Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Brian Cox - Wonders of life - What is life?

Things I heard from Brian Cox:

Something seperates life from every other process in the universe - DNA, [true]

yet evolution occurs in all systems. [false]

Death aids the process of cosmic evolution. [false]

Life operates according the the laws of physics and nothing more. [false]

Humans live for max 122 years. [120]

Only living things have the ability to encode and transmit genetic information. [true]

Orangutans are our close genetic relatives. [depends on what relative means]

DNA contains the entire history of a species from the beginning of life to the present [false]

I dislike the idea of popular science, I think it degrades the transmission of knowledge. It also allows gurus to develop, whom naive viewers will believe without questioning. But this is the staple of corporations like the BBC, so much so now that it is seen by the public as an obligation. The problem is not necessarily popular science shows, in theory it is a good idea. But when I say it degrades the transmission of knowledge, I urge you to watch Brian Cox's show "Wonders of life". All you need to do is listen to him, watch how he acts like your best friend, and how it is filmed is made specifically to support evolutionary theory.

Instead of watching this show, I watched family guy. But when it had finished I began to listen to the TV. This is where I heard some of the outrageous statements above. You see, thanks to popular science, nature is irrevocably tied to evolution, and nowadays thanks to creation scientists and Intelligent Design folks, they are responding by pushing evolution even more than they have done before. They're afraid you see, they're afraid that people will hear the arguments of creationists and not balk and laugh. So they are now making more and more science shows, desperately putting evolution in all of them. EVOLUTION, EVOLUTION.

I hope that somebody puts that show on youtube, Its incredibly important as an example of how insidious evolution is. I'm going to put an opinion out, and it is controversial - but I would imagine that alot of these TV scientists are in fact communists, or even luciferians. They worship this stuff and treat it as a religion. I'm not even going to bother refuting what is written above right now, but I will update after watching the full episode, and if it appears on youtube I will embed it here for you to see. The disturbing trend coming from BBC Science is far towards the Neizche 'God is dead' theory. I cannot actually count how many times Cox said "We don't need mysticism" "Physics provides the answers". Where does he get off saying that? These folks continually acts as if they know everything - even when they say "We don't have all the answers", they say it with such pride. They say it with pride because Religion is expected to have all the answers, but because evolution is 'science' they can get away with not doing so.

This is why the new age is intricately linked to evolution - it allows exploration - now everyone can find their own path, create their own idols - just like before. The modern age is shaking off the shackles of Roman Catholicism and national religion and embracing post-modernism with glee, the result will be a gradual return to paganism of old, and probably an embrace of eastern religion. People don't want a religion which claims to have all the answers, they want a religion that says "search within". Evolution allows this, whether it be in astronomy, chemistry or physics. Its this ambiguity that makes it so popular.

Let me also say, it is 95% supposition and 5% fact. Perfect for the post-moderns.

stay around for more updates.

UPDATE:
No videos yet, however those folks at the guardian seem to share my opinion on 'popular science' without even realising it. Prop some famous face up on a science show and people will believe it.
Have a read here

"Granted, Brian Cox is popularising science with his various endeavours, but this could be a step too far. Just because someone is popular, does this justify them being portrayed as an authority in areas where they lack relevant expertise? We've yet to see Bradley Wiggins host Strictly Come Dancing, or Mo Farah judge the Turner prize. Is this any different?"

Theres a second article that says David Attenborough is passing the Torch to Brian Cox

And a third

"I want big numbers from him, ending in illion. Give me zeros baby, lots of them.Here we go – 13.7 BILLION years ago, that's better. I remember that one from last time; it's when the universe was formed. And every single joule of energy around today was present then, because of the first law of thermodynamics"

The Mirror seems to think that this is 'sexy science'.

"When you're watching him, there's a sense that you aren't wasting your time, no matter what the topic.  You might not understand it all, but Professor Cox will break it down to a level that you can keep up with, so that you will definitely walk away having learnt something.  In this first episode, I learnt that whilst it's hard to gob into a test tube and still look sexy, it's not impossible. Nice one Bri."

The Telegraph says it well

"The programme’s sophisticated use of graphics, and Cox’s patient repetition of his conclusions, all added to the sensation that this is a series that is actually going to tell you something. For the BBC to unveil both this and The Story of Music over a single weekend reveals a pretty impressive commitment to public service broadcasting. Long may it last."

______

One thing I find rather promising is the comments, there are folks that are on to it [From the Telegraph comments section]

FickleFreddie: "It was mush...i watched it and they scratch around trying to grapple with how it all got started and they all seem to be still scratching their proverbial heads."

Platoscave: " Speculates more than an medieval theologian."

mefatha: "Cox repeats the tired and simplistic message; "DNA is the recipe for life"
When he must know that DNA codes for proteins. Human DNA in vitro, will produce all of the proteins that a human being contains but not a human being.
The real deal is much more complex and that complexity is being hidden under the stone of 1950s language."

And there are those who loved it - yet felt a little bit "saddened"

musicalguy:"Thanks, Sarah, for a bright, enthusiastic, if slightly over-gushing, review.
Perhaps the surprise that life itself may have been the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics reminds one of Basil Fawlty exclaiming "What do you want, a degree in stating the bleedin' obvious?" -- it's not obvious, of course, but it would be more surprising to hear that life is *not* consistent with the laws of physics. [Of course, it isn't - law of biogenesis]
I was a bit saddened to see Prof Brian Cox traveling to Peru to poke fun at people who were honouring their ancestors; that was a bit unnecessary, but remember he is a humanist (according to Wikipedia). 
But for someone who teaches us that we are nothing more than a chemical reaction going on, he has achieved much more, and lifted the interest in science much more than the average chemical reaction, including me. And I'm old enough to know that spitting is rude ;)"
 

Monday, 28 January 2013

What if nobody listened?



I was having random thoughts earlier, about two films that came out over the last couple of years: Knowing, and 2012. Both of them have christian symbolism in, both of which are integral to the plot, Knowing has; angels, the Garden of Eden, and an Adam and Eve type in the little boy and little girl. 2012 has a cataclysmic global flood, and two 'arks'. Then I thought, neither of them (apart from blasphemy - and of course we have the two old people in Knowing who are 'christians' - well catholics) mention God. I then posited that these are essentially biblical tales rewritten to take God out of the picture.

Naturally this led me to think, what if God did judge the world, and nobody knew it, and it just seemed like a natural disaster, everyone had turned away from God, and not a person on Earth was Christian? Would this matter to God, would he need us to be Christian? What if nobody cared about God or listened to his gospel?

These thoughts intrigued me as a I thought back to a methodist meeting I attended last year, shortly before I left that church, I remember somebody saying that we needed to adapt and change because people are leaving the churches - essentially parroting Rick Warren. There is this big worry - especially in the arminian quarters - that christianity is going to die out, as ridiculous as this idea is, they think that there used to be lots more christians, and now suddenly in this modern age there is lots less.

