The Destructive Effects of the Modern Bible Versions

According to Wikipedia there are 450 English translations of the Bible. Their number includes versions in premodern English as well as those most in use today. The modern versions are based on the work of Westcott and Hort that came out of the last Church-convened reviving committee in 1881. Again according to Wikipedia, the most popular version among scholars today is the New Revised Version based on that work. Most Bibles in use today are based on the Critical Text which indludes readings from the Greek manuscripts Westcott and Hort introduced to the revising committee. There are usually some dozen or so translations listed wherever you go online to look up a passage from scripture. There may be many more modern versions than that but at least a dozen are popular.

There has been a big controversy for decades about the Greek manuscripts that underlie the modern versions, splitting the English-speaking Christian world into the KJV-Only camp versus those who accept the work of the revising committee. The KJV-Only group argue that the new Greek manuscripts are not genuine, but the scholars have prevailed in most of the churches, accepting the judgment of Westcott and Hort. My own attempt to understand the controversy put me on the side of the KJV-Only camp, but not completely since some of them tend to a sort of superstitious belief in the divine source of that English version. I came to the view that the KJV should be updated to keep up with changing English usage, which means I don't regard it as divinely ordained, but that the Greek manuscripts that underlie it ARE divinely ordained.

The view I find most persuasive is that of Dean John William Burgon who wrote extensively against the work of the 1881 revising committee. He objected both to the new Greek manuscripts and to the committee's translation which he dismissed for its "schoolboy" level understanding of Greek. He regarded the Greek manuscripts Westcott and Hort brought into the new revision as the work of heretics in the early Church, which he said was known by the Church before Westcott and Hort legitimized them and based their revision on them.

Since then more information suggestzs that those manuscripts may have been later forgeries. In any case they are in oddly pristine condition which suggests that they didn't undergo the wear and tear of use that has left most Greek manuscripts as well as older translations in fragments no older than the tenth century. (If I'm remembering correctly, Chris Pinto's documentaries "Tares Among the Wheat" and particularly "Bridge to Babylon" present evidence against the legitimacy of the manuscripts).

The worst effect of the legitimizing of those manuscrupts comes from the fact that they leave out some well-knownn passages, so that accepting them as the authentic originals discredits the King James version which includes those pasages, and all others based on the earlier Greek textual tradition known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus. Westcott and Hort made up a theory without any evidence whatever that the early Church had added in those passages that are not found in their favored manuscriptus but are found in the manuscripts that underlie the King James. That argument of course destroys the authenticity of the King James, and calls into question the inerrancy of the Bible.

Some try to argue for Bible inerrancy despite the destructive effects of Westcott and Hort's theory, and most of the modern versions incorporate the passages missing from their new manuscripts just because they are so well known, which of course anyone with a logical mind knows is deceitful. Yet most of the churches accdept the new versions as legitimate.

Burgon also objected to the English translation produced by the revising commnittee of 1881 as bad Enghlish based on worse Greek. Of course I have no way of judging this, at least not the Greek, but Burgon is clearly an eminent scholar and to my mind far more convincing than his opponents. And of course my own reaction to the English doesn't carry any weight, but I do enormously appreciate Burgon's criticism of one particular element of the translation: Westcott and Hort render the "aorist" tense in Greek into a klutzy aping of it in English rather than into correct English usage. That is, the Greek has this special tense called the "aorist" which conveys an ongoing action, wheras English puts ongoing action in the simple past tense.

For instance, take a phrase like "Jesus taught the people" which implies an ongoing action in English, while the Greek puts it in the aorist tense because that's how the Greek language conveys ongoing action. Westcott and Hort translate it "Jesus was teaching the people" instead of the simple "taught the people." I remember hearing a very popular Bible translation lauded for its accuracy because of this rendering of the aorist tense, whereas Burgon calls it bad English. English doesn't need this aorist tense. We know when it implies ongoing action as opposed to a one-time past action, and in the rare situations where it isn't clear THEN we can use the other form but it's rarely needed. Westcott and Hort use this klutzy phrasing so often I can hardly stand to listen to some versions being read out loud by the teachers who use them. I'm no linguist of course but it grates on me. It's lousy English and when I saw that Burgon objected to it I was enormously grateful.

