• What about the Amplified Bible?
• Historicism?
• Violent Take it by Force?
• Godly Meditation?
• Forgiveness for Abortion?
• Ave Maria song pagan?
• "Ave Maria" -Why Christians Don't Use It - Ocbober 17,02

QUESTION:
Sorry to wake sleeping dogs! Could you please tell me what is wrong with the Amplified Bible? Is it as bad as the NIV?

ANSWER:
Well, the concept of -AN- amplified Bible might be OK, as long as it comes from the correct set of Heb/Grk manuscripts; because quite often when one foreign word is translated into another language, there is not always any ONE word in that language which fully correctly represents the original thought of the original word. Translators are always making 'choices' as to which word, often of several options, to choose in any given spot. Thus, several words (putting them 'all' in) are often helpful to understand the scope of the original word.

The Amplified that is on my shelf (c)1965 is prefaced by the Lockman Foundation... the same people who a few years later finished the complete NASB.

A good proof-text to consider, to begin with, is Lk2:33. God's Word says, "And Joseph and His mother marveled..." The perverted texts, like NASB & NIV, say, "And His father and mother..." And notice how the amplified says, "And His [legal] father and mother..." It is obvious that the "amplified" comes from the perverted texts...not even mentioning "Joseph".

In the absence of a good amplified, one would be better off sticking with the four English translations that come from the proper texts, NKJV, LITV, MKJV and KJV; and more specifically, NKJV & LITV. Many scholarly types like to delve into all sorts of texts, the perverted along with the good, in order to find God's Truth. But that's like wandering around, eating from the dinner table where the steaming yummy hot meal is waiting, and also rummaging around in the garbage can, in hopes of getting a "balanced" meal! I have no interest in investigating how the heretics were "twisting to their own destruction" (2Pt3:16) the Scriptures, to "shed light" on that which truly -IS- God's Word... if you know what I mean.

Same reason I don't bother reading all the writings of the "great men" of the Dark Ages. Same reason I don't take my doctrine from other authors. And when somebody gives me a URL to some other doctrines, I spend very little time at those websites... just long enough to find out if they are apostate and teaching false doctrine, and I then don't bother going back. Everything presented in VW writings and studies comes from studying God's Word, directly. My only resources are the Scriptures and concordance/lexicon. My shelves are not loaded with umpteen-million volumes of commentaries, and the few books that are on the shelves are collecting dust. If I do investigate some fact or figure, it will more-than-not be from an encyclopedia or some such thing, to discover a scientific or historical fact. God did not send me to proclaim, "Thus said the early church fathers and 'great men' of the Reformation"! No! No! No! He sent me to "a rebellious house" to proclaim "Thus says the Lord God". (Eze3:9,11)

Addendum:

After this was answered, somebody else sent me an "invitation" to check out a certain website. While rummaging around to try to figured out who/what they were, I passed a comment about their views on translations. They were of the view that the NIV is "not bad enough" to be rejected so as to be shunned. And as I thought on that, I realize that another aspect of -this- question needs addressing. The question is asked if the Amplified is "..as bad as the NIV..?"

Let's go back to that garbage can illustration. If something is in the garbage can, it is there for a -reason-. While, yes, there are some who are so poor that they go to McDonalds and such places and rummage in the garbage to find food to eat, and gain nourishment that way, most people do not do so. If it's in the garbage, it's "eeeuoooo!! Yuck!!" But many people treat the matter of Bible translations like the "five-second rule". If that food or piece of candy fell on the ground/floor, if you pick it up within "five seconds", it's still "OK" to put in the mouth and eat. They think it is a matter of "degrees".

God says, "Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help..." (Isa31:1) Now the direct context of that statement is to Israel, regarding how they go about to defend themselves (and they ought to heed that Word today as they presume to negotiate with their enemies!) Where God pronounces judgment on sin, one "spiritual" expression/illustration of sin is "Egypt". (Rev11:8) When Israel was rebelling, they were continually lusting after the delicacies of Egypt. (Ex16:3) And actually, "Egypt" is literally where the perversions come from. It is not a matter of some translations being "better" or "worse" than others; they come from 'different' -sources-. It's like two different games being played in separate stadiums. The referees may use similar words like, "fair, foul, out, penalty, points, etc", but the referee's whistle/call at a hockey match has no bearing on what is going on at the football stadium.