This isn't necessarily the case. It's a myth, you see, nowadays the folks who attend churches tend to be the more ardent christians, these are the younger folks who will appear unfashionable, and will get mocked, or patronised for going -and thus MUST be more faithful than the people who had no faith and simply went in the past because it was "what everyone did". I hope you get what I mean here. The problem we have nowadays in the church is that we treat our congregations as commodities, we need more people coming in, so we have to change, adapt, become more relevant, be less biblical to get more people in. We need to speak to what matters to people today, who cares what Paul used to say, lets say this now. Which - isn't necessarily a bad thing, and some of the modern stuff is okay, theres no problem with a Pastor helping his 'flock' emotionally, dealing with life problems in his sermons - there is definitely a place for that. It doesn't all have to be Hell fire and damnation, because thats not how any of the apostles talked - but the issue is that as this stuff comes in, the gospel seems to go out.

So what if the gospel left every church in the land? What would make us so special that God would spare us judgment? We know this judgment is coming, so why do these films remove God? Why are they such charming precursors to what may just happen? Solar Flares could be fire from heaven, angels coming and taking people away is most definitely a pre-wrath rapture, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, all are predicted in revelation as signs of God's wrath. Strange.

Think about this though, God has plenty of people from all ages of history, he has saved hoardes of people from the age of Adam through to the age of Mark Driscoll and the Reformed Baptists. Even if the entire world decided God was dead and danced on his grave, the New Heaven and New Earth would likely be filled with hundreds of millions if not a couple of billion people, if we were stingy (or realistic) and said that catholicism is a broad way that doesn't lead folk to salvation, there is only approx 480 million professing christians in the world today, add the catholics on and that would be 1.5 billion.

As a calvinist, I don't think we really have that much of a choice though, of course God does not force people to love him, but he also wouldn't abandon us. There is a time when people will truly hate God, and be so deranged that they think that they could fight him and win. I can't understand why that would ever happen, but it will. Even more insane is that even when Jesus is here ruling from his kingdom in Jerusalem, with absolute proof that God is real, people will still be deceived by Satan and go to war.

But to answer my own question, what if nobody listened? then one of two things could happen, God could make us listen, or he could shrug his proverbial shoulders and move on.

This takes me back to the time that Christopher Eccleston played 'the second coming' (in the show of the same name) of Jesus  on ITV in about 99. In that show the world decided it didn't want God, so they told him to go away, and he did! That show treated it as a victory "now we just live for today, and seize every moment, no heaven no hell" - thats paraphrased. Imagine a world like that. What awful meaninglessness there would be, it was treated as though life would be better, but would it? To go from eternal life in blissful peace and harmony with an infinite being to nothing but life working in a supermarket for 40 years before a slow and painful death in a care home, then nonexistence. It sounds awful to me

I theorize that about 10 years after they told God to 'do one', they destroyed themselves in a nuclear war from the absolute despair they felt upon the realization of their error.

What fantasy and imagination would there be: we explore the stars our creator made, after telling him to leave us alone. We explore the planet our creator made, and so on. Its not logical, and after he revealed himself to us, we could have asked him anything, and he could of told us. Is there any sense in rejecting that?

Still, the films and the TV show are revealing, it shows that Hollywood is aware of what is to come, and the TV show reveals the idiocy of denying Him. Whether the writer knew it or not, the denial produced a bleakness, they tried to make God seem petty and small, but I doubt that God would have ever left - for precisely the reason I raised about, God has billions of people throughout history who have loved him, and what one generation says would be irrelevant, God never made us any promises, this generation only receives its blessings for the sake of those previous ones, and what the writer of "The Second Coming" - Russel T Davies - failed to recognize is that God gives us every breath we breath, even our very life force. He would have done well to have ended that show with everyone suddenly falling to the floor dead - as that is what would have happened, the universe would have burned up with fire, the sun exploding, creation itself crumbling into nothingness. The fact they were alive indicated that he didn't leave. Of course Davies would love there to be no God - no God = no judgment, and I think thats what the guy was getting at.

I would suggest watching that TV show, there are torrents of it around somewhere,

I also hope you enjoyed this rant. Just remember something, God does not care what anyone else says, he cares what you say, no one can make him leave you, even if every other person on this planet says "I hate God", stand your ground, stay true to the faith - and let no person deceive you.

If nobody listened, life would go on as normal, it would just mean a generation would miss out on Eternal life.

Sunday, 27 January 2013

William Tyndale speaks on KJVO (or what he has said before that is relevant)

UPDATE 22/1/2014:

I must point out here, that my opinion on the King James has drastically changed over the last year, and that the average KJVO would not have killed anyone for bringing out a new translation. The KJV is the only source of infallibility in the English bible line, but KJVOs would not begrudge or dispute anyone using Tyndale thru Bishops for their edification. The issue truly is the modern scholarship, and the idea that the Holy Spirit does not have a hand in preserving God's word. There is also a prevailing belief in a conspiracy on the parts of translators and corporations to continually print new bible translations in order a. keep themselves in a job and b. make lots of moolah and c. seal up the word of God in unrighteousness

Now for the original post:


I found this just a few moments ago and I instantly thought of KJVO (which is shocking considering 85% of the KJV is Tyndale.



From the Pathway to the Holy Scripture c1530

I do marvel greatly, dearly beloved in Christ, that ever any man should repugn or speak against the scripture to be had in every language, and that of every man. For I thought that no man had been so blind to ask why light should be shewed to them that walk in darkness, where they cannot but stumble, and where to stumble is the danger of eternal damnation: or so despiteful that he would envy any man (I speak not his brother) so necessary a thing, or so Bedlam (insane) mad to affirm that good is the natural cause of evil, and darkness to proceed out of light, and that lying should be grounded in truth and verity and not rather clean contrary, that light destroyeth darkness and verity reproveth all manner lying.


Now, I know its hard to read - and I'm sure Tyndale would agree that today, because our English is so different, it is hard. Remember, Latin used to be a language that anyone throughout the civilized world could read - thats why the Vulgate was made - it no longer is. We now speak English: and thats why we get translations like the NIV and NLT today, because 17th century English is not 21st century English and whilst some still use the KJV, not all want to read such a difficult translation - or are able.

Tyndale says it all so succinctly, people question why others dont use the KJV, and why they need a new translation. They use any excuse possible to turn people from light (i.e. knowledge) to darkness (ignorance). The catholics did it in the 16th century and killed Tyndale for it. Nowadays we have KJVOs who want people to read only that, and they should struggle, But struggling to read something that is so vital and important, when it is near incomprehensible to them, is not fair. I think that filling peoples minds with rhetoric and propaganda to keep them in darkness (accidentally or not) is not the way to go. If Tyndale had of yielded to the same manner as the KJVO- we wouldn't have had the KJV, in fact England would never have had the bible. Just imagine it. NO Tyndale bible, no great bible, no Matthew Bible, no Geneva Bible.  Scary to me!

