The Dangers and Errors of the Emergent Church Movement

[ChosenbyHim]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to post this thread as a follow up to the one I posted a few weeks ago where I shared a video which brother Bryan Denlinger did on the Emergent Church Movement. So the purpose of this thread is to just further inform the brethren on here about this wicked and heretical movement that is seeking to redo Biblical Christianity.

Also this heretical movement is growing fast, so it is necessary to bring awareness of this dangerous movement to other Christians who may not have heard of this growing movement.

Some key figures in this Emergent Church Movement are Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Tony Jones, and Karen Ward. Again, the people and leaders behind this very movement are seeking to redo Christianity. Also the core belief of this movement is that there is no Final Authority, here is how I know this.

Here is a quote from Brian McClaren about the Bible:

"If the Bible is God’s revelation, why can’t Christians finally agree on what it says? Why does it seem to be in conflict with science so often? Why has it been so easy for so many people to use the Bible to justify such terrible atrocities?" - Brian McClaren, A New Kind of Christianity.

What Brian McClaren was doing here is he was sowing a seed of doubt in the minds of his readers about the word of God.

Isn't that how Satan works when it comes to the word of God?

Being since Satan's very first recorded words in Scripture were the following: "Yea, hath God said,...?"

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? - Genesis 3:1 (KJV)

See, Satan was the very first one to ever question the word of God. Satan sowed a seed of doubt into the mind of Eve in regard to what God had already said.

And these emergent church leaders do not like the fact that God gave us His Book and that it is the Final Authority.

Here is what Brian Mclaren said further in regard to the Scriptures:

“Scripture is something God had ‘let be,’ and so it is at once God’s creation and the creation of the dozens of people and communities and cultures who produced it.” (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 162)


"Interestingly, when Scripture talks about itself, it doesn't use the language we often use in our explanation of its value. Premodern Western Christians, words like authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal are crucial... hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extra biblical words and concepts to justify one's belief in the Bible's ultimate authority." (Brian McClaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, p. 164.)


“… if you’re going someplace where no one has ever been a map cannot help you. That’s where the name “Off The Map” comes from in part. But another problem with maps is that sometimes they change. And the maps that used to accurately reflect reality don’t reflect reality anymore." (Brian McLaren, A New Kind Of Christian – Part 1, Copyright: 2004, Off The Map)

Can you see how Brian McClaren truly feels about the Bible and Biblical Christianity after seeing his own words?

According to McClaren, he feels that Christianity needs to change with the culture and times. And he obviously does not believe that the Bible is the sole Final Authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Another thing about Brian McClaren is that he is not hiding the fact that he is behind this counter-reformation/ emergent church movement. In his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, he openly states on the front cover that he is a "post/protestant, Catholic, Emergent, and unfinished Christian."

Now in that list, he mentions other things that he considers himself to be, but I just wanted to highlight the ones that clearly shows that he is pro-Catholic and pro-emergent.


A popular book that is out now, titled: The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity is doing more for the emerging church in that it is spreading its dangerous philosophy to the masses of people. The philosophy of the Emerging church about the word of God is dangerous because it rejects the complete and absolute Canon of Scripture (Psalm 19:7, Proverbs 30:5-6, 1 Corinthians 13:10, Colossians 1:25, and Revelation 22:18-20).

The Shack is written by William P. Young where Mack, the main character is said to meet with God in an abandoned Shack within the Oregon wilderness. Now look at what William writes in his book The Shack in regard to God and the Scriptures:

"He had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper …. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized …. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book." - William P. Young
(The Shack)


Can you see from this excerpt how William attacks the sole Authority of the word of God?

And by William P. Young suggesting the idea that personal communication with God today can take place outside of prayer and Bible reading & Bible study is very dangerous.

And this is how William along with emerging church authors are helping the emerging church to spread their heretical ideas and philosophy. By writing books which question the sufficiency of Holy Scripture.


Another key person in this emergent church movement is a lady by the name of Phyllis Tickel:

She is the author of the book, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why.

