Top 10 Phrases And Words Todd Friel Uses That Are Not Found In The Bible

Top 10 Phrases And Words Todd Friel Uses That Are Not Found In The Bible:

A Satire Of Todd Friel's Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart

10. Total Depravity---the concept yes but no exact reference.

9. Original Sin---the concept yes but no exact reference.

8. Trinity---the concept yes but no exact reference.

7. Hell---though sheol-the grave, gehenna-Valley of Hinnom a garbage dump in Jerusalem, etc. are.

6. True and false converts

5. John MacArthur---obviously not.

4. Charles Spurgeon---obvious as well.

3. inerrancy---nope.

2. Protestantism---nada.

1. Absolute Truth---nope---this is a neo-Platonic dualistic and Gnostic concept of Modernism.

Bonus points: driving to church on Sunday, the rapture, Way Of The Master and Wretched radio, toilets are also not in the bible but peeing on walls is:
---

Pastor Steven Anderson (Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona) sermonizes on the phrase "him that pisseth against the wall" in I Kings 14:10. The phrase is also found in I Sam 25:22, 25:34; I Kings 16:11, 21:21; and II Kings 9:8

If the duty of the Christian is not to follow Christ but live by the bible---we should make sure we get these key Salvation-effecting points right.

Amazing Grace Baptist Church Making News Again

The same guys that are planning to burn bibles, books and all things that they deem heretical are in the news again. This time for declaring several famous sports stars' eternal destiny---here's the scoop:

Tom Brady is going to Hell.

At least according to the Amazing Grace Baptist Church, which declared that New England's quarterback is destined for eternal damnation for his sinful existence in this life. Via NESN (via the Huddle)

"Tom Brady has an unwed child, but it's okay because he wins Super Bowls. Tom Brady is teaching us to have sex outside of marriage, to commit fornication, don't marry and do the right thing, don't take responsibility for your actions, have a good time no matter who you hurt in this world, go from sex partner to sex partner, and it's okay because of who I am. How many of you dad's (sic) cheer on Tom in the Super Bowl while your kids are watching?"

Not to make light of one's religious beliefs, but this is something you might find written on the walls of an insane asylum ... in feces. (And just so we're clear, nobody thought winning Super Bowls made it okay to have an unwed child; that it was with Bridget Moynahan made it okay.*)

Brady won't be alone in Hell, however. The church has also identified Matt Leinart and Adam Archuleta among many others. Leinart I get -- he also had a child out of wedlock and worse, he parties with Nick Lachey -- but Archuleta? Really? The poor guy was disgraced out of the NFL, cut by the Redskins before the Raiders gave up on trying to make him a linebacker. But that wasn't the low point of his professional career. He was recently released by the UFL's Las Vegas Locomotives. (I thought the UFL was like tee ball -- whoever shows up makes the team.) Doesn't matter, apparently. A date with Lucifer is still in his future.

"Engaged to a Playboy Playmate Jennifer Walcott. They have one son. This is called fornication, and we all know what their son is called, the same thing the Bible calls him."

(Read the full article: Here).

Wow is all I can say. There's nothing much else to say---so what are your thoughts?

Todd Friel's Soft Spot For King James Only Heresy

I went to the Wretched website the other day and I noticed that Todd Friel finally covered the topic of King James Onlyism---but instead of condemning this true heresy, he said he is "sympathetic" to it. Of course, he would be as King James Onlyism is one form of bibliolatry and Todd believes in bibliolatry. Although, he does agree that we have "better manuscripts"---he is wishy washy in his approach to the subject. Anyways listen to the free podcast here: Wretched Radio-July 31, 2009. So is Todd Friel getting too soft on false teaching or what?

What happened to the hardass Todd who condemns making Jesus the center of Christian teaching?


Or is this because the bible really should be worshipped and placed above Jesus?

There Is Something Very Wrong With This Picture

Thanks to Ruckmanism.Org:

Can you believe this? The latest book by Peter Ruckman features a painting on the front cover of the KJV dying on the cross instead of Christ. Click here to see the cover.

I found the link for Ruckmanism.Org on the Fundamentalist version of Wikipedia: The Ministry Of EJ Hill & Friends' article on Peter Ruckman. They are right on Ruckman, but you should check out what they say about Billy Graham:

Classification
Abortionist [1|3] - Ecumenical [2|7|8] - False Teacher [1] - Freemason [4|5|6]

I wonder how anyone in their right mind could call Billy Graham an abortionist? Another article to check out is the one on Brian McLaren, if you can stomach it. Ahh....the joys of late night web browsing.

