- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
- 主题发起人 小葡萄
- 发布时间 2012-10-19
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
看了各位的辩论，都很精彩。 恰好我看过这些提及的讲座，有点想法，请赐教。
这些讲座提供了比较开放的思维方式，不能说没有任何主观性。但是基本上还是用事实说话，用逻辑对比的方式让这些高等学府的优秀学生自己思考。 比如有一讲教授说为什么他和他的同事们认为，新约中被普遍接受是PAUL写的某一部书，肯定不是PAUL写的。 他从不同PAUL书信中希腊文的写作习惯，使用长短句的频率， 喜欢用排比句阐述还是用喜欢用警句， 对各教会长老的称呼， 对未来事件的判断出入等等各方面的不同，来证实这两本书不可能出于同一个作者之手。
类似的例子有很多。我想对于一个中立的人，一个上了耶鲁大学的学生，不会是那种轻易被洗脑的人。 教授提出的更多的，是方法，是思维方式， 而不是把基督教描黑。 他们一辈子研究这个，我觉得没有必要把这种斗争意识一如既往地传承给学生。 如果有荒谬的地方，听讲的学生一定会提出不同意见。何况台下还有来自各种宗教背景的学生。
所以我认为，用阴谋论来解释所有研究基督教的学者的动机，似乎太过牵强了。
当然，欢迎不同意见。 事情总是会越辩越明白的。 谢谢。
看了各位的辩论，都很精彩。 恰好我看过这些提及的讲座，有点想法，请赐教。
这些讲座提供了比较开放的思维方式，不能说没有任何主观性。但是基本上还是用事实说话，用逻辑对比的方式让这些高等学府的优秀学生自己思考。 比如有一讲教授说为什么他和他的同事们认为，新约中被普遍接受是PAUL写的某一部书，肯定不是PAUL写的。 他从不同PAUL书信中希腊文的写作习惯，使用长短句的频率， 喜欢用排比句阐述还是用喜欢用警句， 对各教会长老的称呼， 对未来事件的判断出入等等各方面的不同，来证实这两本书不可能出于同一个作者之手。
类似的例子有很多。我想对于一个中立的人，一个上了耶鲁大学的学生，不会是那种轻易被洗脑的人。 教授提出的更多的，是方法，是思维方式， 而不是把基督教描黑。 他们一辈子研究这个，我觉得没有必要把这种斗争意识一如既往地传承给学生。 如果有荒谬的地方，听讲的学生一定会提出不同意见。何况台下还有来自各种宗教背景的学生。
所以我认为，用阴谋论来解释所有研究基督教的学者的动机，似乎太过牵强了。
当然，欢迎不同意见。 事情总是会越辩越明白的。 谢谢。
最后编辑: 2013-11-26
- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
阴谋论是有的，但是把什么都看成阴谋论的一部分我倒是不太同意，不过从另一个角度，圣经的角度说，这个世界很多东西背后都有着撒旦试探，而我们却不知道，倒也说的通，所以神的主祷文说“不叫我们遇见试探”。
另外，宗教学和神学本不是一个范畴的东西，神学和个人宗教体验和理解又不是一回事。耶鲁的那个讲座是宗教学，小葡萄反对的加尔文是神学。
对于耶鲁的那个宗教学讲座，他必须用科学的方法来思考，而大家都知道用科学去论证宗教是不成立的（不完全的），所以这也就是我想表达的，从历史的角度了解一下也无妨，如果你认为这就是宗教的全部，你的思维就受到了限制。
阴谋论是有的，但是把什么都看成阴谋论的一部分我倒是不太同意，不过从另一个角度，圣经的角度说，这个世界很多东西背后都有着撒旦试探，而我们却不知道，倒也说的通，所以神的主祷文说“不叫我们遇见试探”。
另外，宗教学和神学本不是一个范畴的东西，神学和个人宗教体验和理解又不是一回事。耶鲁的那个讲座是宗教学，小葡萄反对的加尔文是神学。
对于耶鲁的那个宗教学讲座，他必须用科学的方法来思考，而大家都知道用科学去论证宗教是不成立的（不完全的），所以这也就是我想表达的，从历史的角度了解一下也无妨，如果你认为这就是宗教的全部，你的思维就受到了限制。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
一点不同看法，我并不认为这些讲座完全是用科学的方法在论证。更多的是用我们现在拥有的历史资料，相互印证，相互参考来说明问题的。说的简单一些，是理性。
比如说教授把《创世纪》和发现更早‘美索不达米亚神化’《巴比伦创世神话》与《吉尔伽美什史诗》 并排一起解读。 无论什么人，都可体会到这神化故事和圣经相当部分的高度一致性。《巴比伦创世神话》谈到天地的创造，《吉尔伽美什史诗》则是代表了美索不达米亚人的人生观。 虽然史诗中的神创造世界，发大水淹没人间毁灭人类的动机和圣经不同，但这相似度是没法忽略的。
又比如，教授列举了历史上很多知名学者的考古心得。有的理论和现在主流教义一致，有的对上帝创造世界和人类的动机有不同看法。在如此众多的理论，著作面前，你很难说教授是想用某一种理论来灌输给学生。
你说的对，宗教设及面太广。讲座只是提供一个方面，让我们去尽可能了解那段历史。我们没法完全还原诺亚方舟，但是假设我们都有追求真理的勇气和认真精神，那么在判断一个事物的真实性和可靠性的依据是什么呢？ 我想是理性。 好比一个黑色的笔和一个红色的笔放在面前，我们无法否认这是2个不同的笔。 宗教，科学都可以帮助我们，但理性，依然是目前为止人类获取真相的钥匙。 因为即便阅读圣经，你还是会用脑子去思考上下句的逻辑和文章需要表达的意思。
一点不同看法，我并不认为这些讲座完全是用科学的方法在论证。更多的是用我们现在拥有的历史资料，相互印证，相互参考来说明问题的。说的简单一些，是理性。
比如说教授把《创世纪》和发现更早‘美索不达米亚神化’《巴比伦创世神话》与《吉尔伽美什史诗》 并排一起解读。 无论什么人，都可体会到这神化故事和圣经相当部分的高度一致性。《巴比伦创世神话》谈到天地的创造，《吉尔伽美什史诗》则是代表了美索不达米亚人的人生观。 虽然史诗中的神创造世界，发大水淹没人间毁灭人类的动机和圣经不同，但这相似度是没法忽略的。
又比如，教授列举了历史上很多知名学者的考古心得。有的理论和现在主流教义一致，有的对上帝创造世界和人类的动机有不同看法。在如此众多的理论，著作面前，你很难说教授是想用某一种理论来灌输给学生。
你说的对，宗教设及面太广。讲座只是提供一个方面，让我们去尽可能了解那段历史。我们没法完全还原诺亚方舟，但是假设我们都有追求真理的勇气和认真精神，那么在判断一个事物的真实性和可靠性的依据是什么呢？ 我想是理性。 好比一个黑色的笔和一个红色的笔放在面前，我们无法否认这是2个不同的笔。 宗教，科学都可以帮助我们，但理性，依然是目前为止人类获取真相的钥匙。 因为即便阅读圣经，你还是会用脑子去思考上下句的逻辑和文章需要表达的意思。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
附上一些巴比伦神话的简介。供参考。
巴比伦神话事实上是以苏美尔人和阿卡德人的神话基础而成的。苏美尔文明兴起于两河流域，并且建立了人类历史上最古老的城市–乌尔和乌鲁克。而以苏美尔人和阿卡德人为主体的古巴比伦文明，位置正好与苏美尔文明重叠，时间则较苏美尔文明稍晚。因为地理位置与时间相近，这两者文明与神话内容彼此相互影响，所以通常都将他们放在同一个类别中一并讨论。
美索不达米亚神话拥有一个其它神话所无法比拟的特色：“神明对人类的冷酷无情”。在美索不达米亚的神话里，人类不过是神明用来取代地位较低的神明而创造出来的奴隶。神明早在创造之初，便已经设定人类只能拥有有限而且短暂的寿命。简单地说，对美索不达米亚的神明而言，人类不过是他们的工具或劳动者。众神之王恩利尔只因为一个简单的理由–人类很吵，便下令以大洪水消灭全人类。后来好在有水神艾阿的协助，教导“贤明君王”阿特拉哈席斯制造了方舟，才侥幸逃过了这场浩劫。之后，人类不断繁衍，并且为了让神明们更容易降临大地，也为了让人类自己也能轻易到达天际，于是开始建造巨塔–“丁吉尔拉塔”。结果神明误以为人类企图叛乱，便将巨塔摧毁。
由此可见，苏美人眼中的神明还不只冷酷而已，甚至根本就难以信任人类的任何作为。历史学家认为，这些神话不只影响了四千至五千年前的文明，事实上更影响到了后世西方人的生活与伦理观念。苏美尔人对人际关系的重视更胜对神明信仰的重视，相较于同时期的其它文明，苏美尔人过着更为世俗的生活。苏美尔人阿特拉哈席斯方舟与丁吉尔拉塔的故事，与希伯来神话颇多相似之处。
巴比伦神话基本上都来自于苏美尔神话，换个更简单的说法，两者的关系非常类似希腊神话与罗马神话彼此的关系。当苏美尔文明结束以后，巴比伦文明正式接掌了两河流域的主导权。就在这段交替时期，巴比伦人将苏美尔人的神明纳入自己的信仰，而且是原封不动的纳入。巴比伦人将苏美尔人的神明视为他们自己的信仰，随后还为这些神明注入了阿卡德人的偏好–将众神一一塑造出更具人性、更唯美的故事。这可以说就是巴比伦神话最大特色之一–“人工神话”。巴比伦神话的另一个特色是，神话里的众神有非常清楚的排列顺序。因为巴比伦神明的社会是一个规定严格的阶级制度社会，严格的程度连众神之王的王座、祭司的职位都采取世袭制度，世代承传。众神之王的王座从创造之神“安”传给了恩利尔，然后再由恩利尔传给了马尔都克，之后再由马尔都克传给了纳波。另外巴比伦人习惯让每一位神明负责守护一个特定的城市(或国家)。这么一来，城市或国家之间的战争，就可以直接交由彼此的守护神去代为处理。相对的，战争结束后，所捕获的俘虏或奴隶都会被宰杀献给自己所属城市的守护神。
附上一些巴比伦神话的简介。供参考。
巴比伦神话事实上是以苏美尔人和阿卡德人的神话基础而成的。苏美尔文明兴起于两河流域，并且建立了人类历史上最古老的城市–乌尔和乌鲁克。而以苏美尔人和阿卡德人为主体的古巴比伦文明，位置正好与苏美尔文明重叠，时间则较苏美尔文明稍晚。因为地理位置与时间相近，这两者文明与神话内容彼此相互影响，所以通常都将他们放在同一个类别中一并讨论。
美索不达米亚神话拥有一个其它神话所无法比拟的特色：“神明对人类的冷酷无情”。在美索不达米亚的神话里，人类不过是神明用来取代地位较低的神明而创造出来的奴隶。神明早在创造之初，便已经设定人类只能拥有有限而且短暂的寿命。简单地说，对美索不达米亚的神明而言，人类不过是他们的工具或劳动者。众神之王恩利尔只因为一个简单的理由–人类很吵，便下令以大洪水消灭全人类。后来好在有水神艾阿的协助，教导“贤明君王”阿特拉哈席斯制造了方舟，才侥幸逃过了这场浩劫。之后，人类不断繁衍，并且为了让神明们更容易降临大地，也为了让人类自己也能轻易到达天际，于是开始建造巨塔–“丁吉尔拉塔”。结果神明误以为人类企图叛乱，便将巨塔摧毁。
由此可见，苏美人眼中的神明还不只冷酷而已，甚至根本就难以信任人类的任何作为。历史学家认为，这些神话不只影响了四千至五千年前的文明，事实上更影响到了后世西方人的生活与伦理观念。苏美尔人对人际关系的重视更胜对神明信仰的重视，相较于同时期的其它文明，苏美尔人过着更为世俗的生活。苏美尔人阿特拉哈席斯方舟与丁吉尔拉塔的故事，与希伯来神话颇多相似之处。
巴比伦神话基本上都来自于苏美尔神话，换个更简单的说法，两者的关系非常类似希腊神话与罗马神话彼此的关系。当苏美尔文明结束以后，巴比伦文明正式接掌了两河流域的主导权。就在这段交替时期，巴比伦人将苏美尔人的神明纳入自己的信仰，而且是原封不动的纳入。巴比伦人将苏美尔人的神明视为他们自己的信仰，随后还为这些神明注入了阿卡德人的偏好–将众神一一塑造出更具人性、更唯美的故事。这可以说就是巴比伦神话最大特色之一–“人工神话”。巴比伦神话的另一个特色是，神话里的众神有非常清楚的排列顺序。因为巴比伦神明的社会是一个规定严格的阶级制度社会，严格的程度连众神之王的王座、祭司的职位都采取世袭制度，世代承传。众神之王的王座从创造之神“安”传给了恩利尔，然后再由恩利尔传给了马尔都克，之后再由马尔都克传给了纳波。另外巴比伦人习惯让每一位神明负责守护一个特定的城市(或国家)。这么一来，城市或国家之间的战争，就可以直接交由彼此的守护神去代为处理。相对的，战争结束后，所捕获的俘虏或奴隶都会被宰杀献给自己所属城市的守护神。
