by David and Tim Bayly on February 29, 2012 - 8:49am
Son Joseph didn't apply to Princeton because of their recent hire of the bloodthirsty Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, who argued that a decent pet has more of a moral claim on us than a newborn baby.
Lockstep in Singer's bloody path, two other Aussies, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing it should be legal to murder newborn babies--including those with no handicaps. They call it "after-birth abortion" and the title of their paper is "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"
Here's the abstract:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Some with consciences shaken awake have taken the journal's editor, Julian Savulescu, to task for justifying the murder of little babies. Savulescu responded at length...
by David and Tim Bayly on February 28, 2012 - 1:13pm
Speaking of the New International Version 2011, here's another change indicative of the version's corruption of God's Word:
This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[a] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
[a] 19 The Greek term traditionally translated the Jews (hoi Ioudaioi) refers here and elsewhere in John’s Gospel to those Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus; also in 5:10, 15, 16; 7:1, 11, 13; 9:22; 18:14, 28, 36; 19:7, 12, 31, 38; 20:19.
by David and Tim Bayly on February 28, 2012 - 6:38am
Again and again David and I have warned against the corrupting influence of money inside the church. We've warned about the large profits Evangelicals haul in through royalties, conference speakers' fees, copyright licensures by publishers and Bible societies, salaries of pastors and missionaries and parachurch staff workers, donor gifts; and the list goes on. We've proposed that everyone disclose their profits, pay, and perks for all to see.
We know men hate for us to write about church profits. We feel their anger.
University of California, Berkeley is an odd place to turn, but maybe it has something to teach men of God...
(There is a) general tendency of all translations to adhere more strongly than any original to a normalized idea of what the target language should be. To put that a different way: translation always takes the register and level of naturally written prose up a notch or two. Some degree of raising is and always has been characteristic of translated texts--simply because translators are instinctively averse to the risk of being taken for less than fully cultivated writers of their target tongue. In important ways, translators are the guardians and, to a surprising degree, the creators of the standard form of the language they use. (p. 195)
by David and Tim Bayly on February 27, 2012 - 6:28am
You guys all noticed there hasn't been any response to appeals for the Grace to You men to admit their unfaithfulness to Scripture and repent of it, right? The discussion of money and its corruption of decisions caused Grace to You to express their utter rejection of such considerations. But when it came to the infinitely more serious matter of amending and deleting and gagging Scripture, no response at all. (They may still be considering an admission of their failure; time will tell.)
Listen brothers, responses are significant and should be studied closely. And a non-response is a response...
by David and Tim Bayly on February 24, 2012 - 2:21am
We all were shocked by John MacArthur's announced promotion of the NIV2011. Gobsmacked.
Here is a man who has spent his life working his rod and staff in protection of the flock of God. Then this.
John's not been afraid to beat off wolves from the inside. His Gospel According to Jesus was a wonderful encouragment in defending the Gospel of grace against Dallas Theological Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary men who thought they must deny Christ as Lord to embrace Him as Savior. And like many of you, I praised God for the man as I read that book.
It was no aberration, as I'm sure Iain Murray makes clear through his autobiography of John recently released. And there's that, also: likely the man David and I have benefitted from more across our life's work than any other--Iain Murray--showed his commendation of John by giving himself to John's biography. Honestly, there could be little higher commendation for us this side of Heaven than Iain choosing to do this work.
Feminists aren't on the inside of John's world and church so why has he gone and made common cause with them at this late date? Has he grown weary? Has he changed his mind...
by David and Tim Bayly on February 23, 2012 - 7:59am
Here's a list of a few of the additions and deletions and amendments to God's Word contained in the new NIV2011. There are countless similar changes across the Old and New Testaments. The vast majority of them are an effort to gag God in showing His Fatherhood in the affairs of man.
This list is the work of the PCA pastor Andrew Dionne. (TB)
* * *
NIV2011: Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
NIV1984: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
by David and Tim Bayly on February 22, 2012 - 7:54pm
NOTE FROM TB: I wrote the text below and was ready to post it this afternoon but other things intervened and I didn't get to it until late this evening. So I wrote this without having seen Phil Johnson's response to our previous posts, nor my brother David's response to Phil. Just an FYI.
* * *
Let me clarify my thoughts concerning the publication of the MacArthur Study Bible in the text of the New International Version 2011...
by David and Tim Bayly on February 22, 2012 - 12:09pm
(DB) In the 1980s I couldn't take John MacArthur. Every time his voice came on WMBI in Chicago, I turned it off. My mother would say to me that he was a better man than I thought. I didn't care. Something snide and self-assured seemed to emanate from from the radio when he was preaching.
And then in 1985-86, I spent a year in Fullerton, CA, as a pastoral intern under Paul Sailhamer at the Fullerton Evangelical Free Church while Chuck Swindoll was senior pastor there. As part of the year, Paul took the two interns to visit significant California churches. We did a trip to San Diego (on which Chuck accompanied us) and a northern trip to the Bay area.
We also went to visit Grace Community Church, where Paul, Dave Butler and I had breakfast with John MacArthur.
During breakfast I asked John if he was willing to preach on abortion. I had a private interest in the question: I had been trying to convince friends at Fullerton that Chuck should preach on abortion, something he hadn't yet done (he did the following year). Fullerton was willing to have then-surgeon-general C. Everett Koop preach on abortion, but not Chuck. So I secretly scored a point when John answered emphatically, "Yes, I'm willing. I've already preached two series on it."
by David and Tim Bayly on February 21, 2012 - 6:04am
Les traductions ressemblent aux femmes – lorsqu'elles sont fidèles, elles ne sont pas belles, quand elles sont belles, elles ne sont pas fidèles. - French proverb
Since first seeing an early proof (pre-publication) of one of the new translations being done by renowned Evangelical Bible scholars like Don Carson and Gordon Fee back in the early nineties, it became clear to me that the English-speaking church's blessing of many translations was about to become a curse. All through these proofs, words inspired by the Holy Spirit had been changed or deleted. And the ordering principle was fear of offending groups with certified victim status in the Western world--principally women and Jews.
If the original Greek was 'men,' it was removed and the gender-neutered 'those' took its place. If the Greek was 'brothers,' it was removed and the gender-neutered 'Christian friends' (and later 'Christian siblings') took its place. If the Greek was 'Jews,' it was removed and 'they' or 'Jewish leaders' took its place. If the Hebrew was 'adam,' it was removed and the gender-neutered 'human being' took its place. It's all a project called the removal of "phallogocentricism in language."
Today, almost twenty years later, Evangelicals have been betrayed by their Bible scholars and are reading, preaching from, and memorizing Bibles that have, in countless places, betrayed the Greek and Hebrew inspired by the Holy Spirit. And now we read that...
by David and Tim Bayly on February 20, 2012 - 1:34pm
(TB: Since posting this, I've changed the last word of the title from 'gold' to 'it' and changed a couple other places to tone things down slightly. I'm sorry I was too flippant the first time around.)
Keeping a stiff upper lip, the guys at Pyro announced the release of the MacArthur Study Bible notes joined to the text of the neutered NIV2011. Triumphantly they tell us Zondervan is going to let them keep their notes just as they are. The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact. Chalk one up for man...