As I have likely said before, Tyndale is my HERO - I cant wait to meet him one day. Knowing his views, his opinions and knowing how similar our theologies are- makes my day.


Check back later when I may just add an explanation to what Tyndale said, and expand upon it a little

God bless.

EDIT: UPDATE 30/1/2013

 I do marvel greatly, dearly beloved in Christ, that ever any man should repugn or speak against the scripture to be had in every language, and that of every man. 

Tyndale here states his wonder, that anyone would be against scripture in all languages -for everyone. In his day all Papally-aligned governments supported the position that latin was the only God-approved language for scripture. You see Rome in part idolized scripture, and of course didn't want people to read it and discover their man-made traditions.

For I thought that no man had been so blind to ask why light should be shewed to them that walk in darkness, where they cannot but stumble, and where to stumble is the danger of eternal damnation:

Alluding to both the Gospels of Luke and John - Tyndale uses scripture to allegorize the situation in his day -and ours. You would have to be blind not to see light, and to not understand the necessity of it to those who are in darkness. Hes saying "Can the blind lead the blind? Will not both fall into the ditch?". He knows that the ditch is the lake of fire, and he is basically saying: Deny the scripture (light) to those who need it (those in darkness) and you are damning them! I say the same thing to the KJVOs, As dangerous as a latin scripture to english readers is a 12th grade translation to a 3rd grade reader. You may as well throw a book on string theory in front of them. Or perhaps La Bibla. I may be able to read it, but I have a 12th grade reading level (but not writing lol). I read the NLT!


or so despiteful that he would envy any man (I speak not his brother) so necessary a thing, or so Bedlam (insane) mad to affirm that good is the natural cause of evil, and darkness to proceed out of light, and that lying should be grounded in truth and verity and not rather clean contrary, that light destroyeth darkness and verity reproveth all manner lying.

Tyndale posits that hate may be the cause, or insanity that causes the powers that be to declare the scriptures in English evil. Pointing out that the scriptures are good - yet the church declares them evil, when in fact the truth is that the scriptures will wake people up and rebuke the church for its lies. Isn't it evil to declare a bible translation, evil? To deny anyone the Holy Bible on the grounds that it will damn them? Its been pointed out before that even the NWT is the scriptures, despite some interpretive takes in the NT. There is a lot of websites out there warning people about corrupt bibles, people have even burned NIVs before. Yet this is what the catholics did in the 16th century to Tyndales NT for THE SAME REASON. They claimed his NT was of the devil and would damn someone to hell, now protestants are burning NIVs claiming they are satans bibles and will damn people to hell.

Thats why I knew this quote was good enough to show the idiocy of the argument. Use any translation, dynamic, formal, literal. Go for it, do it with a clean conscience, and never let anyone tell you otherwise.

Chris.

Monday, 21 January 2013

Romans 13 - Truth vs fiction


 Romans 13, Infowars' interpretation :Link

What the Bible says:

"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority."


What does this say to you? Lets say you have lived your whole life believing in "freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness", you're necking your way through the bible and suddenly you come to this passage. Its a strange one to be sure, but in context it makes absolute sense. It brings into light the whole gospel, our mission on Earth, and where we should be looking to for our freedom.

1. We are not of this world, therefore the governments of the world are of no concern to us:
Everyone must submit to the government, in other words, do what is legal and expected of you, remember that Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's", that which belongs to the government, is the government's. So where you need to follow the law, follow it. Simple!
Even if the government changes the constitution, you must still follow the law - as a citizen. I know its unpopular, but its the truth. Our mission is not to be freedom fighters, but to be citizens of a greater kingdom. Many today claim that Jesus was a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, but he wasn't, he was all for the status quo when it came to worldly events, his mission was for a greater purpose, for a greater Kingdom! What mattered to him was salvation, and a people that loved him, and served him. Fighting for temporary freedoms, against corrupt temporary governments is not for his people. Let the world fight for the world. 

Again, this is unpopular, but remember, this brings our mission into focus, pay your taxes, do your duty, follow the law insofar as it doesn't contradict biblical teachings. (Such as if a law came to pass that on the first Friday of every month we were to find the most attractive woman in our neighbourhood and kill her - we as christians would abstain; even unto death).

2. All governments are instituted by God himself:
God is in sovereign control, to resist is to rebel against God. This is not to say we must agree with every decision the government makes, especially when government itself is in direct rebellion against God. But remember, God allows this, he allows it to rain on the good and the bad - even allowing those who hate him to rule. William Tyndale was well aware of this, and he stayed on mission, his mission (as is ours) is to bring the good news to all worldwide. We are salt and light, we irritate and burn, not because we are rebels against the government, but because of the Gospel, because we stand for righteousness, and belong to a greater kingdom. Notice that Satan makes war with the saints, whilst the world (and Alex Jones etc) follows him. Why would this be if AJ and co were such a threat? Assuming of course that we are not far from the end. I won't answer this question because I don't know the answer. But I do know its not because we stand outside government buildings with a bullhorn screaming about 1776, and taking down the government.

3. The government is here for good?
Amazing isn't it, the government is here for good! As a long time truther, I find this a shock, but God doesn't lie. If our government (UK and US) is here for good, why do they promote so much that we see as bad? Abortion, homosexual marriage, legalized sodomy, ridiculous alcohol laws, legalized euthanasia etc. Well this is where we have to understand that there are two worlds, a pagan one, and a christian one. We must understand that there has NEVER been a Christian system of government in the world. It hasn't even been attempted. The US is not a christian nation (thats why it says creator and not the LORD in the declaration of independence) the UK is not a christian nation (if it were there would not be a human monarch as head of the church) although it (as well as US) has some christian values - they do not hold God to be sovereign, they hold themselves to be sovereign. 
They are the same as the governments of the past, and are no different. We should view them the same way as Paul did - irrelevancies, which occasionally can be manipulated to our advantage (such as using his Roman citizenship to protect himself). It cannot be stated enough, we will never build a Christian Kingdom on this Earth, only Jesus can and will do that. There is no point in resisting the government - unless they breach biblical principles, and then - WE DO IT PEACEFULLY. Anyone who presents civil war as a means of change is NOT a christian, they never have been. They have no hope in them, and no love. But are filled with pride, and desperately need to pray for salvation.

4. Government will punish those who do wrong?
There are many ways to punish, one is by having a legal system that reflects christian values (as most do, even muslim ones - although they go way too far). There you go, people are punished for wrong doing. Of course the second is to be a mirror, those who are doing wrong come in all shapes and sizes, God may just present an opportunity to show those so-called christians just whom and what they worship. Remember it says "Do what is right and they will honour you", and it is true, those who do right tend to be honoured within the system. But of course the honour we seek is not the government but from God himself. If you think in terms of worldly vs heavenly - even pagan governments have a good track record in enforcing a legal system that represents the 10 commandments. Do not kill, do not steal etc. Only recently was adultery declassified as a crime.