The manuscripts that the perversions come from, called "Critical" or "Wescott & Hort" originated in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Hellenists (Acts9:29) were questioning the Deity of Christ, and a whole assortment of things. When the "disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (Acts11:26), notice that the Believers came there and "spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus" to them. (vs20) The Hellenists had perverted doctrine, because they did not know the Lord.

So, it is not even a matter of the NASB, NIV, RSV, etc. being "worse than" the NKJV, LITV, KJV. They are from different texts. These two sets of manuscripts are from entirely different "stadiums", with different "referees". The rules are different. The goals are not the same. And the end result is a different destination. It's like soccer, basketball, and volleyball all use round balls; more-or-less of similar size. But they are unique to each event, the rules are different, the method of playing is different, points are scored differently. Which is "better", basketball or soccer (football)? Well...they are "different". There may be variations of ability within each event, but they are different.

Yes, the NASB truly -is- "most accurate"... however, it is most accurate, -of- the perversions, -to- the perverted texts. The Amplified, NASB, NIV, RSV, etc., come from a "different" source than God's Word. That's why they should not even be a part of the Believer's study library, when a person is listening to hear, "Thus says the Lord"

While there is further information on translation issues at the VW website, for more in-depth study of this, if you are not familiar with the historical, archaeological, textual considerations; a visit to a good 'KJV-only' website would be useful. Yes, you read correctly. The "church of Ephesus" (Rev2:1), today typically of the 'KJV-only' persuasion, has a lot of documentation about the origins of the Hebrew and Greek texts, and the history of their copying and preservation; and also of the perversions which entered the picture, and when & by whom. Ephesus is praised for testing "those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (vs2)

However, also, be careful. While they have documented the matter of texts rather well, many of them also have "left their first love" (vs4), and as a result are not always honest when it comes to application. [Among other things; many of them proclaim that Repentance is "NOT necessary" for salvation. Jesus said, "unless you repent, you will... perish" -Lk13:3,5] Just like many have equated Israel and the Church, these have made the "KJV" of equal stature to the original "Textus Receptus" collection of texts. They believe that the KJV translators (BTW: of the church of Rome), were even more inspired than the original writers, and thus, the KJV -translation- in many places "corrects" errors in the -original- languages from which the KJV comes. [Editor: even consider the 'logic' of such a statement!!] That, the KJV translators "fixed" what the "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2Pt1:21) as it was already "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude3) [Editor: did God not correctly give His Word to those whom His Holy Spirit vehemently propelled (2Pt1:21) as they wrote?!! While many of their Statements of Faith proclaim "inerrancy", by their deeds they show that they don't really believe it!] Thus, you will typically notice all their lists of proof-texts condemning the perVersions being compared -to- the KJV... not the original languages. And so, with this bent, they also include the NKJV in their lists of perVersions. At the VW website, in the discussion of the NKJV I have taken a few of their proof-text references and shown, with the aid of KJV-based study tools, how the NKJV is even more typically correct to the originals than the KJV is. [Link: VW & Translations]

Thus... go to their sites and learn about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Learn about the early Church's central base of operations at Antioch (Acts11:19-26) which also became the central point of Scriptural manuscript copying and preservation. Learn about the apostates of that time from Alexandria. Learn how God's sovereignty has preserved His Word down through the centuries. Learn the history from them... But beware how they "apply" the knowledge they have so-well presented. Even the translators of the KJV knew it was not perfect.

Yes, in the past we have observed that a person could come to Faith in Christ after reading the NASB or NIV. But, hobos also eke out a living from the garbage cans. The Amplified and NIV are from the same source; one is not better than the other; they are both in the garbage can together. But once a person 'knows better', they would want to dine at God's banquet table. In English, today, that is NKJV, LITV, MKJV & KJV... 'because of' the -manuscripts- from which they are derived.