Now look at what she writes in regard to sola sciptura:


“Always without fail, the thing that gets lost early in the process of a reconfiguration is any clear and general understanding of who or what is to be used as the arbitrator of correct belief, action, and control… The Reformation,…was to answer the question… sola scriptura, scriptura sola… While we may laugh and say the divisiveness was Protestantism’s greatest gift to Christianity, ours is a somber joke. Demoninationalism is a disunity in the Body of Christ and, ironically, one that has a bloody history… Now, some five hundred years later, even many of the most die-hard Protestants among us have grown suspicious of “Scripture and Scripture only.” We question what the words mean - literally? Metaphorically? Actually? We even question which words do and do not belong in Scripture and the purity of the editorial line of decent of those that do. We begin to refer to Luther’s principle of “sola scriptura, scriptura sola” as having been little more than the creation of a paper pope in place of a flesh and blood one. And even as we speak, the authority that has been in place for five hundred years withers away in our hands.”(Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, pgs 45, 46, 47).


And from what she said there, it is clear that she does not believe that the Holy Bible is the sole Final Authority.


I also want to share a segment of a video here which exposes Phyllis Tickle for the pro-Catholic agent that she is. In this segment, Phyllis Tickle in her very own words, explains what the purpose of this Emergent Church movement is. She also clearly states that:

"the division between the Roman Catholic believers and the Non-Roman Catholic believers is dwindling away as they enter into the Emergence." - Phyllis Tickle

That is her very own words, showing also another aspect of this whole emergent church movement and that is the denial of Biblical separation. Which is another reason Scott, why this Emergent Church movement is so very dangerous.

Furthermore, Phyllis Tickle in this video segment asks the question: "Where now is our Authority?"

In a conference, she asks the question again: "Where is the authority?" Then after asking that question, she then states: "Because we don't know. We have lost our authority"

Now here is the segment of the video, that way those of you who view this post can see for yourself and can verify what I am telling you about this Emergent church movement.

[video=youtube;BiQeMtSDF5Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiQeMtSDF5Q[/video]​

So the main theme of this emergence (Emergent Church Movement) is that there is:

1) No Final Authority.

2) No longer a division and separation between Christians and Catholics.

3) An all inclusive Gospel.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

So what these Emergent Church leaders are doing is they are questioning the Final Authority of Scripture. After they do that, then they seek to remove the necessary division and biblical separation between Christians and Catholics as well as other . And after they do that, they seek to change and "reform" the Gospel. But what they are really doing is perverting the Gospel. They reject the true Biblical Gospel where Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father in Heaven (John 14:6). And they replace it with a false, universal type of gospel where everyone is included regardless of what their own beliefs are.

And like the Charismatic movement has done and still does, the the emerging church also promotes and puts an emphasis on personal experience while seeking to diminish Biblical Sufficiency. Biblical Sufficiency is the Bible Doctrine that Scripture alone can provide for every spiritual need ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

And you can see that this Emergent Church type philosophy blends well with the Ecumenical movement that seeks to unify people at the expense of the truth. That's why most likely 9 times out of the 10, you won't hear these people discussing Bible Doctrine. Why? Because they do not want to divide over Doctrine.

But that approach of theirs is not biblical.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 16 exhorts us to separate ourselves from those who would teach things that are contrary to Bible Doctrine:

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. - Romans 16:17-18 (KJV)


Here is what emerging church leader Pip Piper says in regard to Evangelism:

"Evangelism or mission for me is no longer persuading people to believe what I believe, not matter how edgy or creative I get. It is more about shared experiences and encounters. It is about walking the journey of life and faith together, each distinct to his or her own tradition and culture but with the possibility of encountering God and truth from one another." - Pip Piper (Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, pg. 131.)

Now in the same book that Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger have written and co-authored ( Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures), here is what they write in this book of theirs:


Evangelism in the emerging church “involves sharing the deep experiences of life with those outside the faith”. - (Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Pg. 130.)


"Christians can not truly evangelize unless they are prepared to be evangelized in the process. In sharing the good news, people are enriched by the spiritual insights, honest questions and depth of devotion demonstrated by those of other faiths. Including others involves listening to them, learning from them. Much of what exists in other faiths may not necessarily be hostile to the kingdom. Christians can learn a lot from other walks of life." - (Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Pg. 131.)


"Emerging church leaders are not impressed by those who defend the Christian faith by promoting definitive answers to convince those who doubt the faith." - (Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger,Emerging Churches: Pg. 126.)


Again, from these quotes, we can see that the Emergent Church Movement does indeed seek to tear down and destroy the necessary walls of division and Biblical Separation between Biblical Christianity and pagan religious belief systems.