If we do wrong we should fear the government. Well, lets think in terms of what I said above - worship. If you hate the government, its all well and good, but would you start a civil war to get rid of it? Who will rule? You?


You see where I am going with this? Its idolatry, you are idolizing yourself, viewing yourself as a better man for the job, you are jealous and covet the position. Or you at least view yourself in higher esteem. You want the guns to overthrow the government, which is of course wrong, therefore you fear the government will take away the guns. Its a vicious cycle. Of course such thinking will lead to punishment. The best thing you could do is throw your cares onto God and get on with his work.

Remember, you must submit to them to keep your conscience clear!! Not because they are christian but because Christ himself appointed them for YOUR good.

5. Pay your taxes.
Christ paid his taxes, Paul paid his taxes, Alex Jones pays his taxes, Bill Cooper didn't pay his taxes. 
I love Bill Cooper okay, I love his work - whether it has any basis in reality or not (I dunno, who knows, I can't claim to know). But I love Bill Cooper. But he claimed to be a christian too, and it makes me uneasy as to how easily one can twist the bible to allow you to do things it says not to do. The bible says "no tax evasion", so what do you do? You twist Romans 13, you go to the constitution - you put the constitution in preference over the bible and boom you've rebelled against God, because you are more important than Him.

Yes folks, the truth movement, as it is, is in rebellion against God, many Christians are in there, and are deceived, Romans 13 says what it says, you can either follow it or disobey it, but what is more important, your well-being, or your love for Christ.


Conclusion

It sadly is open rebellion, we do our best to justify it, but denying Romans 13 is not really a viable option - so we can accept Romans 1-12, but 13 becomes figurative? Our mission is not to change governments but hearts!
This is the true point of R13, its to get us to realise our position in the world, to be beacons for true freedom, not fighting for a false one. We need to pick up bibles, not guns, change hearts not presidents. We must leave the world to its politics and represent OUR kingdom. I hope someone listens. 

view it from this point of view and see how it fits the truth movement and its leaders:


“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you." (Luke 6:27-28)

Even if the government is our enemy, we have no biblical precedence for messing in politics. Any attempt would be a clear violation of what Jesus said in Luke 6. Now, get your eyes up into heaven and not down on the earth worrying about this stuff. Worry about those who are in bondage to sin, worry about those who willfully sin. Spread the gospel, hand out tracts instead of anti-govt propaganda. Get the real truth out there, join the REAL TRUTH MOVEMENT.


"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answering Infowars:

Teaching in any way shape or form that churches preach that Obama is doing the work of God, or is Christ in human form is not only erroneous its a downright lie. Its also wrong to lump all German churches together, many churches closed down, and many gave their lives rather than serve the Nazi state. They did not preach Romans 13 as it is stated in the bible, they simply said the Hitler was the Messiah, and would not have needed to use Romans 13.

"It is more than interesting that some 95% of the 14,000 evangelical churches that graced the German landscape during Hitler’s rise to power bought into the identical misinterpretation of Romans 13 that the vast majority (probably at least 95%) of the 300,000 evangelical churches that grace America’s landscape have bought into today."

- Where did you even get these figures?

 "Martin Luther, the great Protestant reformer, was even more direct. He said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battle fields besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

Mr Baldwin attempts to use Martin Luther to support his case against Romans 13 (I don't know what case he is trying to make as of yet- other than the church in America is neutered?), apparently churches that are tax exempt now have to preach what the government says? Which makes little sense to me, does that mean that Amnesty International has to agree with torture? Close down Amnesty International quick before you get taxed!

Sadly Romans 13 isn't being attacked by anyone but Baldwin, its a verse that truthers don't like therefore it has to be reinterpreted. Martin Luther would have been defending the "orthodox" view, which is not "government does God's work", but that the government is established by God for our good - and our bad. Submit to government (Do what is required of you by law) is not the same as agreeing with everything they say, or attaching the same reverence to them as many do the pope. I could point you to "The obedience of the christian man", which is the book that changed my opinion on ruling authorities, I will not say how, but I suggest you read it. Its a very cheap book to purchase, and it is written by none other than William Tyndale (who has interestingly not been quoted by Baldwin in this article, despite his affiliations with Luther, and his bigger hand in the English reformation).

" Without a doubt, tyrants of all stripes love to exploit this asinine attitude of these sheepish, slavish preachers who idolize the state! Lutzer quotes Hitler as saying, “The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes.”

Wow, I could rip Baldwin to shreds using 1 Corinthians 13 here. But I won't. But what a hateful attitude. What standard does he use to declare the US government as tyrannical? Second what right does he have to declare hard working pastors who have given their lives to serve their congregation's asinine and slavish? Also what right does he have to use a fully Christian and honorable word (sheep) as if it is a bad thing? Is not Jesus Christ himself "the lamb"? I could easily get very angry by this so called Pastor's statements. But the Lord shall judge him by his own words. He may have used the word 'asinine' but he knows that it really means "foolish". He was trying to cleverly say that church Pastors are fools.

Onto the statement quoted by Lutzer. From the article I found here, it says the Parsons will be MADE to dig their own graves. Which is somewhat different from them willingly giving up their God, but they will be forced to do it to keep their jobs. But even so, to call them foolish, sheepish, slaves is a little over the top. Especially to call your own brothers and sisters that. The guy is bringing his fellow church into disrepute, taking an opportunity to give the gospel into a sideshow to make every new ager listening or reading guffaw and say "Church is controlled by government, well, that must be a load of rubbish, so glad I'm not a sheepy christian har har". Thats the saddest part of all this.

1. He assumes 501c3 means control by government
2. He assumes a Pastor would willingly preach heresy and damnable blasphemy.
3. He assumes this happened in Germany, when what evidence there is is shaky at best (especially in reference to evangelicals)
4. He brings his own church family into disrepute (which is condemned even by Paul himself! 1Cor 6)
5. He insults his fellow preachers calling them fools (Matt 5:22) which is punishable by destruction in the lake of fire.


I also find it most odd that he is quoting Presidents?

"Our second President, John Adams, put it this way: “It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted. For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominate, ought they not to warn their hearers against those vices? If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue? If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, howmuchsoever it may move the gall of Massachusetts?”

To me this makes no sense, why quote presidents on matters of biblical doctrine? I pointed people to William Tyndale's book earlier, but I most certainly did not use it to make a case. I have no need to because the bible speaks for itself here. I also may not be the most eloquent blogger on the face of the Earth, but I trust you can see my point. Perhaps on the interview he made his point that "its okay for us to rebel against government", and still be a christian - whilst also putting all your eggs in the basket of worldly affairs instead of preaching the gospel (as I would hope most churches do). I can understand a church standing against abortion, because babies have no voice. But when it comes to actual politics and trying to overthrow the US government, thats not where the assembly of believers should be pointing its attention. You see, what the truth movement is trying to do, is reinterpret biblical verses - whilst condemning the church for not doing so (or having done so).  Trying to quote Martin Luther as well, its kind of crass - Luther didn't overthrow the German government, he argued about biblical doctrines that the church had usurped - he defended the bible, he didn't fight a civil war (Which Jones threatened recently in an interview with Piers Morgan). Basically, these folks have no justification, they also have little in the way of evidence. Try to find a church that calls Obama the Messiah

Here, I've done the work for you

Nothing.

