Archive for category England issues
David Cameron puts the King James Bible back in every school in England, with intro from Michael Gove
Venues up and down the country displayed ancient prints of this wonderful translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Recent news declares that the government has recognized the significance of the King James Bible and has announced plans to put the King James Bible in every school in Britain, with a new intro by Education Secretary Michael Gove. This is part of the 400th anniversary.
This wonderful and right move of the government has been criticized by none-religious groups who say that David Cameron is wrong to make spending cuts yet spend large amounts of money on such a move as this? Yet has there not been a mention of donations?
Richy Thompson from the British Humanist association has said these actions from the government are “unacceptable”. However, he clearly says this for merely humanistic reasons, but Thompson is wrong, the word of God is more important than humanism and prosperity. The reason I say that is because from my perspective, humanism in its present form is temporal, but the word of God is eternal. Thus, it is not that humanism does not have value, it does, but it is temperal. Likewise, so too is proseperity, as Jesus said, “For, what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul“. (Matthew 16: 26. KJV)
I believe it is only right to teach science in schools, but in that, creationist science should be properly taught and not just evolutionary science. Having said that, I admit that there is bad creationist science, but there is also good creationist science. The key is to attain a steady balance!
The problem is that likewise, creationism should not be made a naughty word by evolutionists.
The reason I say this is because I believe the heart of the problem in England at present is concerning the decline in Biblical truth and the over emphasis upon evolution, which research reveals is the main stumbling block today from young people believing in God and the Bible.
Young people are told scientific opinion concerning the age of the earth and are told that evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact. That the Bible merely contradicts fact.
But we are rarely told that such claims are only the opinions of some scientists but not all scientists agree.
Thus, I believe the moral decline in Britain is a result of a distinct lack of Biblical truth and an over emphasis upon evolution which often leads to atheism.
Now, I know that atheists claim they live moral lives, and that may well be the case with some, but morality is not subject to individual view, for what one person sees as moral, another does not.
Thus, the problem which I see in England today is that scientists such as Richard Dawkins use science to contradict the Bible and all too many people use science as a means to atheism and many modern atheist evolutionist scientists seek to promote evolution and discredit the Bible and cast the Bible aside as a book of irrelevant myths and fairy-tales.
Anyhow, what more can we expect from unrepentant sinners?
For they inwardly desire the Word of God to be removed from education only to be regarded as mere literature and myth so our children can be brainwashed with the word of apostolic evolutionists who know enough about the human brain to know that if you tell a lie long enough and strong enough, the people will believe it.
Nevertheless, the Bible is a historical and distinctly important book, for us who are saved we know it is the very word of the living God.
Thank God that this move to put the Bible back in our schools has come at the right time.
I for one am very happy to hear about this great move by parliament and it surely is a move of God, for the Lord hears the prayers of His people and they are effectual and God will not let His word be mocked or cast aside for very long.
Man cannot take Israel out of Israel, nor can the word of God be taken out of His people.
Learn the lesson o man, the word of God is here to stay and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
David Cameron while giving a speech at Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford has attacked the moral decline of Britain and has openly called for a revival of Christian values in England and stated that people should openly proclaim explicit values of Christianity.
He also presented critique of the ideas that claim that by standing up for Christian values, we do somehow put down other “faiths”.
He also hailed the King James Bible.
Despite the distinctive observation that the word “faiths” is a historical fallacy concocted by political minds, the word ‘Religions’ is a better description, Cameron rightly spoke against Islamic extremism and claimed that an “almost fearful, passive tolerance of religious extremism” has resulted in Islamic Extremism to remain unchallenged.
One of the things which stands out regarding Cameron’s speech is that he spoke of a “revival” of Christian values and England certainly needs reform and a Christian awakening.
England is forgetting her own history.
Reform is certainly in the air and would involve a new Reformation and a restoration of Truth. But before a reformation of this nature could begin, the Church must get her own house in order first. And since Cameron said this to the Church of England, that is the context and this would call for reform within the Church of England, who has neglected the Bible in favour of passing trends, cultural pursuasions and theological windrushes.
It would be hypocrisy and a burying of ones head in the sand to imagine that the Church of England is in a good way, but there is always hope of reform.
Likewise there is always hope of a Christian awakening within the hearts of the people, but the Church and Parliament must get their own house in order first and remove the plank of wood that is in their own eye, before they can attempt to even suggest that their are splinters within anothers eye. In other words, you cannot expect the people to respect or embrace Christianity and Parliament, if much of Christianity and Parliament has become a harlot. People will not listen to anyone if they do not practice what they preach and the Church and the houses of Parliament of today have not presented themselves without fault.
However there is hope that things can change and it is out of hope that charity is born for without love and charity, ministers and politicians can give speeches all day long, but if they have not charity, they “become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” 1 Corinthians 13: 1
And as Paul says, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth” 1 Corinthians 13: 1-8
Will Parliament be willing to seek a restoration of Christian values within England while at the same time feeding the poor of England? Or will it offer a restoration of certain morals only? Is Cameron being genuine at all, or is he just playing a voting game, using Christianity to gain popularity?
If he is being genuine in then I humbly suggest that we must go all the way with this or not at all.
However, regarding Camerons speech, it is interesting to note that in this very same Cathedral that he gave this speech, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was publicly “degraded” in 1556 and in the 1720’s John and Charles Wesley were ordained as Priests in the Church of England.
