Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
228

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -29 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

Breaking News All | United Prayer | SA Center | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  7/24/2021
TUESDAY, AUG 18, 2009  |  227 comments
Calvin's 'true heirs' thrive in Dutch Bible Belt
A 90-minute drive from liberal Amsterdam, a pocket of orthodox Calvinism thrives where women shun trousers, swearing is banned and television is scorned as an ungodly intrusion.

Pious sobriety dictates politics, fashion and other aspects of daily life in the town of Staphorst, nestled near the top end of the so-called Dutch Bible Belt that stretches from Zeeland in the southwest to northeastern Overijssel.

"People here see themselves as the true heirs of John Calvin," the reformist Protestant theologian born 500 years ago last month, 82-year-old Jan de Wolde told AFP of the town he moved to 54 years ago and has written widely about. ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
news.yahoo.com
COMMENTS  locked  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 227 user comment(s)
News ItemSystem Notice
SermonAudio.com
This forum thread has been closed by SermonAudio.
No further comments are permitted for this news item.

News Item9/2/09 5:34 AM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
There are still many in the UK who hold to the doctrines of totally Free and totally Sovereign Grace. The poor lost sinner is far worse off than he imagines, even when under conviction of sin. For he is dead, blind, deaf, and has no desire for God or godliness. His bent is towards sin, and he considers not his end, nor the fact that he is repulsive to God by nature and by action. But praise the Lord that he is able to remedy the situation, and does do so in many lives, bringing about repentance, faith, and recreating the sinful creature as a new creature in Christ Jesus.

It is a shame that many brethren and churches are being conned by all this modern stuff, including Bible versions, wasting all their money on new Bibles, new hymn books, new seating, new projector, new screen, under floor heating etc. Oh where oh where is the money for evangelising the poor lost sinner who would be happy just to have Jesus and naught else?

Christianity is KNOWING Christ. To have him as the BEST FRIEND a sinner could possibly want. To be saved by GRACE freely and eternally, and all because of a sovereign choice made from eternity. As scripture saith, "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." Some do come to Christ, and we know why, brethren, eh?

227

News Item9/1/09 9:54 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
Jim Lincoln wrote:
[URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF]]]Erasmus and the Textus Receptus by William W. Combs[/URL],

[URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf]]] The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only position[/URL]

[URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL].

Jim Lincoln,

Are you a follower of men or of the Holy Spirit? It is odd how you constantly pit men against the Scriptures. That's very telling... As for me, if God enables me, I will side with the Scriptures against any man who speaks contrary to it.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

"The wise [men] are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom [is] in them?" Jeremiah 8:9

John UK,

Very good post 9/1/09 4:00 AM.

226

News Item9/1/09 4:30 PM
Tollemache  Find all comments by Tollemache
Jim Lincoln wrote:
I think someone meant the "imperfect" parliament authorized tool of the state. Now, admittedly the Geneva Bible had too many comments of a theological nature (though probably most I would agree with), but as a Bible itself, it was the superior to the toady to the Catholics that the AV is,

The Church of England even realized that the AV, had to be corrected and modernized, with the ERV/ASV, because

One of the verses that translators of the AV, q.v.,......to justify their poor translation, but perhaps I'll have to agree even a poor translation that is sincerely and honestly done, can still be considered a Bible.
I would hope that Holy Spirit would lead many of you to the conclusion that reached by Dr. Wallace,

By His Grace, I can still praise God for His bringing me out of the mire of the NIV et al, into the wonderful light of the KJV.
When I studied Greek at college I could see that comparing the Greek with the moderns was like trying to solve a constant puzzle.
The Bible that has proved essential and productive for the last four centuries to the ordinary Christian is the KJV.
Praise be to God!
225

News Item9/1/09 3:00 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
I think someone meant the "imperfect" parliament authorized tool of the state. Now, admittedly the Geneva Bible had too many comments of a theological nature (though probably most I would agree with), but as a Bible itself, it was the superior to the toady to the Catholics that the AV is, [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF]]]Erasmus and the Textus Receptus by William W. Combs[/URL], The Church of England even realized that the AV, had to be corrected and modernized, with the ERV/ASV, because

1 Corinthians 14
9So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air.

One of the verses that translators of the AV, q.v., [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf]]] The Preface to the King James Version And the King James Only position[/URL] to justify their poor translation, but perhaps I'll have to agree even a poor translation that is sincerely and honestly done, can still be considered a Bible.

I would hope that Holy Spirit would lead many of you to the conclusion that reached by Dr. Wallace, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL].

