At sunset today (2 October 2024) would be 1 Tishrei 5785 in the Jewish calendar. This day is the first day of the seventh Jewish month and is the Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:24, Numbers 29:1).
The Jews also celebrate this day as their New Year's Day (ראש השנה / Rosh Hashanah - Head of the year).
Therefore, to my Jewish friends, שנה טובה (Shanah Tovah - literally means 'Good year').
The ESV published in 2001 is now very widely used by people who claim themselves to be conservative Christians. However, do these people actually know about the ESV that they so strongly support?
The ESV is a conservative revision of the liberal Revised Standard Version (RSV) published in 1952, updating the unacceptable RSV to a more acceptable version. In other words, the ESV is a conservative version of RSV. If RSV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - another liberal revision of the RSV published in 1989 - are rejected by conservatives, why should not the ESV be rejected also?
Remember, the ESV is RSV! The base text of the ESV is the RSV.
Now the question is, why are conservatives so against us returning to the Word of God in English - the Authorised Version (KJV)?
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) is a fellowship of Calvinist (mainly Baptist and Congregationalist) churches in Great Britain established in 1922. Today, FIEC has over 600 member churches across the country.
The FIEC is historically traditional and conservative. However, today they are increasingly liberal. In my survey of some of their member churches, I have discovered female deacons in some of them including the Westminster Chapel where Martyn Lloyd-Jones once preached. I have yet to find any FIEC member church (again including Westminster Chapel) where the Authorised Version (KJV) is read and preached from. Lloyd-Jones was a supporter of the KJV and yet it appears that even the Westminster Chapel has abandoned the KJV.
FIEC appears to be at war with the KJV. The leadership of FIEC member churches appears to be extremely hostile to the KJV. Any version is acceptable other than the KJV. Not only do they ban the reading and preaching from the KJV in their services, they effectively forbid godly men who read and trust only the KJV from serving in church leadership.
The FIEC churches sing modernised versions of traditional hymns (no more 'thou', 'thee', and other KJV English) from the Praise! hymn book, all kinds of modern songs, and even songs from heretics (like Hillsong and Bethel Music) and charismatics but no song with KJV English is allowed.
Does FIEC know what they are doing? Opposing the KJV is opposing the Word of God. Opposing the Word of God is opposing the Almighty God Himself.
By promoting and reading false bibles such as the ESV and NIV (the most common false bibles read in FIEC churches), the FIEC is now heretical. By banning the KJV and claiming KJV supporters as divisive, the FIEC is determined to remain heretical.
Without the KJV - the Word of God in English - in their hands, the FIEC has NO right to claim that they believe in Sola Scriptura (Scriptures alone).
It is little wonder why Evangelicals in England are increasingly liberal.
John Piper taught in his sermon on 6 March 2011 that Pericope Adultarae (John 7:53-8:11) is not the Word of God. Meanwhile, in his sermon on 26 June 2011, John MacArthur taught that the traditional conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) is not part of Holy Scriptures.
Both Piper and MacArthur have put their trust in the Modern Critical Text and the unbelieving scholars. It is a tragedy that these men have become supporters of unbelievers and false bibles.
I would now question if Piper, MacArthur, and all Evangelical pastors who read and preach from false bibles such as NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB, have any right to teach us to have faith in the Bible when they themselves doubt the Bible.
Is it any wonder why Evangelicals are getting increasingly liberal?
A quick thought for the day.
It appears that the unbiblical liberal churches of the modern day that forsake biblical truth all read from modern Bible versions (such as NIV) translated from the Modern Critical Text (chiefly represented by the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament).
Is this a coincidence?
Absolutely not. It was unbelief, liberalism, and egocentrism that led to the forsaking of the Authorised Version (KJV) and the Traditional Text represented by the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament.
Therefore, there is certainly a direct link between modern versions and liberalism.
The answer is very simple: They all deny the Divine Preservation of the Word of God.
Can you now see that by supporting and reading modern English false bibles (such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, and CSB) and the Modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, you are actually agreeing with Mormons and Muslims?
There were reports over the last few days about Italian researchers supposedly proved that the Turin Shroud originated from the first century.
To readers who do not know about the Turin Shroud, it was claimed that the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord. The Shroud contains an image of a man (maybe visible only through certain types of camera) and was discovered in the middle of the fourteenth century.
I do not believe the claim that the Shroud is the burial cloth of our Lord.
First, the Gospels do not record whatsoever happened to the burial cloth after the Resurrection of our Lord other than:
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
(Luke 24:12)
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
(John 20:5-7)
Second, there is also no certain and proven explanation of whatsoever happened to the Shroud between the first and fourteenth centuries. Even the Italian researchers who somehow proved the Shroud to originate from the first century cannot explain whatsoever happened to the Shroud in the 1,300 years before its discovery.
Third, the authenticity of the Shroud was doubted by a bishop not long after its discovery in the fourteenth century while carbon dating done by scientists in the twentieth century suggested that the Shroud originated from about the time of its discovery.
Fourth, according to the same Italian researchers, for the conclusion that the Shroud originated from the first century to be true, certain specific conditions such as some temperature over 1,300 years prior to the Shroud’s discovery is required. In my opinion, the same Italian researchers are only suggesting a possibility (with very low probability) and not proving the Shroud to originate from the first century.
Therefore, with these four reasons, I do not believe about the claims concerning the Turin Shroud.