Thus, just as great awakenings and reform did come in times past through the church, they can also do so once again in the future.
Thus, these three remain, “Faith, hope and charity” 1 Corinthians 13: 13.
Simon Peter Sutherland
17th December 2011
Harvard professor Marc Hauser found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct – can any of his findings be trusted?
Professor Marc Hauser of Harvard University who’s research into evolutionary biology and cognitive neuroscience has influenced the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christofer Hitchens has been found out.
Hauser was found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct last year and this year after a year leave of absence, he was due to return to Harvard University, but he resigned.
How sweet of him?
Clearly Hauser has been monkeying around.
But more recent accusations have risen against him. These accusations are part on ongoing debate.
What is clear is that the claims made by this man are in serious question, as is much evolutionary science in general.
The problem is that this case is not the only time where scientific conlusions have been shown to be fake. Piltdown man was a fraud and Nebraska man was a misake, not to mention the Neanderthal Man. And now we have one of the worlds leading evolutionary scientists proved to be a faker.
What is clear is that the scientific conclusions which have been presented and taught by Marc Hauser should be seen as unreliable dodgy claptrap.
Many scientists will no doubt argue their way out of this problem as the likes of Richard Dawkins has concerning the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and the Neanderthal Man, but they cannot ignore the fact that the theory of evolution has a problem, that problem being the fact that it has many problems.
No rock layers that have been found contain transitional forms within them. There is simply no evidence beyond highly speculative claims that are based upon evidences for the theory of evolution. It is a fallacy and a fraud that will one day be seen for what it is.
The theory of evolution is a pseudo-science which is based upon the ideas made up by a theologian who was not a trained scientist to begin with. Why then should a world science be based upon a theory made up by a theologian?
The problem I find with science is that it is a self-governing enterprise, which is something that I find suspect and in reality I would like to know why a theory which logically connects to the big bang, which cannot explain where matter came from should be taught in our schools to our children laid out as fact?
I don’t believe that evolution is a fact, it is more a re-invention of a 19th century myth which makes a lot of money and at the same time fulfills the scripture, “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” 2 Timothy 4: 3-4.
Richard Dawkins in his book “The God delusion” demonstrates a very poor understanding of Theology and matters of religion. This can be understood in part through his references to the Protestant Reformer, ‘Martin Luther’.
In his chapter “The roots of religion” (Page 190) Dawkins appears to argue that Christianity is against logical reasoning, which is a fallacy in itself and something that any decent Theological faculty would certainly disagree with Dawkins on and prove it by their works. Dawkins apparently quotes Martin Luther and offers a certain quote; “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”
Luther wrote in Latin and German and it is hard to define the quote itself due to variant translations and Dawkins offers no confirmation of which translation of Luther he is using, but it most likely comes from ‘Table Talk’ which was not actually written by Luther himself, but was written by students of Luther who are said to have written down what Luther said to them. But anyone who knows about the life and character of Luther will know that Luther’ views often changed. However, it is clear from the context of this passage that Luther is referring to ‘Faith alone’ being sufficient for salvation and not coming to believe in Jesus as savior through human reasoning. It is ‘faith alone’ and when human reasoning stands before the initial response of faith towards Jesus, it becomes an enemy of faith, for it prevents a soul coming to faith. Thus, Luther is not saying for one moment that when a person comes to faith, that reasoning through issues of faith and religion is an enemy of faith, but that when it stands before the coming to the cross, it then becomes an enemy of faith.
What Luther is saying can be explained in simple terms of illustration; I could say that the mind is the worst enemy of swimming, for a child learning to swim often does not want to swim through fear, which is from the mind. For a child who will not learn how to swim does so because he or she is afraid to get into the water through fear in the mind, thus you could say that ‘the mind is the greatest enemy that swimming has, even though we know that when a person learns how to swim, the mind is the greatest asset the swimmer has. Thus, if we take this understanding and apply it to Luther’s quote, we see that reason which stands in the way of taking the step of faith towards believing in Jesus, is in fact the enemy of faith, for it prevents people from believing in Jesus as savior, because of doubt and human reasoning.
Thus, the quote given by Dawkins is problematic when used wrongly in his argument, since Dawkins offers no real footnote in his work or any advice on contextual issues regarding Luther’s theology. It must be interpreted according to what Luther believed and not what Dawkins thinks Luther believed. One other problem which indicates a lack of research on Dawkins behalf is that he refers to a website which is not authoritative and thus he cannot even claim to have researched such a basic Lutheran book as ‘Table Talk’. Thus, it is clear that Dawkins has not read Luther correctly or understood Luther’s theology, if he had he would review what Luther meant by that statement and he would give a book source from either the complete works of Luther in German or in English or a single volume of Luther’s works, which Dawkins does not.
The problem is that Richard Dawkins is quoting a selective passage, not presenting any context or reason why or if this was said by Luther. Luther certainly stood at the Diet of Worms in 1521 and said, “Unless I am convinced by scripture and by plain reason…I cannot and I will not recant”. Note the words, “plain reason” thus, we must conclude that Luther was not against ‘Plain reason’.
