---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2L00001Date: 02/16/98
From: CHARLIE RAY                                           Time: 06:08pm
\/To: BRETT KNUCHEL                                       (Read 0 times)
Subj: Postmodernism 2

BK>This had a dramatic effect
BK>upon the secularisation of western society, as Martin Robinson in his
BK>book "A World Apart" notes, "The process to which we refer, and which
BK>has represented the underlying cause of decline in religious
BK>commitment in Europe as a whole, is that of the gradual
BK>secularisation of society.  Strangely, the origins of secularism do
BK>not lie in the twentieth century or even in the nineteenth century
BK>but even earlier in what we have already referred to as the Age of
BK>Reason, sometimes known as the Enlightenment.  The twin emphases of
BK>the Enlightenment were the theories of empiricism, which became the
BK>basis of modern scientific method, and of rationalism, which became
BK>the basis of modern philosophy." (Robinson:1992:22)
And if modernism brought secularization to the mainline denominations, what 
will be the result of postmodernism which holds that even empiricism is 
irrelevant and ultimately relativistic?  While postmodernism may put a dent 
in the evolution/creation debate, it is ultimately a nihilistic and 
existentialistic worldview that will erode Christian values and the 
philosophy of the Christian religion.
BK>The question facing us today is in what direction is postmodernism
BK>leading society?  In an extract from his book "The Death of Truth",
BK>Dennis McCallum portrays postmodernism as a threat to Christianity
BK>that must be fought at all costs.  He sees postmodernism as an attack
BK>on absolute truth and hence the truth of the Bible.  McCallum is also
BK>highly critical of modernism, "Before now, the consensus in secular
BK>thought form has been called modernism.
Postmodernism, mark my words, will present an even greater threat to the 
Christian worldview than modernism did.  To dismiss its detrimental effects 
on society out of hand is to make oneself a sitting duck in the face of a 
demonic onslaught.
BK>Modernists view the world, including humans, as one big machine.  They
BK>have faith in rationality, in empiricism and in science."  Obviously
BK>McCallum views the influence of modernism as being highly destructive
BK>and sees postmodernism posing a similar threat, thus it is not
BK>surprising that he wishes to fight postmodernism.  "The postmodern
BK>revolution is still happening, and we, as Christians still have an
BK>opportunity to influence the outcome." (McCallum:1997:Chapter 1)
BK>I feel that those who think along the lines of McCallum are in serious
BK>danger of barking up the wrong tree.  Postmodernism, like modernism,
BK>is a way of thinking that is alien to the heart of the Gospel (as its
BK>absolute is not God), however we must accept that they represent ways
BK>in which people think, wether we like it or not.  It simply will not
BK>do to look at all societies problems and blame them on modernism or
BK>postmodernism.  Modernism and postmodernism are ways of processing
BK>ideas, they do not form the ideas themselves.
I am not sure what you mean by that last statement.  A worldview assumes a 
particular view of reality.  Postmodernism is a return to tribalism and 
self-contained communities.  In some ways it is a return to Lockian 
philosophy which makes reality completely dependent on the perception of it 
through the sense organs and the mind or brain.  However, it is more 
accurate to say that reality is objective in some sense, despite our 
subjectivistic processing of that reality.  Our perceptions may be limited 
and biased because of our modus operandi and our physical, mental, and 
sensory limitations, but ultimate reality exists outside of our perception 
of it.  When a person dies the universe does not cease to exist, rather 
that person is no longer active in the world.
BK>The problems come
BK>about in that when you put garbage in you get garbage out.  If a
BK>person has evil intent, it will not matter what thought process they
BK>go through, you will get evil coming out the other end. Our job as
BK>Christians is to ensure that the hearts and minds of people are fed
BK>with the truth rather than the staple diet of garbage that the modern
BK>world has thrown up.  Postmodernism provides us with this
BK>opportunity.
Postmodernism, as I said above, may provide opportunities for witness but 
ultimately it will prove even more challenging.  How do you reason with a 
Mormon whose experience confirms that Mormonism is ultimately true?  How do 
you reason with the anti-intellectualism of a Buddhist who says that good 
and evil are illusions and that truth and falsity are both right and both 
wrong?  How do you claim ultimate truth for the Christian presentation of 
the exclusive claims of the Gospel when those whom you are attempting to 
reach reject the very idea of the law of non-contradiction and the very 
existence of any exclusive truth claims of the Christian Gospel?
BK>Postmodernism provides for us as Christians an opportunity to present
BK>the Bible.  We are coming out of a time where modern thinking has
BK>dominated, and Christianity has been disregarded on the basis of not
BK>being able to prove God, and into a time where truth is seen as being
BK>in the eye of the beholder.
We may not be able to "absolutely" *prove* the existence of God; however, 
that is no reason to lay aside the discipline of *apologetics* in favor of 
a watered-down, existential, pietistic presentation of the Gospel.  As I 
said above, such a gospel is a different gospel from the Gospel that Paul 
preached.  Christians in the early church *died* rather than compromise the 
truth for the sake of evangelism.  In fact, Tertullian once said that the 
"seed bed of the church is the blood of the martyrs."  If truth is relative 
then there is no reason to remain a Christian, no reason to evangelize in 
the first place.
BK>This gives us an enormous opportunity to