224

News Item9/1/09 4:00 AM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
Mike, your posts are getting as bad as Jim's on this subject, and I hope you don't tell your pastor what you believe about comparing Bibles and reaching the truth by the Holy Ghost.

Your church's statement of faith declares that the Bible is the SOLE authority in all matters of faith and practice. But in relying on the Holy Ghost to show you which of the ten Bibles you are comparing is correct in the verse you are studying, you make the whole process SUBJECTIVE and MYSTICAL. I'm not talking here about interpretation but translation, seeing as they all differ.

The idea is to have ONE Bible, trust it as having been translated correctly, and formulate every doctrine and church practice from the simple teaching of God's word.

The Holy Ghost has a hard time convincing you of the truth of the doctrines of Total Inability and Irresistable Grace and Effectual Calling, so I fear that your thinking the Spirit will enlighten you as to which of several Bibles you've got laid out in front of you is correct in each instance is a non-starter.

p.s. Stick to the King James Bible, and you'll soon be able to read Frenchie's Institutes without too much bother.

In the meantime, see the clear error in Mark 1:2-3, and let me know what you think about that, eh?

223

News Item8/31/09 9:01 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
Duh wrote:
Mike
1)So you agree that the "Scholars'" aim of a text approaching the autographs is fallacious? Especially given that there are in excess of 6,000 differences in the NT alone!

2)Your position seems to be stuff the textual issues. This is just a complete waste of time. The truth is preserved by comparing scripture with scripture.

3)And if I am right in this, then don't you have to sure that you have the Scriptures in the first place to place any confidence in the comparison process? Or are you saying that this process guarantees to overcome all the textual difficulties?

4)Ever tried studying the Good News Bible to prove your theory?

1)I don't remember agreeing or disagreeing with this. How many of the "6000 differences" change a doctrine to mean a contradictory doctrine?

2) More or less it is a waste of time for most. Was Scripture written in the vulgar tongue for scholars? Don't you have faith that the Holy Spirit is able? Or is he limited by specific words?

3)My confidence is in the Lord. If he wants me to know truth, it WILL be made known. Sovereignty, right? Is this possible? Or must I pray in the olde tongue to be heard?

4a) No. 4b) It's not my theory. Is it a translation or a paraphrase?

222

News Item8/31/09 8:28 PM
Michael Hranek | Endicott, New York  Find all comments by Michael Hranek
Mike wrote:
No need, John. As you pointed out, all you need is a man-authorized english correcting dictionary to go along with the perfect Parliament-authorized version, and you're good to go!
Or on the other hand, we could do comparative Bible study and allow the Holy Spirit to bring us to all truth. Nah..too radical.
Mike NY
Good Post. Amen! and Thanks
221

News Item8/31/09 6:26 PM
Duh  Find all comments by Duh
Mike wrote:
No need, John. As you pointed out, all you need is a man-authorized english correcting dictionary to go along with the perfect Parliament-authorized version, and you're good to go!
Or on the other hand, we could do comparative Bible study and allow the Holy Spirit to bring us to all truth. Nah..too radical.
Mike

So you agree that the "Scholars'" aim of a text approaching the autographs is fallacious? Especially given that there are in excess of 6,000 differences in the NT alone!

Your position seems to be stuff the textual issues. This is just a complete waste of time. The truth is preserved by comparing scripture with scripture.

And if I am right in this, then don't you have to sure that you have the Scriptures in the first place to place any confidence in the comparison process? Or are you saying that this process guarantees to overcome all the textual difficulties?

Ever tried studying the Good News Bible to prove your theory?

220

News Item8/31/09 5:14 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
John UK wrote:
---
Let us talk about the TSB 2009 version. The Turnips Study Bible. Amen? All right so far?
Now you (or your favourite scholar) analyses my Bible, and you say that it contains errors, and you can ennumerate them, and point them out.
---
No need, John. As you pointed out, all you need is a man-authorized english correcting dictionary to go along with the perfect Parliament-authorized version, and you're good to go!

Or on the other hand, we could do comparative Bible study and allow the Holy Spirit to bring us to all truth. Nah..too radical.

219

News Item8/31/09 3:48 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
Jim Lincoln wrote:
Hmmm, a couple of comments, I don't think all modern versions are without error......
Ahem

Now Jim you really don't see yet how incredibly ridiculous is your comment, but maybe if I help you out a bit, I sure hope you will see how the devil has knockered your little grey cells.

Let us talk about the TSB 2009 version. The Turnips Study Bible. Amen? All right so far?