This is also confirmed in Luther’s book, “The Bondage of the will” which was written against the views of the humanist and Oxford scholar Desiderius Erasmus. Luther states on (P 138) “We should speak according to a definite rule, in sober and proper terms; for what is wanted in teaching is simplicity and logical correctness, not the high-flown figures of a rhetorical persuasive.” (The Bondage of the will. Martin Luther. 1V. (i) P 138. Translated by J.I.Packer & O.R.Johnston)
This begs the question; Is Richard Dawkins an accurate scholar or able to deal with Theological matters?
I must state that after 2 degrees in Theology I see Richard Dawkins and his ideas about Theology akin to that of a primary school child to that of a University graduate and really, his fundamental error is that he has stepped over from science to Theology, thus he is dealing with Theological issues which I have proved he is not capable of doing.
Simon Peter Sutherland
Great news of late on the issue of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ groups who have been ‘Poppy burning’.
These groups are now declared ‘outlaws’.
I and many more in England are so glad to know that such an action has been taken, and its about time too!
I fail to see how these Islamic groups have been able to continue burning poppies for as long as they have. Likewise, how or why England permits Muslim groups to stand in London burning the American flag and declaring that our Queen will one day convert to Islam and likewise declare that if she does not, she will have to leave the country?
But, I am sure our government knows more than we do and is taking steps to keep England safe from these terrorists.
But, regardless, I am thankful to Theresa May for this action and let us hope it does not stop there and that steps are taken to make sure these groups do not continue their deeds in a masquerade of peace and prosperity?
Remember, tares look like wheat, until they are made manifest!
On November 10th 2011 I attended a lecture at Manchester Cathedral During this lecture John Parry made mention of gender-inclusive translations of the Bible and how he supports this idea.
This is not a new idea or a ‘new thing’ or exclusive to Mr Parry and his teachings, for many Christians today support new translations of the Bible which are re-worded to fit with gender-inclusive language.
However, for those who do not know what gender-inclusive language is within a Biblical translation context, it reveals itself as a modern scholarship idea created through the root of feminism and employed by some theologians and so-called Christians who seek to appeal to the modern world by arguing that God is neither male nor female?
I marvel that anyone can make this claim and believe in the God of the Bible. Yet, today there are a number of translations which have employed this use of language and no doubt many more will come. Concerning this issue, I see no need to move into a review or exploration of the many arguments which are used to support gender-inclusive language for Bible translations, for, it is an accepted Christian truth that the Bible is the Word of God, therefore, let us go to the Bible first and see if gender-inclusive language would translate the Bible correctly? Firstly, there is not a single passage in the Bible which claims that God is neither male nor female. If God were neither male nor female, He would therefore be sexless and the entire Bible and its revelation of God would be fundamentally different. He absolutely reveals Himself in scripture in a masculine context.
Genesis 1 contains the Biblical account of Gods creation of the universe and of the life of man and beast. Verse 27 of that chapter says this, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (KJV)
The New King James version translates this text a little clearer and reads as follows: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them”. This text presents a clear case and absolute confirmation that the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve were not one and the same event. There were two events and not one single event and the text shows this.
The Biblical account claims that in the image of God, God created Adam and He created him male, thus God is male. The text makes this point very clear. That “in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them”. The text distinguishes the two points of the creation of Humans, that in the image of God, God created Adam first, that He created Him male, the text then adds that in the image of man God created woman. The text distinguishes this by saying that God created Adam first, the then moves to say, “male and female He created them”. The text is very clear on this. When the Bible says, “God created man in His own image” the Hebrew word employed in this passage is literally “Adam”. That is an important fundamental point to distinguish.
I would further argue that Genesis 2 acts as a kind of commentary or expounding of Genesis 1. I say this for a reason. Genesis 2: 7 reads as follows; “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Thus, the creation of Eve does not fit the context of this verse and was thus was not created out of the dust of the ground, but from Adams rib. Adam was created out of the dust of the earth, not Eve. Thus, she was not created first and therefore, not created in the image of God, but of Adam.
Paul affirms this in 1 Timothy 2: 12-13 in his argument against female teachers within the Body of Christ and what could be seen as Paul writing against feminism? Paul says thus; “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Paul continues with this theme and gives his reason from out of the scriptures; “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
He then goes on to argue that “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2: 14) Paul is clearly writing within an ancient context and also warning future generations that the modern feminist movement is directly in line with what happened back in Eden, that because of woman, men are denying Gods word in favour of the deception of satan.
Further evidence that God created woman after Adam can be found in Genesis 2:18. The text reads as follows; “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make ‘him’ an help meet for ‘him”. This text confirms that the Genesis account is claiming that Adam was formed first.
Genesis 2:21-22 likewise reads; “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”
The Bible is very clear that God created Adam first and Eve was created from Adam, no one can rightly argue against the fact that the Bible makes this claim and if any so-called Christian chooses to ignore this or hate that fact that both I and the Bible do say this, then I fail to see why you would call yourself a Christian, since you clearly do not believe what the Bible says?
Now a person could argue that God does not have gender, yet this claim also would be very weak and not in line with the entire Biblical text. God has always revealed Himself male, this can be consistently seen in throughout the Old and New Testaments. God appeared to Abraham as a male (Genesis 18) He appeared to Moses in a masculine way (Exodus 3) He is consistently named in scripture as “He”. Search the scriptures for yourself and see if it is not so?
Likewise, I would also point out a very Christian fundamental truth. That truth would be found in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Himself, who was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit and live as a man and died as a man. If God is neither male nor female, then how do we account for Mary’s conception?