They brought heretical Greek manuscripts into our Bible, they threw a monkey wrench into Biblical inerrancy and they contributed to the debasement of the English language. What's not to like? The destructive effect of the modern Bibles based on the 1881 revision should be classed up there with the destructive effect of the Liberal Theology that came out of Tubingen, Germany, also in the 19th cemtury, and the Marxist attack on Western Civilization and the Darwinian attack on the Bible. The 19th century seems to have been the devil's playground, and after it all went through the intensification of the sixties it's brought us to the mess we're in today. .

But I digress. Sort of . The conlusion I came to about the Bible versions is that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible we have these days. Yes I agree it could use some updating but even so any updating needs to be done by men of the caliber of the KJV translators of 1611 and I don't think that's possible today. It also needs to be done under the auspinces of the Church and not by commerciqal interests as so many of the modern versions were done, and not by any self-appointed individual or group. Even a Church appointed committee can get it wrong though, which is certainly evidenced by the work of the committee of 1881 that included at least one heretic and was was manipulated by Westcott and Hort. We're probably better off leaving the KJV alone for now.

There's also the problem of having different translations at all. I know some people say it's only the underlying text that's the problem, a translation is just a translation, no big deal. But I think it is. Once you've learned a passage from the KJV, say a familiar psalm, it is jarring to hear it from a different translqation. Even if the words have the same meaning there's a kind of violence in hearing a different set of words. And if it is also a bad translation, which to my ear is the case with even the most popular translation from the Westcott and Hort family --which I wouldn't have the nerve to say if Burgon hadn't already said it, but it's a sort of violence to the body of Christ to hear in other words something that is as familiar as a loved psalm.

Guess I can say what I like out here in the cyber gulag, nobody needs to take me seriously. But it feels good to get it said. If it pleases God may He get any glory.

Are UFOs to Provide the World's Explanation for the Rapture?

Jan Markell and her May 28 radio show guest think it's a strong possibliity. When the Church is Raptured an explanation will be needed. There will be "Christians" left behind who won't want to believe those who were taken were the true Church so they'll look for some other explanation. The world in general isn't going to want to credit the Bible or Christianity with anything either. The upcoming release of government documents (June 1 according to Markell) and the recent upsurge of interest in UFOs or UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) may provide the Likely Story.

hhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgTWYMJCvs4&t=1273s

The program covers other facets of the End Times scenario, The Great Reset being the plan that fits the Great Tribulation prophecies. They talk about UFOs about ten minutes in. The theme of the show is that all the elements of the End Times prophecies are coming together rather dramatically these days. The renewed attacks on Israel by Hamas and the Palestinians are one element. the release of classified documents about UFOs seems to fit in as a likely propaganda tool for explaining away the Rapture. The rapture is to be the initiating event of the seven-year Tribulation period or the Seventieth Week of the Seventy Weeks prophecy of the Book of Daniel, leading up to the return of Jesus Christ.

A Great Delusion is to grip the Earth. Not that this sort of delusion is anything new, most of the world is already well primed for it by the materialist mindset. The revelation that the US government regards the UFO phenomena as real physical phenomena should establish the idea of extraterrestrials in the public mind, though in reality it's most certainly a demonic deception. The ET explanation will no doubt prevail. In a world that rejects the supernatural and explains everything in physical terms what else could it be? Evolutionary Theory that reduces humanity to primary physicality for instance is a well established major path to the end times delusion.

Some eyes will be opened, may they be yours. Others will only close tighter.

Saving America Part 8: Protests Against Critical Race Theory

UPDATE: Dave Rubin interviews Christopher Rufo, history of th growth of CRT. Rufo sees the only solution as liberals joining with the conservatives on thus issue.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbCmbLsW0r8

Tucker Carlson interviews Chantal Cooper, a mother who protested CRT at Louden County school board:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJjnpjJnb9E

Charlie Kirk explains the origins of Critical Race Theory in Marxism, specifically Cultural marxism, Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School where Political Correctness started its destructive march through American society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36js0wIiulM

Carol Swain interviews Beth Freeley of the Woodson Center on how she got involved in protesting Criticial Race Theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZ26aXYw64&t=3s

PragerU discussion about how parents are protesting Critical Race Theory indoctrination, history of the indoctrination in hating America and causing racial conflict where it had been overcome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7rFKsNibic
\
This is just a few videos at You Tube that come up when you search on "critical Race Theory" or "Parents Against Critical Race Theory." Glenn Loury and John McWhorter have videos discussing it too. "Glenn Loury Critical Race Theory" will bring up a whole page of similar discussions. I'm glad to see there are so many people getting involved in protesting this evil Marxist Anti-American doctrine.