[Top]

COMMENT/QUESTION?
hello. i really enjoy your website and i think you have a very good grasp of biblical christianity. until recently i had believed in the rapture of the church, the seven year tribulation and the coming antichrist. lately i've been introduced to the idea of historicism and it seems to make perfect sense. it has caused me to question everything i had believed about the church's future. i have always had trouble understanding why there was a break between the 69th and 70th week of daniel. and why is the "rapture view" so widely accepted by the world. note the huge success of the left behind series. i have studied and found that the rapture doctrine was supposedly made up by two jesuit priest in the 1500's and was not introduced into the church until the 1800's. their plan was to take the church's focus off the papacy which is who the historcists claim is the real antichrist. i have prayed and asked god to show me his truth. when i read the things that the historicists have to say, it just shoots the futuristic view down easily.

ANSWER:
Well...I just read a bit at the website you mentioned...and he doesn't really support his "theories". If you noticed the mention of the "1260 years"...I missed how/if he then explains the "42 months" (Rev11:2) And he doesn't really tell how his 1260 "years" corresponds with "time, times and half a time" of Daniel. That's 3 1/2 years, which is the same as 42 months, which is the same as 1260 'literal' days (not "years"). And he insists that the 10 horns/toes is Europe; without providing any viable, realistic support for why this is so in the face of the current makeup of the EU. It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is NOT Europe. The EU now has more the 10 members.

And... WHO CARES what the unregenerates of protestantism proclaimed and believed!! Just because they have such a huge following in these days, doesn't mean they were correct. Just because they were blind to the so-called "futurist" view, doesn't mean that it isn't Scripture's true outlook. That's one reason I am so glad I never went to seminary to become tainted with the writings of those men. What the Lord leads me to write for VW does not come from -any- other 'men'. It comes from the Scriptures. For many years I was confused about the Rapture, too, because I was hearing 'this' from one source, and 'that' from another. What I now 'know' about it comes from the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart (Jn16:13, 1Jn2:27) from the Scriptures (2Tm3:14-17). So what, the famous men of the Dark-Ages didn't see a pre-trib rapture. It wasn't for their time, anyway. But it is -clearly- in the Scriptures.

COMMENT:
another big problem i had with the futurist view is how can they rebuild the temple if there are mosks over top of the foundation. please visit [historicist website URL] and read it open mindedly. at first i was very skeptical and didn't want to hear what they had to say, but now i'm not so sure that they aren't the one's with the truth.

ANSWER:
Well, here again...WHO is going to build the temple? "..the Man whose name is the BRANCH! ...He shall build the temple of the LORD" (Zech6:12-13) And WHEN is He going to do this? When He comes to rule. After the great earthquakes are finished, are those mosques likely to still be standing where they are? If Christ is coming to build His temple, why would He allow the mosques to remain? He's going to do like Hezekiah did...completely tear all the pagan stuff down. He is going to cleanse Israel of their idolatry (Eze36:25) That includes the "dwelling places" (Eze37:23)

EDITOR:
After this last item was answered and sent, there was an interesting item in one of the news sources I visit daily. The news item is talking about peace negotiations regarding the Temple Mount. For space considerations I will only include the portion related to the point of this Q/A...

--Quote--------
Husseini hints at mosque destruction by earthquake, 
expects peace deal soon

-----------------------
Weekend News Today
Lead: Kelly
Source: Jerusalem Post
-----------------------

"...Husseini said the Palestinians must have complete sovereignty over
Judaism's holiest site. He suggested calling the agreement "sovereignty
but" - no archeological excavations and no changes. Saying that another
earthquake can be expected at the site any year now, Husseini asked,
"What would happen if the mosque were destroyed and Israel was still
the sovereign power? If Israel agreed to let us rebuild the mosque,
there would be a civil war within Israel. If she did not, there would
be a religious war between Moslems and Jews."
--endQuote-------

Such earthquakes have not yet happened. These Scriptures are not "historic" ...they are "prophetic" for the "future".

[Top]

QUESTION:
I sure would appreciate your expertise and wisdom on the following:

From Matthew 11:10-19 and Luke 7:19-30, what do you think is the explanation of Matthew 11:12?