How do we account for Christ being a man? Is He is not the very image of God? Was He not conceived in a masculine way? How then can anyone argue that God is not male?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, and I would plead with the church as did Paul when he warned us not to not be blown this way or that because of changing winds of doctrine, (Ephesians 4: 14).
I leave you once again with the text of Genesis 1: 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” KJV
I ask every individual believer and Christian alike who reads this article, to look to Christ my brethren, bind yourself to Him and He will show you more clearly than I can, that He is who He is (Exodus 3: 14).
I would further add and plead with the Body of Christ that you must not deny the Word of God and forsake His testimony in favour of men and modern winds and an ever changing world. Be faithful to Him and His word and know His love and blessing which are given to those who love Him and keep His word (Exodus 20: 5-6) lest you make God angry and find yourself cast out of His garden and left to wonder through the world.
Throughout the year of 2011, we have seen many issues raising their heads in England. Many spending cuts have been made upon public services and public spending by Parliament and as a result of what many regard as outlandish spending cuts upon the poor, the general public is at a slow fuse, revolt is in the air and England is not at peace and people are worried.
Now, it is obvious that the spending cuts cannot be argued to blame for the riots of 2011, those riots had nothing to do with moral protest or standing up for what is right, but was criminal and nothing more. The problem is that I certainly feel that the riots and protests of 2011 has only been the start of many problems that England may have to face up to in the coming Years? I believe there will not only be protests as is common, but it is possible that there may be riots and revolt? I say this not only out of instinct and because of a theory of historic recurrence, but because anyone who looks and learns can read the signs of the times and it is clear that history is repeating itself. England has seen many revolts over her history, such as the 14th century peasant’s revolt which came forth from the poor people and common people of England, and was a product of what could be seen as the same issues as we face in England today. The common people are tired of crime, tired of parliament, tired of the condition of England, tired of being lied to by politicians and of unemployment and poll tax, the cost of food increases and poor wages. Wages decrease but the cost of food rises. The price of food goes up, rent, mortgages, tax, petrol, car tax, etc and very soon the pressures people face with day to day life will have to explode itself and when it does, it most likely explodes with little control. The problem with the world today is that life is fitted around a lifestyle and when that lifestyle cannot be met, life feels like it cannot go on. And when you consider that the problems England is facing is almost akin to the problems it has faced so long ago, we see that history is repeating itself and when history is forgotten as we see so many people do forget their own history, we know that it is they who are condemned to repeat it. And we don’t want to see a peasants revolt repeated again in the 21st century.
But the problem remains that there is a distinct feeling of anarchy in the air, public revolt and anger and this is cause for concern and action.
When I read comments people make around the internet and on blogs, YouTube, and networks, the anger that people have within them is evident by their words. Swearing is dominant, aggressive foul verbal attacks upon people and a distinct lack of expressing what is right and wrong and when one researches the root of swearing, research is clear that the root of foul language comes from an outburst of anger and wrath, inner anger, deep anger. Anger words cannot contain.
I think one of the main problems England has at the moment is not only the fact that that spending cuts must be made, but the problem is within the public areas in which the spending cuts are being directed. It is not good or right to be cruel and it is clear that Mr. Cameron is not being very fair in his conduct and targets with the spending cuts. You cannot give the public something and then take it from them. It only stirs up hatred.
Now, when I see the efforts and debates of parliament and the conclusions and actions of our Prime Minister David Cameron, it seems that he has little regard for the working class, the poor, and the common people of this realm?
The spending cuts of Manchester have demonstrated this, since the Tories did not win the election votes for Manchester. I often hear members of the public say to me that “it would be strange to think that Mr. Cameron did not consider the fact that Manchester was Labour when he made those cuts?”
It seems unjust that parliament leaders should be living in luxury, while many individuals, families and single parents from amongst the working class who have no employment and live in council houses and rented property cannot find work because all too many jobs have been cut by the government?
Christ fed the poor and helped the needy, and He was the King of Kings. Might the leaders of this so-called Christian country do well to imitate that example?
No doubt many would say they should “get a job”? But how can they become employed when they were raised in poverty and cannot get themselves out of it? I know the reality of this, since I was raised in an area which is regarded as the lowest area of England.
It does not quite feel right and England must change its ways and thoughts and act soon. The public have much power and the government must remember how much chaos those abominable and criminal riots caused this summer by only a small number of people, how much more if more people suddenly snapped and went into revolt?
I love England, her culture, her way of life, her heritage and history and I fear that she is losing her identity and way of life and the British people know and felt this.
Please consider these points and I say these things out of concern for the future, peace and well being of our beloved England.
Concerning “A modern sikh interpretation of the Bible” a lecture given by John Parry – November 10th 2011 – Manchester Cathedral
It is out of great concern and deep conviction that I am writing this post today. I write concerning a certain lecture I attended last evening and regarding a situation which I see is ever present with us in England today and is cause for great concern regarding the future of Christ’s church.
The title of the lecture in question was, “A modern Sikh interpretation of Jesus” and although the title itself could be seen as polemical and problematic, I was happy to attend and pleased to know that the lecture was free from admission charges, which is shamefully inconsistent with the many practices of modern Christendom but at least this act bore witness with the direct words of Christ, “Freely you have recieved, freely give” (Matthew 10: 8).