When Supposed Myth Is Revealed to Be Real Reality: Christian Conversion

The world is going mad, coming unglued. Very distressing. All on the Left too. Really. All the destruction is on the Left. The Right is sort of addled, yet has the right perspective wherever it hasn't capitulated, if only it could be implemented. If only the forces of evil were not in charge. . The Left pushes every kind of dangerous irrational policy, destructive economic policy, destructive social agenda, racism, divisive rhetoric. It supports the wrong side in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It has all the wrong theories about everything and its theories promote violence and social disintegration. I do what I can to fight it all. But mostly it's like being bound and gagged and forced to watch everything go to pieces without being able to do anything about it. While the destroyers call you crazy. It ties knots in my stomach, neck, shoulders, causes shortness of breath. So I sometimes have to flee it.

Today I'm fleeing from the madness of the world into a thicket of thoughts off an interview of Stephen Fry by Jordan Peterson, An Atheist in the Realm of Myth. Fry is the atheist while Peterson is attracted to Christianity from a philosophical or psychological viewpoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFFSKedy9f4

Both reject the claim that Christianity is about reality, regarding it as a myth.

It's the oddest thing how they take reality, real reality, real history, and mythify it. I often think of Marxism and Darwinism as reifying mental constructs, meaning they treat as facts, as reality, ideas that have only an illusory connection with reality, and mythifying is the other way around, turning a reality into a myth, a mental construct. Jesus is a myth according to Fry. He says he likes some of the expressions of this myth in the Anglican Church nevertheless. And Peterson gives myth quite a high status as a human expression although he never allows it to becomne real.

For those of us who were converted as adults it was more or less myth before that too, even if we didn't elaborate it as myth. We didn't believe it, that is, until we believed it, and when you believe it what you believe is that it is reality. Real historical reality. It's often a soul-shattering event. C.S. Lewis said he came to it "kicking and screaming" but once he knew it was real there was no going back. He knew of all the religious myths of a dying god who came back to life, but one day knew that one time the story was real. "Rum thing" he said, seems it really did happen once.

I also think of fairly recent convert Rosaria Butterfield, who had been a lesbian professor of English at Syracuse University when she got to know a local pastor and his wife who became friends. Over the next few years in which she continued to dispute their Christian belief she eventually came to believe it herself, believed it, that is, to be true, to be truly true, to be real reality. The change in her life it brought about she described as akin to a "train wreck or an alien abduction."

I remember the moment I believed in the reality of God, not yet the Christian revelation but the reality of an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent God to whom I imputed what little I remembered of my childhood expreince of church. I stood riveted to the floor of the bookstore where some books by Hindu gurus had persuaded me. Just getting my feet to move was a problem, and nothing in my life was the same after that. It took me some months of reading books about every kind of religion to disabuse me of the Hindu version, which I'd garbled up with my childhood memories anyway, and any idea that all religions are about the same God. when it started looking like the truth was actually with Jerry Falwell I went through my own experience of kicking and screaming. Seems we have to undergo a humbling that breaks down some prejudices, requires giving up our favorite sins, before we'll fit through the narrow gate. In the end I came to recognize the biblical revelation as the real reality and I've never looked back.

Once you know it is reality, all those who treat it as myth are seen to be sadly deceived, all the speculations of the philosophers collapse like a popped baloon. Coming to believe the Bible is like stepping over a threshold into a brand new universe, a universe that is coherent, makes sense, unlike the one we live in when all we have is speculations about it.

I hope, of course, that Peterson and Fry will both come to be saved by Christ.

Got a bunch more thoughts from this interview, but that's enough for now.

Brief Bleat About Confused Evolutionists: Gain of Function Has Nothing to Do with the Theory of Evolution

No, you do not "have to have an evolutionary perspective" to understand gain-of-function. Gain of function occurs in the present. It can occur naturally through the high mutation rate of viruses or it can be manufactured in the lab by gene editing. or inserting genetic material into a virus. As usual those who believe you need to think like an evolutionist to understqand this just don't understand anything at all about the debate.