Rick Warren, who is the author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life supports the emerging church movement. The fact that Rick Warren teamed up with New Age sympathizer Leonard Sweet should be evidence enough that he does support this emergent church movement. Also, Rick Warren and Leonard Sweet produced an audio set called The Tides of Change. And in this audio set, they both spoke of "waves of change,""a new spirituality," and "new frontiers."


Warren and Sweet have both been instrumental in helping set the stage for the emerging church movement. And even though Leonard Sweet has been an avid promoter of New Age ideas for a long time, Warren has shown continued support for him. In 1995, the two did an audio series called The Tides of Change. - (Rick Warren and Leonard Sweet Together Again,The Lighthouse Newsletter, May 5, 2007)


And to show some of Lenord Sweet's New Age, Ecumenical and Global chruch philosophy, here are some quotes taken from his book, Quantum Spirituality:


"Mysticism, once cast to the sidelines of the Christian tradition, is now situated in postmodernist culture near the center.... In the words of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, Jesuit philosopher of religion/dogmatist Karl Rahner, "The Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something, or he will be nothing." [Mysticism] is metaphysics arrived at through mindbody experiences. Mysticism begins in experience; it ends in theology." - [Leonard Sweet. Quantum Spirituality. Pgs. 11, 76]


Sweet defines the New Light as “a structure of human becoming, a channeling of Christ energies through mindbody experience” (Quantum Spirituality, p. 70).


"The first of these five untheorized observations is that New Light embodiment means to be "in connection" and 'in-formation' with other Christians. Deeper feeling and higher relating go together. The church is fundamentally one being, one person, a comm-union whose cells are connected to one another within the information network called the Christ consciousness." (Leonard Sweet,Quantum Spirituality, Pg. 122)


To conclude, as you can see from the evidence shared here, the Emergent Church (Emerging Church) Movement is seeking to undermine the important Biblical Foundation of Scripture as our only Final Authority.


The leaders who are behind this wicked emergent church movement have also been exposed of bringing in another gospel into the churches in these last days.


Instead of holding to the true Biblical Gospel where Jesus Christ is the only way to God the Father in Heaven (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, and 1 John 5:12). These emerging church leaders have changed and perverted the true Gospel into a seeker sensitive gospel. A universal gospel that is all inclusive of other people's faiths and beliefs.


And Biblical Separation; which was once practiced among the majority of born again Christians, is now being diminished by this ecumenical, emerging church movement. In fact, when was the last time anyone in here has heard a sermon preached on Biblical Separation?


Just something to consider.

Well everyone, I hope this post has been a help to you all in regard to the issue of the Emergent Church Movement. Not a lot of sermons and messages are preached on this dangerous movement, and that is unfortunate, because Christians need to be made aware of this grave deception and heretical movement that is seeking to redo Biblical Christianity.

And again, I hope this has been a help to those on here who may have sought for clarity on this issue at one time in their Christian walk.

And I exhort the brethren on here to warn other born again Christians about this dangerous movement.

And let us be Bible believing Christians. Let us search the Scriptures daily just like the Bereans in Acts 17 did. They searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether those things were so. And they received the word of God with all readiness of mind (Acts 17:11).


21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)


4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. - 1 John 4:1-3 (KJV)

 

[Agricola]

Some key figures in this Emergent Church Movement are Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Tony Jones, and Karen Ward. Again, the people and leaders behind this very movement are seeking to redo Christianity. Also the core belief of this movement is that there is no Final Authority, here is how I know this.


To conclude, as you can see from the evidence shared here, the Emergent Church (Emerging Church) Movement is seeking to undermine the important Biblical Foundation of Scripture as our only Final Authority.


The leaders who are behind this wicked emergent church movement have also been exposed of bringing in another gospel into the churches in these last days.

If you can not be bothered to read this then just read the first paragraphs, I have quoted one of them above. In the above quotes we see the key points and the hidden agenda. This is yet another rabid attack by the King James Only Cult on anyone who uses anything other than the 1611 King James.

This King James Only cult is dangerous, do not touch it with a barge pole.

 

[gb9]

chosen by him should title his threads " if you do not do things the way the WE do things you are wrong and evil and hell-bound" since this is what they all say.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

one cult condemning another cult...

 

[RickShafer]

The continual sniping gets tiresome.
- Like God doesn't have Chosen?
- - (I tell you He does)

 

[ChosenbyHim]

one cult condemning another cult...

Rachel, I wouldn't be so quick to call a group of Bible believers a cult.