Now you (or your favourite scholar) analyses my Bible, and you say that it contains errors, and you can ennumerate them, and point them out. Amen so far?

So then, either you or your favourite scholar could correct all those errors in my Bible and produce..........

A PERFECT BIBLE

So my question to you is this: WHERE ON EARTH IS THIS PERFECT BIBLE? Because as soon as someone says that a certain Bible has errors, they are claiming that perfection is possible simply by correcting the errors.

However, as I explained to Mike, all the modern scholars are SILENT on this point, which makes them..........

BIBLE UNBELIEVERS

I sure hope you can see this, Jim Lincoln.

218

News Item8/31/09 3:45 PM
Bynton  Find all comments by Bynton
Jim Lincoln wrote:
Hmmm, a couple of comments, I don't think all modern versions are without error, some have more or less, many of them
Jim
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit has used the KJV as the Sword of the Spirit over these last four centuries to build His Church and convert Christians?
If you do then why critisize the Sword, the chosen means of conversion, by the Spirit?
Also why is it necessary, in your thinking, to change or modify the Sword, as has been done in these last fifty or so years by changing the contents?
Do you think the Holy Spirit has diminished in power?

Psalm 56:10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.

217

News Item8/31/09 3:42 PM
mlw  Find all comments by mlw
Jim Lincoln wrote:
by the way are you fellows using a gutted version of it, without Preface, marginal notes, and Apocrypha? Then it isn't an authentic AV!
The Bibles below have included the Apocrypha. Do you think it was right they did this?

The Net Bible includes the Deutero-Canonicals/
Apocrypha

Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha:

“In other editions of the NET Bible these books will be placed between the Old and New Testaments in their own distinct section just as a number of other Protestant Bibles have done (for example, the NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE, NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION, and the King James Version for much of it history)…”
[URL=http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm]]]Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha[/URL]

Septuagint - LXX … includes the Apocrypha

ESV w/ Apocrypha

“Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568)… and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture.”

216

News Item8/31/09 3:11 PM
Written in Heaven  Find all comments by Written in Heaven
Jim Lincoln wrote:
I don't think all modern versions are without error...
If all the Bibles have errors as you say then how do you know what the Lord saith? How come nobody can get it right?
215

News Item8/31/09 3:00 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Hmmm, a couple of comments, I don't think all modern versions are without error, some have more or less, many of them, [URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]Why the NASB?[/URL], just have a lot less than the AV, [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf]]]Errors in the King James Version?[/URL]

I would also have to add for the TBS study guide does it give you the meaning for "Thou, Thine, ye" etc. Actually knowing that part of Elizabethan English would help, but of course the best thing is to have a Ryrie KJV study Bible.

As I've said before, I don't really care (that much, I will raise one eyebrow ) if like or prefer the AV, if you say it's better than the others, I will raise two eyebrows, but if you say it has to be used the NASB, the original NIV, or for that matter ERV and ASV, and people who use them aren't Christians, then some of your more rational friends should read, [URL=http://www.mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/openmind.html]]]Opening the Closed Mind[/URL], just change the word, "organization" to "KJV".

214

News Item8/31/09 1:40 PM
John UK | Wales  Contact via emailFind all comments by John UK
dEAR bRO mIKE nEW yORK

I'm not certain what your point was, but it may have been that the English word has changed meaning and thus causes confusion among those who spend little time searching out the scriptures.

As a companion to my Bible, I have a little booklet from the TBS called "A Bible word list and daily reading scheme". This is also in the back of many of their Bibles. This is what it says, and which I find very helpful:

naught, naughty
= worthless, bad
found five times in the whole Bible in
2 Kings 2:19, Proverbs 6:12, 17:4, 20:14, Jeremiah 24:2.

In this booklet there are hundreds of ancient words explained like:

heretofore = before, previously
implead = accuse, plead against
privily = secretly
strait = narrow
sottish = foolish
trim = arrange carefully
usward = toward us
doctor = teacher
ephah = about eight gallons
forum = market place
gainsay = contradict
laud = praise
meet = suitable, fit
meat = food of any kind
mete = measure

and so on.

Get one of these booklets and all your confusions will be over. Failing that, get a modern version where the only changes are to these ancient words.....oh, sorry Mike, no-one's been clever enough to achieve that yet.

And if they did, all the old hymns would have to go as well.

213

News Item8/31/09 11:08 AM
But Hey  Find all comments by But Hey
Mike wrote:
See how the KJV takes the fig metaphor for Judah, but is written as though the moral conditions (naughty, evil) applies to the fig? This causes confusion.
"Evil" - As referred to at the end of V3, is the Hebrew word "ro-ah" = this defined is - badness (as marring), physically OR morally.