Mutations go on all the time. They are usually deleterious to the host organism, occasionally they enhance its function, very rarely in most cases but occasionally. Evolutionists think this is a normal process. Creationists know it's a disease process, but either way it occurs in the present and there is nothing about it whatsoever that has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Even assuming mutations are normal, which I don't, but even qassuming it, all they produce is a variation in the organism at best, a variation in a particular function, a gain in that function in this case. They don't produce anything actually new, and most organisms have the genetic means for variation built in.

I'm sure I only have the most minimal understanding of these processes myself, but I think I get the gist of it right enough. Gain of function in a virus just means that a particular mutation, or a piece of DNA inserted into a virus can increase its viral properties, such as to make it more deadly. Normal everyday genetic process. NOT evolution in the sense of the ToE. But evolutoinists automatically insert their theory into the discussion without warrant and without considering any other possibility. Yes it's an assumption, nothing about the ToE is provable and there's plenty that disproves it to anyone who exercises the brainpower to grasp the point. All the porocesses they automatically impute to the ToE are normal everyday functions of organisms understood to have been Created as idependent Kinds. Mutationsw are disease processes due to the Fall, and if this weren't a fallen world nobody would be trying to enhance a virus anyway. Sheesh!

UFOs and Other Popular Demonic Delusions

OK I've got to write about this. A report has come out or is coming out about government information that takes UFO phenomena seriously. Meaning considers it to be real, although nobody is clear about exactly what it is.

Here's a CNN report on it

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/politics/ufo-pentagon-explainer/index.html

On a radio talk show I heard earlier the general idea was that these objects, which have been photographed, are considered to be tecnnologically extremely advanced. They move at incredible speeds, they turn on a dime, they don't seem to have any known form of propulsion or acceleration and deceleration, they just suddenly zip a huge distance at a phyiscally impossible rate of speed, suddenly change direction without slowing down, and so on. This is a technology far beyond anything known today and if it belongs to an enemy of the US, say to China, it represents a great security risk.

It's a subject that provokes a lot of nervous giggling, even some by the reporter at CNN, but a lot more in the radio discussion I heard earlier. Well, it's a prime "woo" topic. You don't hear it discussed seriously very often -- unless of course you listen to Coast to Coast radio where everything paranormal and every kind of Woo is taken very seriously indeed Most of it creeps me out so much I can't listen. But I also think they are completely wrong about just about everything they say, at least what I've heard so far. Just as I think they are wrong about UFOs. And I don't mean wrong the way the usual debunkery finds it wrong.

That is, the evidence now is good enough to establish that whatever these phenomena are, they are quite real. They are actually visible objects that actually move as described. The people who have witnessed them are not hallucinating, they are really seeing what they say they are seeing.

But I don't think any of thisis about extraterrestrials or anything to do with national security in the usual sense, or anything to do with technology at all. What I think about it is maybe best introduced through the work of UFO expert Jacques vallee. Back in the nineties I read a book of his in which he lays out his theory about the phenomena.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e#Interpretation_of_the_UFO_evidence

Interpretation of the UFO evidence
Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact.
\
Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space. The ultimate motivation for this deception is probably a projected major change of human society, the breaking down of old belief systems and the implementation of new ones. Vallée states that the evidence, if carefully analyzed, suggests an underlying plan for the deception of mankind by means of unknown, highly advanced methods. Vallée states that it is highly unlikely that governments actually conceal alien evidence, as the popular myth suggests. Rather, it is much more likely that that is exactly what the manipulators want us to believe. Vallée feels the entire subject of UFOs is mystified by charlatans and science fiction. He advocates a stronger and more serious involvement of science in the UFO research and debate.[11] Only this can reveal the true nature of the UFO phenomenon

Vallee's analysis is quite remarkable it seems to me. All that reads like an amazingly accurate description of demonic activity and especially demonic motivation, although Vallee is not a Christian. Of course it appears that few take him seriously. Of course The delusions he believes are manipulated by the beings who produce these phenomena are the ones people believe. Truth hardly ever stands a chance in today's world anyway.

Understanding all this to be the product of demonic activity is of course from the Bible. What Vallee did was analyze the reports and describe demonic activity without believing in the biblical revelation, and perhaps he would reject the biblical interpretation. But deceiving humanity is certainly exactly what the demons/devils/fallen angels want to do. They teach demonic doctrines by many means, and the main theme of all their teachings is either denial of God or misinformation about God. You will certainly not hear the gospel from a demonic source, and often you will hear the gospel ridiculed or denied. Many books have been inspired by demons, all weaving otherworldly tales and purpoting to teach humanity how to live our lives, and teaching in particular that the biblical accounts are false. Gosh I wonder why they'd want to lie about something like that?