Bible believers are not a cult, they simply trust and believe that God's word is perfect and inerrant.

We who believe in the inerrancy and perfection of the King James Bible simply believe that God kept His promise to preserve His pure and inerrant words.


You see Rachel, I rather choose to believe that God kept His promise to preserve His words in Psalm 12:6-7 then to be a part of a group of so called educated people who constantly attack and criticize the word of God like the Aleaxandrians do.

You Alexandrians are your own final authority. You have no perfect Bible at all to submit to.

The only thing it would seem that you guys do submit to is your finite mind.

 

[Agricola]

I submit to God, not a Bible Version. I continue to point the flaws of King James Bible out which is enough to show its not this mythical perfect Bible that you think exists based on taking Psalm 12:6-7 out of context.

Heres one I posted on another thread that I would love to be addressed as to why King James is Right and NIV is wrong and why this translation is the work of satan and what is the purpose of satan changing this verse.


This is taken right off of the copy and pastes you make from the 1611 website.

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!


This one shows again how the King James is not the final authority, the King James translator decides to use Lieutenant instead of the correct word.

How is this a perfect translation? It is not. Infact the King James confuses the passage, what is a lieutenant ? Today most people will say "A junor commissioned officer rank", the King James should have used the correct word as used by NIV etc, that is Sartraps , or simply given its definition instead, Govenor of Persian province.

So what is more important a lieutenant or Govenor, when we see its the Govenors the letters were sent to, it makes more sense and shows how important it is. Lieutenant does not convey this. There is only one translation for this word.



Strong's Number: 0323
Original Word Word Origin
!prdXxa of Persian derivation
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
'achashdarpan TWOT - 69
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
akh-ash-dar-pan' Noun Masculine
Definition

satrap, a governor of a Persian province

King James Word Usage - Total: 4
lieutenants 4

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"Even though there are some pastors in the Emerging Church Movement that are true to scripture, the movement as a whole needs to stick to the essentials of the Christian faith, otherwise, in spite of its proclamation to renew Christianity afresh, it will become stale and heretical. No one, no movement of people should ever be so arrogant as to say that they can't fall into error -- even though they seek truth. As I've always said, if you want to mess something up, all you need is two things: people and time. The Emerging Church movement has much good in it, but it also has a good bit of bad already within its doors."

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I submit to God, not a Bible Version. I continue to point the flaws of King James Bible out which is enough to show its not this mythical perfect Bible that you think exists based on taking Psalm 12:6-7 out of context.

Well Agricola, if you submit to God, then you will automatically submit to His authoritative word. It is that simple.

Heres one I posted on another thread that I would love to be addressed as to why King James is Right and NIV is wrong and why this translation is the work of satan and what is the purpose of satan changing this verse.


This is taken right off of the copy and pastes you make from the 1611 website.

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!


This one shows again how the King James is not the final authority, the King James translator decides to use Lieutenant instead of the correct word.

Agricola, what makes you say that Lieutenant is somehow not the correct word to use?

I for one know what a Lieutenant is. Now I don't have a clue in the world as to what a satrap is. Interesting how people who always want to attack and critic the King James Bible for some of the archaic words that are in it, somehow never like to point out the fact that the new versions also have archaic words in them!!! See the double standard? See the hypocrisy?

How is this a perfect translation? It is not. Infact the King James confuses the passage, what is a lieutenant ? Today most people will say "A junor commissioned officer rank", the King James should have used the correct word as used by NIV etc, that is Sartraps , or simply given its definition instead, Govenor of Persian province.

Agricola, how is Lieutenant not a perfect translation?!

And how does the King James Bible confuse the passage with using the word Lieutenant?

It doesn't. The King James Bible is correct. Again, if you went up to a random person on the streets, and asked them who a Lieutenant was, how long do you think you would be waiting for a response? I would bet they would be able to answer your question immediately.

Then that very same day, go up to another random person walking on the sidewalks and ask him who a Satrap is, and see what kind of puzzled look he gives you.

Now obviously I looked up the word Satrap in a dictionary and I see that it is a governor or an official. But again, your argument Agricola is way off. Lieutenant is a much clearer translation and rendering than Satrap is.

So what is more important a lieutenant or Govenor, when we see its the Govenors the letters were sent to, it makes more sense and shows how important it is. Lieutenant does not convey this. There is only one translation for this word.

Again, Agricola how does the word Lieutenant not convey the importance of the officer in the passage? How?