BK>present the Gospel in terms of our own personal testimony.
Try that in the Holy_Smoke atheist echo, Brett.  They will laugh you to 
scorn.  No, we may not be able to reason people into the kingdom but we 
certainly can't lure them in with emotionalism and pietism.  There is no 
escaping the need for a rational defense of the Christian faith: 
*apologetics*.
BK>  It opens
BK>up evangelism to all Christians, not just the intellectuals among us.
BK>Unlike under the constraints of modernism, there is no need to
BK>rationally explain to the postmodernist why we believe what we
BK>believe, but rather we have the freedom to present what is truth to
BK>us.
If it is only true for us, why should they accept it?  If it is only true 
for us, why should they repent and change their sinful lifestyles?  All 
people reason on one level or another.  While they may not all be 
"intellectuals" they will recognize a good argument over against an 
emotional appeal.  They are used to being manipulated by commercials, 
salesmen, etc.  Why should they listen to one more manipulative salesman 
(read evangelist)?
BK>This of course points to the obvious danger of postmodernism in
BK>that people can, and are, being sucked into believing all sorts of
BK>weird ideas quite contrary to the Bible.  It is therefore crucial
BK>that we as Christians take up this opportunity to spread the Gospel,
BK>because we can be sure that the enemy will be spreading his gospel.
But you have no basis for making exclusive truth claims while at the same 
time embracing postmodern relativism.  On what authority will you tell a 
homosexual who thinks he is a Christian that his lifestyle will damn him to 
hell and an eternal separation from a loving and merciful God (who will 
also judge from a position of absolute justice and holiness)?
BK>It is important to note that a postmodernist is not the irrational
BK>creature that the modernists will portray, but rather their thinking
BK>is a rational process whereby what they believe is influenced by what
BK>they see and hear.  In this respect the postmodernist is no different
BK>to the modernist. It is the postmodernist who recognises the folly of
BK>the modernist's belief that they can objectively look at truth
BK>without subjectivity entering into the equation.  You only need look
BK>at what passes as science these days to see that something has gone
BK>seriously wrong with objectivity.  Truth cannot lie in a vacuum
BK>whereby it can be analysed in complete objectivity, the subjective
BK>gives meaning to the objective.
BK>All lines of thought have absolutes built into them, even
BK>postmodernism.  
Now you've said a mouthful.  YES!  Even postmodernism makes relativism a 
dogma which excludes those who believe there is an objective and ultimate 
reality which can be understood and interpreted on some rational, 
empirical level.  Christianity can harness an empirical worldview because 
Christian rationality gave birth to science and an investigation of nature 
as an expression of God's general revelation of Himself.  However, 
postmodernism denies that there is any ultimate reality.  It assumes out of 
hand that reality exists only in the mind and that all is subjective and 
relative to one's mental impression of "reality".
BK>Premodernism had as its absolute the church,
BK>modernism had science and reason, and postmodernism has self.  All
BK>these absolutes have flaws and it is in response to these flaws that
BK>the progression of thinking has developed.  Modernism came out of a
BK>rejection of the church as absolute, in which it was quite correct to
BK>do so as the church does not have all the answers.  Postmodernism has
BK>then come out of a rejection of science as an absolute, and likewise
BK>it is quite correct in doing so.  It does beg the question of what
BK>will follow postmodernism, if the absolute of postmodernism is self,
BK>could it not be that God has His hand in this progression?
NO.  While our knowledge and understanding of the world has been imperfect 
in the past, it would be suicidal to deny ultimate reality in spite of our 
imperfect understanding of it.  Absolute truth exists in spite of our 
sinful denial of the Absolute God whose very existence is truth, whose 
attributes are all dependent on truth and rational explications of that 
truth.  In other words, God IS truth and therefore operates out of logical 
principles which cannot be violated because to do so would violate who God 
is in and of Himself.  There are some things that God Himself cannot 
do--one of them is to sin or to do anything sinful or evil.  
Self always leads to sin.  "Did God really say....?"  (Genesis 3:1).
BK>Society is becoming more and more postmodern in its thinking, we
BK>cannot stop it as McCullum says we should attempt to do so, neither
BK>should we attempt to stop it.  If we were to fight against it are we
BK>to champion the modernism?  I think not.  Modernism or even
BK>premodernism are no closer to the Christian world view than is
BK>postmodernism.  Let us continue to proclaim the gospel, holding to
BK>our absolute being God, but at the same time recognise that the world
BK>does not hold the same absolute as us.  Whilst as Christians we
BK>cannot get away from the position that God is our absolute we do need
BK>to realise that in spreading the gospel it is our job to present the
BK>gospel in a language that those around us will understand.
What is the Christian worldview, Brett?  I would contend that the Christian 
worldview is *rational*, countercultural, supernatural, and devotional.  To 
compartmentalize any of these complementary elements of the Christian 
worldview is to destroy the very foundations of Christian faith.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
 * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org (1:3603/140)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2L00002Date: 02/16/98
From: CHARLIE RAY                                           Time: 06:58pm
\/To: CHRISTOPHER COYNE                                   (Read 0 times)
Subj: Postmodernism

