I remember when I was born-again, it seemed as though a furnace deep within me had been ignited, like a part of me came alive that had been dormant. I was “Spirit-filled” and the whole world seemed brand new. This was not the result of some psychological, evangelical fervor. I was alone....at home in bed..... when God made Himself real to me to my great shock. (See my testimony in the July 2007 archives). Up to that point, I had been agnostic, not a believer in a personal God who speaks. I trembled in His Presence. The “fear of the LORD” has never left, because He has never left me....even during the dry times of testing. This “fear” is not a fear of punishment if I do wrong, but a healthy respect for my Father in Heaven. To know Him is to love Him. He is not a cruel ogre as depicted by Atheists and aberrant Christian theologies. Nor is he synonymous with santa or the tooth fairy. Those who scorn cannot possibly know the LORD God I have come to know, love, and profoundly respect.
I am so grieved to hear of the seduction to Atheism that is going on in our day. Atheism seems to be like a contagious plague going around. Sincere Christians, without the apologetics to refute, are being swept away by the likes of Dawkins, etc., making shipwreck of their faith. An example from one of the over 800 Atheist bloggers on the Internet these days:
A Broken Friendship
I do admit -- sometimes I miss god.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
Oh what peace we often forfeit! Oh what needless pains we bare.
All because we do not carry, everything to God in prayer.
My troubles would melt away.
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend
This is heartbreaking. I sensed the anointing of the Spirit of God all over this confession, especially the words of the hymn, words that are faithful and true.
This was written by a closet Atheist. Did he research counter-arguments for the information that put doubts in his mind? Once doubt entered his mind, did he allow it to fester? I have only begun to read his blog installments so I do not know the whole story. He keeps his atheism hidden as a “dirty little secret.” He cannot share with his own children what he really believes. And while sad, it is in a way a good thing. Because God DOES exist, and has stern words for those who harm a child’s faith (Matt. 18).
There are a few good apologists on the scene these days. Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, some Creation Science and Intelligent Design proponents, etc. Yet their theologies are somewhat askew, and they do not always tackle the toughest questions. There is an urgent need for a new breed of apologist in our times, someone who knows the Bible and modern-day science well and can harmonize the seeming discrepancies in Scripture as well as refute Evolution theories and errant theologies. We need independent voices who are not shackled to a particular denomination or dogma. May the LORD raise them up....and soon!
Meanwhile, those who wish to avoid shipwreck of their faith should avoid these popular atheist books and videos like the proverbial plague. It is like entering shark-infested waters without a protective cage.
The “reluctant atheists” that I have encountered first lost faith in the integrity of God’s Word. It is vital to be assured that God has preserved His Word and we have it today in our hands. Since the myriad Bible translations are contradictory in many places, there must be a true line of manuscript evidence and a counterfeit. This is exactly the case. Rabbinical and Church councils did not give us the Bible. God superintended fallible men and made sure His Word survived to all generations as promised.
See Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)
Any doubts about what this Psalm promises can be cleared up by reading Steven Avery’s posts at the AV1611 forum. (See my sidebar link.) His research evidence is overwhelming that God promised to preserve His words. We have them today in the King James Version. The attacks on this Bible are relentless by both Christians and non-Christians. All I can say is read it for yourself, daily, from cover to cover. God’s Spirit is all over these pages. There is not a doubt in my mind about it....and it just may clear up your doubts when you discover the truth for yourself.
With direction from the LORD, and encouragement from my son (who happens to turn 40 tomorrow on so-called “Darwin Day”), I am engaging these atheists on their own turf......atheist blogs. I covet prayer support from those who read this blog. I do not want to be a stumbling block to others in providing links to atheist resources from my site but have come to the conclusion that the curious will find their way there anyway in this Internet age of easy accessibility to all kinds of information. So from now on, I will allow my friends of diverse persuasions to post comments at my blog, and I will allow links to their blogs. Be forewarned and circumspect and prayed up if you visit such sites. I am on a “special mission” and have no proclivity towards atheism. Those who waver and are not extremely secure in their faith and reading their Bibles daily should not wade into waters they may not be able to withstand.
7 comments:
Hello Tandi,
Even if Psalm 12:7 is about the "imrot elohim" ("words of God") it is a very far stretch to apply this phrase to the 66 books of the Protestant canon. The concept of the "word of God" as canonical scripture is not well attested to in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is very likely that the phrase should refer to the promises (imrot) of God.
