Right and Wrong ways to reach the lost?

pescatarian09

Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
872
I have been pondering your comment. I wonder if we might have an exchange of information? Do you have a good Islamic teaching on YouTube for the identity of the AC? Obviously I have a rather sketchy idea of what Muslims believe about his identity and what might make people recognise him.
I hope these short videos might be useful Red (let me know if you have any questions)

Description of the antichrist: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkkQ9-_hynQ
The so-called "miracles" the antichrist performs: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3w4V1BLNyA&feature=emb_title

(In Islam, the antichrist is better referred to as the 'Dajaal', i.e. the deceiver.)
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,421
Thanks for sharing that. You are certainly not the norm though. Most people who become genuine faithful disciples, who are actually transformed and live the gospel versus just "playing church", were influenced by real people who had a relationship with them and met a need of some sort (whether it be, physical, spiritual or emotional). The likelyhood of doing that online versus with people God has actually put around you physically is not that great.

I personally feel that saying one is called exclusively to preach online is an excuse for whatever reason keeps that person from actually being a loving and compassionate person to the people who are physically around them. Of course if someone is not loving and compassionate to begin with, they will not go out of their way to meet a need of the lost or hurting individuals around them. In fact they may be too self absorbed to even notice the needs of those around them.

If that's the case then they have bigger issues to deal with than the question of "the right way to reach the lost". LOL!
You go where God sends you...
Jonah‬ ‭1:1‬-2
The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
‭‭​
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
You go where God sends you...
Jonah‬ ‭1:1‬-2
The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
‭‭​
Share the gospel with anyone who will listen. Think about the Parable of the Sower. I think we have to live the reality of gospel before we can share it effectively, otherwise it comes over in the wrong spirit. Perhaps this Is at least the beginning of an answer to the OP?
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,421
Do people who read and quote the king james version of the Bible really think that people nowadays can understand the archaic language in the book...and are you sure you can too? Is it possible that God has a modern language version that people can more readily understand and if you say yes..why keep to the archaic language one?
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,421
Share the gospel with anyone who will listen. Think about the Parable of the Sower. I think we have to live the reality of gospel before we can share it effectively, otherwise it comes over in the wrong spirit. Perhaps this Is at least the beginning of an answer to the OP?
What do you mean live the reality of the gospel? Is that the same as saying this...
Ephesians‬ ‭2:10‬ ‭
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.​
‭‭
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
Do people who read and quote the king james version of the Bible really think that people nowadays can understand the archaic language in the book...and are you sure you can too? Is it possible that God has a modern language version that people can more readily understand and if you say yes..why keep to the archaic language one?
If I can make the point this way...

My liking for modern language has increasingly been outweighed by my dislike of the changes to the base text of the Westcott & Hort Revised Version.

Most modern versions bow to varying extents to the “critical” Alexandrian texts in places (about 2000 I think). I am not the only one to have noticed that many of these changes confuse the meanings of many passages and started to look at reasons why:-

“There are a number of reasons for the informed Christian to be distrustful of the so-called "modern" versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, and so on. Despite the claims to the contrary which are put forward by scholars such as Metzger and the Alands, there are indeed some very serious changes, doctrinal changes, which exist between the King James Version and these newer versions. It is often heard that "the differences are very minor" and that they "don't affect doctrine,” but this is simply untrue, as ought to be obvious to anyone who takes the time to actually sit down and compare the King James against the modern revisions.​
The reason for the differences, the changes one could say, has to do with the texts behind the translations. Often, when Christians think about the New Testament, they assume that the Greek manuscripts compiled in the editions used to translate various versions are all pretty much the same. This is not the case. The King James Version New Testament is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek textual edition which, except for a few notable exceptions (which are justified and supported from external evidences), is very close in form to the Majority text, which makes up roughly 90% of the total testimony of existing Greek manuscripts. The new versions of the New Testament are translated from a textual set which, while having primary representatives which are older than the majority of the texts, is comprised of manuscripts which are very disparate in individual readings and which show all the signs of corruption.“​

 






Last edited:

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,421
If I can make the point this way...

My liking for modern language has increasingly been outweighed by my dislike of the changes to the base text of the Westcott & Hort Revised Version.