最后编辑: 2013-11-26
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
美索不达米亚是古希腊对两河流域的称谓，意为“（两条）河流之间的地方”[1]，这两条河指的是幼发拉底河和底格里斯河，在两河之间的美索不达米亚平原上产生和发展的古文明称为两河文明或美索不达米亚文明，它大体位于现今的伊拉克，其存在时间从公元前6000年到公元前2世纪，是人类最早的文明。由于这两条河流每年的氾滥，所以下游土壤肥沃，富含有机物和矿物质，但同时该地气候干旱缺水，所以当地人公元前6000年就开始运用灌溉技术[2]，灌溉为当地带来了大规模的人力协作和农业丰产。经过数千年的演化，美索不达米亚于公元前2900年左右形成成熟文字、众多城市及周围的农业社会[3]。
由于美索不达米亚地处平原，而且周围缺少天然屏障，所以在几千年的历史中有多个民族在此经历了接触、入侵、融合的过程，苏美尔人、阿卡德人、阿摩利人、亚述人、埃兰人、喀西特人、胡里特人、迦勒底人等其他民族先后进入美索不达米亚，他们先经历了史前的欧贝德、早期的乌鲁克、苏美尔和阿卡德时代，后来又建立起先进的古巴比伦和庞大的亚述帝国。迦勒底人建立的新巴比伦将美索不达米亚古文明推向鼎盛时期。但随着波斯人和希腊人的先后崛起和征服，已经辉煌了几千年的文字和城市逐步被荒废，接着渐渐为沙尘掩埋，最后被人们所遗忘。直到19世纪中期，伴随考古发掘的开始和亚述学的兴起，越来越多的实物被出土，同时楔形文字逐渐被破解，尘封了18个世纪的美索不达米亚古文明才慢慢呈现在当今世人面前。
苏美尔人于公元前3200年左右发明的楔形文字[4]、公元前2100年左右尼普尔的书吏学校[5]、三四千年前苏美尔人和巴比伦人的文学作品[6]、2600多年前藏有2.4万块泥板书的亚述巴尼拔图书馆[7]、有前言和后记及282条条文构成的《汉谟拉比法典》[8]、有重达30多吨的人面带翼神兽守卫的亚述君王宫殿、古巴比伦人关于三角的代数的运算、公元前747年巴比伦人对日食和月蚀的准确预测[9]、用琉璃砖装饰的新巴比伦城和传说中的巴别塔和巴比伦空中花园，以及各时期的雕塑和艺术品，这些成就都属于美索不达米亚这个古老的文明。
美索不达米亚是古希腊对两河流域的称谓，意为“（两条）河流之间的地方”[1]，这两条河指的是幼发拉底河和底格里斯河，在两河之间的美索不达米亚平原上产生和发展的古文明称为两河文明或美索不达米亚文明，它大体位于现今的伊拉克，其存在时间从公元前6000年到公元前2世纪，是人类最早的文明。由于这两条河流每年的氾滥，所以下游土壤肥沃，富含有机物和矿物质，但同时该地气候干旱缺水，所以当地人公元前6000年就开始运用灌溉技术[2]，灌溉为当地带来了大规模的人力协作和农业丰产。经过数千年的演化，美索不达米亚于公元前2900年左右形成成熟文字、众多城市及周围的农业社会[3]。
由于美索不达米亚地处平原，而且周围缺少天然屏障，所以在几千年的历史中有多个民族在此经历了接触、入侵、融合的过程，苏美尔人、阿卡德人、阿摩利人、亚述人、埃兰人、喀西特人、胡里特人、迦勒底人等其他民族先后进入美索不达米亚，他们先经历了史前的欧贝德、早期的乌鲁克、苏美尔和阿卡德时代，后来又建立起先进的古巴比伦和庞大的亚述帝国。迦勒底人建立的新巴比伦将美索不达米亚古文明推向鼎盛时期。但随着波斯人和希腊人的先后崛起和征服，已经辉煌了几千年的文字和城市逐步被荒废，接着渐渐为沙尘掩埋，最后被人们所遗忘。直到19世纪中期，伴随考古发掘的开始和亚述学的兴起，越来越多的实物被出土，同时楔形文字逐渐被破解，尘封了18个世纪的美索不达米亚古文明才慢慢呈现在当今世人面前。
苏美尔人于公元前3200年左右发明的楔形文字[4]、公元前2100年左右尼普尔的书吏学校[5]、三四千年前苏美尔人和巴比伦人的文学作品[6]、2600多年前藏有2.4万块泥板书的亚述巴尼拔图书馆[7]、有前言和后记及282条条文构成的《汉谟拉比法典》[8]、有重达30多吨的人面带翼神兽守卫的亚述君王宫殿、古巴比伦人关于三角的代数的运算、公元前747年巴比伦人对日食和月蚀的准确预测[9]、用琉璃砖装饰的新巴比伦城和传说中的巴别塔和巴比伦空中花园，以及各时期的雕塑和艺术品，这些成就都属于美索不达米亚这个古老的文明。
- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
理性（逻辑思考）是钥匙毫无疑问，但是否是唯一的钥匙，是否开所有的钥匙就值得思考了。
是的我们在阅读圣经用到理性， 那些神学家们，无论路德，加尔文还是巴特，都在用逻辑理性为主要叙事工具，问题不是理性，而在把它放在什么位置上，怎么使用它。
理性（逻辑思考）是钥匙毫无疑问，但是否是唯一的钥匙，是否开所有的钥匙就值得思考了。
是的我们在阅读圣经用到理性， 那些神学家们，无论路德，加尔文还是巴特，都在用逻辑理性为主要叙事工具，问题不是理性，而在把它放在什么位置上，怎么使用它。
- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
关于美索不达米亚神话，巴比伦神话，圣经等等话题，我以前也看过。
如果你感兴趣，有很多圣经考古学的书籍可参考，以前看过一本书不错，记不清了。
这有一本书，你可以看一下，上面应该提到了你说的这些。
古代历史的考证与复原
http://www.fuyinchina.com/n2530c291p2.aspx
关于美索不达米亚神话，巴比伦神话，圣经等等话题，我以前也看过。
如果你感兴趣，有很多圣经考古学的书籍可参考，以前看过一本书不错，记不清了。
这有一本书，你可以看一下，上面应该提到了你说的这些。
古代历史的考证与复原
http://www.fuyinchina.com/n2530c291p2.aspx
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
红字部分，没有什么中立的人，每个人都是有立场、有见解的，除非他无知，但无知和中立不是一个概念。如果你认为神学院都是中立的，那你就太天真了，或者说对行情不熟悉。现在神学院都是商业化的，以市场为导向，神学院开设的课程都是有利于牧师找工作、开设教会的。神学院也越来越OPEN，接受各种互相矛盾的教派，如果保守一点，有坚定的立场，把信仰放在第一位，他们很快被市场淘汰了，没人报他们的学校。至于神学院和教会在敌基督势力方面的配合性，这是有圣经预言的，事实也是在这样发生。当然有人是真诚的，但是大方向就是这样。
蓝字部分，这种提问已经是引导性的了。因为目前改革宗就是继续继承天主教的神化使徒的作风，把使徒先神化了，然后再把保罗的地位举高过其他使徒，把保罗的书信重要性高于其他使徒，然后再把保罗的罗马书、加拉太书进行脱离上下文的乱解和错解，来迎合他们的神学理念，使得加尔文预定论和支持政教结合的教派之教义可以迅速普及。卫斯理曾经评价马丁路德的加拉太书注释是“胡说八道”。但是现如今马丁路德的圣经注释，特别是罗马书和加拉太书，在教会里的地位等于教皇的话在天主教的地位。马丁路德曾经说雅各书是稻草，如果他不是马丁路德，可能被一个正常的教友开除教籍了。
请问蓝字部分符合圣经吗？提摩太后3:16 “圣经都是神所默示的（或作凡神所默示的圣经），于教训，督责，使人归正，教导人学义，都是有益的。 ”每一卷圣经都是神的默示，价值平等地位平等，可是这些神学院教授却可以把符合自己神学的一些书信给高举过其他书信，特别是雅各书、希伯来书等。这些人不相信圣经都是神所默示的，他们的前提假设，是预设书信都是人的作品，甚至用时代背景来解释书信。我曾经亲耳听 一个保守派的牧师说使徒行传过时了。我认为这样的人要么一时糊涂，要么他没有资格做牧师。他可以去做宗教研究，但不能称自己是基督徒。
罗马书第八章说，没有基督的灵就不是属基督的。这些人否认圣经的启示性，拼命应用 MODERN TEXUAL CRITICISM，还有什么资格传道？这不是地地道道的“没性生活经验却大谈性高潮吗？”上帝最痛恨的就是假冒伪善的教内叛教者，看看彼得后书、犹大书，痛斥的都是这种人。
这些人用的态度，他们的高姿态，就是站在神以上来审判神，把神的书看成是他们批判和研究的对象。一个有生命的基督徒，相信圣经是神所默示的，都是真实的，符合历史的，也是预示将来的，没有任何的虚构的成分，不是人的时代作品，而是神的默示。有些人自称基督徒，却不相信神迹，不相信不符合自己目前逻辑和知识的经文，那他就是把神放在自己以下，对神没有敬畏和信任。真正的基督徒必须全盘接受圣经是神的启示，否则他只能称自己是宗教研究者，而不是基督徒。
如果你有兴趣，可以看看 DAVID CLOUD的研究，批判现代基督教界的叛教之路，“TEXUAL CRITICISM”，其表现形式之一就是NIV这个版本的诞生和其不断改版，以及基督教学术界普遍出现的对圣经的批判。这一切都符合圣经的预言，到底这些叛教者有什么下场，上帝会不会收他们，咱们只有等着瞧。下文是DAVID CLOUD 的一篇文章。
我没有把它都说成是阴谋论，而是它的动机有问题，符合了我脑子里的一些架构。对于基督教宗教界的认识，恐怕你还是冰山一角。
红字部分，没有什么中立的人，每个人都是有立场、有见解的，除非他无知，但无知和中立不是一个概念。如果你认为神学院都是中立的，那你就太天真了，或者说对行情不熟悉。现在神学院都是商业化的，以市场为导向，神学院开设的课程都是有利于牧师找工作、开设教会的。神学院也越来越OPEN，接受各种互相矛盾的教派，如果保守一点，有坚定的立场，把信仰放在第一位，他们很快被市场淘汰了，没人报他们的学校。至于神学院和教会在敌基督势力方面的配合性，这是有圣经预言的，事实也是在这样发生。当然有人是真诚的，但是大方向就是这样。
蓝字部分，这种提问已经是引导性的了。因为目前改革宗就是继续继承天主教的神化使徒的作风，把使徒先神化了，然后再把保罗的地位举高过其他使徒，把保罗的书信重要性高于其他使徒，然后再把保罗的罗马书、加拉太书进行脱离上下文的乱解和错解，来迎合他们的神学理念，使得加尔文预定论和支持政教结合的教派之教义可以迅速普及。卫斯理曾经评价马丁路德的加拉太书注释是“胡说八道”。但是现如今马丁路德的圣经注释，特别是罗马书和加拉太书，在教会里的地位等于教皇的话在天主教的地位。马丁路德曾经说雅各书是稻草，如果他不是马丁路德，可能被一个正常的教友开除教籍了。
请问蓝字部分符合圣经吗？提摩太后3:16 “圣经都是神所默示的（或作凡神所默示的圣经），于教训，督责，使人归正，教导人学义，都是有益的。 ”每一卷圣经都是神的默示，价值平等地位平等，可是这些神学院教授却可以把符合自己神学的一些书信给高举过其他书信，特别是雅各书、希伯来书等。这些人不相信圣经都是神所默示的，他们的前提假设，是预设书信都是人的作品，甚至用时代背景来解释书信。我曾经亲耳听 一个保守派的牧师说使徒行传过时了。我认为这样的人要么一时糊涂，要么他没有资格做牧师。他可以去做宗教研究，但不能称自己是基督徒。
罗马书第八章说，没有基督的灵就不是属基督的。这些人否认圣经的启示性，拼命应用 MODERN TEXUAL CRITICISM，还有什么资格传道？这不是地地道道的“没性生活经验却大谈性高潮吗？”上帝最痛恨的就是假冒伪善的教内叛教者，看看彼得后书、犹大书，痛斥的都是这种人。
