Ten Most Damaging Preachers

[qwerty]

For those who have "gained insight" from Hank Hanegraaff, you might do well to look at the man behind the mask.

Hank H. got into the position he is now by deceptive means. His books are riddled with strawman arguments, and quotes taken out of context.
He has been caught red-handed copying other peoples writings.
You may enjoy reading him because he just tells you what you want to hear. There are several web sites that tell "the other side of the story".

Walter Martin's Widow Calls For Hanegraaff Resignation
Los Angeles Times
April 15, 2000--
(excerpted)
http://www.waltermartin.org/cri.html

It's doubtful that very many on this board will look at the situation in the light of reality, because his writings give many the ammunition they think they need to be against those they think are damaging the church.

So, the word of wisdom is, "Consider the source". But, in this case, that's not very likely.

 

[PackerBacker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by qwerty:
For those who have "gained insight" from Hank Hanegraaff, you might do well to look at the man behind the mask..........

So, the word of wisdom is, "Consider the source". But, in this case, that's not very likely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Querty,

Say you are right about Hanegraaff. It won't bother me. I don't worship the guy and know he is as imperfect as anyone else. Throw his book away on the Way of Faith Movement if you like. I personally liked the work by the Charismatic McConnell I mentioned earlier. Will you at least check out his research on the Way of Faith Guys?

 

[Speedpass]

In no particular order...

John Hagee
Jimmy Swaggart
Oral Roberts
Kenneth Hagin
Kenneth Copeland
Marvin Gorman
Marilyn Hickey
J Vernon McGee
Lassere Bradley, Jr.
J B Ryrie?(some radio preacher out of Statesville, NC; he used to broadcast a program I heard regularly when I lived in Greensboro called "The Sheep Food Ministry")

 

[swaimj]

Jimmy,
Most in your list are charismatic, which made me curious as to why J. Vernon McGhee was on your list.

 

[Roy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
Jimmy,
Most in your list are charismatic, which made me curious as to why J. Vernon McGhee was on your list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

swaimj: I don't know what Jimmy may have had for a reason, but Dr. McGee said something once, that troubled me very much. I haven't been as faithful a listener of his since. When he came to Matthew 17:21 (Howbeit this kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting,) Dr. Mcgee said "Now you can take that verse and do whatever you want with it." He went on to say that you won't find that verse in any of the better manuscripts so he didn't believe that it was authentic.

As the scriptures would say, "My countenance was fallen" when I heard him say that. I just don't that think he or anyone else on earth should toss out a Bible verse.

Roy

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Roy ]

 

[Roy]

At the address I have given below, there are some archived broadcasts. The ones for February 14th and 15th are about Billy Graham. Someone may want to add him to his list after listening it. It is from Southwest Radio Church's web site.
http://www.swrc.com/daily/2002/db_feb02.htm

 

[Dr. Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roy:
Dr. McGee said something once, that troubled me very much. I haven't been as faithful a listener of his since. When he came to Matthew 17:21 (Howbeit this kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting,) Dr. Mcgee said "Now you can take that verse and do whatever you want with it." He went on to say that you won't find that verse in any of the better manuscripts so he didn't believe that it was authentic.

As the scriptures would say, "My countenance was fallen" when I heard him say that. I just don't that think he or anyone else on earth should toss out a Bible verse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nor should anybody add words or a verse not in the original inspired Greek text. Sadly, over the centuries, just as many (or more) INCLUSIONS were added to the text as there are EXCLUSIONS or words of phrases dropped.

There is strong evidence against inclusion of this verse in the text. Will leave that for the Bible Version discussion. Not proper to get into a debate.

Already have enough "heat" generated by who is or is not included on the list of the 10 worst preachers!

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
There is strong evidence against inclusion of this verse in the text.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not sure where you find this "strong" evidence, but it does not seem all that strong to me!

The only manuscripts which exclude the verse are part of Aleph, B, Θ, and 33.

The manuscripts which include the verse are the rest of Aleph, C, D, K, L, W, X, Δ, Π, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, 892mg, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195 (with a minor variant), 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, all of the Byzantine MSS (400+), all the Lectionaries, and is quoted by virtually all of the patristics who comment on the verse!

When you weigh manuscript evidence you look for broadness of witness. Of the witnesses cited, those for the reading include the majority of Uncials (Aleph, C, D, K, etc.), the majority of the Minuscules (28, 565, 700, etc.), the majority of the manuscript familes (f1, f13, Byz.), and the majority of the Patristics. In other words, the verse is contained in all catagories of the manuscript witnesses, but is missing in only a very, very small minority of one catagory of the manuscript evidence, limited to two Uncials, and part of a third (and one minuscule)!

After the manuscript evidence we need look to the internal evidence. Is the wording contained in any of the other gospels? Yes, it is, in Mark 9.29.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, based on the overwhelming evidence, that these are the words of Jesus and belong in the bible. In this case, J. Vernon McGee (not to mention Dr. Bob) is wrong.

 

[Speedpass]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
Jimmy,
Most in your list are charismatic, which made me curious as to why J. Vernon McGhee was on your list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me J Vernon McGhee is too old-school, King James-only for me. Plus he speaks in a very monotonistic voice--which could put me to sleep rather quickly.

 

[Monergist]

Three years ago as a new christian, God used J.V. McGee's program, and John MacArthur's, to give me a real desire to know the Word.
I don't agree with everyhing he said. But he was far from being a damaging preacher,

 

[Optional]

1-9: The next 9 guys on TBN
10: Marcus Lamb

 

[Ryan McKellar]

To Firedome,
Why Chuck Swindoll?

-Ryan

 

[Jamal5000]

I unfortunately can only thing of two preachers that I consider with caution because their lifestyles make me uncomfortable and because thier philosophies on the bible raise too many questions:

Frederick KC Price
T. D. Jakes


Jamal5000

 

[Bro. Curtis]

When I watch T.D. Jakes, I don't hear what he's saying. I look at him & say, "Man, that is a nice suit!!!"

I'm willing to bet he doesn't sound as good as he looks.

 

[Chick Daniels]

Thomas said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The only manuscripts which exclude the verse are part of Aleph, B, Θ, and 33. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so, 579 and the uncorrected 892 also have the reading. So does lectionary 253. So does a fourth century syriac version, and a sixth century syriac, along with a few Old Latin versions, along with a fourth century coptic version, and a 13th century ethiopic and a ninth century Georgian.

This external evidence that Thomas left out is critical. Early versions are on equal footing to ancient Greek manuscripts when the question is one of omission/inclusion. Clearly, these versions had Greek exemplars that did not include the verse. This represents early geographically broad distribution which trumps later geographic distribution of including the verse.

Now, I confess that I don't have Metzger's textual commentary right in front of me, but he likely concludes that the internal evidence suggests that some scribes mistakenly added the verse in Matthew because they had in mind from Mark. It is shown that frequently the gospels "grew" in some manuscripts (especially the BYZ) because of material introduced through memory of synoptic accounts.

While the textual criticism of this Matthew verse is a legitimate debate, it is not a slam dunk as Thomas portrayed. He did not provide all the evidence for the side he doesn't favor.

Chick

 

[Dr. Bob]

Think this discussion has run its course . . and veer off course more than once. Probably time to shut it down.

IF one has a particular topic from the 7+ pages of thread, please start it anew. Thanks to all for contributing.