In his talk which began at 7pm after Cannon Andrew Shank’s introduction, the well spoken, humble and polite Mr Parry explored the apparent similarities between the Jesus of the historical canonical Gospels and the so-called Jesus of the Sikh religion. As part of the lecture, the majority of the text which Mr Parry explored was taken from the writings of Gopal Singh and a Sikh work on Jesus which I am not familiar with entitled “The man who never died”.
Gopal Singh’s text makes mention of certain topics which could be seen as Biblical, including ‘regeneration’, rising from the “state of death” and dying to self and yet “being alive to what never dies within you” which I felt was a little Gnostic or mystical?
The writing then moved on to Jesus healing the sick and “bringing them back to themselves” and the historical facts that Jesus was worshipped as God, son of man, that He was scourged and crucified and the resurrection. Other themes also included the Grace of God and the “Samaritan woman” of the gospels.
In itself, the work written by Gopal Singh appeared to me to be not unlike the many poems and the writings of philosophers, and religious works past and present, and not unlike the ancient Gnostic writings and ancient apocryphal works such as “the Gospel of Judas’ or “the Gospel of the Essenes” or even “the Gospel of Thomas”. All such works which on the surface appears in-line with the canonical Gospels, and yet when examined more closely, they could and I would argue ‘do’ reveal themselves very far apart on the fine tuning of fundamental doctrines and established Christian truths.
This could be argued in the context of the Sikh text which Mr Parry presented, that due to the fact that the Sikh religion rejects the fundamental Christian doctrines of ”The incarnation of Christ” as testified to in the 2nd article of the 1562 ‘Articles of Religion’ which the Church of England continues to use and of the Trinity contained in Articles 1 and the Deity of Jesus which is an established Christian truth. Yet, Gopal Singh’s work “The man who never died” appears to embrace the historical identity of the historical Jesus and the Jesus of Faith? But I wonder if Gopal Singh even believed in the absolute identity of the Canonical Jesus or the fundamental Christian truths of who Jesus really was? I doubt it.
In Mr Parry’s lecture, he made mention of certain fundamental truths of the Christian faith and that the Sikh religion does not agree with these truths. yet at the same time seemed to be presenting the inter-faith argument that Christianity and Sikhism has much in common? That could well be argued in the context of philosophical themes and there may be evidence of similarities. But, these similarities, including morals and ethics may also be found in Buddhism, Islam and other faiths, yet the problem is that Philosophy, morals, ideas and such cannot save a single soul from eternal damnation. The Bible is clear that morals cannot save a man from damnation. This is likewise confirmed in article 11 of the 1562 Articles of Religion of the Book of Common prayer which states that neither good works nor mere belief can save a man, but the person and work of Christ on the cross is sufficient to save and justify those who embrace Him as savior and Lord. Thus, good works alone cannot save a man and faith alone or belief alone in Jesus cannot save a soul either, for, faith and belief which does not present works as a fruit of faith and not the root of faith is evidence contrary to real salvation. As it is written in James 2: 14 “What does it profit a man, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
If the fruit of faith becomes twisted with the root of faith, then the fruit is spoiled and destroyed and will be burned up. However, justification is a huge debate in itself and subject to reason, but few can deny that the fruits of a tree do not make that tree good or bad, but merely reveal to others if that tree is a good tree or a bad tree. I believe this is clear from scripture and good doctrine that the fruit of the Holy Spirit which manifests not only in the outward deeds of a person, but within the soul of a person brings forth good works and not the other way about, as stated in article 12 of the 1562 Articles of Religion.
Now, my readers may say what has this got to do with the topic at hand? Well, the answer is that although the people of the Sikh religion may be moral people, may be seen as nice friendly folk, they may even believe in a Jesus or certain aspects of ‘The’ Biblical Jesus, yet in reality, they do not believe He is the one and only, absolute savior and Lord God and the only way to heaven. This is contrary to the Word of God, as Jesus said, “I am the way, the Truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Me“. (John 14: 6)
Could a Sikh Jesus make such a claim? I doubt it, thus he cannot be the same Jesus!
The Biblical narritive of John 14: 6 is clear that outside of the mediatorial work of Christ there can be no salvation. That although salvation may exist outside the church, it does not and cannot exist outside of Christ! That the fundamental Christian truth according to God’s Holy Word is that if you do not have and know Jesus Christ as Lord and savior and have received the Holy Spirit, you do not have eternal life.
Jesus claimed to be “The way, the Truth” not ‘a truth’ or ‘a way’ to God, but “The Way”. He claimed to be the great “I am” as it is written in the scriptures, “Before Abraham was I am”. (John 8: 58) Now, either a person argues their way out of this text and other texts by questioning the authority of divine scripture or by claiming that the Sikh religion is part of that mediatorial work of Christ, then that would be implying that God is not sovereign over His word and that the Holy Scriptures are not written by the inspiration of God, but are merely the product of the evolutionary thought of men of God and traditions and collections of ancient myths and verbal testimony of the Jewish people. Such is contrary to the claims of scripture and historical Christian theology.
Paul writes, that he says that the things he spoke to the Corinthian church were spoken “for your sakes that you may learn not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4: 6) and likewise, the scripture declares that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4: 4)
Thus, did not the commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20: 3) not come directly from the mouth of God? Or would the liberal theologian deny this established Christian truth?