Here let's look up both definitions for each word:


lieu·ten·ant(l

-t

n

nt)n.1.a. Abbr. LT or Lt. A commissioned rank in the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard that is above lieutenant junior grade and below lieutenant commander.
b. A first lieutenant.
c. A second lieutenant.
d. One who holds the rank of lieutenant, first lieutenant, or second lieutenant.

2. (l

f-t

n

nt) A commissioned officer in the British and Canadian navies ranking just below a lieutenant commander.
3. An officer in a police or fire department ranking below a captain.
4. One who acts in place of or represents a superior; an assistant or deputy: the organized crime figure and his




lieutenant[lɛfˈtɛnənt (US) luːˈtɛnənt]n1. (Military) a military officer holding commissioned rank immediately junior to a captain
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) a naval officer holding commissioned rank immediately junior to a lieutenant commander
3. (Business / Professions) US an officer in a police or fire department ranking immediately junior to a captain
4. (Business / Professions) a person who holds an office in subordination to or in place of a superior[from Old French, literally: place-holding]
lieutenancy n


sa·trap (s

tr

p

, s

t

r

p

)n.1. A governor of a province in ancient Persia.
2. A ruler.
3. A subordinate bureaucrat or official: "The satraps of Capitol Hill will not sit idly by" (David Nyhan).

satrap[ˈsætrəp]n1. (Historical Terms) (in ancient Persia) a provincial governor
2. (Historical Terms) a subordinate ruler, esp a despotic one

Strong's Number: 0323
Original Word Word Origin
!prdXxa of Persian derivation
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
'achashdarpan TWOT - 69
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
akh-ash-dar-pan' Noun Masculine
Definition

satrap, a governor of a Persian province

King James Word Usage - Total: 4
lieutenants 4

 

[Agricola]

Well Agricola, if you submit to God, then you will automatically submit to His authoritative word. It is that simple.



Agricola, what makes you say that Lieutenant is somehow not the correct word to use?

I for one know what a Lieutenant is. Now I don't have a clue in the world as to what a satrap is. Interesting how people who always want to attack and critic the King James Bible for some of the archaic words that are in it, somehow never like to point out the fact that the new versions also have archaic words in them!!! See the double standard? See the hypocrisy?




Agricola, how is Lieutenant not a perfect translation?!

And how does the King James Bible confuse the passage with using the word Lieutenant?

It doesn't. The King James Bible is correct. Again, if you went up to a random person on the streets, and asked them who a Lieutenant was, how long do you think you would be waiting for a response? I would bet they would be able to answer your question immediately.

Then that very same day, go up to another random person walking on the sidewalks and ask him who a Satrap is, and see what kind of puzzled look he gives you.

Now obviously I looked up the word Satrap in a dictionary and I see that it is a governor or an official. But again, your argument Agricola is way off. Lieutenant is a much clearer translation and rendering than Satrap is.




Again, Agricola how does the word Lieutenant not convey the importance of the officer in the passage? How?

Here let's look up both definitions for each word:


lieu·ten·ant(l

-t

n

nt)n.1.a. Abbr. LT or Lt. A commissioned rank in the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard that is above lieutenant junior grade and below lieutenant commander.
b. A first lieutenant.
c. A second lieutenant.
d. One who holds the rank of lieutenant, first lieutenant, or second lieutenant.

2. (l

f-t

n

nt) A commissioned officer in the British and Canadian navies ranking just below a lieutenant commander.
3. An officer in a police or fire department ranking below a captain.
4. One who acts in place of or represents a superior; an assistant or deputy: the organized crime figure and his




lieutenant[lɛfˈtɛnənt (US) luːˈtɛnənt]n1. (Military) a military officer holding commissioned rank immediately junior to a captain
2. (Transport / Nautical Terms) a naval officer holding commissioned rank immediately junior to a lieutenant commander
3. (Business / Professions) US an officer in a police or fire department ranking immediately junior to a captain
4. (Business / Professions) a person who holds an office in subordination to or in place of a superior[from Old French, literally: place-holding]
lieutenancy n


sa·trap (s

tr

p

, s

t

r

p

)n.1. A governor of a province in ancient Persia.
2. A ruler.
3. A subordinate bureaucrat or official: "The satraps of Capitol Hill will not sit idly by" (David Nyhan).

satrap[ˈsætrəp]n1. (Historical Terms) (in ancient Persia) a provincial governor
2. (Historical Terms) a subordinate ruler, esp a despotic one

Amazing. Your blindness to this cult is astounding. All you have done is hung yourself, give a cult enough rope and they do that, you have just demonstrated the folly of defending your cult. A 10 year old could pull your logic apart, repeating something 10 times is not going to make it right, it is obvious to anyone apart from yourself and your cult members how ridiculous trying to justify the use of the word Lieutenant is over Satrap is correct.