Hi CHRISTOPHER,
***
CR> Thanks for your comments on Dr. Veith's article.  However, I don't 
CR> good in postmodernism at all.  Postmodernism emphasizes relativism 
CR> the Bible emphasizes absolute truth in morals and theology.  Either
CR> is God's Son or He isn't--Jesus is not a figment of the imagination
CC>What is post modernism anyway?
Most scholars mark the beginning of postmodernism around 1985 or so at the 
fall of the Berlin wall.  Modernism assumed a one storied universe in which 
empirical science could provide all the answers to ultimate questions.  The 
theory of evolution is but one example of this.  However, more recent 
philosophical investigation of empirical science itself has shown that it 
operates out of authoritative paradigms or models of our understanding of 
reality and nature.  However, these models of the universe or reality often 
turned out to be wrong to some degree.  That's why we had the Copernican 
revolution and then the Newtonian revolution.  Even Einstein's theories of 
general relativity has been improved upon and corrected to one degree or 
another.  However, the greatest danger of modernism and Enlightenment views 
of the universe was its outright dismissal of supernatural events.  The a 
priori assumption of naturalistic science is that there are no such things 
as supernatural events, that all events have a rational and natural 
explanation.
Postmodernism, on the other hand, emphasizes the subjective nature of doing 
science.  While empirical science is based on the scientific method, the 
very selection of evidence and certain models designed to provide an 
experimental verification and reproduction of an hypothesis often begs the 
question.  Are we asking and answering our own questions based on a biased 
worldview and an incorrect authoritative scientific paradigm or model?  
Postmodernism has therefore concluded that uniformitarianism (the fact that 
the universe is uniform in the past, present, and future allows scientific 
investigation of the natural universe) is possibly wrong.  Relativism in 
empirical science must mean that there is therefore no absolute truth.  
Humans are limited and therefore only create a facade of ultimate reality. 
It follows from this that reality itself is a creation of the mind and 
therefore does not even exist in and of itself.
If different cultures have different worldviews, they in some sense are all 
correct but just different ways of viewing reality.  Therefore, western 
civilization is no better explanation of reality than say a third world 
country's premodern explanation of reality.  Some Pentecostals/charismatics 
have gone so far as to suggest that the reason pre-modern third world 
countries experience greater numbers of miracles is that they believe in 
miracles and the supernatural while western civilizations do not believe 
and because of their unbelief are experiencing fewer miracles (See Charles 
Kraft).  One might just as well suggest that pre-modern cultures are 
superstitious and "think" they are experiencing more miracles but in 
reality are only misinterpreting the events or their experiences as 
"miraculous".  Magicians are experts in sleight of hand and so 
Pentecostals/charismatics are experts in manipulating our interpretation of 
perceived events.  What "appears" to be supernatural is in fact many times 
smoke and mirrors or creative manipulation of people's interpretation of 
the events.  I call it "manipulation".  However, true miracles would be 
immediately obvious to all, including skeptical modernist observers from a 
western culture.  Clever magic tricks and emotional and mental manipulation 
do not constitute "real" supernatural events.
Postmodernism, therefore, is rampant with relativism and embraces as 
equally true and valid even the New Age anti-intellectualism and claims of 
ineffable (beyond words) supernatural experiences which are really closer 
to superstition and pagan worldviews of the past than to Christianity.  
Christianity is rooted solidly in this world and in an objective revelation 
in history--the history of salvation as it has unfolded in Judaism and 
Christianity.  Christianity led to an objective view of nature and 
creation and ultimately led to science.  Few atheists and agnostics will 
acknowledge this but the modern university system and science itself 
evolved out of the Catholic monasteries.  They were centers of intellectual 
investigation of God's revelation in nature and in Scripture.  Libraries of 
manuscripts developed.  These libraries contained not only theological 
works and copies of Holy Scripture but they also collected Arabic works 
with translations of Aristotle and Plato and other classics but also 
mathematics, astronomy, geography, etc.
 