Here is a search for Baldwin's claim that the government does the work of God

Again, nothing

So, where is the evidence?

They are simply trying to justify outward, consistent rebellion against the governments of the world. When there is no reason for any Christian to - we know that all these things must come to pass (Matt 24, Luke 21) there is no changing them. To resist in any way other than by preaching the gospel, is pointless. It shows a lack of hope and a lack of faith.

Mr Baldwin you need to look at the bible, and tell me, where in the bible does it say anything about infowars, anything about Jones and his ilk overthrowing the government? Tell me the point of all this? Even if we have a socialist government that comes in and dominates everyone, where does the bible say to take up arms?

In everything we must use the word of God as our guide.

"And it was given unto him (the beast) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Rev 13:7

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." Rev 19:20

Thats who you let deal with this stuff...>>>>GOD!!

Friday, 18 January 2013

NLT: a very good translation

I have a habit of railing on about bible translations, or talking about hell, criticizing the KJV etc.

Well, I have found a wonderful translation, one I have decided to spend a month with. I am quite sure that somewhere on this blog I have criticized it, called it a paraphrase or something or other. But I often say things without consideration, and thank God! I finally got around to considering the NLT.

The story behind it is simple, I struggle when reading the bible, and its not because the subject matter is hard! The reason I struggle is because many translators follow Tyndale's word for word style of translation, which was great for Tyndale, but is not so good in a 21st century translation. They still use his work as a base, but often keep the same sentence structures. But they pay no consideration to how it is written. If I want to read Tyndale, I can read his facsimile, or the KJV. I don't want to have to wade through numerous revisions (Tyndale> Matthew> KJV> ERV> RSV> NRSV> ESV) of a 16th century translation, in order to get to the word of God.

What makes it worse, is how the publishing companies - and consumers, and translators - will often insist on formal translation- often religiously - and will criticize dynamic translators for being "too loose" with the word of God. The issue here though, is that by following Tyndale, they can't ever succeed him, his translation is the best translation there is, and every revision which follows from him has weakened and in many ways corrupted what he wrote. What translators need to do (in my opinion) is listen, and understand - that what worked then, doesn't necessarily work now. If you must produce a Tyndale style work, then for goodness sake add the thee's, thous and eths. Stop trying to force a 16th century style into a 21st century mold. It produces bland, incomprehensible sentences! If you are going to produce a 21st century translation, then do it! Stop producing weak hybrids which obscure, rather than reveal God's word.

Anyway, here we have a translation which you can read! I won't compare it to Tyndale, because it isn't Tyndale (although I am sure his legacy is here somewhere ;) The NLT is a dynamic TRANSLATION, which means wherever necessary, the translator will take the liberty of amending sentence structure, and trying to bring forth the intended meaning whilst not being beholden to the greek itself. Whereas the ESV or another translation is more likely to reproduce the greek word for word, the NLT will not do so (all the time).

Its all about getting the meaning across.

Frankly, I prefer this style, its still the bible, and it still says what the ESV or KJV or NASB says, it just says it in a more understandable way. It's gone through a few revisions to get where it is today, and its frankly better (and more literal) than it ever has been before. Its at its best today. I do of course have a few points where I think it needs revising (when do I ever stop criticizing?) But these are really minor points (John 3:16 - "this way" instead of "so much" for instance.) The greek tends to allow these points anyway, so its not going wayyyy out there, like The Message always does.

I can understand a 1526 translation written in gothic font, in a truly archaic form of English - but its hard work - worthwhile work - but why do that when I can pick up the NLT and just read, understand and enjoy. Here I will give you an example of the beauty of the NLT:

 Dear brothers and sisters, I have used Apollos and myself to illustrate what I’ve been saying. If you pay attention to what I have quoted from the Scriptures, you won’t be proud of one of your leaders at the expense of another. For what gives you the right to make such a judgment? What do you have that God hasn’t given you? And if everything you have is from God, why boast as though it were not a gift?

You think you already have everything you need. You think you are already rich. You have begun to reign in God’s kingdom without us! I wish you really were reigning already, for then we would be reigning with you.  
Instead, I sometimes think God has put us apostles on display, like prisoners of war at the end of a victor’s parade, condemned to die. We have become a spectacle to the entire world—to people and angels alike.

Our dedication to Christ makes us look like fools, but you claim to be so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are so powerful! You are honored, but we are ridiculed. Even now we go hungry and thirsty, and we don’t have enough clothes to keep warm. We are often beaten and have no home. We work wearily with our own hands to earn our living. We bless those who curse us. We are patient with those who abuse us. We appeal gently when evil things are said about us. Yet we are treated like the world’s garbage, like everybody’s trash—right up to the present moment.

I am not writing these things to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you.  
 So I urge you to imitate me.   [1 Corinthians 4:6-16]

The way it is formatted; short sentences, a lesser vocabulary, allows it to read as though it was actually written in 2007 (when this was revised), rather than 60AD (roundabout). This is how Tyndale's NT was written, and its how our translations should be written. [Theres a good reason why almost every single translation after Tyndale used Tyndale's work as a base].

It has a sort of poetry of its own, its truly wonderful. I apologise that this review is probably so poorly written. Its late at night and I just wanted to lay some thoughts down before bed. Anyway I commend the NLT to you as a translation you may have overlooked and should probably give some thought to getting. I for one am tired of the bible wars, and am getting out of it, there is no 'best translation', and I am tired of rich publishing companies telling me theirs is best, just so they can get some cash out of me.

God bless
Chris.

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

The Matthew Bible Facsimile.

I dont know whether a Geneva Bible review would have been better recieved. Not many people are even aware that the Matthew Bible ever existed, yet this translation is the Grandaddy of bible translations. Coming right out of William Tyndale's 1534 revision of his New Testament and much of his OT it was combined with Miles Coverdale's work and made into a full bible. This is essentially the first English reformation bible (If you view Wycliffe as a precursor - a type of what was to come, rather than a part of it, although I think he was).

What you are about to see is images of a facsimile, to buy an authentic version would set you back around $150,000, now, I don't have that. So I went to Amazon and got one for much cheaper, this is a high quality facsimile, something I cherish. I got mine for about £51, its selling on Amazon UK for about the same now.

Tyndale is my top bible translator, I love some modern translations, they are definitely flawed in places, and often interpret for the reader, but they are certainly the best of modern biblical scholarship. Sadly they tend to leave behind the faith that was there in the past. I mean, would many of the Bible translators we have today be willing to live the life of William Tyndale, or John Rogers? or even the life of John Wycliffe? I think that those men, show in their lives, their honesty in translation. When I think that Tyndale was also a conditionalist - well that seals the deal for me, I have his 1526 NT and I honestly cannot find a better translation than a bible that is nearly 500 years old. Anyway lets get to the pictures.

