How Calvin helped create Unitarianism

[Earth Wind and Fire]

A man was burned alive at the stake, on the instigation of Calvin.

Thats a historical fact.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

After that, Calvin is scum.

The civil leaders of Geneva were a pack of hoodlums, thugs, murderers, criminal monsters, psychopaths.
In clear proof that only evil comes from evil, Switzerland looked after all Hitler's cash for him,
and helped to hide and launder the stolen goods and gold etc. plundered by the rape of Europe,
provided an escape channel to South America for the highest Nazis and international war-criminals,
protected the criminal money of Odessa,
and continues to launder international drug cartel money today.
Welcome to Switzerland.

These people were no better than the leaders of the Hells Angels motorcycle club.
I suppose you'll be calling bike-gangs saints next.

The man was a noted heretic......that is what was done in those days. [personal attack deleted] The only person I can see here with any .....oh forget it. You will be one of those I ignore from here on. out.

 

[Nazaroo]

The man was a noted heretic......that is what was done in those days. [personal attack deleted]The only person I can see here with any .....oh forget it. You will be one of those I ignore from here on. out.

How educated does a man have to be to know that
betraying a man and participating in his torture and murder is a heinous crime? (Acts 1:25)

Seems to me the Ten Commandments is more than enough.

Herod had hundreds of innocent babies sacrificed to his megalomania.

According to you, thats no problem, because -
"..that is what was done in those days."

Seems to me if torture and murder was an atrocity in Jesus' day,
its an atrocity now.

If Paul, the Apostles, and even the Jewish people were shocked and horrified
by the news of Jesus' torture and death, (Acts 2:37!), then we should be now also.


God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[BobinKy]

It took another generation to really pound the Bible into the ground, with Metzger's blasphemous NRSV, which erased all the prophecies of the Messiah in the OT.

Navaroo...

Do you have a list of the Messiah prophecies removed in the OT of the NRSV? I do not want to argue anything. I just would like to see the list.


Thanks.


...Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nazaroo,

As if you have not already noticed, you have pardon the pun "ignited" the passions of those who hold to reformational theology. You will most certainly be faced with accusations that this is false, most likely followed by claims that you were not there, or that the execution was out of the hands of Calvin. I personally am not a historian,, but I know many, most of which are not "theological historians", who shared with me in some form the accuracy of what you have shared. All in all, it is "water under the bridge". It is now set before us today, to read, study and research saturated with prayer and meditation the principles and truths of Scriptures and then seek to live them out in an intentional missional manner.

Blessings

Boy ...... shakes head.

 

[Nazaroo]

Navaroo...

Do you have a list of the Messiah prophecies removed in the OT of the NRSV? I do not want to argue anything. I just would like to see the list.


Thanks.


...Bob

Sure: NRSV is not alone on the list, and it must be noted that the RSV and NRSV are closely related, and were both taken over by the apostate Metzger:

Deuteronomy 23:17 CHANGE "sodomite" TO "shrine prostitute OR cult prostitute" ("There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.") This change also occurs in 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7. NIV, NASB, RSV
Deuteronomy 32:22 CHANGE"lowest hell" TO "realm of death (et. al)" ("For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.") NIV, NASV, NRSV, LB, NC

Daniel 3:25 CHANGE "the Son of God" TO "a son of the gods" ("He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC

Daniel 7:10 REMOVE "judgment was set" NIV, NASV, NRSV, LB, NC

Psalms 8:5 CHANGE "the angels" TO "the heavenly beings (et. al)" ("For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC

Micah 5:2 CHANGE "everlasting" TO "ancient times or ancient days (et. al.)" (""But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.")
Contradicts Psalm 90:2 "...from everlasting to everlasting thou art God..." NIV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC

Zechariah 12:10 CHANGE "his only son" TO "an only child" ("And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC

Psalms 9:17 REMOVE "turned into hell" ("The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC

Psalms 12:7
CHANGE "thou shalt preserve them" TO "you will keep us safe and protect us"(et. al) ("Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.)
NOTE: Changes the emphasis of what is preserved in verse 6: "The words of the LORD..."
NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC

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

However, some verses in the Old Testament are used in the New Testament as prophecy for Jesus being the Messiah.

For example, in the KJV, Isaiah 7:14 is translated: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." However, in order to be more inclusive, the NRSV replaced the word "virgin" with the phrase "young woman." This causes a problem, as one of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in the New Testament was being born of a virgin.


Another example is Matthew 2:2. In the KJV, the wise men came to the stable "to worship him," which is in accordance with the prophecy in Psalm 72:10, 15. However, the NRSV translation says the wise men would "pay homage" to the Christ, a connotation that is strikingly different than what was prophesied.

