1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ten Most Damaging Preachers

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Orvie, Jul 11, 2001.

  1. qwerty

    qwerty New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. PackerBacker

    PackerBacker New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2001
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    <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?
     
  3. Speedpass

    Speedpass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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")
     
  4. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jimmy,
    Most in your list are charismatic, which made me curious as to why J. Vernon McGhee was on your list.
     
  5. Roy

    Roy <img src=/0710.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    237
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <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 ]
     
  6. Roy

    Roy <img src=/0710.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    237
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <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. :cool:

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

    DocCas New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    1
    <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. [​IMG]
     
  9. Speedpass

    Speedpass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <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.
     
  10. Monergist

    Monergist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    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,
     
  11. Optional

    Optional New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    1-9: The next 9 guys on TBN
    10: Marcus Lamb
     
  12. Ryan McKellar

    Ryan McKellar New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    To Firedome,
    Why Chuck Swindoll?

    -Ryan
     
  13. Jamal5000

    Jamal5000 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 [​IMG]
     
  14. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  15. Chick Daniels

    Chick Daniels Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
Loading...