这些人用的态度，他们的高姿态，就是站在神以上来审判神，把神的书看成是他们批判和研究的对象。一个有生命的基督徒，相信圣经是神所默示的，都是真实的，符合历史的，也是预示将来的，没有任何的虚构的成分，不是人的时代作品，而是神的默示。有些人自称基督徒，却不相信神迹，不相信不符合自己目前逻辑和知识的经文，那他就是把神放在自己以下，对神没有敬畏和信任。真正的基督徒必须全盘接受圣经是神的启示，否则他只能称自己是宗教研究者，而不是基督徒。
如果你有兴趣，可以看看 DAVID CLOUD的研究，批判现代基督教界的叛教之路，“TEXUAL CRITICISM”，其表现形式之一就是NIV这个版本的诞生和其不断改版，以及基督教学术界普遍出现的对圣经的批判。这一切都符合圣经的预言，到底这些叛教者有什么下场，上帝会不会收他们，咱们只有等着瞧。下文是DAVID CLOUD 的一篇文章。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
THE UNGODLY FRUIT OF MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM
October 1, 2007 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 866-295-4143 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting, fbns@wayoflife.org) -
The following is excerpted from FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS: A COURSE ON BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS AND A 10-FOLD DEFENSE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. To our knowledge, this 775-page volume is the most comprehensive course on this topic in print. It contains information that has not appeared in any other book defending the King James Bible and breaks new ground in several areas -- such as the importance of the ancient separatist versions in the defense of 1 John 5:7, an exposition of the doctrine of Bible preservation from 43 passages of Scripture, documentation of the corruption of evangelical scholarship over the past 50 years and of the apostasy that enveloped the 19th century as modern textual criticism was devised and that further enveloped the 20th century as modern textual criticism became entrenched, and documentation of the role played by Unitarians in the development of modern textual criticism, to name a few. If you are new to the Bible Version issue and want to understand it, we believe this is the book for you; and if you have already been studying this subject for some time, you will find a wealth of new things here. The course features 783 sectional review questions to reinforce the teaching. A separate teacher’s test book is available containing sectional and final tests with answer sheets if the course is used in Bible College or Seminary. Dr. David Sorenson, author of Touch Not the Unclean Thing and Understanding the Bible Commentary, said: “I have read about 95%+ of your Faith vs. Modern Versions book. What a masterpiece!! I am so impressed with it. It is probably the finest book I have read on the issue. I have also just finished reading your new book on the Bible Version Hall of Shame--EXCELLENT!! What a wealth of history and information.” 775 pages. $29.95.
_____________________
We further reject modern textual criticism because its fruit has been increasing uncertainty and skepticism, a weakening of the authority of Scripture, and the promotion of the ecumenical movement.
1. Modern textual criticism has resulted in uncertainty in the Biblical text.
Whereas prior to the late 19th century the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians were confident that the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received texts were the preserved Word of God, today there is no real certainty where textual criticism has been accepted. The Masoretic Hebrew has been challenged by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and other sources, so that some twenty to thirty thousand textual changes have been suggested for the Old Testament. The Greek Received Text has been replaced with a constantly changing so-called “eclectic” text.
Note the following statements by prominent textual critics of the last 100 years testifying to the gross uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism.
“[The New Testament text is more unsettled] than ever, and PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED” (Rendel Harris, Side Lights on New Testament Research, 1908, p. 3).
“The ultimate text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, IS FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE” (F.C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 129).
“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE GOSPELS, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).
“... it is generally recognized that THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE CANNOT BE RECOVERED” (R.M. Grant, “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).
“The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that WE HAVE LOST THE WAY, that WE HAVE REACHED A DEAD END, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through” (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” New Testament Manuscript Studies, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).
“...the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that SKEPTICISM WHICH INCLINES TOWARDS REGARDING ‘THE ORIGINAL TEXT’ AS AN UNATTAINABLE MIRAGE” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 1953, p. 9).