Postmodernism is, in short, a return to a pre-modern worldview in many 
ways.  It denies absolute truth on the basis of our past errors.  However, 
to deny absolute truth, even in theory, is to embrace superstition, 
relativism, and ultimately paganism.
CR> sake 
CR> of drawing in unwary pagans, what we wind up with is nominal Christ
CR> who 
CR> know nothing about sound doctrine, spiritual disciplines, or 
CR> self-sacrifice.
CC>I know of self-sacrafice but I'll admit, I'm just now learning of spiri
CC>discipline and whatever sound doctrine is.
Yes, Chris, life is one long process of discovery and refinement and 
learning.  Part of our spiritual discipline is to pray and develope a 
devotional life.  However, another aspect of spiritual discipline is to 
develop a rational Christian worldview, a Christian apologetic.  To do any 
less than this is to admit to the world that ultimately Christianity is 
irrational, fideistic, and irrelevant.
CR> I left the Pentecostal movement about a year ago after being within
CR> fellowship for over ten years.  Postmodernism and existentialism is
CR> rampant 
CR> in their paradigm and truth seems to have taken a far, far backseat
CR> pragmatism and Pelagianism.
CC>Was in a pentacostal spinoff for awhile.   Lot's of candy, little meat,
CC>everybody understands me here.  In other words, lot's of hype little 
CC>substance.
Yes, Christopher.  I think you get my drift also.  When there is no 
rational support for one's message what you wind up with is an empty 
experience.  Such experiences may or may not be valid but we are 
continually wondering if they are even true because there is no rational or 
logical support for them.  What distinguishes a Pentecostal's emotional and 
spiritual experiences from the ecstatic experiences of a New Ager or a 
Buddhist?  If there is no logical argument and no sound biblical 
hermeneutic supporting a particular theological view, then what ultimate 
meaning does it have?  If the truth is based on our experiences who can say 
that homosexuality is wrong (or any other sexual deviation for that 
matter)? However, if ultimate spiritual and theological truth is 
propositional and revealed in an objective Holy Book, then all of our 
spiritual experiences must be tested and weighed by that revelation, not by 
our experiences alone.  If I proclaim that someone has been raised from the 
dead in the middle of an ecstatic prophecy to the gathered church, I must 
actually raise a corpse from the casket for my claim to be truthful and 
valid.  To spiritualize the claim as a way of retro-fitting or 
rationalizing away the fact that the dead person was not actually raised is 
to, in effect, lie.  Either the dead person is raised or they are still 
dead.  Otherwise, we are playing fast and loose with the truth and buying 
into a false relativism and a postmodern worldview more closely affiliated 
with pre-modern superstition than to a supernatural Christian worldview.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
 * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org (1:3603/140)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2L00003Date: 02/15/98
From: CHARLES CREAGER, SR.                                  Time: 03:48pm
\/To: CHARLIE RAY                                         (Read 0 times)
Subj: Fido Feeds ...

Dear Charlie,
I am perusing Wholly Bible as well.
You have posted on subsequent posts about Evangelicals.  I will copy it
for more detailed analysis; in glancing over it, you seem to touch on a
concern of mine which is the loose attitude toward doctrine.  It seems
that many so-called evangelical churches are more interested in being
politically correct than doctrinally correct.
In any event I will get back to you with some reply.
Respectfully,
CPCSr
--- WM v3.10/92-0423
 * Origin: Blackbeard's Tavern 803-294-9657  (1:3639/3)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2M00000Date: 02/17/98
From: CHARLIE RAY                                           Time: 06:55am
\/To: CHARLES CREAGER, SR.                                (Read 0 times)
Subj: Fido Feeds ...

Hi CHARLES,
CC>.MSGID: 1:3639/3 8C004679
CC>Dear Charlie,
CC>I am perusing Wholly Bible as well.
CC>You have posted on subsequent posts about Evangelicals.  I will copy it
CC>for more detailed analysis; in glancing over it, you seem to touch on a
CC>concern of mine which is the loose attitude toward doctrine.  It seems
CC>that many so-called evangelical churches are more interested in being
CC>politically correct than doctrinally correct.
CC>In any event I will get back to you with some reply.
CC>Respectfully,
CC>CPCSr
Yes, exactly, Charles.  Also, many are more concerned about human needs 
than about true worship and the uncompromised preaching of God's Word.  
This is a result of the church growth movement and the New Christian 
Right's civil religion.  I believe in being politically active but that is 
something I do as a citizen.  It is not the same thing as being a Christian 
witness or emphasizing sound doctrine.
BTW, the post on Evangelicalism came from the Wheaton College website...
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
 * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org (1:3603/140)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2M00001Date: 02/16/98
From: BRETT KNUCHEL                                         Time: 09:56pm
\/To: BILL LENHART                                        (Read 0 times)
Subj: Modernism, etc.

BL> The NIV is a corrupted and perverted translation. It blantly omits
BL> 1 John 5:7. It is translated from the corrupted Alexandrian text. The
BL> same text that the Jehovah Witnesses used to translate their New World
BL> Translation.
BL> There is only one Word of God and it's the the KJV 1611 edition. It was
BL> translated using the Masoretic text which is the same text Jesus quoted
BL> when He rebuked satan in the wilderness. In using the Masoretic text
BL> Jesus showed us what text is the pure text.
By using the Masoretic text Jesus is not saying that this is the pure text, 
but
rather acknowledging it as being a well known text of the day.
If the Masoretic text is the pure text and none other then why do you use the
KJV and not the Masoretic text?
BL> All other translations except the the KJV are from satan the
BL> merchandiser who makes merchandise of christians with his corrupt
BL> translations.
All translations are open to error in the process of translation.
As such it can be useful to cross reference in different versions. However 
ny
insistance on one particular version, I find to be a little absurd.
Regards
Brett
... nfx v3.1 FREEWARE OFFLINE MAIL READER FOR DOS/WINDOWS                    
--- EzyQwk V1.49b2 00F90061
 * Origin: Gaz's Grotto #1 Adelaide +61-8-8351-8670 33k6 (3:800/2)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2M00002Date: 02/17/98
From: JOANNE JOHNSON                                        Time: 02:25pm
\/To: CHRISTOPHER COYNE                                   (Read 0 times)
Subj: Re: Modernism, etc.   1/