Additionally, it is not logical (or even ethical) to ask someone to believe in something that is smoke and vapor (false). The King James is nice but it based on inferior manuscripts. Consider reading the other side. Consider, for a start, works by such as Carson against the KJV-only rabbit trail. Then consider reading works on textual criticism by conservative scholars. Even within a biblically theistic context, there is overwhelming reason to shelve the KJV as "just another translation" albeit one based on weaker textual foundations. Furthermore, a translation is a translation. And just as you would agree that any other English translation (aside from the KJV) is a perversion, so is the KJV. It bastardizes the languages from which it translates...bastardizes and perverts. Funny how you think you hear God in the KJV English when you have little experience with how the English compares to the Hebrew and Greek. Maybe you should reserve judgment for a year or two more, until you learn Hebrew.
Hello Scrip,
I always appreciate your visits to my blog and your comments, even when I do not agree with them.
The King James is NOT based on inferior manuscripts. Just the opposite is true concerning modern Bible versions. I have read Carson and White. Which books have you read on the controversy besides Riplinger? There are many well-researched and scholarly books and articles available,
Dan utiliized the Masoretic Text to compile his Biblical Chronology. The Septuagint would not work due to its errors. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are obviously corrupt. By the way, Steve would like to know specifically which Masoretic emendations you are referring to before responding to your challenge.
Can God not commune with me through the English words of my KJV? He can and does. Today I just read the name Zuriel. It reminded me of you and that I needed to respond to your comment. : )
I would love to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew. I anticipate gleaning further insight and nuance. How about giving me some encouragement and practice by sending me a practice Hebrew sentence for me to decipher from time to time. I would like that. Maybe you can be my Hebrew tutor.
I am still thinking about and researching the tabernacle covering question. And I just came across the word Shoshannim in Psalms yesterday. I must have hid these words in my heart from my Bible reading as you and Eric suggest.
[To the Chief Musician upon Shoshannim....Psalms 69 and 45. Does this give you another clue to the meaning?]
Hello Tandi,
I will prepare a post on my blog about the 134 emendations by the soferim relating to the name YHWH. The fact that they are corroborated by the DSS and LXX is very significant can cannot be challenged. Period (without ad homimen arguments against "sectarian" texts).
Tandi, the KJV is based on inferior manuscripts. Yes, the LXX has chronological information that is difficult to work with. This is common knowledge. Josephus, though, did not know that and tried to make his chronology based on it. It is likely that are different agendas hidden in the chronological cues of the texts--the MT would be no exception. But, this does not negate the textual witness of the LXX especially when it is confirmed by other non-LXX texts.
I welcome Steve to challenge me and show me how the KJV is God's Word when there is no God and the KJV is, though nice, a textual barrage of inferiority. Head in the sand...KJVism is a way to avoid the realities beyond. It is self-serving position that has been given abundant death blows.
Hello Scrip,
This will be an interesting challenge. I look forward to the scholastic duel.
Here is what you said a while back:
The masoretes record 134 instances where they intentionally changed the name of God (YHWH) to Elohim or Adonai in the process of de-anthropomorphizing a text. Often the original placement of YHWH is evident from the LXX or the DSS where the change (a subtraction from the "word of God" if you will) is in the King James...
I brought it up on the forum and this was Steve's reply:
First things first. Ask him precisely and exactly what is recorded by the Masoretes, not what is the Bullinger interpretation of Ginsburg or what is the conjecture or explanation of a higher criticism modern scholar. The primary source info is very helpful when you hit such theories.
First, how many verses are we examining ? He seems to be saying that the King James Bible has LORD in dozens of verses where it is not in the Masoretic Texts. Could we have a list of those verses ? Is he 'demonstrating' the first claim about 134 verses by giving a case that looks at 134, 100, 50, 10, 2 verses - or what ?
Hello Tandi,
I am not stating that the difference is between the KJV and the MT. The MT is at fault in these places; hence the KJV use of the MT is also faulty.
interesting post. I would love to follow you on twitter.
Hello Anonymous,
I am not on Twitter but there are discussions on my facebook page (and others) you may be interested in following. We could dialogue by email first if you like.
Shalom,
Tandi
Post a Comment