Now, if the Church neglects these fine tunings and examinations of the Biblical Jesus and the character of God and embraces the people of the Sikh religion as though Jesus has provided another way to eternal life and the Sikh religion is part of that, the Church is guilty of denying the fundamental Christian truth’s and denying the Word of God and breaking the commandment of God and embracing other gods. That is dangerous place to be!
“There are few more warnings in scripture than this: “Remember lots wife” who did not obey Gods word.
I would also like you to remember York Minster!
It is clear to me that what the main problem with the lecture and theme and continuing theme which My Parry and the Church of England are moving deeper and deeper into, is that the inter-faith movement is not only a mere dialogue or the exchanging of ideas and thoughts, but of universalism and a denial of the narrow and absolute mediatorial work of the Biblical Christ, who is God made manifest in the flesh, the only Son of God as it is stated in the 39 articles of Religion, which still remains in the Book of Common Prayer.
Now, in conclusion I mention these things for the good of the Church and out of my love of the Brethren. I wish to make known that I have no problems with Sikh people and am not implying that Christians should avoid Sikhs or not reason and debate with them, but my issues are with bad doctrine. Likewise, I wish to make it known that I do not seek to argue with the church or attack her but to defend her with more than mere opinion. The gospel cannot be denied for the word of man, neither can we ignore the Biblical passages which I raised in my brief and voluntary public debate with Mr Parry during the service on the 11th Novemer, that the Sikh religion denies many sides to Gods character and attributes, and denies His power to do as He wishes and to make Himself incarnate (2 Timothy 3: 5) and as I mentioned in my critique of of the Sikh claim that “God has no hate in Him” that the text from Malach 1: 2-3 and Romans 9: 13 does not authenticate the Sikh claim, for God does hate certain people who are not only liberal but deny Him, as I mentioned in my debate. Hate is an attribute of God which many would ignore, as the scripture reads, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” Romans 9: 13 – Malachi 1: 2-3. Why did God hate Esau? Well, there are many thoughts and ideas within that theme, but one theme is clear is that he sold his birthright.
Please note, many of the highest Biblical scholars and NT Greek experts agree that the word employed by Paul is clearly communicating that one attribute of God is that He does hate. However, this does not mean that He is not love or has not love, but that He has a side of Him that contains hate, a side that many do not know or understand. But who are we human beings to say that God cannot do this or that? We are only men and not gods.
Thus, Such an aspect of the character of God, which I would argue is distinctly mentioned in the Biblical narrative and is within the text for a reason, it is a side of God which many people of our generation of Church goers and leaders do not like to confess. Yet the warning is given for you, that you may have a care, lest you too sell your birthright and fall from the grace of God and give away your inheritance for the flesh, typified in the form of a plate of lentils and some stew.
That if you deny the commandment of God to have “no other gods before me” and thus whore after other gods and do like the ancients of old who did trust in lying words, and did stand before God in His house, which is known by His name and say “We are delivered, only to go on doing all these abominations” (Jeremiah 7: 10) then I fear that just as the judgement of God came upon His beloved temple in Jerusalem because she did “walk after other gods” (Jeremiah 7: 9) that let us not fool ourselves and deceive our minds that His judgement will not come upon His church once again.
The scriptures inform us time and time again, that Jesus warned about deception in the church more than any other topic, that false deceptive teachings and teachers would come into the church and as Peter said “secretly bringing in destructive heresies and denying the Lord who bought them” (2 Peter 2: 1)
Thus, in conclusion, and after hearing Mr Parry and his lecture and giving this matter much thought and prayer, I must conclude that the theme was and is heretical and the interfaith movement which is coming stronger than ever and of which Mr Parry is part of, is an absolute heresy and has no business with the Christian Church or her people.
I say this in love and I mean it with all sincerity and please know that I write this out of concern and with a heavy heart for the good of Christ’s body; for I believe that the Church in England is in the condition it is in because she has forgotten her firstlove, and is not holding to Biblical truth. Please repent of this sin and turn back again to the truth of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit and He will pour out His spirit upon this nation once again.
This day, I plead with the Church of England and all her liberal theologians and ministers who may be denying the truth of Gods word in favour of modern winds of doctrine and out of fear of what people might think? I would like to add that ministers, theologians and leaders should not give people what their itching ears want to hear or be a people pleasing modern concept. I plead with you who are involed in the inter-faith movement and resist the word of God according to modern man made ideas, to Repent and come back to the truth of Gods Holy Word and recieve the blessings that God by His Holy Spirit will send and restore and bring His church into a new era if His people repent and turn back to Him and His Word. Of this I am certain, that judgement does not fall upon the world, unless it has fallen upon the house of God first. As it is written in 2 Chronicles 7: 14 and also in the words of St Peter, and I believe this should be must spoken today in England, that “the time has come for the judgment to begin and it is beginning with Gods own household” (1 Peter 4: 17)
Simon Peter Sutherland.
Manchester. 11th November 2011
In May 1844, a German scholar by the name of Constantine Tischendorf travelled to Egypt and during his trip he visited St Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai, the traditional site of where Moses recieved the Ten Commandments.
During his visit and tour around the monastery Tischendorf saw some manuscripts in a waste basket and found the basket to contain 129 ancient handwritten Bible leaves. When Tischendorf enquired concerning these treasures, he was told that two previous baskets had been already consigned to the fire and that the contents of the basket were about to be gathered up and burned.