CC>JJ> In John 5:2 there is another test that you might like to make. It is 
the
CC>JJ> little word "Bethesda."  If your Bible has spelled it differently, for
CC>JJ> example, "Bethsaida" or "Bethsatha," either in the test or in the
CC>JJ> margin, or as a footnote; you can know that your Bible is tyranslated
CC>JJ> from corrupted manuscripts.  (Please note: I am referring to the pool 
in
CC>JJ> John 5:2 and not the cities referred to in other passages, which are
CC>JJ> spelled correctly.)  Joachin Jeremias in "Rediscovery of Bethesda"
CC>JJ> states that a copper scroll found in Qumram Cave III, dating from 35 
o
CC>JJ> 65 A.D. shows the correct spelling which was "Bethesda."  The
CC>JJ> evangelical test is the test of the apostles.  God bless.
CC>JJ> I can type more, if anyone is interested.
CC>I am if you got the time.  On your 2nd example, how does a
CC>simple misspelling corrupt the whole translation?
Ok...I'll type a little at a type.
According to Eldred Thomas, the misspelling is a small example of the
corruption, and it continues on throughout the translation.
From Bible Versions...To Test the True Character of Your Bible by
Eldred Thomas.
Chapter IV
        The Revised Version of 1881 was the first attempted English
revision of the Bible since the Authorized or King James Version
of 1611.  The incorrectly called Revised Version of 1881
was based on Westcott and Hort's Greek Text based on the corrupted
manuscript, the "Vaticanus" or "B".  Thbis Greek Text, like the "B"
manuscript it was based on, had more than 7,000 changes. Unfortaunately,
ALL MODERN VERSIONS         are based on this Greek Text , as of
December 1978.
Page: 19
Some of the following deletions will be found in your Bible if it is
based on a bad manuscript. In some Bibles based on bad manuscripts, all
of the following deletions will be found.
(Mostly left out of NIV/NAS Bibles)
Scripture                Deletion
Matthew 1:25        firstborn
Matthew 6:33        of GOD
Matthew 8:29        Jesus
Matthew 9:13        repentance
Matthew 12:35        of the heart
Matthew 13:51        Jesus saith unto them
Matthew 16:3        O ye hypocrites
Matthew 16:20        Jesus
Matthew 17:21        Whole verse is out
Matthew 18:11        Whole verse is out
Matthew 19:9        Last ten words are out
Matthew 19:17        GOD
Matthew 20:7        and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive
Matthew 20:16        for many be called, but few chosen
Matthew 20:22        and to be baptized with the baptism that I am
                        baptized with?
Matthew 23:14        Whose verse is out
Matthew 25:13        wherein the Son of Man commeth
Matthew 27:35        that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
                        by the prophet
Matthew 28:2        from the door
Matthew 28:9        And as they went to tell his disciplels
Mark 1:1        the Son of God
Mark 1:154        of the kingdom
Mark 2:17        to repentance
Mark 6:11        Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable
                   for Sodom and Gommorraha in the day of judgement,
                   than for that city.
Mark 7:16        Whole verse out
Mark 9:24        Lord
Mark 9:42        in me
Mark 9:44,46        Both verses are out
Mark 10:21        take up thy cross
Mark 11:10        in the name of the Lord
Mark 11:26        Whole verse in out
Mark 12:29        of all the commandments is...this is the
                        first commandment.
Mark 13:14        spoken of by Daniel the prophet
Mark 14:68        and the cock crew
Mark 15:28        Whole verse is out
Mark 16:9-20        All 12 verses are out
Luke 1:28        blessed art thou among women
Luke 2:33        Joseph is changed to father
Luke 2:43        Joseph and his mother are changed to parents
Luke 4:4        but by every word of God
Luke 4:8        Get thee behind me Satan
Luke 4:41        Christ
Luke 7:31        And the Lord said
Luke 9:54        even as Elias did?
Luke 11:29        the prophet
Luke 22:31        And the Lord said,
Luke 23:17        Whole verse if out
Luke 23:34        Then Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know
                not what they do
Luke 23:38        in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew
Luke 23:42        Lord
Luke 24:12        Whole verse is out
Luke 24:40        Whole verse is out
Luke 24:49        Jerusalem
Luke 24:51        and crried up into heaven
John 1:14        begotten
John 1:18        begotten
John 1:27        preferred before me
John 3:13        which is in heaven
John 3:15        should not perish
John 3:16        begotten
John 3:18        begotten
John 4:42        the Christi
John 5:3        waiting for the moving of the water
John 5:4        Whole verse is out
John 6:47        on me
John 7:53 - 8:11        all 12 verses are out
John 8:16        Father
John 9:35        Son of God is changed to Son of man
John 11:41        where the dead was laid
John 16:16        BECAUSE i GO TO THE FATHER
jOHN 17:12        IN THE WORLD
jOHN 20:29        tHOMAS
aCTS 2:30        According to the flesh, he would raise
                up Christ.
Acts 7:30        of the Lord
Acts 7:37        him shall ye hear
Acts 8:37        Whole verse is out
Acts 9:5-6        Most of the verse is out
Acts 10:6        he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do
Acts 16:31        Christ
Acts 17:26        `blood
Acts 20:25        of God
Acts 20:32        brethren
Acts 23:9        let us not fight against God
Acts 24:6,7,8        End of 6 throught the beginning of 8
                is out.
Acts 24:15        of the dead
Acts 28:16        the centurion delivered th eprisoners to the captain
                        of the guard
Acts 28:29        Whole verse if out
Romans 1:16        of Christ
Romans 9:28        in rightousness
Romans 11:6         Most of verse is out
Romans 13:9        Thou shat not bear false witness
Romans 14:9        both and rose
Romans 14:21        or is offended, or is made weak
Romans 15:29        of the gospel
Romans 16:24        Whole verse is out
>>> Continued to next message
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X .
--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: The Politically Incorrect! (1:106/1010)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2M00003Date: 02/17/98
From: JOANNE JOHNSON                                        Time: 02:25pm
\/To: CHRISTOPHER COYNE                                   (Read 0 times)
Subj: Re: Modernism, etc.   2/