“In general, THE WHOLE THING IS LIMITED TO PROBABILITY JUDGMENTS; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remain A HYPOTHESIS” (H. Greeven, Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments, 1960, p. 20, cited from Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 67).
“...so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by GENERAL PESSIMISM ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERING THE ORIGINAL TEXT BY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited from Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 25).
“The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS WELL NIGH IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Neibuhr and others have called, in other contexts, AN ‘IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY’” (R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, 1963, p. 51).
“...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that WE HAVE MADE LITTLE PROGRESS IN TEXTUAL THEORY SINCE WESTCOTT-HORT; THAT WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE TRANSMISSION AND ALTERNATION OF THE TEXT IN THE FIRST FEW CENTURIES; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).
“...WE FACE A CRISIS OVER METHODOLOGY IN NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... following Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliott (1972ff.), A NEW CRISIS OF THE CRITERIA BECAME PROMINENT AND IS VERY MUCH WITH US TODAY: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread UNCERTAINTY AS TO PRECISELY WHAT KIND OF COMPROMISE OUGHT TO OR CAN BE WORKED OUT between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most--but certainly not all--textual critics have agreed upon is called ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism’ ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of THE FRUSTRATION THAT ACCOMPANIES ITS USE...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, pp. 39-41).
“...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon Epp, “The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).
“...we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’ ... WE REMAIN LARGELY IN THE DARK as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake--in the form of MSS and fragments--numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 114, 115).
“As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM ‘ORIGINAL’ HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
The situation with modern textual criticism likened to that of Darwinian evolution
It is evident that the situation in the field of modern textual criticism is similar to that of Darwinian evolution. While many of the chief principles of Darwin and his early followers have been refuted or seriously challenged, such as the theory that life could spontaneously arise or that natural selection could account for life as we know it or that man descended from apes, the superstructure of Darwinian evolution remains strangely unshaken. Likewise, modern textual criticism in 21st century sits firmly upon the foundation laid by its architects of the 19th, and even as the foundational principles have been disproved (e.g., a Lucian Recension, the existence of a neutral text, the reliability of intrinsic and transcriptional probability) the superstructure remains largely and strangely unshaken. In the case of Darwinian evolution, the chief thing that was rejected in the beginning was the doctrine of a Creator, and regardless of how devastatingly the foundational principles of Darwinian evolution are disproved, contemporary adherents of evolution refuse to reconsider the doctrine of a Creator or any form of Intelligent Design. In the case of modern textual criticism, the chief thing that was rejected by Westcott and Hort and other early proponents was the Greek Received Text (and with it any practical doctrine of divine preservation), and regardless of how thoroughly the foundational principles of Westcott and Hort have been refuted by textual critics in the past 100 years, the children of Westcott and Hort refuse to take a new look at the Received Text. The reason is that the adherents of both disciplines refuse to admit that they must approach these subjects by faith in God and by faith alone, that they can never know the truth about creation or the Bible apart from faith in the divine revelation. Any other foundation is shifting sand.
2. Modern textual criticism has resulted in “the tyranny of the experts.”
“The critical point of departure had been made [with the ascendancy of the Westcott-Hort Text]. No longer was the majority of the Greek manuscripts, preserved by the churches, the basis for recognizing the original reading. From now on, the learned professors would deliver the Christian world from their ‘blindness and ignorance.’ By their scholarly expertise they would deliver to the churches a purer text of the N.T. Dr. Machen called this kind of scholarship ‘the tyranny of the experts.’ Now the ‘experts’ would rule over the churches and decide for them which variant reading was the acceptable one. After Westcott and Hort, the Pandora’s box had been opened. As a result, all the evils of German rationalism began to tear at the foundation of the Faith, the Holy Scriptures. This ‘wrestling’ of the Scriptures has continued on until this day in both the higher and lower forms of textual criticism. The situation today involves almost as many different texts of the Greek N.T. as there are scholars. Each ‘scholar’ decides for himself what he will or will not accept as the Word of God. It comes down to two choices. We can accept the text handed down by the churches for nearly two thousand years or accept the findings of modern scholars, no two of which agree. If we go with the scholars, there is no one text that is accepted by all of them. Confusion reigns among the scholars. There is no standard” (Charles Turner, Why the King James Version, p. 9; Turner is the founder of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute of Bowie, Texas).
3. Because of modern textual criticism, the certainty and dogmatism of a settled biblical text has been replaced with the uncertainty of conflicting texts.
This is true for the New Testament. Westcott and Hort’s principles that gave us the critical Greek text in 1881 have undergone continual modification throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, and the Greek Testament based on those theories has also continually shifted, with a subsequent change in the translations based on it. The 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament differed from the 2nd edition three years earlier in more than 500 places, and the same five textual critics made those changes.
The same is true for the Old Testament. With the introduction of textual theories whereby the Hebrew Masoretic text was dethroned, the Old Testament has undergone continual revision on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, the Symmachus and Theodotion Greek translations of the Old Testament, and other sources. These are the sources listed in the Preface to the 1978 New International Version as the basis for the NIV O.T. translation (pp. viii, xi). Dr. Donald Waite observes: “The NIV editors have very honestly and very boldly altered the foundations of our Old Testament text in the above fifteen DIFFERENT WAYS, whenever it suited their fancy! You don't know at what point they’ve used one document to contradict the Masoretic Hebrew text, and at what point they used another document” (Waite, Defending the King James Bible). According to Dr. Waite’s calculations, the 1937 Hebrew text by Rudolph Kittel (Biblia Hebraica) and the 1977 Stuttgart edition of the Hebrew Old Testament (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) contain footnotes listing some 20,000 to 30,000 textual changes. Even the New King James Bible, which professes to follow the same textual foundation as the King James Bible, follows instead an eclectic Old Testament, modifying the Hebrew Masoretic with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, “a variety of ancient versions,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New King James Bible, Preface). As with the New Testament, those who are doing the revision of the Old Testament do not agree in their principles or their conclusions. Consider one area of O.T. textual evidence, that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first of these was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea in 1947, with subsequent finds in nearby caves. The first finds supported the Masoretic text but subsequent finds unearthed some O.T. manuscripts that differ from the Masoretic. Textual scholars do not agree on many important points touching these manuscripts, not even their date. G.R. Driver (1965) disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross, claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first two centuries A.D., rather than B.C. This is brought out in the book Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1956) by F.F. Bruce. The very title of the book exposes the fact that the textual scholars disagree and that their conclusions are in flux.
4. The contemporary doctrine of eclecticism has elevated the Bible student as the master of the text and has resulted in a massive decline in the authority of the Scriptures in this generation.
The concept of dogmatic interpretation and preaching has faded greatly because of this damnable principle. In a typical Bible study in a church that has bought into eclecticism, every individual is an authority unto his or herself as to what Greek manuscript or Greek text or English translation to follow in any given instance. There is no dogmatic authority for any statement, because someone can always come up with an alternative reading. This same principle has greatly weakened the authority of Bible preaching. I recall a visit in August 2003 to Saddleback Church in southern California, where Rick Warren of “Purpose Driven Church” fame is senior pastor. I observed on the way into the auditorium that only a few people carried Bibles, and the reason became clear when I saw the bewildering multiplicity of versions that were used in the preaching. An outline of the sermon was handed out with the bulletin, and six or seven versions were quoted, most of them loose paraphrases or dynamic equivalencies such as the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, The Message, Today’s English Version, and the Contemporary English Version. It would be impossible to follow along in one’s Bible. The result is that the people do not bring their own Bibles and do not therefore carefully test the preaching. How could they, when any biblical statement they would attempt to examine has dozens of variations?
5. The uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism has given ammunition to the enemies of the Bible.
They recognize, even if the evangelicals and fundamentalists who have adopted textual criticism don’t, that an array of conflicting texts and versions undermines the doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation.
6. Modern textual criticism has led many into theological modernism.
Dr. Edward Hills, who was trained in textual criticism at the doctorate level at Harvard, observed this phenomenon. “... the logic of naturalistic textual criticism leads to complete modernism, to a naturalistic view not only of the biblical text but also of the Bible as a whole and of the Christian faith. For if it is right to ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures in the study of the New Testament text, why isn’t it right to go farther in the same direction? Why isn’t it right to ignore other divine aspects of the Bible? Why isn’t it right to ignore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures when discussing the authenticity of the Gospel of John or the Synoptic problem or the authorship of the Pentateuch? ... Impelled by this remorseless logic, many an erstwhile conservative Bible student has become entirely modernistic in his thinking. But he does not acknowledge that he has departed from the Christian faith. For from his point of view he has not. He has merely traveled farther down the same path which he began to tread when first he studied naturalistic textual criticism of the Westcott and Hort type, perhaps at some conservative theological seminary. From his point of view his orthodox former professors are curiously inconsistent. They use the naturalistic method in the area of New Testament textual criticism and then drop it most illogically, like something too hot to handle, when they come to other departments of biblical study” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended).
The theological danger inherent within the practice of textual criticism was admitted more recently from the liberal side by E. Jay Epps of Harvard Divinity School: “Nor (for those who choose to work within a theological framework) is textual criticism a ‘safe’ discipline -- a phrase I have heard for four decades -- that can be practiced without challenge to theological convictions or without risk to faith commitments or truth assertions. I DOUBT THAT IT EVER WAS ‘SAFE’ -- AT LEAST FOR ANY WHO HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR MYRIAD VARIATION UNITS, WITH THEIR INNUMERABLE COMPETING READINGS AND CONCEPTIONS, AS WELL AS THE THEOLOGICAL MOTIVATIONS THAT ARE EVIDENT IN SO MANY. BUT IF IT HAS BEEN A ‘SAFE’ DISCIPLINE, IT IS SAFE NO MORE. ... Any who embrace it as a vocation will find its intellectual challenges to have been increased a hundredfold by its enlarged boundaries and broadened horizons, which extend into codicology and papyrology and also into related early Christian, classical, literary, and sociological fields, all of which favor accommodation of the richness of the manuscript tradition, WITH ITS MULTIPLICITY OF TEXTS AND ITS MULTIVALENT ORIGINALS, RATHER THAN THE MYOPIC QUEST FOR A SINGLE ORIGINAL TEXT. Both broad training and knowledge, and A CAPACITY TO TOLERATE AMBIGUITY will be high on the list of requisite qualifications for its practitioners” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
This is a loud warning to those who have ears to hear. What Epps did not say is that all of the many fields into which the modern textual critic is led are dominated today by theological skeptics, and the evangelical or fundamentalist who follows this course is disobeying the Bible by not separating from heretics and is in dire danger of spiritual shipwreck. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).
