Archive for the 'Humor' Category

Dave Muller from Down Under has ‘discovered’ a new Bible translation: The Calvinist Bible:

Sick of explaining to your unelect friends how the bible writers held the same systematic theology of today, only it was lost before the reformation? Ever wondered how better to read God’s word as He intended it to be in full doctrine glory? Then the CALVINIST Bible was predestined for you!

It’s a rather funny couple of posts, even for Calvinist Christians who don’t like being lumped in with hypers… Some excerpts from this new translation:

For God so loved the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever is called to believeth in him should not perish, but be raptured in the end.
(Joh 3:16)

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely be condemned to Hell and all man will be guilty of your sin. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet to submit to him (for Adam did not yet know that the LORD had predestined his wife to eat of the tree).
(Gen 2:16-18)

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the elect! (John 1:29)

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (translators note: God predestined them to act as if resisting (since no-one can actually resist God) as part of His purposeful plan of confusion to confound those who can never accept Him anyway) (Acts 7:51)

You’ve gotta wonder if Rick Frueh helped out with the translation (or if he’s still got some additional verses held back)!

  • Share/Bookmark

Here’s the proof.

HT: FARK

  • Share/Bookmark

Not that I’m really keeping score but if I were Miley is way ahead in the apology count.

Found Here

TEEN star Miley Cyrus has told a Hannah Montana co-star she is “hurting” and wants to quit the Disney show after she received global criticism for her racy photo shoot in Vanity Fair magazine at the age of 15.
Hannah Montana’s Anna Maria Perez de Tagle, who plays Ashley Dewitt on the popular children’s show, said, “Sometimes I’ll talk to her on the phone and she’ll be like, ‘It’s really hard’ or ‘I’m really tired. I can’t do this,’ according to Showbizspy.

“It really hurt her inside,” says Perez de Tagle. “She didn’t know that people would look at it like that.”

Miley has since apologised for the risque photos, and Annie Leibovitz, the photographer behind the pictures, said she was sorry for any misinterpretation.

  • Share/Bookmark

While eating my Cheerios this morning and watching Good Morning America I caught an interview with Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains fame and subsequently Way of the Master (WoTM). Kirk was talking about his new book “Still Growing” (an excerpt can be found here)

With this opportunity to share the Gospel with millions of people worldwide; Kurt chose to spend a majority of his time talking about his exploits as a teen heart-throb. When asked what changed his life he didn’t shout “JESUS” or recite John 3:16. He also left out the verse that says Jesus is the way, truth and the life. Nor did he take the interviewer down the Romans road. He simply said “I realized that there has to be more to life than this…I started asking questions…I let the Gospel influence my daily decisions”.

His publicist also just announced that Kirk was invited to the “Seeds of Compassion ‘09″ event.

***satire

*Update*

The video

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags:

he actually has a sense of humor!

(dun-dun-dun!)

  • Share/Bookmark

Not sure but I think John Elefante (Kansas fame and then christian recording) has been officially contextualized based on this video.

This 10 year old Japanese girl, as we say in Detroit, handles her business.

HT to Marko

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags:

Since Ravi Zacharias is now labeled as an apostate, I’d thought it would be apropo to point out some more apostasy from another elder statesmen of evangelicalism.

“The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny, and, if necessary, reform.”

John Stott

Looks the Emergents have gotten their claws in another one…

***UPDATE (by Chris L)***

For those who might not understand where Ingrid’s article references Ravi Zacharias as being apostate, please see the graphic below:

Read the Label
______________
It is hard to find a ‘charitable’ reading of this to suggest otherwise.

  • Share/Bookmark

Occasionally while on the internet I get sucked into the proverbial “rabbit hole”; Someone links to someone who links to someone…and on it goes. Before long I’ve looked at a couple dozen pages and I’ve forgotten what I started looking at in the first place. Occasionally (very rarely) do I find things that are intriguing enough to post about but tonight was different…

Per my blog reader I started at ysmarko.com which contained the post entitled Emergents Cohorts and Denom Groups being an R.C.A. (Reformed Church of America) youth pastor I was drawn to this section of the post

Reformergent (Reformed) — this group is somewhat different from the others because it’s “interested in the interaction between Reformed theology and the emerging church movement.” Chris Case is the main man “minding the (occasional) gap.”

Excited to see what Reformed folk were adding to the “conversation” I strolled over to Reformergent to see what they were all about.