>>> Continued from previous message
1 corinthians 1:14        I thank God
1 Corinthians 5:7        for us
1 Corinthians 6:20        and in your spirit, which are God's
1 Corinthians 7:39        by the law
to be continued  :-)
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X .
--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: The Politically Incorrect! (1:106/1010)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2M00004Date: 02/17/98
From: CHRISTOPHER COYNE                                     Time: 03:35pm
\/To: CHARLIE RAY                                         (Read 0 times)
Subj: Re: Postmodernism

On Mon 16-Feb-1998 11:21p, Charlie Ray wrote:
CR> Hi CHRISTOPHER,
CR> ***
CR> CR> Thanks for your comments on Dr. Veith's article.  However, I don't 
CR> CR> good in postmodernism at all.  Postmodernism emphasizes relativism 
CR> CR> the Bible emphasizes absolute truth in morals and theology.  Either
CR> CR> is God's Son or He isn't--Jesus is not a figment of the imagination
CR> CC>What is post modernism anyway?
CR> Most scholars mark the beginning of postmodernism around 1985 or so at 
e
CR> fall of the Berlin wall.  Modernism assumed a one storied universe in
CR> which 
CR> empirical science could provide all the answers to ultimate questions. 
CR> The 
CR> theory of evolution is but one example of this.  However, more recent 
CR> philosophical investigation of empirical science itself has shown that it 
CR> operates out of authoritative paradigms or models of our understanding of 
CR> reality and nature.  However, these models of the universe or reality
CR> often 
CR> turned out to be wrong to some degree.  That's why we had the Copernican 
CR> revolution and then the Newtonian revolution.  Even Einstein's theories 

CR> general relativity has been improved upon and corrected to one degree or 
CR> another.  However, the greatest danger of modernism and Enlightenment
CR> views 
CR> of the universe was its outright dismissal of supernatural events.  The a 
CR> priori assumption of naturalistic science is that there are no such 
ings
CR> as supernatural events, that all events have a rational and natural 
CR> explanation.
CR> Postmodernism, on the other hand, emphasizes the subjective nature of
CR> doing 
CR> science.  While empirical science is based on the scientific method, the 
CR> very selection of evidence and certain models designed to provide an 
CR> experimental verification and reproduction of an hypothesis often begs 
e
CR> question.  Are we asking and answering our own questions based on a 
ased
CR> worldview and an incorrect authoritative scientific paradigm or model?  
CR> Postmodernism has therefore concluded that uniformitarianism (the fact
CR> that 
CR> the universe is uniform in the past, present, and future allows 
ientific
CR> investigation of the natural universe) is possibly wrong.  Relativism in 
CR> empirical science must mean that there is therefore no absolute truth.  
CR> Humans are limited and therefore only create a facade of ultimate 
ality.
CR> It follows from this that reality itself is a creation of the mind and 
CR> therefore does not even exist in and of itself.
***Requoted because it makes sense and ties this whole discussion together***
CR> If different cultures have different worldviews, they in some sense are
CR> all 
CR> correct but just different ways of viewing reality.  Therefore, western 
CR> civilization is no better explanation of reality than say a third world 
CR> country's premodern explanation of reality.  Some
CR> Pentecostals/charismatics 
CR> have gone so far as to suggest that the reason pre-modern third world 
CR> countries experience greater numbers of miracles is that they believe in 
CR> miracles and the supernatural while western civilizations do not believe 
CR> and because of their unbelief are experiencing fewer miracles (See 
arles
CR> Kraft).  One might just as well suggest that pre-modern cultures are 
CR> superstitious and "think" they are experiencing more miracles but in 
CR> reality are only misinterpreting the events or their experiences as 
CR> "miraculous".  Magicians are experts in sleight of hand and so 
CR> Pentecostals/charismatics are experts in manipulating our interpretation
CR> of 
CR> perceived events.  What "appears" to be supernatural is in fact many 
mes
CR> smoke and mirrors or creative manipulation of people's interpretation of 
CR> the events.  I call it "manipulation".  However, true miracles would be 
CR> immediately obvious to all, including skeptical modernist observers from 