Anyways, if you got yourself with something more refreshing: The Rev's Rumbles: America's 'Emerging Church:' Will a New Post-Evangelical Christianity Reflect More Tolerant Views?, since the retired Rev. Anderson gave me a shout out:The Rev's Rumbles: Todd Friel Responds To Dr. Tiller's Murder---I figured I'd return the compliment.

King James Bibliolatry At Its Finest

Literal and Figurative Language in the Bible And Bibliolatry

Here's a section of an interesting article on Literal and Figurative Language in the Bible
Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Consubstantiation":

Figures of Speech in the Bible

Simile: A comparison using "like" or "as." Example: "As lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:27).

Metaphor: One thing described in terms of some other thing. "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32).

Anthropomorphism: God described in human terms. "The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth" (2 Chronicles 16:9, New King James Version).

Words of association: One word stands for something else. Examples: "Circumcision" meaning the Jews (Galatians 2:9, King James Version); "sword" for all weapons (Romans 8:35).

Personification: Personal qualities assigned to an object. "The mountains skipped like rams" (Psalm 114:4).

Euphemism: Substituting an inoffensive word for a possibly harsh or crude one. "Adam lay with his wife Eve" (Genesis 4:1) means that they had sexual intercourse.

Hyperbole: Exaggeration. "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out" (Matthew 5:29).

Irony: The literal meaning is opposite the real meaning. "You have become kings...! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you!" (1 Corinthians 4:8).

Interesting stuff---it doesn't help any more that the idioms of the bible as found in the original languages: Hebrew and Greek are hard to translate into English in an exact way either as any translator of foreign language knows. For example if one were to translate the English idiom "break a leg" into German, it would literally mean to break one's leg rather than a figure of speech for good luck which is why we should be careful when we rip verses of the bible out of context lest we fall into error such as when King James Onlyists interpret: ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ΑΓΙΟΝ ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ 1:1-Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος in English as meaning that the 1769 revision of the 1611 edition of the King James Version of the bible is coequal and coeternal with the Father to the point of proclaiming that the bible is the second person of the Trinity: Jesus---as only Jesus is the Λόγος. See also: THERE IS ONLY ONE PURE KING JAMES BIBLE:
THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION for even more bibliolatry.

Luther, The Biblical/Textual Critic

Here's some interesting stuff for you---apparently Martin Luther didn't take to heart his moto, sola scriptura, as he had less than kind words to say about James, Jude and Revelation:

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? 6

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth.

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

I can almost agree with Luther on his views on Revelation---almost that is---as if Revelation had been left out of the canon perhaps then today we wouldn't see so many gloom and doomsday cults based around said text. However that said most of these gloom and doom End Times cults are centered on the man-made invention of belief in the rapture as created in the psychotic and Gnostic babblings of visions by Margaret Macdonald and exploited by Scofield, Darby, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.

Anyways, here is what Peter Cameron has to say about Luther's biblical/textual criticism:

...even Luther did not entirely believe in his slogan, scripture alone. His historical sense was too acute, and in practice he made distinctions between the books of the New Testament, describing the letter of James as 'an epistle of straw' which should have no weight beside the letters of Paul. Now when you begin to talk like that, you're admitting a new and overriding criterion. It's no longer scripture alone that counts, it's what you think of scripture. You've opened the door to criticism---logical, historical, and theological criticism.

And in the field of criticism we've come a very long way since the Reformation. It has become possible, and I think advisable, to look at the New Testament no longer as a divinely dictated book which has the last word on any subject to do with man's relationship to God, but as a collection of very human responses to the man Jesus. It records the beginnings of Christianity, but not the end: it is not the last word on the matter, and it should not control us to the extent of muzzling us and preventing us from making our own responses, in our own perhaps very different and indeed even contradictory terms.

There are, after all, very different and even contradictory responses within the New Testament itself. The four gospels for example give quite separate accounts of the life and person of Jesus. In the old days people used to produce so-called harmonies of the gospels, in which all differences were ironed out and the discrepancies removed. But what these harmonies failed to recognise were the totally different atmospheres which the various gospel writers convey.

The Jesus of John's gospel, who makes long and profound speeches about his relationship with the Father, is quite different from the Jesus of Mark's gospel, who rarely utters more than two or three terse sentences at a time. The description which Mark gives of the disciples is quite different from that of Luke: in Mark they are obstinate, obtuse, and unreliable whereas Luke has nothing derogatory to say about them.