 Forgive the flash,

It says: MATTHEW'S BIBLE
             WILLIAM TYNDALE
              MILES COVERDALE
                 JOHN ROGERS


Genuine Leather
Quite supple but most
definitely capable of withstanding the vast amounts of use that it gets from me. This is not thin leather, I will say its not the thickest leather I have used, but it definitely feels substantial in your hand. If you hold a corner it will bend,  and you can do bible yoga with it, but I don't do that very often, not on a £51 bible that I want to be using for the rest of my life. I'm not going to push it too much!

This is very thin card, some people call this paper but it's just slightly above that. I doubt this will last forever, but on the flipside - this isn't an Allan bible, its Hendrickson, who will likely have had to pay loads of money to make this facsimile, and I'm not going to really be bothering with endpapers anyway.


Title page. Not much to say about this, other than how nice it looks!

It looks very nice.

The contents, made for reference more than anything. I would not expect to be using a contents system in this bible.  You will be searching and searching until you find. Its not difficult really if you know where everything is. You may struggle on the apocrypha as I have, but you'll get there. This is a historical document not a Zondervan or a Nelson - or Cambridge or Oxford.

It is nice to know it is there one day if I ever figure it out!


This is one of the reasons that I bought this bible. Its simply the effort that has been made to make this facsimile as close to the original in quality as possible. Honestly, if you love the history of the English bible like I do, you wouldn't hesitate to buy this bible, and work hard to get past the obstruction of the gothic letters.

[The Bible, which is all the holy Scripture: In which are contained the Old and New Testament truly and purely translated into English by Thomas Matthew.

Isaiah 1
Hearken ye heavens and thou Earth give ear: for the Lord speaketh.  1537

Set forth with the Kings most gracious license]



A nice calendar, but with Roman numerals I'm not sure how useful it will be. I may just need more time with it, I notice that every day I use it I get that little bit more fluent. I don't know. But the fact that this much dedication went into it just makes my heart want to burst in thanks to John Rogers. How kind and thoughtful :)

Remember that this was essentially an illegal bible until the King (Henry VIII) was convinced to license it by his bishop. There was no expectation by Rogers that he would allow it.


 The beautiful artwork on the the first page of Genesis.

When I first beheld it, I was aghast at how good the facsimile truly is. If it is any better in the real thing, I would be surprised.

The scene depicts Adam and Eve with all the animals in Eden.

Considering the year this was printed, Theres monkeys, rabbits, lions, even what looks like a bear.

Then we have the sun and the moon, and a cloud showing what may be an angel or God himself looking down from heaven.


As someone who has been reading the bible non stop for 2 years, I pretty much can read the first chapter of Genesis from rote. I think this helps in reading the old gothic lettering, you see familiar words and can kind of figure it out. Then like learning another language you get better and better reading the words, understanding the grammar etc.

Its alot easier being Tyndale's work, after all the KJV OT is about 75% Tyndale. It is different:

(KJV Genesis 1:2 says "and the earth was without form and void")

(MB "The earth was void and empty")

it may simply be language differences, but I think Tyndale went with the Latin Vulgate on this one.


 As you can see its double column.
It also has no verse numbers, as this is before Geneva introduced them in bible translations. Its more difficult to reference than with a modern bible, but its also a little easier to follow than say a versified 1800s bible where chunks of text are split. A KJV is more a reference bible (which is fantastic) when it's like that, but theres much to be said for a paragraphed bible made for reading too. in the 1530s bibles were simply made to be read not referenced - after all much of the time it had to be memorized as you had no idea whether your bible was going to end up on the pyre.

Man I love this bible.

I've tried to ensure that some of these explanatory notes get into the shot. This is Psalm 23, and we can see what is the genesis of the Psalm 23 we know and love.

I won't bother translating it for you, Everyone knows this psalm and I'm assuming you will be able to decipher it.

a hint is that 'u' is 'v' in some places (loving)

I love also love the interpretation here where it says

"Oh let they loving-kindess and mercy follow me all the days of my life THAT I may dwell in the house of the Lord forever"

This is an amazing interpretation: it is by God's mercy and loving kindness that we will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. I don't know of another bible translation that actually says anything like that. the KJV says

"Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." (Psa 23:6 KJV)

I don't know about you, but I find the Matthew translation here - pretty impressive! It just seems to fit so well to me, it just shows how God sustains his people through the Holy Spirit, it also doesn't detract from the KJV either, both beautifully compliment one another, God's goodness is his loving kindness, God IS LOVE, and God IS GOOD.

 
Here we have the New Testament, John 3:16

This is the typical John 3:16 that we all know and love, giving the gospel in a sentence. I know that in todays language the HCSB (God loved the world this way) would be considered by some more "accurate". But in 1537 this is a truly accurate translation. It doesn't mean "so much", but its a "so doing" as in a demonstrative 'so' "This is how God loveth the world".

Hard to describe, but its all about understanding how the word 'so' used to be used, as opposed to the American 'SOOOOO much' kind of way it is used today.



Heres a nice introduction which gives the history of the translation. I have to say, I am a bit of a nitpicker when it comes to fonts, and I am actually glad this is a facsimile in Gothic font rather than made in this font. This sort of font is similar to something you get default in Open Office, if you sat there reading from a font like this you would really get a headache. At least gothic font is pure black, which doesn't hurt your eyes as much as a nice bold font.

The font nearly blends into the page, thats not good.

It does look better in reality however.








THE DEDICATION TO HENRY VIII, SERIOUSLY!!! HENRY VIII!!!! THATS HOW OLD THIS BIBLE IS!!



Okay, finally I wanted to just deal with one of the end notes.

This comes before the discovery of dinosaurs and anything of the sort.

But if you look in any bible today, at Job 40:15 you will see the title of a creature

"Behemoth", now if you look at the note here, it says

"The greatest beast in the earth that is the elephant. Other understand thereby any earthly beast that is great: but unto an elephant do all the properties here recited right well agree, wherefore it leaneth most agreeable to the truth that is the word be signified an elephant"

We then get the same for Leviathan. It says "Leviathan, as diverse learned men expound, signifieth the greatest fish that liveth in the sea, which is a whale".

So, we pretty much have what you would find in any modern bible. The difference being, that in 1537 no one had seen a dinosaur bone. It was written in ignorance by Rogers, but today, we can say that "all the properties here recited right well agree, wherefore it leaneth most agreeable to the truth that is the word be signified a sauropod dinosaur".

Today of course that cannot be the case, as it is well believed and propagandized that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But had John Rogers known about dinosaurs, you can be sure he would have put the greatest beast in the earth, that is "the long necked great dragon" or something similar.