CR> western culture.  Clever magic tricks and emotional and mental
CR> manipulation 
CR> do not constitute "real" supernatural events.
True, especially in the Eastern culture.  However, many times in Jesus's life 
people were healed by him simply because they believed.  If we believe in a 
God that doesn't change (Which I do and must to keep my sanity) we must keep 
that in mind.
CR> Postmodernism, therefore, is rampant with relativism and embraces as 
CR> equally true and valid even the New Age anti-intellectualism and claims 

CR> ineffable (beyond words) supernatural experiences which are really closer 
CR> to superstition and pagan worldviews of the past than to Christianity.  
CR> Christianity is rooted solidly in this world and in an objective
CR> revelation 
CR> in history--the history of salvation as it has unfolded in Judaism and 
CR> Christianity.  Christianity led to an objective view of nature and 
CR> creation and ultimately led to science.  Few atheists and agnostics will 
CR> acknowledge this but the modern university system and science itself 
CR> evolved out of the Catholic monasteries.  They were centers of
CR> intellectual 
CR> investigation of God's revelation in nature and in Scripture.  Libraries
CR> of 
CR> manuscripts developed.  These libraries contained not only theological 
CR> works and copies of Holy Scripture but they also collected Arabic works 
CR> with translations of Aristotle and Plato and other classics but also 
CR> mathematics, astronomy, geography, etc.
Very true.  Inm fact, if I'm correct, only people studing to be priests and 
monks were allowed to be students at these universities.
CR> Postmodernism is, in short, a return to a pre-modern worldview in many 
CR> ways.  It denies absolute truth on the basis of our past errors.  
wever,
CR> to deny absolute truth, even in theory, is to embrace superstition, 
CR> relativism, and ultimately paganism.
Just superstition's bad enough.
CR> CR> sake 
CR> CR> of drawing in unwary pagans, what we wind up with is nominal Christ
CR> CR> who 
CR> CR> know nothing about sound doctrine, spiritual disciplines, or 
CR> CR> self-sacrifice.
CR> CC>I know of self-sacrafice but I'll admit, I'm just now learning of 
piri
CR> CC>discipline and whatever sound doctrine is.
CR> Yes, Chris, life is one long process of discovery and refinement and 
CR> learning.  Part of our spiritual discipline is to pray and develope a 
CR> devotional life.  However, another aspect of spiritual discipline is to 
CR> develop a rational Christian worldview, a Christian apologetic.  To do 
ny
What is a Christian apologetic?
CR> less than this is to admit to the world that ultimately Christianity is 
CR> irrational, fideistic, and irrelevant.
CR> CR> I left the Pentecostal movement about a year ago after being within
CR> CR> fellowship for over ten years.  Postmodernism and existentialism is
CR> CR> rampant 
CR> CR> in their paradigm and truth seems to have taken a far, far backseat
CR> CR> pragmatism and Pelagianism.
CR> CC>Was in a pentacostal spinoff for awhile.   Lot's of candy, little 
eat,
CR> CC>everybody understands me here.  In other words, lot's of hype little 
CR> CC>substance.
CR> Yes, Christopher.  I think you get my drift also.  When there is no 
CR> rational support for one's message what you wind up with is an empty 
CR> experience.  Such experiences may or may not be valid but we are 
CR> continually wondering if they are even true because there is no rational
CR> or 
CR> logical support for them.  What distinguishes a Pentecostal's emotional
CR> and 
CR> spiritual experiences from the ecstatic experiences of a New Ager or a 
CR> Buddhist?  If there is no logical argument and no sound biblical 
CR> hermeneutic supporting a particular theological view, then what ultimate 
CR> meaning does it have?  If the truth is based on our experiences who can
CR> say 
CR> that homosexuality is wrong (or any other sexual deviation for that 
CR> matter)? However, if ultimate spiritual and theological truth is 
CR> propositional and revealed in an objective Holy Book, then all of our 
CR> spiritual experiences must be tested and weighed by that revelation, not
CR> by 
CR> our experiences alone.  If I proclaim that someone has been raised from
CR> the 
CR> dead in the middle of an ecstatic prophecy to the gathered church, I must 
CR> actually raise a corpse from the casket for my claim to be truthful and 
CR> valid.  To spiritualize the claim as a way of retro-fitting or 
CR> rationalizing away the fact that the dead person was not actually raised
CR> is 
CR> to, in effect, lie.  Either the dead person is raised or they are still 
CR> dead.  Otherwise, we are playing fast and loose with the truth and buying 
CR> into a false relativism and a postmodern worldview more closely 
filiated
CR> with pre-modern superstition than to a supernatural Christian worldview.
It wasn't so much logic that got me further and further from the 
Pentacostals.  Lot's of people don't understand this, so let me explain it 
this way.  You sign up for a college class.  You get the lesson everyday, but 
they're short lessons that really don't teach you much and the great 
majority, the last part, is sent hooping and hollering and speaking a 
language no one else understands.  But, this was in the class description so 
it's alright for awhile, but you notice the teacher keeps repeating himself 
with different words and it carries on like this the whole year.  Maybe this 
will help people understand better.
Peace.
CR> Sincerely in Christ,
CR> Charlie Ray, 
CR> Chaplain
CR> 1 Timothy 4:16
CR> Watch your life and doctrine closely.
CR> Persevere in them, because if you do,
CR> you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
CR> chaplain@isgroup.net
CR> ---
CR>  * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
CR>  * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org
CR> (1:3603/140)
--- CNet/3
 * Origin: [FidoNet] Christian \o/ Retreat * Flower Mound, TX * (1:124/3266)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2N00000Date: 02/18/98
From: CHARLIE RAY                                           Time: 06:32am
\/To: CHRISTOPHER COYNE                                   (Read 0 times)
Subj: Re: Postmodernism