7. Modern textual criticism has furthered the ecumenical movement by bringing Protestants, Baptists, and Catholics together in the field of Bible texts and translation. This is a powerful exhibit of the unscriptural fruit of modern textual criticsm:
Whereas the Roman Catholic Church never accepted the Greek Received Text or the Protestant versions based on it and indeed it put translators such as William Tyndale and John Rogers to death, Rome has readily accepted the critical text. Note the following statement by a Roman Catholic: “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of biblical translation...[They can] work very well together and HAVE THE SAME APPROACH AND INTERPRETATION...[This] signals a new age in the church” (Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1979, pp. 232-234).
The papal proclamation “Divine afflante Spiritu” in 1943 called for an ecumenical Bible. “[T]hese translations [should] be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” (New American Bible, New York: World Publishing Co., 1970, p. vii).
In fact, Rome has conformed its own Vulgate to the modern critical text. In 1965, Pope Paul VI authorized the publication of a new Latin Vulgate, with the Latin text conformed to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 201). It was published in 1979 by the German Bible Society.
In 1966 the Revised Standard Version was published in the “Roman Catholic Edition.” This version included the apocryphal books inserted among the books of the Old Testament and incorporated Catholic readings such as “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. As a result, the chief editor of the RSV, Luther Weigle, was rewarded the “Papal Knighthood of St. Gregory the Great” in 1966 by Pope Paul VI (Peter Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible, 1999, p. 142).
Since 1967, Cardinal Carlo Martini has been on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.
In October 1969, for the first time in its history the Church of England authorized a Catholic Bible for use in its services. The Full Synod of Canterbury Convocation authorized The Jerusalem Bible, which was published in 1966 with the imprimatur of Cardinal Heenan.
In 1973 the Ecumenical Edition of the Revised Standard Version was published. Also called the “Common Bible,” a copy was presented personally to Pope Paul VI by Bruce Metzger, Herbert May, and others. Metzger described this as follows: “In a private audience granted to a small group, comprising the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras, Lady Priscilla and Sir William Collins, Herbert G. May, and the present writer, POPE PAUL ACCEPTED THE RSV ‘COMMON’ BIBLE AS A SIGNIFICANT STEP IN FURTHERING ECUMENICAL RELATIONS AMONG THE CHURCHES” (Metzger, “The RSV-Ecumenical Edition,” Theology Today, October 1977).
The Bible Societies translation projects today are “interconfessional.” In 1987 a formal agreement was made between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies that the critical Greek New Testament will be used for all future translations, both Catholic and Protestant (Guidelines for International Cooperation in Translating the Bible, Rome, 1987, p. 5). (For more about ecumenical translations see our book Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book, available from Way of Life Literature.)
</SPAN>
THE UNGODLY FRUIT OF MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM
October 1, 2007 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 866-295-4143 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting, fbns@wayoflife.org) -
The following is excerpted from FAITH VS. THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS: A COURSE ON BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS AND A 10-FOLD DEFENSE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. To our knowledge, this 775-page volume is the most comprehensive course on this topic in print. It contains information that has not appeared in any other book defending the King James Bible and breaks new ground in several areas -- such as the importance of the ancient separatist versions in the defense of 1 John 5:7, an exposition of the doctrine of Bible preservation from 43 passages of Scripture, documentation of the corruption of evangelical scholarship over the past 50 years and of the apostasy that enveloped the 19th century as modern textual criticism was devised and that further enveloped the 20th century as modern textual criticism became entrenched, and documentation of the role played by Unitarians in the development of modern textual criticism, to name a few. If you are new to the Bible Version issue and want to understand it, we believe this is the book for you; and if you have already been studying this subject for some time, you will find a wealth of new things here. The course features 783 sectional review questions to reinforce the teaching. A separate teacher’s test book is available containing sectional and final tests with answer sheets if the course is used in Bible College or Seminary. Dr. David Sorenson, author of Touch Not the Unclean Thing and Understanding the Bible Commentary, said: “I have read about 95%+ of your Faith vs. Modern Versions book. What a masterpiece!! I am so impressed with it. It is probably the finest book I have read on the issue. I have also just finished reading your new book on the Bible Version Hall of Shame--EXCELLENT!! What a wealth of history and information.” 775 pages. $29.95.
_____________________
We further reject modern textual criticism because its fruit has been increasing uncertainty and skepticism, a weakening of the authority of Scripture, and the promotion of the ecumenical movement.
1. Modern textual criticism has resulted in uncertainty in the Biblical text.
Whereas prior to the late 19th century the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians were confident that the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Received texts were the preserved Word of God, today there is no real certainty where textual criticism has been accepted. The Masoretic Hebrew has been challenged by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and other sources, so that some twenty to thirty thousand textual changes have been suggested for the Old Testament. The Greek Received Text has been replaced with a constantly changing so-called “eclectic” text.
Note the following statements by prominent textual critics of the last 100 years testifying to the gross uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism.
“[The New Testament text is more unsettled] than ever, and PERHAPS FINALLY, UNSETTLED” (Rendel Harris, Side Lights on New Testament Research, 1908, p. 3).
“The ultimate text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, IS FOR EVER IRRECOVERABLE” (F.C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 129).
“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, WE DO NOT KNOW THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE GOSPELS, AND IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT WE NEVER SHALL” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).
“... it is generally recognized that THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BIBLE CANNOT BE RECOVERED” (R.M. Grant, “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).
“The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that WE HAVE LOST THE WAY, that WE HAVE REACHED A DEAD END, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through” (Kenneth Clark, “Today’s Problems,” New Testament Manuscript Studies, edited by Parvis and Wikgren, 1950, p. 161).
“...the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that SKEPTICISM WHICH INCLINES TOWARDS REGARDING ‘THE ORIGINAL TEXT’ AS AN UNATTAINABLE MIRAGE” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 1953, p. 9).
“In general, THE WHOLE THING IS LIMITED TO PROBABILITY JUDGMENTS; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remain A HYPOTHESIS” (H. Greeven, Der Urtext des Neuen Testaments, 1960, p. 20, cited from Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 67).
“...so far, the twentieth century has been a period characterized by GENERAL PESSIMISM ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERING THE ORIGINAL TEXT BY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA” (H.H. Oliver, 1962, p. 308; cited from Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 25).
“The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IS WELL NIGH IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Neibuhr and others have called, in other contexts, AN ‘IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY’” (R.M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, 1963, p. 51).
“...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that WE HAVE MADE LITTLE PROGRESS IN TEXTUAL THEORY SINCE WESTCOTT-HORT; THAT WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE TRANSMISSION AND ALTERNATION OF THE TEXT IN THE FIRST FEW CENTURIES; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).
“...WE FACE A CRISIS OVER METHODOLOGY IN NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... following Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliott (1972ff.), A NEW CRISIS OF THE CRITERIA BECAME PROMINENT AND IS VERY MUCH WITH US TODAY: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread UNCERTAINTY AS TO PRECISELY WHAT KIND OF COMPROMISE OUGHT TO OR CAN BE WORKED OUT between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most--but certainly not all--textual critics have agreed upon is called ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism’ ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of THE FRUSTRATION THAT ACCOMPANIES ITS USE...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, pp. 39-41).
“...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon Epp, “The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).
“...we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’ ... WE REMAIN LARGELY IN THE DARK as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake--in the form of MSS and fragments--numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 114, 115).
“As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM ‘ORIGINAL’ HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
The situation with modern textual criticism likened to that of Darwinian evolution
It is evident that the situation in the field of modern textual criticism is similar to that of Darwinian evolution. While many of the chief principles of Darwin and his early followers have been refuted or seriously challenged, such as the theory that life could spontaneously arise or that natural selection could account for life as we know it or that man descended from apes, the superstructure of Darwinian evolution remains strangely unshaken. Likewise, modern textual criticism in 21st century sits firmly upon the foundation laid by its architects of the 19th, and even as the foundational principles have been disproved (e.g., a Lucian Recension, the existence of a neutral text, the reliability of intrinsic and transcriptional probability) the superstructure remains largely and strangely unshaken. In the case of Darwinian evolution, the chief thing that was rejected in the beginning was the doctrine of a Creator, and regardless of how devastatingly the foundational principles of Darwinian evolution are disproved, contemporary adherents of evolution refuse to reconsider the doctrine of a Creator or any form of Intelligent Design. In the case of modern textual criticism, the chief thing that was rejected by Westcott and Hort and other early proponents was the Greek Received Text (and with it any practical doctrine of divine preservation), and regardless of how thoroughly the foundational principles of Westcott and Hort have been refuted by textual critics in the past 100 years, the children of Westcott and Hort refuse to take a new look at the Received Text. The reason is that the adherents of both disciplines refuse to admit that they must approach these subjects by faith in God and by faith alone, that they can never know the truth about creation or the Bible apart from faith in the divine revelation. Any other foundation is shifting sand.