Go and tell a Governor he is a Lieutenant.

AS I said before, sure people may not know what satrap is, but thats what study notes and dictionaries are for. Also the tanslator could have easily put "Govenors of Persian provences".

The King James relegates the importance of the people being written to and just confuses who were being written to.

If I wrote that I sent a letter to the Lieutenants in America about the current events, which are going to shape the nation, that is meaningless, have I sent a letter to the Lieutenants in the Fire Service, Salvation Army, other military staff or did I send letters to the mobsters and other criminal organisations?

No I did not, instead I sent the letter to the GOVERNORS of each state.

See now, how significant that is.

Now tell me, what is Satans plan for making this horrendous change?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Amazing. Your blindness to this cult is astounding. All you have done is hung yourself, give a cult enough rope and they do that, you have just demonstrated the folly of defending your cult. A 10 year old could pull your logic apart, repeating something 10 times is not going to make it right, it is obvious to anyone apart from yourself and your cult members how ridiculous trying to justify the use of the word Lieutenant is over Satrap is correct.

Go and tell a Governor he is a Lieutenant.

AS I said before, sure people may not know what satrap is, but thats what study notes and dictionaries are for. Also the tanslator could have easily put "Govenors of Persian provences".

The King James relegates the importance of the people being written to and just confuses who were being written to.

If I wrote that I sent a letter to the Lieutenants in America about the current events, which are going to shape the nation, that is meaningless, have I sent a letter to the Lieutenants in the Fire Service, Salvation Army, other military staff or did I send letters to the mobsters and other criminal organisations?

No I did not, instead I sent the letter to the GOVERNORS of each state.

See now, how significant that is.

Now tell me, what is Satans plan for making this horrendous change?

Agricola, did you ever think of reading the context within the verse you are giving a critique to?


Ezra 8:36 KJV
And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.

Now I see that the King James has governors listed in that verse already. So again, your critique is not even logical.

And also what sense would it make to write governors twice in the same verse?


Your logic Agricola in translation would look like this: "..to the king's governors, and to the governors..."

What kind of logic is that?

One other thing too Agricola, have you considered that just may be, just maybe a Lieutenant back then in the Biblical times served in more than one office and position? Could it be that a Lieutenant back then may have served in more than one role and capacity?

Just a thought Agricola.

 

[RedTent]

I think it is silly to target one group who is adding to scripture their own ideas of God. It started no more than 100 years after the Christ was on the cross and there is some of it in almost every church.

We are to let the Holy Spirit lead us to knowledge and find that knowledge in scripture.

 

[Agricola]

Agricola, did you ever think of reading the context within the verse you are giving a critique to?


Ezra 8:36 KJV
And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.

Now I see that the King James has governors listed in that verse already. So again, your critique is not even logical.

And also what sense would it make to write governors twice in the same verse?



Your logic Agricola in translation would look like this: "..to the king's governors, and to the governors..."

What kind of logic is that?

One other thing too Agricola, have you considered that just may be, just maybe a Lieutenant back then in the Biblical times served in more than one office and position? Could it be that a Lieutenant back then may have served in more than one role and capacity?

Just a thought Agricola.

YES lets take a proper look and compare shall we.

King James.
And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.

NIV
[SUP]36 [/SUP]They also delivered the king’s orders to the royal satraps and to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, who then gave assistance to the people and to the house of God.

So the King James mentions Govenors and Lieutenants, thats very clear isnt it... NOT
The NIV mentions the governors of TRans-Euphrates and Satraps, Govenors of Persia, This is a lot clearer and more true to the original texts than King James is.

Bible Study Senario 1.

"Hey Pastor, what does Satrap meanx?"
"Good Question Johnny, Ill get my dictionary, hang on"
"Thats ok, Im googling it on my phone pastror", replies Fred.
Mary pipes up,"It has it in my study Bible notes its Govenors of Persian provences.