At V2 "naughty/bad" both originate from the same root Hebrew word as 'evil' above.

Consequently this means that "rottenness" (NASB) is inadequate to properly define the original statement.

212

News Item8/31/09 10:41 AM
Check this out  Find all comments by Check this out
James White's blog includes an article by Colin Smith which reads:

"Textual scholars are unanimous in their agreement that textual criticism applied to the extant manuscripts is necessary if the original readings of the New Testament are ever to be fully recovered. Those who hold to the view that only the King James Version of the Bible is the normative text of the church cannot be considered among rational, textual scholars. This position posits a 17th century English version as the only infallible Word of God, and is, therefore, based more on tradition, misinformation, and conspiracy than on real scholarly textual research.

Precisely how textual criticism should be applied, particularly with regard to the types of evidence discussed previously, and which manuscripts should form the basis of the reconstructed New Testament are hotly disputed issues.."

So we have a better science (if we can call it that), and even though the so called experts are divided and "hotly dispute" what is to be done with all the different texts extant, we have to believe them when they say that no matter what translation and no matter what text, and how they all differ, we are still to hold them all forth as "The Holy Bible"! Ha! and then we wonder that the World derides the Christian faith! :u

211

News Item8/31/09 10:29 AM
Flaberghasted  Find all comments by Flaberghasted
Mike wrote:
I think you missed the point. But your response is telling enough.
Interesting how different it is when others use the same method I did(words without context) to "prove" a version brings confusion, or false doctrine. Funny how the argument can shift from the need for each word to be precise to "..mindless individuals who have to be spoonfed every morsel." No double standard there, is there? Of course, you can always run away to the text issue. It's so much easier to hide there, than deal with what the version's words actually say and mean in context of other verses. Even a naughty fig is understood in proper context.
I think your whole line of argument is telling!

You should get yourself an OED which shows the full etymology for each word. "Naughty" (from naught) in Elizabethan times meant "worthless, bad" as well as "wicked". So your argument is a red herring!

210

News Item8/31/09 9:37 AM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
Flaberghasted wrote:
Only to mindless individuals who have to be spoonfed every morsel.
Is this the best you can come up with?!
It is interesting that you concentrate on matters of translation, rather than on the underlying texts where the differences are innumerable, and not inconsequential!
I think you missed the point. But your response is telling enough.

Interesting how different it is when others use the same method I did(words without context) to "prove" a version brings confusion, or false doctrine. Funny how the argument can shift from the need for each word to be precise to "..mindless individuals who have to be spoonfed every morsel." No double standard there, is there? Of course, you can always run away to the text issue. It's so much easier to hide there, than deal with what the version's words actually say and mean in context of other verses. Even a naughty fig is understood in proper context.

209

News Item8/31/09 7:29 AM
Flaberghasted  Find all comments by Flaberghasted
Mike wrote:
Just for fun, thought I might try presenting evidence as the only folk do:
...See how the KJV takes the fig metaphor for Judah, but is written as though the moral conditions (naughty, evil) applies to the fig? This causes confusion.
Only to mindless individuals who have to be spoonfed every morsel.

Is this the best you can come up with?!

It is interesting that you concentrate on matters of translation, rather than on the underlying texts where the differences are innumerable, and not inconsequential!

208
There are a total of 227 user comments displayedSubscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more | last


Rev. Clayton Spronk
Atonement: Taking Away Sin

The Doctrines Of Grace
Sunday - AM
Faith Protestant Reformed
Play! | MP4 | RSS

Our Good King Jesus
John Pittman Hey

Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Dr. Joel Beeke
Jesus Applying Jordan's..

Heritage Reformed Congregation
Sunday - AM
Transcript!Play! | MP3

Dr. James M. Phillips
All About The Devil & His..

Dr. Jim on Mission Field
Discover The Word With Dr...
Video!Play! | MP4

Leon King
The Kingdom of Heaven..

Kingdom Series, LKing-2021
Hidden Hills Grace Baptist
Play! | MP3

Rev. Nate Decker
Saved By Grace (1): Chosen..

Saved By Grace
Grandville Protestant...
Play! | MP3

Sermon: #3 The Fruit of The Spirit
Dr. James M. Phillips

SPONSOR | 4,400+

SPONSOR




SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting New!
Listen Line New!
Events | Notices
Transcription
Billboards | Biz Cards
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

TECH TALK
Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06
Copyright © 2021 SermonAudio.