I know there are many but I probably won't be able to think of more than a few/ The Seth books are one I remember from the sixties. Also A Course in Miracles which Oprah Winfrey made popular some years ago; Urantia; and as I recall even Harry Potter was inspired by some otherworldly source according to its author.

But books and UFOs aren't the only ways demons interact with humanity to deceive us. Some rock stars have claimed satanic inspiration (Film source: "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll"). Edgar Cayce, known as a healer in the thirties and forties as I recall, had a demonic helper, a "spirit guide" as they are called today. William Branham, a Christian Pentecostal preacher and "prophet" had an "angel" who followed him around. Oneness Pentecostalism, which was Branham's denomination, denies the Trinity, which of course the demons are happy to teach, anything to counter orthodox Christianity makes them happy. Although human fallenness is sufficient to invent doctrines that oppose biblical truth, there is no doubt some demonic influence in big movements like pentecostalism and the charismatic churches, especially wherever you see paranormal or supernatural phenomena on display, such as where people fall down when touched by a healer or other leader. Kathryn Kuhlman, Benny Hinn for instance. and I've mentioned a "prophet" I found at You tube whose prophecies are empty and her imagery is unbliblical.

Mohammed received the Koran from an angel he called "Gabriel," clearly a demon because the true Gabriel was a servant of the gospel which Islam denies. Mohammed's aunt even said he was demon-possessed. Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, had an "angel" called "Moroni, and he taught that orthodox Christianity is false, the theme so dear to the hearts of the demons. It isn't necessarily demonic if it debunks Christianity since of course as I said fallenness is capable of that without any help, but when an "angel" is mentioned there's little doubt of the source.

Carl Jung had two "spirit guides" though I think he called them something else. So the fallen angels don't confine themselves to science fiction but teach pscyhology. Marx was a satanist and it should be obvious that his writings are designed to destroy western civilization. In fact the Marxistsy actually say so.

always, one way or another, directly or indirectly, demonic productions, whether false religions or pseudopsychologies or spiritual pretences, all deny the biblical account, alwys the biblial account, not other religions, just the biblical relition. they're kind of fixated on it. Kind of suggests maybe it's the truth and they are willing to put in prodigious work to discreit it? Teachings more or less related to the UFO phenomena discredit it by claiming human beings were created by alien beings and that sort of thing. The very idea of extraterrestrials, living creatures from other parts of the universe, is an implicit contradiction of the biblical message. Redeemed human beings are destined to replace the fallen angels, bringing God's righeousness where they bring corruption and lies. There's the motivation to deceive us and prevent people from being saved by the gospel of Christ.

It may be, as Watchman Nee says in his book Soul Power, that some people possess a distorted and partial remnant of mental powers originally possessed by Adam and Eve but lost at the Fall, which may account for some paranormal phenomena. But sinbce these powers would be broken at best and subject to manipulation by demons, it would be dangerous to exercise such powers. Cedrtainly untrustworthy in this fallen world. But most paranormal and supernatural phenomena must come from the fallen angels or demons. They have invented a multitude of explanations themselves for all these things that unfortunately persuade some people. Just listen to Coast to Coast radio show some time. It's all stuff manufactured by the demons to deceive humanity, just as Vallee concluded the UFO creatures are motivated to do.

The only truth in this fallen world is the revelation of God Himself, the Bible. Whatever tries to discredit it is either from fallen human nature or from the fallen angels.

How We Lost America Part 2. The Abomination Which Is Our National Cathedral

Ealier this morning I decided to check out the website of the National Cathedral in Washington. I suppose I wanted to find out just how bad it is since I know it's Episcopalian, which is a denomination that has gone libersal, and has held ecumenical prayer meetings which are certqainly an offense to God. I've mentioned the National Cathedral from time to time as the place where George Bush held a prayer meeting for the nation after 9/11 which included a Roman Catholic priest and a Muslim Imam and I forget who else. I cringed at that at the time because prayers that are shared among false religions are not going to bring God's blessomgs on the nation but very likely bring God's curses down on us. The attack on the World Trade Center was God's judgment on the nation, at the very least it was a warning of worse njudgments to come. The appropriate response was indeed prayer, but prayer centered on repentance for the sins of the nation that had brought God's wrath on us. I don't remember what they prayed that day because I was so appalled at the fact that they would think God could bless prayers to other gods besides Himself.