Tischedorf was given the manuscripts and they are part of what we now know as ‘Codex Sinaiticus’.
Click the link to view the manuscript http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
This historical event is one of the most interesting and important events in the history of modern Biblical scholarship, and although many deny that Tischendorf found ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ in the rubbish bin, there is good evidence to believe the story. The account of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus as I have given in this article comes from directly from the British Museum.
In 1859, Tischendord made another visit to the monastery and he was shown more leaves and in total he received 347 leaves.
These manuscripts found by Tischendorf were part of hand-written copy of the Greek New Testament and are now accepted to date as early as the 4th century AD, which included half of the Greek version of the Old Testament. The manuscript also contained other books, including the none-canonical epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Today, most of the New Testament manuscript is housed in the British Library and the rest of the manuscripts are housed in four libraries around the world and although the manuscripts are very important in Biblical history and New Testament scholarship, it can be deduced that the text now known as ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ was in fact a group of ancient Bible leaves, hand written by a Catholic monk. It can also be deduced that they were the work of a monk who scribed out text after text of Biblical narrative as part of his day to day life as a monk.
The problem we face today, is not concerning these manuscripts, but the conclusions which have been made as a result of their find. Modern versions of the Bible such as the NIV and the ESV amongst others, include these manuscripts as evidence and support for their edits of verses from their translations of the New Testament.
But many questions remain regarding this practice of editing the word of God and verses such as Deuteronomy 4: 2 condemn the practice.
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD OVER HIS WORD
Today, many use these manuscripts as so-called evidence that certain passages of the Bible are not actual scripture, but either parts of other scriptures or later editions. This conclusion is drawn up based upon, the so-called oldest manuscripts which do not contain certain texts.
As a result of these claims, the popular current version of the Bible ‘The ESV’ has included many edits within its text.
The problem remains that the many leading Reformed figures and much of Christianity today who embrace more modern versions the Bible, versions such as the ESV and likewise defend its edits of certain texts, are in fact staunch believers and proclaimers of the Sovereignty of God, yet in doing this they prove themselves inconsistent when they deny His sovereignty by claiming that these verses are not authentic and so claiming that man has put them into the Bible. Many honestly believe they are getting closer to the actual Biblical Narritive. Yet, what about God? Has He not permitted the edited verses to have remained within the New Testament throughout church history? Has He not permitted them to remain in all His Bibles from the dawn of the New Testament through to the handwritten Bibles and from the dawn of the printing press around 1440 AD and the translations drawn up during the reformation and until now?
Yet scholars now appear to be under the impression that they have more knowledge than God Himself and they appear to believe they have the authority to edit Gods word, yet does any man alive truly have the authority to edit the word of God? I fail to see why endorsers of the ESV proclaim the Sovereignty of God or claim the Bible is the word of God, when in reality, their actions and words reveal that they do not fully believe the Bible is the word of God, but that the older Greek New Testament fragments are the word of God are the true word. That the early Greek New Testament compilers and early English translators were totally mistaken? If this is true then these modern scholars are claiming that Jerome was mistaken, John Wycliffe was mistaken, William Tyndale was mistaken, Luther was mistaken and the King James translators were mistaken also. In fact all Bibles throughout history were in fact in error, that is until modern Bibles such as the ESV came into publication.
Thats a pretty big and arrogant claim.
Thus God has kept generations upon generations from having the pure word of God and under the authority of a text that might be the work of a mere scribe?
Then what do we have? The word of man or the Word of God?
“If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life”
When I first heard that a new translation the Bible had been made and it was called the English Standard Version, I was told it was excellent and that it was endorsed by many leading evangelical scholars, and that J I. Packer was over the whole translation. I was happy to hear this and so I purchased a copy of the ESV and began to read it. My initial response was that the translation in question was very well translated and read well and clear, but then I began to notice verses missing from the text, and it was then that my spirit was stirred and I began to ask why these verses were missing.
I accept that scholarship is progressional and that ideas move and update and progress, but editing the Bible is not within the authority of scholarship.
I began to ask why these verses were missing and why would men like John MacArthur, John Piper and many more leading figures add their names alongside this version? And why would they continue to endorse this translation? It made little sense. However, it could be concluded that this is a prime example of how Satan works within the church, he uses people have have gained the trust of the church for 40 years or more, and then sneaks in a damnable heresy and many of the sheep who follow their shepherds do find themselves persuaded by their trusted leaders. Even if their ministers speak contrary to the text of scripture itself.
I’m am speaking of course, of the ESV and the leading scholars who have composed it and those who have embraced and endorsed it. Many of whom may or may not even be aware themselves of how huge an error such edits are?
Regardless, the scriptures warn us time and time again concerning errors creeping into the church. The ESV is one of them, of which the translation committee was composed of inter denominal evangelical scholars led by theologian J. I. Packer, is now very popular throughout Christianity, yet I would advise that Packer must be approached with strong caution, since he holds to to some very questionable things, including connections with the theory of evolution.
However, within the context of the ESV, here are some of the missing New Testament verses from the English Standard Version:
Matthew 6: 13. Note: Prayer edited
Matthew 12: 47
Matthew 18: 11
Matthew 23: 14
Mark 7: 16
Mark 9: 44
Mark 9: 46
Mark 11: 26
Mark 15: 28
Luke 9: 56. Edited. “For the son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them”
Luke 11: 2-4. Edited.