Read more: Problem Verses in the NRSV | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7316938_problem-verses-nrsv.html#ixzz1QPO1UFCH

​

D.J. Philips Review gives some more background and examples:

So, again: why a new RSV? Two answers may be given.
The first answer is that given in the Preface to the NRSV: to keep up with discovery of ancient manuscripts, and with studies in comparative languages (p. x). Indeed, there have been changes, if the book of Isaiah is any indication. In the NRSV, readings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls are preferred over the traditional Masoretic text some twenty-one times, which is eight times more than in the original RSV.
The second answer may be safely deduced from a close reading of the NRSV, and from an observation of its trends. That reason is ideological. One discerns an apparent desire to import modern thought into the Biblical text, even at the expense of the clear teaching of the Bible. Since Biblical doctrine and some of our culture's favorite notions clash, one or the other has to "give." In the NRSV, it is often the Bible that "gives."

Consider the evidence. One is immediately jarred by Genesis 1:2, where the Hebrew text reads, "and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." The NRSV, by contrast, has "while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." The margin does offer, "Or, while the spirit of God or while a mighty wind," but neither is a great improvement. One is puzzled to note that "Day" and "Night" are capitalized in 1:5 — but by contrast even the marginal reading "spirit of God " is in lower case!
The Hebrew phrase meaning "Spirit of God/Yahweh" occurs in many other passages, but the NRSV consistently conceals this fact behind such renderings as "divine spirit" (Exodus 31:3; 35:31, etc.), or even occasionally "spirit of God" (Num. 24:2) or "spirit of the LORD" (Judges 3:10; again, note the lower cases). The odd treatment of the Spirit continues through the Old Testament (OT), as we read such bizarre versions as this statement concerning Saul: "the spirit of God possessed him, and he fell into a prophetic frenzy" (1 Samuel 10:10). Similarly, in Psalm 51:11, David prays "do not take your holy spirit from me." Phrases which highlight the personality of the Spirit are simply printed in lower-case ("the spirit of the LORD speaks" in 2 Samuel 23:2, or "grieved his holy spirit" in Isaiah 63:10).

Although this depersonalization of the Spirit is found in dozens of OT passages in the NRSV, the New Testament is quite different, rendering the identical Greek equivalents as "Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18), and "Spirit of God" (Matthew 3:16) — one of the many inconsistencies of this version. This may be due to the relatively orthodox influence of Dr. Bruce Metzger.
There are other highly peculiar features in the OT. For instance, the violent homosexuals in Sodom politely ask to "know" Lot's angelic visitors (Gen. 19:5), as if they were simply a sort of Middle Eastern Welcoming Committee. But Lot himself says that his (engaged!) daughters "have not known a man" in the next verse. Even among the Biblically illiterate, it is widely recognized that "know" is a Biblical euphemism for sexual intercourse. The translators of the NRSV do not so much as acknowledge this in a marginal note in Genesis 4:1, 24:16, or other passages.

Now, one must wonder — what can explain such reticence, in a "new" version of the Bible? Certainly, modesty cannot be pled in our day of sexual bombardment. Further, the same Hebrew verb is rendered "lie with" (Genesis 38:26), "slept with" (Judges 11:39), and "have intercourse" (Judges 19:22). Thus the sin of homosexuality is concealed in Genesis 19, while the very same verb is translated "wantonly raped" in Judges 19:25. Thus, the treatment in Genesis 19 is quite singular. One must be forgiven for wondering if this is a concession to "gay rights" elements.
...
There are many, many other inconsistencies. The Hebrew text of Exodus 21:22 is fatal for the practice of abortion, but the NRSV conceals this by the rendering "miscarriage," without so much as a footnote.
...
Charismatic Christians may note that glossai is translated "languages" in Acts 2:4, but "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, etc. First Corinthians 13:10 is, nicely, "but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end." This is a good rendering, bringing out (whether intentionally or no) the predicted cessation of tongues and prophecy at the completion of the Canon. How Charismatics will feel about this is anyone's guess.

Incredibly, the preface claims that the NRSV "remains essentially a literal translation" (p. xi). This simply is not true. The "inclusive language" phenomenon has already been noted. Also, if the translators find a Greek word troublesome, they may just drop it: "therefore" is dropped in Romans 12:6, and the following Greek participle is changed into a finite verb. Conjunctions are frequently discarded without notice, even when they may aid interpretation (e.g. Matthew 17:1). Nouns are regularly changed into verbs (Ephesians 4:12; Colossians 3:22), and moods are changed or introduced at will (Colossians 1:11). Further, the NRSV has no way of letting the reader know when they have supplied words not found in the original text (the King James and New American Standard use italics).