Bible Study Senario 2.
The King James Bible is the only Bible that is allowed in the world.
"Pastor, why would the letters be sent to Governors and lieutenants, thats stupid isnt it, why lieutenants and not Generals, Lieutenants are just minor ranks in an army arnt they."
"No idea Johnny, But we just have to put our trust in the King James Bible, as its it Gods perfect word and must be right."


The King James version is destroying Biblical History. Without the correct versions of the NIV historians would never know the correct people who were being sent letters, this could be crucial information in Biblical Archaeology, as a find in Persia could be a direct link to this verse, but if its King James only and all other texts are destroyed, that connection and the true history would be lost forever.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

YES lets take a proper look and compare shall we.

King James.
And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.

NIV
[SUP]36 [/SUP]They also delivered the king’s orders to the royal satraps and to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, who then gave assistance to the people and to the house of God.

So the King James mentions Govenors and Lieutenants, thats very clear isnt it... NOT
The NIV mentions the governors of TRans-Euphrates and Satraps, Govenors of Persia, This is a lot clearer and more true to the original texts than King James is.

No Agricola, that is just your opinion.

The translation and rendering of the King's lieutenants, as the King James Bible has it is just fine.

Bible Study Senario 1.

"Hey Pastor, what does Satrap meanx?"
"Good Question Johnny, Ill get my dictionary, hang on"
"Thats ok, Im googling it on my phone pastror", replies Fred.
Mary pipes up,"It has it in my study Bible notes its Govenors of Persian provences.

Okay, and your point?

You just proved what I said in my earlier post and that is that the new versions also contain archaic words in them.

Bible Study Senario 2.
The King James Bible is the only Bible that is allowed in the world.
"Pastor, why would the letters be sent to Governors and lieutenants, thats stupid isnt it, why lieutenants and not Generals, Lieutenants are just minor ranks in an army arnt they."
"No idea Johnny, But we just have to put our trust in the King James Bible, as its it Gods perfect word and must be right."

Again Agricola, what are you trying to get at here?

The sentence and passage makes perfect in the sense in the King James Bible. The word lieutenants appears in the Authorized King James Bible 4 times. Here are each of the verses where the word lieutenants appears:

36 And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God. - Ezra 8:36 (KJV)


12 Then were the king's scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king's ring. - Esther 3:12 (KJV)


9 Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language. - Esther 8:9 (KJV)


3 And all the rulers of the provinces, and the lieutenants, and the deputies, and officers of the king, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them. - Esther 9:3 (KJV)


So after reading each verse of Scripture where lieutenants appears and seeing the context, the word lieutenants can definitely be seen as a clear and good rendering. Whenever you see the word lieutenants in a passage of Scripture, it is followed by governors ( Ezra 8:36 & Esther 3:12). And it is also followed by the word deputies. And the phrase rulers of the provinces surrounds the word lieutenants in the Authorized Version.


So again Agricola, your argument is simply illogical.

The King James version is destroying Biblical History. Without the correct versions of the NIV historians would never know the correct people who were being sent letters, this could be crucial information in Biblical Archaeology, as a find in Persia could be a direct link to this verse, but if its King James only and all other texts are destroyed, that connection and the true history would be lost forever.

No, the King James Version has blessed Biblical History tremendously. It is Book that God has used and blessed for well over 400 years now. It is also the greatest and best selling Book of all time. That is a fact. The spiritual fruit that the King James Bible has produced is totally amazing. The preaching of the King James Bible has led to the greatest Missionary Outreaches and Revivals around the globe. Millions and millions of souls have been won to the Lord through the preaching of the Authorized Version.

Historians would know who the correct people were who were being sent the letters,


36 And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God. - Ezra 8:36 (KJV)

The letters and king's commissions were delivered and sent to the king's lieutenants and to the governors. It is that simple. The passage clearly tells you who received the letters and the king's commissions.

The new versions are filed with lies and false accounts. Let me give you an example of one in the NIV.

In Mark 1:1-3 in the NIV, it reads:

1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]



And Agricola, that rendering that the NIV has in Mark 1:2 is a lie. The first phrase in Mark 1:3 is not written in Isaiah, it is written in Malachi!

Now here is the correct reading of Mark 1:1-3 as found in the Authorized Version:


1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. - Mark 1:1-3 (KJV)

The King James Bible correctly reads: "As it is written in the prophets,..."