Isaiah 42:8 I am [Jehovah, I AM that I AM]: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

This theme runs throughout the Bible. It is stated already in the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

going on from there to the commnand against making graven images and against bowing down and worshipping them.

In 1 Samuel 4:1-4 we get a dramatic picture of this when after the Philistines had captured the ark of the covenant from Israel they put it next to their god Dagon. The next day they found the statue of Dagon on its face before the ark and restored him to his place. The morning after that they found Dagon on the floor again, this time with his head and hands cut off by the threshold of the building.

Do they not know, these "Christians," that we wroship the same God who would not have Dagon beside Him? Do they not know that Islam does not worship the same God? Their God does not have the same attributes, has no Son, and has a different name; he is not the God of the Bible. Do they not know that the Roman Church has removed the commandment against worshiping graven images because they advocate worshipping graven images? They worship images of the "saints" and of "the virgin Mary" and many worshippers certainly do bow down to them, may even lie prostrate on the floor before them. At Medjugorje which was the scene of one of the apparitions of "Mary" people walked on their knees around a statue of Mary. At least two Popes dedicated themselves to the service of "Mary." This is having "other gods before Me."

God will not tolerate prayers from worshippers of the false gods alongside Himself, and you'd think anyone who calls himself a Christian and presumably knows the Bible as God's word would know this to be a huge offense to God.

Such ecumenical services on behalf of the nation can only bring judgments on the nation. Islam has only grown in prestige since the attack on the WTC, certainly a sign of God's judgment against us, and the growth of more and more evil anti-American politics must unfortunately be understood in the same light. We pray for the power to return to the original conception of America and overthrow the Marxist lies that have been destroying the nation, but is it happening? Don't the liars have the upper hand? Aren't we oddly paralyzed in our efforts to counter them?

The website of the National Cathedral exhibits a lot of New Agey mush about experiences and transformations,listening to one another and loving one another, some of it derived from the gothic beauty of the cathedral itself, hardly any of it derived from scripture, except for a verse or two here and there about love of course. They make much of feelings in themselves, "awe" and "reverence" for instance, utterly divorced from any object of the awe and reverence. Listening to one another is a good thing I suppose, but I'd be happier to hear about a dedication to listening to God. But God, and certainly Jesus, seems to be relegated to a sort of psychological state or at least subordinated to it. I wonder what they do with the passages about fear of God. Not that I wonder a whole lot.

They have ordained female ministers which is a violation of the biblical requirement for a Christian church, and one of them opened her sermon by asking "the circle of love" nt to open their hearts, and "the circle of healing" and the circle of something else, --oh, wisdom -- to bestow their virtues on the congregation, even to grant "new life in God." She didn't ask God himself for anything, nor Jesus, but these "circles" of this or that. What is the source of this utterly unbiblical nonsense? I didn't spend a lot of time there but there was no menttion whatever of the gospel of salvation through the death of Christ. The messages were not focused on God or the Bible but on feelings of a supposedly spiritual sort induced by the architecture of the building or on human relationships. A nave full of yoga practitioners was mentioned. Oh and somebody referenced gnosticism as his or her inspiration, a heresy of the eary church denounced particularly by the apostle John in the New Testament..

There seems to be no ground whatever for regarding this institution as Christian.

It's hard to know how much weight to give this "church" as a national symbol but too much I'm afraid. It stands as a symbol of the nation's religious underpinnings just by its location and its title and its occasional use in times of a national emergency such as 9/11.

Dare I suggest that the sins of the nation are at least encapsulated in this symbol? If Jesus regards it as a Christian church at all it's hard to imagine He could do anything but cleanse it with a whip as He did the temple in Jerusalem, casting out the blasphemers. In essence we've got a statue of Dagon standing in the place of God.

I AM suggesting that it's hopeless to think we can do much to bring America back to sanity and its political grounding in the liberty and justice on which it was originally conceived if we allow such a false image of Christianity to represent us. This is just one of many problems in the churches of course, even the best churches really, and a lot of cleansing is needed across the board. All that should make it only too clear why we have not had revival, and will not have revival until it is dealt with.

So much less is there any hope of saving America politically from what looks like its inevitable destruction by a Communist takeover fueled by lies and all kinds of evils.