Which eventually led me to the post “The Contexualization Condrum” with the opening lines:

Recent posts by Phil Johnson and Andrew Jones, with added statements by John MacArthur, have recently caused a bit of conversation about the topic of Contextualization. Phil has a good exegesis of the text regarding Mars Hill…(emphasis mine)

Not being a gracious reader I assumed that this guy, Chris Case, at Reformergent must have not been reading the same Phil Johnson that I’ve been reading. Deciding that a look at the Pyro blog was in order; I trotted over and the very first post I see catches me off guard. Not for any other reason than Phil seems to take exception to being categorized as a hyper-calvinist or he takes exception to the definition of a hyper-calvinist; I’m not really sure. Uh…Anyway…where was I? Oh yeah…so the guy who says(maybe) Phil is a hyper-calvinist, C. Micheal Patton, runs reclaimingthemind.org. Which is an excellent blog about a lot of things but he had a great article entitled “What do you mean God is sovereign?’ Four Options”. Which in of itself was a great post but what I found most encouraging was the interaction between two commenter’s on that post. Here are their comments in their entirety.

******on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:05 am #

Hi,

I believe option two is the only rational, and importantly, the Biblical one. All the rest does not fit in with the picture the Bible paints God to be. In my opinion, option one comes close to the Islamic god. Option three seems to a dis-interested or at best, a moody god. Option four, an impotent god. Since the Bible clearly teaches God to have given us some free will, and is “intimately acquainted” with all our ways, and is very much potent, these options do not hold much water. God of option two is the Biblical God.

**** on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:24 am #

******,

I would be careful for using that term “biblical God”. There are devout Christians who claim to be “biblical” that would fall in all 4 of these categories. Thus, to claim your view to be the “biblical God” borders on narrow-mindedness and arrogance. There are lots of things that are “biblical” that are not orthodox in any case, and I personally wish Christians would completely drop the word from their vocabulary. It’s mainly used as ammunition for claiming that the person who holds to the “biblical view” is right and everybody else is wrong. Also, you could find proof-texts for all 4 views and thus claim to have the “biblical God”. I do believe there is such a thing as a “biblical God”, but that we can capture this in its entirety and have the audacity to think we’re completely right on everything just falls short of the mark. We all bring our own biases and sets of lenses to the text, regardless of how objective or “biblical” we claim to be. Sorry to rant, I’m not trying to be mean or get mad at you, I’m just trying to persuade you to be very cautious in using that term. Thanks

****

******on 18 Apr 2008 at 3:00 am #

****,

Thanks for your comments. This is the first time we both are interacting, and from reading your responses to other posts and comments, I should say that I like the way you interact, balancing sound arguments with humility.

Now, I am sorry that I come out as someone who is “completely right on everything”, but trust me, I never had such a thought anywhere in the recesses of my heart. What I was trying to say was that from studying the Bible in its entirety (not picking verses), we can safely come to the conclusion that option two depicts the God of the Bible more accurately than the other options. As you know, proof-texting don’t help much.

Thanks, brother, for your concern.

Occasionally my “Rabbit Hole” journeys lead me to some buried treasure. Tonight was one of those nights.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Road WarriorSeveral months ago, I chronicled my learning experience on the workings of the Wikipedia and the small-minded ways in which some Christians were trying to make this their new digital battlefield for TruthTM (which should never be confused for truth). Now a grizzled veteran in the ways of Wiki and the TruthTM wars within its pages, more stories have accumulated along the way…

A few will I share today, though I am sure some are not yet complete, and yet others will meet me on the road ahead.

Thin-Skinned-Ninnies

Amazingly, along the road, I’ve met some Christian brothers whose capacity for disagreement sits somewhere below ‘E’ on most reasonable scales.

Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

Breaking News:

EASTON, PA – Today the CEO of Crayola announced it will only manufacture crayons in two colors: black and white.  The CEO was quoted as saying, “We have decided that anything that needs to be expressed by children can be done so using these hues, and that having other colors available to them will just lead them to imbellish the truth and promote post-modern thought.  Additionally, having all the extra colors might encourage children to try and see things from other children’s perspectives.  We at Crayola believe the only perspective children need to see is the correct one we tell them.  Because as we know, there is only one way to look at the world and the events that occur.”

“We are also pleased to announce that next month we will begin shipping our new product tentatively called “fundie-specs”.  When worn, these glasses give the wearer the astounding ability to see amazingly complex things in the simplest of ways.  When presented with a beautiful sunset with complex colors and shading, children will now see only a black circle descending into a white field.  It will make artistic presentation a much simpler endeavor.  We all know that children only need to worry about the bleak facts of the matter and not the stunning beauty.”

  • Share/Bookmark