2. Modern textual criticism has resulted in “the tyranny of the experts.”
“The critical point of departure had been made [with the ascendancy of the Westcott-Hort Text]. No longer was the majority of the Greek manuscripts, preserved by the churches, the basis for recognizing the original reading. From now on, the learned professors would deliver the Christian world from their ‘blindness and ignorance.’ By their scholarly expertise they would deliver to the churches a purer text of the N.T. Dr. Machen called this kind of scholarship ‘the tyranny of the experts.’ Now the ‘experts’ would rule over the churches and decide for them which variant reading was the acceptable one. After Westcott and Hort, the Pandora’s box had been opened. As a result, all the evils of German rationalism began to tear at the foundation of the Faith, the Holy Scriptures. This ‘wrestling’ of the Scriptures has continued on until this day in both the higher and lower forms of textual criticism. The situation today involves almost as many different texts of the Greek N.T. as there are scholars. Each ‘scholar’ decides for himself what he will or will not accept as the Word of God. It comes down to two choices. We can accept the text handed down by the churches for nearly two thousand years or accept the findings of modern scholars, no two of which agree. If we go with the scholars, there is no one text that is accepted by all of them. Confusion reigns among the scholars. There is no standard” (Charles Turner, Why the King James Version, p. 9; Turner is the founder of the Baptist Bible Translators Institute of Bowie, Texas).
3. Because of modern textual criticism, the certainty and dogmatism of a settled biblical text has been replaced with the uncertainty of conflicting texts.
This is true for the New Testament. Westcott and Hort’s principles that gave us the critical Greek text in 1881 have undergone continual modification throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, and the Greek Testament based on those theories has also continually shifted, with a subsequent change in the translations based on it. The 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament differed from the 2nd edition three years earlier in more than 500 places, and the same five textual critics made those changes.
The same is true for the Old Testament. With the introduction of textual theories whereby the Hebrew Masoretic text was dethroned, the Old Testament has undergone continual revision on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, the Symmachus and Theodotion Greek translations of the Old Testament, and other sources. These are the sources listed in the Preface to the 1978 New International Version as the basis for the NIV O.T. translation (pp. viii, xi). Dr. Donald Waite observes: “The NIV editors have very honestly and very boldly altered the foundations of our Old Testament text in the above fifteen DIFFERENT WAYS, whenever it suited their fancy! You don't know at what point they’ve used one document to contradict the Masoretic Hebrew text, and at what point they used another document” (Waite, Defending the King James Bible). According to Dr. Waite’s calculations, the 1937 Hebrew text by Rudolph Kittel (Biblia Hebraica) and the 1977 Stuttgart edition of the Hebrew Old Testament (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) contain footnotes listing some 20,000 to 30,000 textual changes. Even the New King James Bible, which professes to follow the same textual foundation as the King James Bible, follows instead an eclectic Old Testament, modifying the Hebrew Masoretic with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, “a variety of ancient versions,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New King James Bible, Preface). As with the New Testament, those who are doing the revision of the Old Testament do not agree in their principles or their conclusions. Consider one area of O.T. textual evidence, that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first of these was discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea in 1947, with subsequent finds in nearby caves. The first finds supported the Masoretic text but subsequent finds unearthed some O.T. manuscripts that differ from the Masoretic. Textual scholars do not agree on many important points touching these manuscripts, not even their date. G.R. Driver (1965) disagreed with Burrows, Albright, and Cross, claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first two centuries A.D., rather than B.C. This is brought out in the book Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls (1956) by F.F. Bruce. The very title of the book exposes the fact that the textual scholars disagree and that their conclusions are in flux.
4. The contemporary doctrine of eclecticism has elevated the Bible student as the master of the text and has resulted in a massive decline in the authority of the Scriptures in this generation.
The concept of dogmatic interpretation and preaching has faded greatly because of this damnable principle. In a typical Bible study in a church that has bought into eclecticism, every individual is an authority unto his or herself as to what Greek manuscript or Greek text or English translation to follow in any given instance. There is no dogmatic authority for any statement, because someone can always come up with an alternative reading. This same principle has greatly weakened the authority of Bible preaching. I recall a visit in August 2003 to Saddleback Church in southern California, where Rick Warren of “Purpose Driven Church” fame is senior pastor. I observed on the way into the auditorium that only a few people carried Bibles, and the reason became clear when I saw the bewildering multiplicity of versions that were used in the preaching. An outline of the sermon was handed out with the bulletin, and six or seven versions were quoted, most of them loose paraphrases or dynamic equivalencies such as the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, The Message, Today’s English Version, and the Contemporary English Version. It would be impossible to follow along in one’s Bible. The result is that the people do not bring their own Bibles and do not therefore carefully test the preaching. How could they, when any biblical statement they would attempt to examine has dozens of variations?
5. The uncertainty produced by modern textual criticism has given ammunition to the enemies of the Bible.
They recognize, even if the evangelicals and fundamentalists who have adopted textual criticism don’t, that an array of conflicting texts and versions undermines the doctrine of divine inspiration and preservation.
6. Modern textual criticism has led many into theological modernism.
Dr. Edward Hills, who was trained in textual criticism at the doctorate level at Harvard, observed this phenomenon. “... the logic of naturalistic textual criticism leads to complete modernism, to a naturalistic view not only of the biblical text but also of the Bible as a whole and of the Christian faith. For if it is right to ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures in the study of the New Testament text, why isn’t it right to go farther in the same direction? Why isn’t it right to ignore other divine aspects of the Bible? Why isn’t it right to ignore the divine inspiration of the Scriptures when discussing the authenticity of the Gospel of John or the Synoptic problem or the authorship of the Pentateuch? ... Impelled by this remorseless logic, many an erstwhile conservative Bible student has become entirely modernistic in his thinking. But he does not acknowledge that he has departed from the Christian faith. For from his point of view he has not. He has merely traveled farther down the same path which he began to tread when first he studied naturalistic textual criticism of the Westcott and Hort type, perhaps at some conservative theological seminary. From his point of view his orthodox former professors are curiously inconsistent. They use the naturalistic method in the area of New Testament textual criticism and then drop it most illogically, like something too hot to handle, when they come to other departments of biblical study” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended).
The theological danger inherent within the practice of textual criticism was admitted more recently from the liberal side by E. Jay Epps of Harvard Divinity School: “Nor (for those who choose to work within a theological framework) is textual criticism a ‘safe’ discipline -- a phrase I have heard for four decades -- that can be practiced without challenge to theological convictions or without risk to faith commitments or truth assertions. I DOUBT THAT IT EVER WAS ‘SAFE’ -- AT LEAST FOR ANY WHO HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR MYRIAD VARIATION UNITS, WITH THEIR INNUMERABLE COMPETING READINGS AND CONCEPTIONS, AS WELL AS THE THEOLOGICAL MOTIVATIONS THAT ARE EVIDENT IN SO MANY. BUT IF IT HAS BEEN A ‘SAFE’ DISCIPLINE, IT IS SAFE NO MORE. ... Any who embrace it as a vocation will find its intellectual challenges to have been increased a hundredfold by its enlarged boundaries and broadened horizons, which extend into codicology and papyrology and also into related early Christian, classical, literary, and sociological fields, all of which favor accommodation of the richness of the manuscript tradition, WITH ITS MULTIPLICITY OF TEXTS AND ITS MULTIVALENT ORIGINALS, RATHER THAN THE MYOPIC QUEST FOR A SINGLE ORIGINAL TEXT. Both broad training and knowledge, and A CAPACITY TO TOLERATE AMBIGUITY will be high on the list of requisite qualifications for its practitioners” (E. Jay Epps, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ In New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
This is a loud warning to those who have ears to hear. What Epps did not say is that all of the many fields into which the modern textual critic is led are dominated today by theological skeptics, and the evangelical or fundamentalist who follows this course is disobeying the Bible by not separating from heretics and is in dire danger of spiritual shipwreck. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33).
7. Modern textual criticism has furthered the ecumenical movement by bringing Protestants, Baptists, and Catholics together in the field of Bible texts and translation. This is a powerful exhibit of the unscriptural fruit of modern textual criticsm:
Whereas the Roman Catholic Church never accepted the Greek Received Text or the Protestant versions based on it and indeed it put translators such as William Tyndale and John Rogers to death, Rome has readily accepted the critical text. Note the following statement by a Roman Catholic: “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of biblical translation...[They can] work very well together and HAVE THE SAME APPROACH AND INTERPRETATION...[This] signals a new age in the church” (Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1979, pp. 232-234).
The papal proclamation “Divine afflante Spiritu” in 1943 called for an ecumenical Bible. “[T]hese translations [should] be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” (New American Bible, New York: World Publishing Co., 1970, p. vii).
In fact, Rome has conformed its own Vulgate to the modern critical text. In 1965, Pope Paul VI authorized the publication of a new Latin Vulgate, with the Latin text conformed to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 201). It was published in 1979 by the German Bible Society.
In 1966 the Revised Standard Version was published in the “Roman Catholic Edition.” This version included the apocryphal books inserted among the books of the Old Testament and incorporated Catholic readings such as “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. As a result, the chief editor of the RSV, Luther Weigle, was rewarded the “Papal Knighthood of St. Gregory the Great” in 1966 by Pope Paul VI (Peter Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible, 1999, p. 142).
Since 1967, Cardinal Carlo Martini has been on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.
In October 1969, for the first time in its history the Church of England authorized a Catholic Bible for use in its services. The Full Synod of Canterbury Convocation authorized The Jerusalem Bible, which was published in 1966 with the imprimatur of Cardinal Heenan.
In 1973 the Ecumenical Edition of the Revised Standard Version was published. Also called the “Common Bible,” a copy was presented personally to Pope Paul VI by Bruce Metzger, Herbert May, and others. Metzger described this as follows: “In a private audience granted to a small group, comprising the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras, Lady Priscilla and Sir William Collins, Herbert G. May, and the present writer, POPE PAUL ACCEPTED THE RSV ‘COMMON’ BIBLE AS A SIGNIFICANT STEP IN FURTHERING ECUMENICAL RELATIONS AMONG THE CHURCHES” (Metzger, “The RSV-Ecumenical Edition,” Theology Today, October 1977).