Hi CHRISTOPHER,
*****snip******
CR> Yes, Chris, life is one long process of discovery and refinement an
CR> learning.  Part of our spiritual discipline is to pray and develope
CR> devotional life.  However, another aspect of spiritual discipline i
CR> develop a rational Christian worldview, a Christian apologetic.  To
CC>What is a Christian apologetic?
Apologetics is one branch of the disciple of the philosophy of religion.  
In particular, it is a branch of Christian philosophy.  Apologetics simply 
means to present a rational, logical defense of the Christian faith.
****snip****
CC>It wasn't so much logic that got me further and further from the Pentac
CC>Lot's of people don't understand this, so let me explain it this way.  
CC>sign
CC>up for a college class.  You get the lesson everyday, but they're short
CC>lessons
CC>that really don't teach you much and the great majority, the last part,
CC>sent
CC>hooping and hollering and speaking a language no one else understands. 
CC>this was in the class description so it's alright for awhile, but you n
CC>the teacher keeps repeating himself with different words and it carries
CC>like
CC>this the whole year.  Maybe this will help people understand better.
Sounds like one of those "college" classes sponsored at your church rather 
than at an accredited Christian college.  To get taste of the real thing 
try auditing a course at an genuine Christian college near you.
I'm not familiar with schools in Great Britain but I'm sure someone in your 
area could show you a catalogue if you call around a bit.  If you have 
internet access do a search for Christian colleges and seminaries in your 
area.
God bless you, Christopher.  May God continue to lead you in the direction 
He has prepared for you before the foundation of the world.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
 * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org (1:3603/140)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2P00000Date: 02/20/98
From: MIKE CIPOLLA                                          Time: 09:16am
\/To: JOANNE JOHNSON                                      (Read 0 times)
Subj: Re: Modernism, etc.   1/

<snip>
JJ> CC>JJ> I can type more, if anyone is interested.
JJ> CC>I am if you got the time.  On your 2nd example, how does a
JJ> CC>simple misspelling corrupt the whole translation?
JJ> 
JJ> Ok...I'll type a little at a type.
JJ> 
JJ> According to Eldred Thomas, the misspelling is a small example of the
JJ> corruption, and it continues on throughout the translation.
JJ> 
JJ> From Bible Versions...To Test the True Character of Your Bible by
JJ> Eldred Thomas.
<snip> 
Okay, I'll jump in with both left feet.  Is Eldred Thomas' premise that
the KJV1611 is the one, the only true translation?  That all others are
corrupt imitations spawned by Satan?  Seems then that anything found there
would be suspect.  It's a 'proof' of the KJV not a test or unbiased
comparision of various translations.  I'm sure that you have others who
have 'proved' the inerrancy of the KJV1611 and I'll try to track down
Mr. Thomas' book and see what's there.  
Before I sent this out I found an old article by a Mr. Ruckman.  In
the railing against BJU and BJ III, IV etc. he made a point about the use
of the word 'child' vs 'servant' in Acts 4:27,30.  A little better case
than a variant spelling of a place name.  Didn't we just start using
Bejing instead of Peking?
... nfx/win v3.0 [C0000] If you didn't do it, don't count on it being done. 
  
... nfx/win v3.0 [C0000] 
--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Red Shift BBS, Home of Mamoosoft! ... (770) 979-9467 (1:133/8003)