But all this does not mean that one version is true and the other untrue. We now recognize that the writers of the gospels were not trying to write factual biographies or histories in our modern sense. In fact such things did not exist then, even in the secular world. Modern historians try to state the facts objectively and then add their interpretations. Ancient historians short-circuited the process: they put across their interpretations. So that Mark, when he describes the dull-wittedness of the disciples, is trying to tell us something about the message of Jesus and the response it elicits---he's not telling us something about the disciples which the other gospel writers did not know.

In this way each gospel is conditioned by the theological reflection of its author, and those authors are all human beings, of the same status as ourselves, so that we are at liberty to make our own equivalent response, and if necessary to reject any particular aspect of their response in favour of a different one---just as Luther felt impelled to reject the response embodied in the epistle of James. (Necessary Heresies: Alternatives to Fundamentalism, pgs. 87-88).

Scuba Diving In The King James Bible

---Image made up of: King James, Scuba Diver Stencil and Ghoti.

SCUBA IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE (KJV, KJB, 1611 AV, or KJO)
A King James Only Lampoon

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

Persuaded beyond sensibility by Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Texe Marrs, and Jack T. Chick; and encouraged by D. Haucsor of Wittenburg [sic] Door (whose basic idea I here expand upon); I hereby offer this Thesis to apply for a Doctorate of Religion from Babble Bible College.

Ps 42:7 (KJV) Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts...

SCUBA IN THE KING JAMES VERSION will come as a shocking insight to those weaned from the truth by modern translations. I have found in my studies that in every modern translation, the following points are largely unintelligible, if not completely obscured. But in the Olde English of the "Authorized Version" (AV), or King James Version (KJV), SCUBA is a major topic in both the Old and New Testament. Following are the major points that have emerged from my King James Only research concerning Diving.

i.) Concerning Those Lead Things SCUBA Divers Use To Overcome Buoyancy

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights. (De 25:13 - KJV all, of course)

Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord. (Pr 20:10)

ii.) The KJV on Divers Garb and Accessories

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts... (De 22:11)

...To every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil? (Jud 5:30)

iii.) The Strange Appeal of Diving

For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures... (Tit 3:3)

For in the multitude of dreams and many words also divers vanities: but fear thou God. (Ec 5:7)

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations. (Jas 1:2)

iv.) The "Bends"... Not Beyond Redemptive Power?

And they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. (Mt 4:24)

v.) Foreign Practitioners Properly Repent, Retreat to City Far From Temptation

Nevertheless divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem. (2Ch 30:11)

vi.) Eisegetical Thesis Summary

Be not carried about with divers doctrines. (Heb 13:9)

With this treatise specimen, the real utility of the KJV is made manifest. Some say the KJV is out of date and prone to lead to doctrinal errors due to language migration over nearly 400 years. This is merely a thin excuse propounded by groups like "The Fellowship of Christian Divers" who would keep us from our traditional methodology for misinterpretation. I ask you--in what other version could you make so clear a case on this deep, contemporary issue? In what other translation could such points even be made?

The divers, thus, are the ones behind the conspiracy of all these new translations. And this is nothing new...

But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school. (Ac 19:9 [...and note the reference to "school", as in "fish".])

The KJV is essential to "deep teaching" such as this. Bible study should be hard, after all. If people don't earn it by groping through a fog of obfuscation, they will not value what they have! Confusion and lack of clarity have their religious benefits. Furthermore, creating a sheen of superiority concerning defunct languages engenders dependence on "scholars" like us at Babble Bible to act as seers and interpreters. They will need us to keep them from "divers doctrines".
This should serve, by way of example, as a fit rejoinder to those who would confront us at Babble Bible with any of these "new age" translations. They just don't sound like the "Word of God" to us--lacking pomp and obscurity, nor do they appeal to the same lofty, religious instincts. Clearly, it takes all the fun out of it to know what it really means. Besides, we've got this old stuff down! Let's keep the laity right where we need them. And that certainly is not in modern SCUBA gear, replete with those abominable weights.

And so I thus submit my Doctrinal Thesis to the "professors" of Babble Bible College, in the vain hope that it might enlighten some to their errors.

Mk 7:8-9,13

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." (Luke 5:39, KJV)

Thanks to Dean & Laura Van Druff's Homepage.

---Image from The King James Only Resource Center.

King James Onlyist Nuttiness

http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/1819

--------This stuff is so absurd that it's scary. It's scary that these kooks believe this stuff and the heresy of King James Onlyism.

http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2245833785&ref=share

------for even more nuttiness.