The Bible Societies translation projects today are “interconfessional.” In 1987 a formal agreement was made between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies that the critical Greek New Testament will be used for all future translations, both Catholic and Protestant (Guidelines for International Cooperation in Translating the Bible, Rome, 1987, p. 5). (For more about ecumenical translations see our book Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book, available from Way of Life Literature.)
</SPAN>
沿
- 最大赞力
- 0.00
- 当前赞力
- 0.00%
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
小葡萄，经常有好友传一些教义给我，很多对我来说都是很好很认同的道理，问题是这些道理我自己从生活和经历以及其他方面的学习中早已悟到了，变成了我成长的一部分。
问题一，那是不是我就不用信教了？
问题二，但是即使这样，按你们的话来说，我还是去不了天堂对吗？
小葡萄，经常有好友传一些教义给我，很多对我来说都是很好很认同的道理，问题是这些道理我自己从生活和经历以及其他方面的学习中早已悟到了，变成了我成长的一部分。
问题一，那是不是我就不用信教了？
问题二，但是即使这样，按你们的话来说，我还是去不了天堂对吗？
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
你信这话吗？光明会、共济会、波西米亚俱乐部、骷髅会都证明了这些圣经的真实性。
我并不认为什么都是阴谋，因为世界上还存在着另一股力量就是光明之子，所有遵从良心的人和新约信徒都是光明之子。他们也在和这股黑暗势力在对抗。我并没有说耶鲁神学院说的都是错的，但是现在神学院和基督教界的大方向就是这样。
圣经说了最重要的末世征兆就是教会的腐败和堕落。因为决定世界是否再次遭遇独裁专制的关键因素就是美国，因为美国拥有最先进的武器和最雄厚的军事力量。谁能制约和左右这股力量，世界就在谁之手上。现在美国之所以还有民主，利益集团尚未浮出水面，就是因为基督徒们在不断地用舆论来抵制权利的集中，揭露政府黑暗。因为社会上的民风、土壤还是有光明的一面。但是一旦教会继续腐败、继续堕落，敌基督的势力渗透入教会，即使选民也会受迷惑，到时候敌基督在教会里一呼百应，这个时候，抵制黑暗的力量就薄弱了，就如但以理书所说，选民被交付敌基督之手。抵制黑暗的力量薄弱了，变成可以掌控的，这个时候独裁的专制力量就会出现，敌基督正式登台。
所以，教会的腐败和堕落是从内部引起的、逐渐渗透的，正如耶稣是被犹大出卖的。教会绝对不是被什么共产主义、佛教、无神论给击垮的，而是被自己人给出卖的。这一切圣经都已经预言过了。教会腐败里面最最腐败的还不是牧师、讲台，而是神学院、宗教领袖，特别是跟政府合作的宗教领袖。最坏最坏的就是那些用软方式把圣经说成是人的作品的神学院教授，口蜜腹剑，特别是那些翻译圣经、不断改版的人，这些人简直是衣冠禽兽，比杀人放火还坏。
那么有没有人是真诚的糊涂虫，只是一时糊涂才这么相信、这么解释？可能有吧，但如果他们认识到了错误，他们会悔改并离开这些神学院。比如过去的阿米念，原来就是加尔文的学生，当他仔细研究圣经，发现加尔文胡说八道，然后就退出了，并且举证加尔文理论的错误。他们进行公开辩论，但是在辩论之前，阿米念被毒死了。
所以说，日光之下并无新事，现今的教会，就是当年的以色列。家庭教会属于犹大，官方教会或者大教堂属于以色列，以色列都有金牛犊，永远都支持政教结合，永远都是政治领袖高于信仰，高于上帝。而那些在以色列的虔诚人，则会受到犹大的呼吁而加入犹大的队伍。
末日预言里面耶稣说：在犹大的，要跑到山上，说的就是脱离官方教会的家庭教会，他们是警醒的，他们要在敌基督当权的时候跑到山上。
圣经说：全世界都卧在那恶者之下。圣经又说，撒旦说：谁拜我，我就把世界给他。
你信这话吗？光明会、共济会、波西米亚俱乐部、骷髅会都证明了这些圣经的真实性。
我并不认为什么都是阴谋，因为世界上还存在着另一股力量就是光明之子，所有遵从良心的人和新约信徒都是光明之子。他们也在和这股黑暗势力在对抗。我并没有说耶鲁神学院说的都是错的，但是现在神学院和基督教界的大方向就是这样。
圣经说了最重要的末世征兆就是教会的腐败和堕落。因为决定世界是否再次遭遇独裁专制的关键因素就是美国，因为美国拥有最先进的武器和最雄厚的军事力量。谁能制约和左右这股力量，世界就在谁之手上。现在美国之所以还有民主，利益集团尚未浮出水面，就是因为基督徒们在不断地用舆论来抵制权利的集中，揭露政府黑暗。因为社会上的民风、土壤还是有光明的一面。但是一旦教会继续腐败、继续堕落，敌基督的势力渗透入教会，即使选民也会受迷惑，到时候敌基督在教会里一呼百应，这个时候，抵制黑暗的力量就薄弱了，就如但以理书所说，选民被交付敌基督之手。抵制黑暗的力量薄弱了，变成可以掌控的，这个时候独裁的专制力量就会出现，敌基督正式登台。
所以，教会的腐败和堕落是从内部引起的、逐渐渗透的，正如耶稣是被犹大出卖的。教会绝对不是被什么共产主义、佛教、无神论给击垮的，而是被自己人给出卖的。这一切圣经都已经预言过了。教会腐败里面最最腐败的还不是牧师、讲台，而是神学院、宗教领袖，特别是跟政府合作的宗教领袖。最坏最坏的就是那些用软方式把圣经说成是人的作品的神学院教授，口蜜腹剑，特别是那些翻译圣经、不断改版的人，这些人简直是衣冠禽兽，比杀人放火还坏。
那么有没有人是真诚的糊涂虫，只是一时糊涂才这么相信、这么解释？可能有吧，但如果他们认识到了错误，他们会悔改并离开这些神学院。比如过去的阿米念，原来就是加尔文的学生，当他仔细研究圣经，发现加尔文胡说八道，然后就退出了，并且举证加尔文理论的错误。他们进行公开辩论，但是在辩论之前，阿米念被毒死了。
所以说，日光之下并无新事，现今的教会，就是当年的以色列。家庭教会属于犹大，官方教会或者大教堂属于以色列，以色列都有金牛犊，永远都支持政教结合，永远都是政治领袖高于信仰，高于上帝。而那些在以色列的虔诚人，则会受到犹大的呼吁而加入犹大的队伍。
末日预言里面耶稣说：在犹大的，要跑到山上，说的就是脱离官方教会的家庭教会，他们是警醒的，他们要在敌基督当权的时候跑到山上。
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
亲爱的，那些你好友传给你的教义，你觉得认同，那你觉得喜欢吗？你平时会这么做吗？如果你会这么做，你会渴望知道更多，并且认识这个真理的源头，就好像孩子找父母、找家一样，这叫饥渴慕义。灵魂都有归属，每个人都会找一个属于自己的灵魂家园。你不找这个家，会用其他方式找别的家。那些道理，如果你只是觉得对，但不会这么做，那么你会采取逃避的态度。你看看我说的有没有道理？
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
摩洛是上帝非常憎恶的偶像，为迦南人、亚扪人所敬拜，以色列人也经常被引诱去拜摩洛。摩洛敬拜的特点是要烧死小孩子，有时伴有同性恋行为。以下是旧约里提到的一些关于异教偶像摩洛的经文：
利18:21 不可使你的儿女经火归与摩洛，也不可亵渎你神的名。我是耶和华。
利20:2 不可使你的儿女经火归与摩洛，也不可亵渎你神的名。我是耶和华。
列上11:7 所罗门为摩押可憎的神基抹和亚扪人可憎的神摩洛，在耶路撒冷对面的山上建筑丘坛。
摩5:26 你们抬着为自己所造之摩洛的帐幕，和偶像的龛，并你们的神星。
耶32:35 他们在欣嫩子谷建筑巴力的丘坛，好使自己的儿女经火归摩洛。他们行这可憎的事，使犹大陷在罪里，这并不是我所吩咐的，也不是我心所起的意。
徒7:43 你们抬着摩洛的帐幕，和理番神的星。就是你们所造为要敬拜的像。因此，我要把你们迁到巴比伦外去。
旧金山的波西米亚俱乐部（Bohemian Club in San Francisco）是以猫头鹰为标志的，这只猫头鹰的图像也在一元美钞上出现。首都华盛顿的设计也处处出现猫头鹰的雕塑和形象。
猫头鹰象征着女神LILITH和MOLOCH (摩洛)。Lilith是黑暗之神和女魔王，住在荒芜之地，专门攻击小孩。因为LILITH的翅膀和脚跟猫头鹰一样，她又是黑暗之神，所以经常用猫头鹰来象征她。LILITH总是和摩洛（MOLOCH）联系在一起，因为摩洛的象征也是猫头鹰，而且也是同样要献人祭。摩洛是迦南人的神，是埃及神SET的另一个版本。摩洛是同性恋的神，又是火神，所以他的祭拜仪式上，要焚烧人作为人祭，又要有同性恋行为。摩洛的另一个象征是六角星，如使徒行传7:43节提及的“摩洛之星”。