 

[Nazaroo]

L.M. Vance also has a long article on the issues with the NRSV (and ESV):

Arthur Farstad (Majority Text) is also worthy of consultation:

The NRSV rendering of John 7:39 would be possible grammatically, but a contradiction of the rest of the Bible on the eternality of all the members of the Trinity:

"For as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified."
​

The understood (italicized) word given of the KJV's "not yet given" is certainly implied.
A major evangelical criticism of the RSV—and it carries weight with the NRSV as well—is that it plays down messianic passages in the OT even when these same passages are used by the apostles in the NT to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (such as Isa 7:14, parts of Isa 53, Ps 110:1 "lord" (lower case) in NRSV OT, capitalized in NT). After all, the earliest Christians were all Jewish and they were persuaded that Jesus was the Christ by these very OT texts, both in Hebrew and Greek.
No doubt some people overdo the messianic content of the OT. But this is preferable to the modern trend suggesting that the inspired NT apostles, prophets, and teachers were not sound expositors of the OT text. After all, Luke described our Lord's Emmaus road homily in these words:

Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures (Luke 24:27 NRSV).
​

A Hebrew Christian girl named Esther sat next to this reviewer in a college speech class. Her great passion in life is to reach her people with her good news about Messiah. She gave a speech once decrying the difficulty of leading a Jewish person to Christ using the RSV OT. She summarized the problem in the words of her ancient ethnic and religious forebear, Mary Magdalene:

"They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him" (John 20:13 NRSV).
​

One fears that many Protestants today are doing much the same thing. Finally, advocates of sola gratia—salvation received by grace through faith alone—will be chagrined to read 1 Pet 2:2 in the NRSV:

"Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation" (emphasis supplied).
​

No footnote is given to indicate they have changed the Greek text underlying the verse. "Growing into salvation" surely sounds more like Horace Bushnell than the Apostle Peter.

Ecumenicalism
Supporters of the modern ecumenical movement will be pleased that the old Protestants-only committees of the RSV have been expanded to include Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Jewish representation. On the other hand, those who believe that modern ecumenism forces unions chiefly by hierarchical pressure from the top of main-line denominations down will be less than thrilled.

 

[Nazaroo]

How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples:
is an instructive article on the issues and the shenanegans of various translations including the NRSV.

The problems with the NRSV have also been discussed in the Preaching Forum here.

Also in the Baptist Board archives:
"The RSV suffers from a strong liberal bias that manifests itself in
downplaying messianic prophecies in the OT and translating passages in the NT
in a way that distances the NT from the theology of the councils and church fathers."

 

[preacher4truth]

Calvin also took the inititiative in creating the internet.

He's also joined up with Klein. :thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

How educated does a man have to be to know that
betraying a man and participating in his torture and murder is a heinous crime? (Acts 1:25)

No matter how distasteful Sevetus underwent state execution. It was not murder. Calvin wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at that time.

Johnathan Wright,who you are quoting a lot for your info is mistaken. He said: "It is likely that it was Calvin who informed his Catholic enemies that they had a covert Unitarian in their midst..."

Then,with that speculation in-hand you take the ball and run with it by saying Calvin betrayed a man and particpated in his murder and torture.

By the way,James White easily defeated this Wright character in debate back in April of 2006. Wright is wrong. He's a Dave Hunt type who believes that ignorance is a noble thing when it comes to the "simple gospel."

 

[Rippon]

My interest is not in Calvin at all. I wouldn't even bother to read his stuff, after what I already know.

Yeah,why not be at liberty to defame and distort someone you distain based on other ill-informed and biased individuals who have an axe to grin? Just stay clear of Calvin's works. You can remain in the dark just like the Mediaevals.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yeah,why not be at liberty to defame and distort someone you distain based on other ill-informed and biased individuals who have an axe to grin? Just stay clear of Calvin's works. You can remain in the dark just like the Medievals.

Excellent point Rip, and nazaroo proves by his own words everything he says is biased.


:thumbsup:

 

[Nazaroo]

No matter how distasteful Sevetus underwent state execution. It was not murder. Calvin wasn't even a citizen of Geneva at that time.

Wrong. It was an execution. AND it was a murder.

You don't burn people alive at the stake for not agreeing with you. (Luke 6:31)

Any state that executes a man because he wrote a book contradicting the 'Trinity'
is an insane police-state in the control of insane maniacs,
and this cannot in any way be sluffed off as a "state execution" as if that excused it, or condoned it.

If you condone an illegitimate 'state' burning a man alive,
then you cannot be a Christian in any sense of the word,
let alone a person with their head screwed on straight.

Johnathan Wright,who you are quoting a lot for your info is mistaken.
He said: "It is likely that it was Calvin who informed his Catholic enemies
that they had a covert Unitarian in their midst..."

Then,with that speculation in-hand you take the ball and run with it by saying
Calvin betrayed a man and particpated in his murder and torture.

Who's Johnathan Wright? Nobody.
If I'm wrong in my 'speculation', which was shared by most of Europe, so what?
I'm not an insane murderer who burns people alive.
I'm just a person with a mistaken opinion.

