5-10 years have produced some who think that Jesus may have spoken more Hebrew. Certainly he would have learned it at a young age. When he was talking to the Hebrews he probably used Hebrew. Of course I don’t have a time machine so….

78   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 19th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Joe,

You are just wrong and this is why you are not on my blog roll…

iggy

You are now… go look… and your right… what’s up with Matt… His last post was about something I wrote though… so that usually gets you on my blog roll, (just a tip LOL!)