When it comes to Leviathan, what great sea fishes had he to choose from? The biggest he knew was a whale. But no whale I know spews fire from his mouth, today of course we know of creatures that spew explosive acid from their bottoms. We also can say that dragons are capable of spewing fire from their mouths, and we have good candidates for what Dragons actually were - dinosaurs. There is a possibility that some did spew fire - or at least something similar perhaps a gas that interacted with oxygen see here.

Of course I have gone off track.

Is the Matthew Bible usable today - yes, there is no law that says a bible has to have been printed after 1611 to be usable, there are people who use the Geneva Bible today, or Tyndale's facsimile. You could easily use this and no other translation if you wanted, in fact there is a possible Matthew Bible reprint on its way in the next few years if all goes to plan (which no matter what I will be buying).

So yes this is definitely a usable bible. Theres not much difference between it and KJV, but perhaps, with it being more for study than ceremonial church use, it would be easier to read in places. It has many similar renderings, in fact the KJV uses some of the same renderings. For instance, Tyndale refers to the gathering of believers (what we call going to church) as "congregation". When he refers to Pagan temples - he calls them churches. ("robbers of churches." Acts 19:37) The KJV also has this.

Tyndale used this term because he was a reformer, he saw just like Martin Luther and other reformers, that the Catholic church had blinded the eyes and minds of believers, and was not biblical. Tyndale used the term church in that way to SHOW the reader, just what the catholic church was. Whilst calling the biblical assembling of saints the congregation. However both terms can be used interchangeably, Tyndale simply clarifying the rendering, also denouncing the idea of a universal church - after all, when we go to church are we congregating with ALL BELIEVERS? No! Tyndale in 1525 still decimates catholic nonsense today!

Just thought that was something to show just where the KJV came from - this bible - and ultimately Tyndale!  

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Proverbs 5:21 - Free will established.

21 For the ways of a person are in front of the LORD's eyes, and the LORD weighs all that person's paths. (Pro 5:21 NET)



When I was first coming to grips with an omnipotent God, who sees all and knows all. My first question was, "If God knows the future, how could we have free will?". Its a question I had answered prior to discovering this scripture, and a question I hear a lot in my internet ministry.

How could a person, live an entire life, yet God already knows the result. How is that 'free will'? Well King Solomon already had this answered 3000 years ago.

This is where my scientific studies came into being. The theory of multiple path's, apparently every person's decision's creates new paths in the 'multiverse' - or many worlds. There is apparently an infinite number of universes that are created simply by the whim of our hearts 'should I have strawberry or chocolate ice cream?' - apparently that creates two universes. I disagree, but the premise is sound. It does create two theoretical pathways, which the Lord knows. So essentially we do have free will, we have the will to choose, and the Lord knows those choices. He sees them all.

Okay, this still isn't 'free will', at least in the spontaneous "anything can happen" sense, but it certainly gives us the freedom from a one path - robotic, clockwork, universe that many envision as a result of an omnipotent, omniscient God.

The question is, how does this affect us? Well, it certainly increases our perception of God, he is non-linear, in the sense that he doesn't view us from beginning to end in a straight line, but sees our potentiality as well, everything we could do, everything we will do - its all the same. It also explains many decisions made in the Bible which have no seeming rhyme or reason. Why wipe out an entire civilization? Well, God sees the potentiality of that situation, and acts accordingly.

So, even in a 'multipaths' sense God is utterly capable of engineering space and time to his needs, he is in no way beholden - he is the creator of this system. It also affects no doctrine in any way shape or form. Its simply an interpretation of scripture.

I love the idea that God sees every path I would take, perhaps he sees me being born in America instead of Britain, perhaps he sees me become President. Perhaps he sees me being born in Australia and becoming a surfer. Perhaps he sees me getting into drugs and becoming a heroin addict, and in the reverse sees me becoming a Catholic Priest. Suddenly the potential paths are endless, and free will becomes a hindrance rather than a help. Lucky us that we have God to oversee it all.

I like the NEB rendering the most (this is where i discovered the scripture, its PLAIN to see here).

For a man's ways are always in the LORD's sight
who watches for every path that he must take (NEB)

Wednesday, 9 January 2013

New English Bible: My finest quality Bible!

 I bought this bible about 7 months ago. I have always been a bit of a bible freak - ever since I got saved in early 2011. Different translations, different bindings of the same translation. I just love it. It's that thoroughly modern quest to find the 'perfect bible'. After getting over my KJV obsession that arose after listening to Steven Anderson. I am now back to normal - after something of an 'episode'. Anyway, I do need a reading bible, which I decided would be the Revised English Bible. But I had to have a look at my old favourite, the New English Bible.

 The leather is Calfskin, a fine calfskin as well, not the modern stiff as a board junk that many bibles have nowadays. This has obviously been worked, and thus used alot, you can tell because the India paper has yellowed somewhat, indicating this bible has been open. Also when I first got it the lining was detached from the leather, resulting in me using (oh noes) superglue to glue it back down, bad behaviour, but it worked!
 Okay, I have no idea why but the picture is upside down. Anyway, you can see the beautiful lining, very very nice looking. If you look to the right, you can see where my supergluing resulted in a little bit of damage (due to me trying to scrape a bit of dry glue away).

 
 A bit blurry due to my haste in photography. If you can make it out its a list of the denominations involved. This is an ecumenical bible, which some may see as good, and others 'the Devil's work'. Personally, I know the KJV was an ecumenical work, meant to appease all the various denominations. For better or worse, the NEB is what it is, the only problem I have with it is its level of interpretation, and the influx of 'modern' scholarly influence.

Quite a bit of ghosting here, but this is due to the flash, when you are actually reading it under normal light, its absolutely fine.

The preface explains alot of the 'iffy' features in the bible, transposition, multi-denominational input etc.
 Concise readers guide, its actually quite helpful, it just explains some of the theological terms, helps a new believer understand some of the stuff in the bible that may be a bit jarring.

I've actually used it myself, in this blog! Thats how good it is. It's like a concise guide to biblical theology, a concise readers guide!
 For a size comparison I decided to put it side by side with my Collin's reference bible. It's not a big bible, about the same size as a Pitt Minion (as thou shalt see momentarily).

It's no hassle to hold in your hand, its very light, it probably weighs about the same as a Pitt Minion. Needless to say, it has been my go-to bible, it isn't at the moment because I'm a creationist, and this bible interprets certain passages in light of modern science (referring to behemoth in Job 40 as a crocodile, and amending the text to suit). This doesn't mean it isn't a reading bible, I would use it for that, just not for doctrinal purposes - If you understand what I mean.


 Size comparison with a Pitt Minion (NKJV). I thought to myself, what is the most popular bible binding, it must be Pitt Minion, everyone knows what what of them is like.

So here you go.

Pitt Minion top, NEB bottom.
 Okay, another size comparison, as you can see these bros are almost identical in size. The big difference is in font size, the Pitt minion has a 6pt and I think the NEB has 8pt? I can't be sure. but there you go!

