did the serpent wink?

Proverbs 16:24-26

²⁴ Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones.
²⁵ There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
²⁶ The person who labors, labors for himself,
For his hungry mouth drives him on.

“The Good Book: A Humanist Bible,” subtitled “A Secular Bible” in the United Kingdom, was published this month (Source article and video from CNN, partly quoted below)

The question arose early in British academic A.C. Grayling’s career: What if those ancient compilers who’d made Bibles, the collected religious texts that were translated, edited, arranged and published en masse, had focused instead on assembling the non-religious teachings of civilization’s greatest thinkers?

What if the book that billions have turned to for ethical guidance wasn’t tied to commandments from God or any one particular tradition but instead included the writings of Aristotle, the reflections of Confucius, the poetry of Baudelaire? What would that book look like, and what would it mean?

“Humanist ethics didn’t claim to be derived from a deity,” he says. “(They) tended to start from a sympathetic understanding of human nature…”

Had he considered instead Jesus Christ who is God incarnate, our High Priest who suffered the death of the cross for our sin, and can sympathize with  our weakness, being tempted as we so are, he would have found the true meaning of human sympathizers! Hebrews 3:14-15 What better form of sympathy could there found be if not in Him? Have these so-called great thinkers of mankind gone as far as that? Have they come even close? I think not.

And I am reminded again to not be cheated or deceived through philosophy and the traditions of men which have nothing in Christ (Colossians 2:8), yet is a high thing set to exalt itself against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5)

Such is the way of humanistic thinking and to ask “what if?” as though mankind has found a better way.

It is also found in the thinking of Eugene Peterson (The Message) who believes the best way to understand God is through “lectio divina”.

Or as we have come to understand the Charismatic Movement is to experience God through supernatural dreams and visions, trances, ecstatic dance and song, soaking prayer and prophetic words.

As William P Young has written The Shack, “Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity” whose story is as make-believe as his universalism three-part goddess-man thing.

Christianity has become a sort of free for all where anything goes, not anymore so far removed from the world it was told to guard itself from. When self-reason replaces the clear teaching of scripture, what else is left for us but a deeper deception? Will a man outthink God?

We as a civilized society can no longer accept the fact that our sin will condemn us and in our finite thinking and limited wisdom we have thrown out the only one who can save for a seemed better way to satisfy our empty souls, until the moment comes and those souls will be required of us.

Mr. Grayling stated  “No intention to offend -”

I wonder, did the serpent wink as he shared the forbidden fruit?

The Message distorts John 3:16-17

I just found this very important article from Suspicious Berean. I’ve been wanting to put up some info on The Message but haven’t gotten around to it yet. But here’s a good starting place. It is not a “simplified” version of the word of God! It is written heresy by a man -Eugene Peterson -who is NOT a Christian. The proof of that is in the message of The Message itself.

The Message distorts John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. John 3:16-17, KJV

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. John 3:16-17, The Message

Some Bereans, such as Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon at The Berean Call, have commented about how Eugene Peterson in The Message alters the meaning of John 3:17. “That the world through him might be saved” is changed to “put the world right again,” which makes Jesus Christ sound more a social reformer than a saviour.

However, it’s also worth taking a look at what Mr. Peterson does to John 3:16. This is perhaps the most beloved verse in the Bible, and one that directly led me to put my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as my saviour. The word rendered as “everlasting” in the King James Version and “eternal” in most modern versions is the Greek word aionios. According to An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine (1940), “…it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless…” Which is to say, “everlasting” or “eternal” are correct renderings of the word. However, The Message changes “everlasting life” to “a whole and lasting life.” “Whole and lasting” sounds a lot less impressive to me than “everlasting” or “eternal.” It sounds as though Mr. Peterson is more interested in promoting a better life on Earth than in preparing people for eternity.

The reader will also note the absence of the word “begotten” from verse 16. I haven’t time to reprint it here, but Mr. Vine’s dictionary has a lengthy explanation of the phrase “only begotten,” which is the Greek word monogenes. The phrase is unique to the writings of John, and is found five times (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; and I John 4:9), always in reference to Christ as the Son of God. I’ve already posted on The Message’s refusal to use the phrases “Lord Jesus” and “Lord Jesus Christ,” and I don’t understand how such a perverse paraphrase can be seriously regarded as a “Bible.”