Most modern versions bow to varying extents to the “critical” Alexandrian texts in places (about 2000 I think). I am not the only one to have noticed that many of these changes confuse the meanings of many passages and started to look at reasons why:-

“There are a number of reasons for the informed Christian to be distrustful of the so-called "modern" versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, and so on. Despite the claims to the contrary which are put forward by scholars such as Metzger and the Alands, there are indeed some very serious changes, doctrinal changes, which exist between the King James Version and these newer versions. It is often heard that "the differences are very minor" and that they "don't affect doctrine,” but this is simply untrue, as ought to be obvious to anyone who takes the time to actually sit down and compare the King James against the modern revisions.​
The reason for the differences, the changes one could say, has to do with the texts behind the translations. Often, when Christians think about the New Testament, they assume that the Greek manuscripts compiled in the editions used to translate various versions are all pretty much the same. This is not the case. The King James Version New Testament is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek textual edition which, except for a few notable exceptions (which are justified and supported from external evidences), is very close in form to the Majority text, which makes up roughly 90% of the total testimony of existing Greek manuscripts. The new versions of the New Testament are translated from a textual set which, while having primary representatives which are older than the majority of the texts, is comprised of manuscripts which are very disparate in individual readings and which show all the signs of corruption.“​

It seems to me to be a hardship to expect someone to understand Bible passages from an archaic language..then you might say, well it means such and such..how could they genuinely know if that’s true?
 






Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
1,300
Ill use the KJV on a message board or with Christians that know the Bible, but if I am sharing scriptures with those ignorant of the Bible in person I usually reference from out of the NASB or ESV. This is a good reference how modern translations omit or distort pretty substantial scriptures to mean something else entirey...


I will use more modern English friendly versions if I am going over scripture with someone that doesnt know the Bible, but I will tell them if they cant understand KJV start with a different bible and then once you gain enough understanding to go KJV
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,851
Ill use the KJV on a message board or with Christians that know the Bible, but if I am sharing scriptures with those ignorant of the Bible in person I usually reference from out of the NASB or ESV. This is a good reference how modern translations omit or distort pretty substantial scriptures to mean something else entirey...


I will use more modern English friendly versions if I am going over scripture with someone that doesnt know the Bible, but I will tell them if they cant understand KJV start with a different bible and then once you gain enough understanding to go KJV
What an interesting website @Lyfe !

I think scrolling down the various differences explains better than any essay exactly what is at stake.
 






Cintra

Star
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
1,661
Ill use the KJV on a message board or with Christians that know the Bible, but if I am sharing scriptures with those ignorant of the Bible in person I usually reference from out of the NASB or ESV. This is a good reference how modern translations omit or distort pretty substantial scriptures to mean something else entirey...


I will use more modern English friendly versions if I am going over scripture with someone that doesnt know the Bible, but I will tell them if they cant understand KJV start with a different bible and then once you gain enough understanding to go KJV
Great list.

And OMG! They got rid of 'get thee behind me satan!'
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,421
Ill use the KJV on a message board or with Christians that know the Bible, but if I am sharing scriptures with those ignorant of the Bible in person I usually reference from out of the NASB or ESV. This is a good reference how modern translations omit or distort pretty substantial scriptures to mean something else entirey...


I will use more modern English friendly versions if I am going over scripture with someone that doesnt know the Bible, but I will tell them if they cant understand KJV start with a different bible and then once you gain enough understanding to go KJV
I’m surprised you’d reference anything out of a Bible you look down upon..honestly.


I don’t see where they distort that much from the link you provided..it looks like tit for tat.

Why shouldn’t they just stay with the one they can understand, if your gonna recommend they start with something other than the kjv? Is that how it’s done, you start with one you can understand so then hopefully you can remember what it said as you read the kjv?
 






Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
1,300
Those other versions remove the blood of Jesus and the word repentance. Some scriptures they omit entirely.

If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

That passage isnt even in the NIV. They remove the power of the holy spirit in 1 Peter 1:22.

The blood of Jesus, repentance, the holy spirit, believing in Jesus for salvation, these are all essential things.
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
5,344
If you can't find verse 21 in Matthew 17... that bible version is best to avoid.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,421
Those other versions remove the blood of Jesus and the word repentance. Some scriptures they omit entirely.

If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
That passage isnt even in the NIV. They remove the power of the holy spirit in 1 Peter 1:22.


The blood of Jesus, repentance, the holy spirit, believing in Jesus for salvation, these are all essential things.
Sure..but they are in other verses in the Bible..if they don’t say it in those verses does it really change anything?
 






Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
1,300
Im just saying that I wouldnt personally use other Bibles as a reference unless I had to knowing what I know now. God used the NASB and ESV to cause growth within me, but I will only use another bible to help others understand if they have trouble understanding KJV, because I know its hard to understand for many including myself once upon a time. Now I can read KJV pretty fluidly and understand it.
 






Top