This is a photo I made yesterday (Jan 8th) I have recently wiped my computer, and I came across the original Ebay photo (below). 
 All it took was a lot of olive oil (be careful! do not use too much) a lot of love, and some wax! and it went from dried out, orange, to shiny, soft, supple mahogany. Honestly these photos do not do justice to the beauty of my bible. When I first saw this photo on ebay, I thought that was the natural colour, to find out what the actual colour was, was a bonus. Had that bible sold on ebay been the dark brown I managed to recover, instead of £16 you could easily have imagined £36 for it. Its as good as new, in my eyes at least.



When it comes to the translation, its good, its 'scholarly', so in a few places the non-salvatory doctrines (creationism for instance) have had an artistic, perhaps literary evaluation before being put in print. Theres also a feature called transposition, where verses are moved around to sound better. This is certainly something to be considered before using this translation. To find out more the kind of influence on this translation, I would suggest having a look at one of the cambridge bible commentaries - When I read one, I was infuriated, they don't view the bible as the word of God, but as an ancient work of literature. At many points, they blatantly say something to the effect of "The bible may say this, BUT...." Which to me shows just how irreverent modern scholarship is. However, the translation used in that commentary WAS the NEB, so the fact that the commentators are contradicting the bible shows that it is still good for use. I find that the literary beauty of the NEB far outweighs any concerns with its accuracy. It's not based on the Tyndale line (Tyndale is my favourite overall translation by the way) which I think is a plus, because trying to fit Tyndale's language and sentence structure into a modern language setting is fruitless. It may sound like Tyndale, and it may sound more modern THAN Tyndale. But its some weird hybrid. The NEB (and now the REB) is elevated language, but in its own right, not because its an update of Tyndale. Being free from those bonds allows it free-reign to express itself. Now, I would be careful to take doctrine from it, in fact the NEB was never meant to be a stand-alone translation, but was meant to be a commentary used in conjunction with the KJV. That is how it should be used. You can get an NEB single column from Ebay for less than £5, something like this is much rarer, but they do come up every now and again. I would say, enjoy it, the NEB was a pioneer, the first dynamic translation, and for many the first truly understandable translation. It may have some 'rebellious' translation choices, but many admire it just for that. Read it, compare, and most of all, enjoy!



                                   I still can't believe how beautiful that leather is!


p.s. just a few pictures of the layout.




Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Alex Jones on Piers Morgan: Making Patriots look bad



What on earth did we witness last night? So many questions. Alex Jones was on Piers Morgan's CNN show, ranting and raving like a lunatic, whilst Piers just sat there and took it.

Of course, this is a victory for the truth movement...of course...

Here are some questions I have:

Why was Alex on the show?
Why did he shout, and rant so much?
Why was this allowed to happen?
Why did he threaten a revolution?
Why did he challenge Piers to a boxing match?
Why does anyone think Alex is on 'our side'?

Lets answer these questions.

Why was Alex on the show?

Alex was on the show for one reason, the station his show is on is an affiliate of time warner, he is not an independent broadcaster. Alex is as much a part of the system as Piers Morgan. When you think in terms of association, Alex is to Warner as Glenn Beck is to Fox. He fulfills a purpose, and attracts a fringe audience, an audience that pays subscription fees to GCN (via prisonplanet.tv). So Alex was on the show because he is a 'TV', presenter. He's like a specialist reporter, a TV personality and an agent provocateur all rolled into one.
For an example of an independent broadcaster, think William Cooper, who did it all by himself.

Why did he shout, and rant so much?

When someone watches the news, they expect certain things, usually - cool, calm, objective reporting. This is why they watch the news. People who like shouting will watch WWE, and we all know thats fake right? Imagine watching a political debate and Romney starts screaming in Obama's face. Obama of course just sits there, without fear, and takes it. This is taking the higher ground. Jones was there to look bad, and to make Piers look good. Jones was there to look like an idiot, a bully, and a psycho. Jones was there to be the patsy. Now whether or not what he said was true, it was the delivery that mattered. I cannot state this enough, Jones is an agent of the system, not of truth.

Why was this allowed to happen?

For exactly the reason William Cooper said "Because they haven't got the guns out of the hands of the American people". I'm not saying that Jones will single handedly bring down gun ownership. But he is a cog in a big machine. The idea is to uniformly present all patriots and gun owners as being like Alex Jones. Loud, boisterous mentally unhinged bullies. If anyone thinks that the founding fathers were anything like Jones you are sadly mistaken. If Jones was a founding father, the revolution would likely have never happened.

Why did he threaten a revolution?

One thing people consider to be terrorism (thanks to law and order which I watched yesterday) is any threat of violence. There is a movement that would like ANY behavior which threatens violence as an act of terror - especially when politically motivated. Jones even presents patriots as being potentially listed as terrorists on various government hit lists. Jones is an agent provocateur, he wants a revolution, he won't be fighting in it, he'll be watching from his government safe-house. But by threatening a revolution, he has now purposely given legitimacy to government labelling patriots as terrorists - enemies of the state if you like. Remember, people like Jones and Icke have ALWAYS said 'no violence, only peaceful means'. Why the sudden change? Because whatever is coming, is COMING soon.
Do not fall for their garbage. Remember what the average person wants (straight from the bible) PEACE AND SECURITY, you threaten that and in their eyes you are THE ENEMY.

Why did he challenge Piers to a boxing match?

To be a bully, nothing more. Piers is no threat to him. ergo all Patriots are loudmouth bullies.

Why does anyone think that Alex is on 'our side'?

Faith, hope, and love. They have faith that he is, they have no hope other than he is, and they love him. They want a leader, they  are sheep who need a shepherd. You see, Alex is a typical cult leader. He tells you that you cannot trust anyone but him, its addictive, I need to tune in to the Alex Jones show to get some truth. I need to hear what HE says about todays news. I've been there! But he also says that the news is full of lies, whilst printing out 3 dozen news articles every day. He won't touch religion, yet claims to be a christian, yet puts David Icke on every couple of months to fill his listeners heads with New Age crap. He is self-promoting, arrogant, egotistical, a pathological liar (just search youtube to find a hundred or more videos of Jones lies exposed). You can go through all the 'in the movement' naive arguments against Jones, but to see the truth, you have to stop listening, stop caring about him and his show, move beyond it and realise that this man has been on the air for just shy of 20 years and pretty much (90%) every prediction (excluding 9/11 - which was not his prediction) has turned out to be false. He was using the same shlock in 1996 as he is today!

This interview, is nothing but MORE evidence that this guy is a fraud. Look at his face when Piers is introducing him, [The full interview here] at around the 30 second mark. Is that the face of a sincere individual - people would say, 'judge what he says, not his expressions', I say, judge him by his fruits yes! But judge his sincerity too - works without faith is as dead as faith without works! Judge this man by his fruits - and ask yourself, what actually are his fruits? What has he done for anyone? video after video, interview after interview, subscription after subscription. This man has made millions, and for what? Be very wary.

Remember this scripture: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15