Luke 17: 36
Luke 23: 17
John 5: 4
Acts 8: 37
Acts 15: 34
Acts 24: 7
Acts 28: 29
Romans 16: 24
1 John 5 7. (An important doctrinal text editied)
Now, a major point of distinction here is that when I began to see the missing verses from the ESV, I was compelled to look at the W & H, and when I did review the missing verses, I found these very same verses are also missing from the 1885 Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament is known by many for its corruption of the Greek text.
What is clear is that the ESV translators employed the W & H and made no mention of this in their PREFACE to the translation.
It is also clear that the ESV is a revision of the RSV and not a fresh translation from the actual original Greek New Testament. Thus, the translators have an agenda, not to do a fresh translation, but to revise an corrupted translation.
FACTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
1) These texts were in the 4th century Latin Vulgate and continue to remain in the Latin Vulgate
2) They are in the 1388 Wycliffe New Testament
3) They were in the 1550 Stephanos Greek New Testament
4) They were in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament (The textual basis from which we gained much of the Protestant reformation and the King James Bible)
5) They are in Theodore Beza’s 1565 Novum Testamentum
6) They are in the 1521 Luther Bible
7) They are in the 1524 Tyndale New Testament
8) They are in the 1560 Geneva Bible
9) They are in the 1535 Coverdale Bible
10) They are in the Douay Rheims 1582-1609
11) They are the 1611 King James Bible
In fact, all English Bibles and translations in all languages have contained these verses right up until the more modern translators omitted them, and although, many will critique what I am saying in this article and claim that I am making something out of nothing, and the verses in question are not important and contain no doctrinal verses. To whom my answer is that such is a human way of looking at things and is not seen from God’s perspective, the argument which you have in your brains has come from your leaders and those who defend the ESV. Yet such a claim is untrue, for Gods word says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” 2 Corinthians 3: 6. Note the text: “Every word”
Thus, do we believe the Bible is word of God or not? Or do we believe it is the word of man?
I am very concerned for the church of our time and I am convinced that the ESV is one of the many distortions and deceptions of 21st century Christendom. Satan knows how much of an offence it is to God to take away from His word and how those who perform or embrace such actions will not escape the judgment of God.
If the modern evangelical scholars who have translated the ESV so desire to have the Bible accurate to the original, (or so they claim) then they should also have to erase chapter distinctions and book titles and even a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, since such is not in the original manuscripts. Likewise, they should also include the apocryphal texts.
Now, before I conclude, permit me to say that I admire theologians such as J I. Packer, John Piper, R C. Sproul and the many more leading figures who have endorsed this Bible, but if such teachers continue to defend the status of the ESV and persuade ‘the sheep’ that the edits are acceptable, my hope is that they reconsider their actions, for to add or take away from the word of God clearly brings forth a curse or destruction and no man, be he Christian or not will escape the judgment of God, as Paul says, “For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and will give an account for the deeds done while in the body, be they good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5: 10)
I am not a KJV onlyist, but issues and actions such as this one cause me to reject many modern translations and enjoy more older versions.
May the authorities who have committed this error add the texts I have mentioned back into their translation and thus save themselves and their flocks from their own destruction.
Simon Peter Sutherland
On screen violence and its spreading Influence – The British Board of Film Classification and “The Human Centipede” 1 & 2
Few can deny that many modern movies and television programmes have not lowered in their standards over recent years. Violence, foul language, explicit sex and total depravity and disregard for human life are ever present on screen.
Censorship has not yet completely gone, but it may as well be gone, because it’s not very good. Now, many would argue against me on this and I too would argue against them, that the influence violent movies have upon the mind are affecting the societies we live in. Recently, a totally sick film, and I mean sick as in its old usage in connection to ‘vomit’ was released and passed by the British Board of Film Classification. The film of course was the ‘human centipede 2’. In the opening scene, the film presents a visual representation of a man who had been watching “The human centipede 1” and thus, it is clear that the script and film is communicating that the 1st film influenced the person and he then goes out to do what he saw in the 1st film and the plot gets more and more ‘perverted’ and twisted.
I will not go on to say what happens in the film, and I have no intentions of exploring this filth, but I will say that I believe and know this film is evil and has no place whatsoever in a modern society and has no place within English culture or society. It is not art. It is not good, it is just filth and perverted and its influence is potentially dangerous to society.
The problem is that films like this when permitted to be released only add fuel to the already spreading fire. What is coming next?
I would like to ask some questions; Is this what people call art? Is this what films are about? Or has the world completely lost it standards and morals or has it gone so far into extreme ideas and depravity that it has forgotten basic common sense and humanity?
I don’t believe I stand alone on this topic and I know that many people out in our day and age do know that what I say is true. Now, in a world so full of evil, wretchedness and wars and much lack of humanity and regard for human life, do we need or should we permit films like this to be played on our cinemas and put on DVD and played in homes? No, I say, no.
The British government and the authorities must wake up from their slumbers and do something about this mess before the infection spreads out of control. I say it again, evil, twisted, sick movies have no place in western civilization and in the interests of the public and basic humanity and for the progress of our modern world these perverted movies should be banished from our society.