猫头鹰除了象征摩洛和LILITH，还象征着什么呢？它还象征着智慧，因为猫头鹰能在黑暗中看见，它能看见你看不见的东西。所以，光明会会员，或者波西米亚俱乐部会员，就如同猫头鹰一样，能看见隐藏的智慧，他们能得到普罗大众所得不到的信息。也就是说，他们通过黑暗中光明者（LUCIFER）之启示，有一双洞悉万物的“全知眼”（光明会标记）。猫头鹰，也象征着黑暗中的光明者Lucifer（路西弗），也就是撒旦。
波西米亚俱乐部是一个精英俱乐部，每年七月在加利福尼亚北部丛林举行为期两周的野营。这个神秘的组织、神秘的活动场地，和其活动内容，极少被新闻媒体报道。然而他们的行为臭名昭著以至于不得不暴露在日光之下。这个波西米亚丛林有一只40尺高的猫头鹰，作为其场地的中心标志。每年全美大概有1500名重要的政界、商界、工业界头目、首脑、精英、媒体巨头云集于此，在这里进行集会、交流和崇拜偶像的仪式。
在夜间，他们在猫头鹰雕像前，举行大型的敬拜仪式，祭司完全穿着祭司长袍，进行密教宣言和焚烧人的仪式。有人说焚烧的是一些纸做的假人,但有当地居民曾亲自目睹焚烧真人（说是从城市里绑架和挑选的，必须是年轻的处子），该居民目睹的是一位未成年的处子男孩被杀害，他说那些精英领袖跟监狱里的杀人犯没什么两样。更有人见证仪式中间有同性恋行为。洛克菲勒、基辛格、布什总统、克林顿总统和奥巴马都在此俱乐部会员名单内，按期参加敬拜仪式。ALEX JONES拍摄的《Bohemian Grove》是在举行活动期间，深入丛林的实地拍摄，包括拍摄下了整个祭祀仪式的过程，这绝不是在拍电影，而是真实的异教偶像崇拜的祭祀仪式，只不过他拍摄的这一次显示的被焚烧的是假人。
波西米亚俱乐部建立于1872年，在距离旧金山75英里远的丛林里。丛林入口处有骷髅的标志。现代的撒旦教，也就是崇拜路西弗的密教，认为女神LILITH是路西弗（LUCIFER）的情人和代表，同时也是巴比伦的象征。她来自尘土和灰泥，是一个女魔王，喜欢掠杀儿童。当她和路西弗联合，就生下了另一个魔头“Baphomet”，又称山羊头神，是现代撒旦教的标志。Baphomet的代号符号有倒立的五角星、双角的手势等。总之无论是崇拜猫头鹰还是Baphomet，都是崇拜撒旦。五角星和双角手势也是撒旦崇拜者之间的暗号。下面是猫头鹰的图像、女神LILITH、MOLOCH、和Baphomet的图像和双角手势。
1. 猫头鹰
2. 猫头鹰雕像和建筑
3. 波西米亚丛林的猫头鹰雕像
4. 女神LILITH
5. 男神摩洛
6. 路西弗和LILITH之子BAPHOMET（现代撒旦教标志）
7. 摩洛的另一个象征：六角星
8. 象征撒旦的双角手势
这个是实地拍摄的“波西米亚丛林偶像敬拜”，参加的都是总统、部长、商业巨头、媒体巨头。
这些总统都是所谓的“基督徒”，都是教会成员！他们在宣誓入职的时候手按圣经宣誓。高等法院里面都有圣经作为宣誓证书。
呵呵，你在中国看到共产党一边自称无神，一边去烧香拜佛。这些美国的领袖精英也是一样，一边说自己是基督徒，一边教科书里讲进化论，一边自己去拜偶像。他们私下里去做的，才是他们真信的。
这都是圣经预言了的，拜偶像的教会被称为“以色列”，拒绝拜偶像的被称为犹大，但是一旦犹大也跟以色列一样了，末日就近了。
这可不是什么阴谋论，这可是实地拍摄的。这可不是拍电影啊，这是敬拜偶像的实况录像啊（第一个短片是摄像配实况录音）。一个短篇记录片，一个短片介绍，一个长篇记录片，下文是我写的内容介绍（如果看不到图片，请打开附件）。
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDDPzFXkkM4&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL9AC00B23FAA93EB0[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRxSxFj7kCg[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVtEvplXMLs[/ame]
波西米亚丛林和摩洛的敬拜
摩洛是上帝非常憎恶的偶像，为迦南人、亚扪人所敬拜，以色列人也经常被引诱去拜摩洛。摩洛敬拜的特点是要烧死小孩子，有时伴有同性恋行为。以下是旧约里提到的一些关于异教偶像摩洛的经文：
利18:21 不可使你的儿女经火归与摩洛，也不可亵渎你神的名。我是耶和华。
利20:2 不可使你的儿女经火归与摩洛，也不可亵渎你神的名。我是耶和华。
列上11:7 所罗门为摩押可憎的神基抹和亚扪人可憎的神摩洛，在耶路撒冷对面的山上建筑丘坛。
摩5:26 你们抬着为自己所造之摩洛的帐幕，和偶像的龛，并你们的神星。
耶32:35 他们在欣嫩子谷建筑巴力的丘坛，好使自己的儿女经火归摩洛。他们行这可憎的事，使犹大陷在罪里，这并不是我所吩咐的，也不是我心所起的意。
徒7:43 你们抬着摩洛的帐幕，和理番神的星。就是你们所造为要敬拜的像。因此，我要把你们迁到巴比伦外去。
旧金山的波西米亚俱乐部（Bohemian Club in San Francisco）是以猫头鹰为标志的，这只猫头鹰的图像也在一元美钞上出现。首都华盛顿的设计也处处出现猫头鹰的雕塑和形象。
猫头鹰象征着女神LILITH和MOLOCH (摩洛)。Lilith是黑暗之神和女魔王，住在荒芜之地，专门攻击小孩。因为LILITH的翅膀和脚跟猫头鹰一样，她又是黑暗之神，所以经常用猫头鹰来象征她。LILITH总是和摩洛（MOLOCH）联系在一起，因为摩洛的象征也是猫头鹰，而且也是同样要献人祭。摩洛是迦南人的神，是埃及神SET的另一个版本。摩洛是同性恋的神，又是火神，所以他的祭拜仪式上，要焚烧人作为人祭，又要有同性恋行为。摩洛的另一个象征是六角星，如使徒行传7:43节提及的“摩洛之星”。
猫头鹰除了象征摩洛和LILITH，还象征着什么呢？它还象征着智慧，因为猫头鹰能在黑暗中看见，它能看见你看不见的东西。所以，光明会会员，或者波西米亚俱乐部会员，就如同猫头鹰一样，能看见隐藏的智慧，他们能得到普罗大众所得不到的信息。也就是说，他们通过黑暗中光明者（LUCIFER）之启示，有一双洞悉万物的“全知眼”（光明会标记）。猫头鹰，也象征着黑暗中的光明者Lucifer（路西弗），也就是撒旦。
波西米亚俱乐部是一个精英俱乐部，每年七月在加利福尼亚北部丛林举行为期两周的野营。这个神秘的组织、神秘的活动场地，和其活动内容，极少被新闻媒体报道。然而他们的行为臭名昭著以至于不得不暴露在日光之下。这个波西米亚丛林有一只40尺高的猫头鹰，作为其场地的中心标志。每年全美大概有1500名重要的政界、商界、工业界头目、首脑、精英、媒体巨头云集于此，在这里进行集会、交流和崇拜偶像的仪式。
在夜间，他们在猫头鹰雕像前，举行大型的敬拜仪式，祭司完全穿着祭司长袍，进行密教宣言和焚烧人的仪式。有人说焚烧的是一些纸做的假人,但有当地居民曾亲自目睹焚烧真人（说是从城市里绑架和挑选的，必须是年轻的处子），该居民目睹的是一位未成年的处子男孩被杀害，他说那些精英领袖跟监狱里的杀人犯没什么两样。更有人见证仪式中间有同性恋行为。洛克菲勒、基辛格、布什总统、克林顿总统和奥巴马都在此俱乐部会员名单内，按期参加敬拜仪式。ALEX JONES拍摄的《Bohemian Grove》是在举行活动期间，深入丛林的实地拍摄，包括拍摄下了整个祭祀仪式的过程，这绝不是在拍电影，而是真实的异教偶像崇拜的祭祀仪式，只不过他拍摄的这一次显示的被焚烧的是假人。
波西米亚俱乐部建立于1872年，在距离旧金山75英里远的丛林里。丛林入口处有骷髅的标志。现代的撒旦教，也就是崇拜路西弗的密教，认为女神LILITH是路西弗（LUCIFER）的情人和代表，同时也是巴比伦的象征。她来自尘土和灰泥，是一个女魔王，喜欢掠杀儿童。当她和路西弗联合，就生下了另一个魔头“Baphomet”，又称山羊头神，是现代撒旦教的标志。Baphomet的代号符号有倒立的五角星、双角的手势等。总之无论是崇拜猫头鹰还是Baphomet，都是崇拜撒旦。五角星和双角手势也是撒旦崇拜者之间的暗号。下面是猫头鹰的图像、女神LILITH、MOLOCH、和Baphomet的图像和双角手势。
1. 猫头鹰
2. 猫头鹰雕像和建筑
3. 波西米亚丛林的猫头鹰雕像
4. 女神LILITH
5. 男神摩洛
6. 路西弗和LILITH之子BAPHOMET（现代撒旦教标志）
7. 摩洛的另一个象征：六角星
8. 象征撒旦的双角手势
- 最大赞力
- 0.06
- 当前赞力
- 100.00%
回复: 我的基督信仰和生活（读经笔记）
我是相信末世论的，敌基督从那出现，有很多说法，欢迎小葡萄分享启示录的理解。
加尔文主义问题很多，加尔文主义到处透露着一种“谦卑的骄傲”。
你有一个解读很有意思 “跑到山上的是家庭教会”，能够说说出处吗？
我是相信末世论的，敌基督从那出现，有很多说法，欢迎小葡萄分享启示录的理解。
加尔文主义问题很多，加尔文主义到处透露着一种“谦卑的骄傲”。
你有一个解读很有意思 “跑到山上的是家庭教会”，能够说说出处吗？