You can trust and believe the King James Bible. You can know that it is God's perfect, inerrant and infallible word. Just ask God in prayer to give you the faith to believe His word.

 

[SantoSubito]

YES lets take a proper look and compare shall we.

King James.
And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.

NIV
[SUP]36 [/SUP]They also delivered the king’s orders to the royal satraps and to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, who then gave assistance to the people and to the house of God.

So the King James mentions Govenors and Lieutenants, thats very clear isnt it... NOT
The NIV mentions the governors of TRans-Euphrates and Satraps, Govenors of Persia, This is a lot clearer and more true to the original texts than King James is.

To be fair this is one situation where the KJV is clearer to a modern man than the NIV. Your average man has no idea what a satrap is and probably has no idea what the Latinate "Trans-Euphrates" construction means. Plus I would be willing to bet that the Hebrew just says "river" and not "the river Euphrates"

 

[Agricola]

So there we have it folks another repetitive lengthy post which goes a bit off topic, along with the King James is perfect mantra, all in order to justify that the word Lieutenant is the better and more correct word than Satrap,

This is despite that everyone can look up themsleves in Strongs the translated word, which is the following. Chosenbyhim lists the other 3 useaegs of the word in the King James, but they are all also obviously wrong.



Strong's Number: 0323
Original Word Word Origin !prdXxa of Persian derivation
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry 'achashdarpan TWOT - 69
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech kh-ash-dar-pan' Noun Masculine
Definition satrap, a governor of a Persian province

King James Word Usage - Total: 4

lieutenants 4Sure the passage reads fine in King James, but its not accurate, the NIV is more accurate, Again I will post the two you can compare side by side, along with my translation!


King James.
And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.

NIV
[SUP]36 [/SUP]They also delivered the king’s orders to the royal satraps and to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, who then gave assistance to the people and to the house of God.

My Translation
They also delivered the king’s orders to the royal Governors of Persia and to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, who then gave assistance to the people and to the house of God.

So again I ask, why are these other version so bad that the King James Only Cult have to argue against them? What is it that is so evil about these versions of this verse that has cult members such as Chosenbyhim, resorting to post pages of confusing drivel to try and tell us that we should be using the King James version which says Lieutenants and reject the evil versions which list the correct translation of Satrap ?

 

[just-me]

My wife read the book "The Shack" because it was endorsed by our daughter in law. After reading it, she told me what it was about and the story line behind it. We both claimed it as being ridiculous. As a matter of fact, I surmised it as stench. It was utterly stupid.

 

[Agricola]

To be fair this is one situation where the KJV is clearer to a modern man than the NIV. Your average man has no idea what a satrap is and probably has no idea what the Latinate "Trans-Euphrates" construction means. Plus I would be willing to bet that the Hebrew just says "river" and not "the river Euphrates"

Utter Rubbish! I have shown you that the King James is woefully mis-usin the word, if you wanted a modern word we all understood, then God would have told the translators to use the word Govenor, or just said, look mate, put in "Govenors of Persia in , not Lieutenants. "

IF we limited our reading to just words we commonly knew, then we would all be reading kids books. Its called personal advancment and education. I take it you do know how to use a dictionary?

 

[SantoSubito]

Utter Rubbish! I have shown you that the King James is woefully mis-usin the word, if you wanted a modern word we all understood, then God would have told the translators to use the word Govenor, or just said, look mate, put in "Govenors of Persia in , not Lieutenants. "

My point is satraps have equivalents in our culture, plus satraps isn't necessarily clearer since there were satraps under satraps, and the satraps and governors are not equivalent in that verse, they're two separate officials. Lieutenants is a perfectly acceptable word, which is equivalent to high ranking royal official in a absolute monarchy, and we are all (at least in the US) very familiar with the office of governor.

I'm not a KJVO (how could a Catholic be a KJVO anyway?), but this is a case of unnecessary nitpicking. They're are plenty of other more substantial things you could poke at in the KJV, like lazily leaving the word Lucifer untranslated from the Latin.

IF we limited our reading to just words we commonly knew, then we would all be reading kids books. Its called personal advancment and education. I take it you do know how to use a dictionary?

I'm actually well versed in terms like satrap, and Trans-Euphrates (even though across the Euphrates would mean the same thing and avoid Latin constructions). But when you're comparing the KJV to a translation that states in it's preface that it seeks to render the Bible into "Modern everyday English" it is bit ironic that you accuse the KJV of being too common.