My worst sin then would be slandering a dead corpse.

Your worst sin would be condoning insane torture
and murder of people who have done nothing to deserve any such thing.

By the way, James White easily defeated this Wright character in debate back in April of 2006.
Wright is wrong.

Give us a link to the debate, and I'll be glad to discern for myself
who was more honest and historically accurate, or a better logician.
I couldn't care less who won the debate.
Debating is not an honest skill.
Rhetoric is for liars.

He's a Dave Hunt type who believes that ignorance is a noble thing
when it comes to the "simple gospel."

Me too.

I believe the gospel is for the poor, the ignorant, the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the lost, the abandoned, the unemployed, and repentent sinners,
...not for intelligencia, academics, rich people, rulers, or religious leaders. Those people are all going to hell.

If we had to read and believe Calvin to be saved, not even Calvin would be saved.
But I have someone more intelligent to read and believe: Jesus the Christ.
Calvin who?


If Wright is a simpleton, he has a lot better chance of salvation
than someone who knowingly condones burning a man alive, and excusing it as a "state execution".

Hitler and Stalin ordered state executions too.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Yeah,why not be at liberty to defame and distort someone you distain based on other ill-informed and biased individuals who have an axe to grin?

Yes. Its called freedom of speech,
to speak my beliefs and opinions,
and let the free market of ideas reign.
May the best statement win.

That sure beats every other alternative,
like censorship and kangaroo court trials that burn innocent people alive....

Just stay clear of Calvin's works.
You can remain in the dark just like the Mediaevals.

How ironic.
Someone who apparently thinks Calvin's works have value,
is recommending avoiding them.
That doesn't sound like love to me.

But hey, I'll bet just as many Christians went to heaven
BEFORE Calvin wrote his endless books, as after.
So how important can Calvin be, if he's not in the Bible,
and he wrote 1,600 years after Jesus spoke and taught?
Was God out playing golf, and suddenly remembered,
"Oh, I better get someone like Calvin to clear up My doctrine."

 

[billwald]

Calvin opposed Servetus being burned. The Geneva City Council overruled him.

 

[Nazaroo]

Calvin opposed Servetus being burned. The Geneva City Council overruled him.

But he didn't oppose his death sentence.

And his opposition was for show.
He spent weeks trying to get Servetus to recant,
so Calvin wouldn't be guilty of betraying him to torture and death.
Calvin was as big a cowardly betrayer as Servetus was a clown.

 

[BobinKy]

Navaroo...

Thank you for the information you posted on the Messiah prophecies.


...Bob

 

[quantumfaith]

Yeah,why not be at liberty to defame and distort someone you distain based on other ill-informed and biased individuals who have an axe to grin? Just stay clear of Calvin's works. You can remain in the dark just like the Mediaevals.

Unbelievable. I don't suppose that you want to qualify what you mean here do you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But he didn't oppose his death sentence.

And his opposition was for show.
He spent weeks trying to get Servetus to recant,
so Calvin wouldn't be guilty of betraying him to torture and death.
Calvin was as big a cowardly betrayer as Servetus was a clown.

He couldnt, if you read the historical records (which apparently you did NOT) you would know he had no voice because he wasn't a citizen of Geneva at the time so he couldn't oppose it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How ironic.
Someone who apparently thinks Calvin's works have value,
is recommending avoiding them.
That doesn't sound like love to me.


Nothing like taking a guys words out of context!

 

[Rippon]

Wrong. It was an execution. AND it was a murder.

Indeed it was an execution --a state sponsored one.

Any state that executes a man because he wrote a book contradicting the 'Trinity'
is an insane police-state in the control of insane maniacs,
and this cannot in any way be sluffed off as a "state execution" as if that excused it, or condoned it.

Mr.S. would have been executed anywhere in Europe at that period in history. All the other Reformers had the same opinion as Calvin on the matter,but some thought he was too soft.

If you condone an illegitimate 'state' burning a man alive,
then you cannot be a Christian in any sense of the word,
let alone a person with their head screwed on straight.

I don't condone what happened --I'm just trying to set you straight.

It was not an illegitimate act. Michael S. was undermining authority anywhere he lived.

As was stated before,Calvin did not want him burned. He wanted a beheading because it was more merciful. But he was out-numbered. He did not have the influence that you make out at that time. He didn't have more "power" until a few years later --nine years before he died.

If I'm wrong in my 'speculation', which was shared by most of Europe, so what?

You have not established that.

I'm not an insane murderer who burns people alive.

Since John Calvin was not in favor of burning M.S. he was not the insane one.

I'm just a person with a mistaken opinion.

Agreed.

Debating is not an honest skill.

That is debatable. It depends on the participants.

If we had to read and believe Calvin to be saved, not even Calvin would be saved.

Since absolutely nobody on the BB remotely believes that --why say such nonsense in the first place?