"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force."

ANSWER:
I don't know that I have a sure answer. All I can do on this is give some Scriptural references, and make some resultant observations

First of all, we must remember that satan has been given the world to rule over. (Lk4:6) He is called the "prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience". (Eph2:2) Our struggle to live before God is not a physical struggle, but "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph6:12)

But we also know that he still has access to Heaven. He appears before God on a periodic basis to give account of his comings and goings. (Job1:7) And he also engages the good angels in warfare, as he (and/or his demons) detained the messenger who was sent to Daniel, being called figuratively the "prince of Persia" (Dan10:13)

Now, in the context, Jesus speaks of prophets and those who hear the message of the prophets; no matter in what manner the prophet comes, the hearers not responding. It is a continual warfare for the "minds" and "understanding" of mankind. That's why charismania is such a powerful tool of satan, because it bypasses the mind (1Cor14:14-15), and enters via the emotions, and ultimately possesses the soul/spirit of the individual. And when a person has been recaptured in such a manner, "the last state of that man is worse than the first" (Mt12:45) And this 'capturing' of the souls of mankind is with a militance. Those thus engaged become vehemently angry at anyone who would dare to proclaim and expose their deception. But the people thus-possessed, are no longer in (self)-control (Ac24:25, Gal5:23, 2Pt1:6) of themselves. The "in-filling" spirits take them and "force" (Mt11:12, Lk8:29) them to do/babble various things, and throw them around the room. (Mk9:22)

Another means, which readily comes to mind, where the "kingdom of heaven" is being "taken by force" is with abortion. Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven as being "like little children" (Mt18:3, 19:14) If we understand Paul's teaching that children of unsaved parents are "unclean" (1Cor7:14), in other words... "unsaved" or "not of the Kingdom of Heaven", then, what does abortion do? It yanks that little one out of the womb in an "unclean" state, without any opportunity to hear God's "drawing" (Jn6:44) upon the life. They are taken out of the womb, "by force" and are, thus, cast into hell. [Editor: for more on this, please see a past commentary: "Abortion: What's REALLY at Stake?"

This is one passage I cannot claim 'full' understanding of yet, which is likely why I did not address it when we went through this spot during the Matthew series. But these are some concepts which my mind/spirit mulls around when I consider that statement by Jesus.

Now, you reference both Matthew and Luke, speaking of John the Baptist. John was a prophet, 'preparing the way of the Lord'. (Mt3:3) He typically did not have smooth soft words. But rather on the order of "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Mt3:7) He was 'confrontational'. As we see the "two witnesses" in Rev ch11, we see signs and wonders of the magnitude of Moses and Elijah, causing droughts and bringing fire down to consume their enemies, etc. Satan sending his emissaries to attempt to do the prophet 'in', and the prophet with God's power, being victorious over those whom satan sends. It is spiritual warfare, brought to human terms through the human servants of God and satan. And in the context of Jesus saying this, John was in prison, having been taken "by force" by Herod. And he was ultimately beheaded. (Is that the -specific- meaning of that verse at that time and occasion of Jesus saying it?) The two witnesses in Rev ch11 are ultimately killed by the "beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit" (Rev11:7)

Even today, the prophets (for-TH-tellers/proclaimers) that God sends are attacked. In some quarters... physically. In free societies, it is more verbal abuse. Jesus heaps praise upon "you when they revile and persecute you, and -say- all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.." (Mt5:11)

Any Believer who is more than a mere "pew-warmer" -WILL- receive taunts and attacks. In this world "you -WILL- have tribulation.." (Jn16:33) A person can be a passive Christian, and live a smooth life. But as I experience, and as subscribers write, who take a stand and step out in faithfulness and boldness for the Lord... the opposition -DOES- COME. Yes, indeed!

It is spiritual warfare...for the lives of humanity.

Amen!

[Top]

QUESTION:
What is correct meditation before the Lord?

ANSWER:
"Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy----meditate on these things." (Phil4:8)

This word "meditate" carries the following definitional aspects...

From Online Bible's lexicon:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over
2) to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate
3) by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer
4) to determine, purpose, decide
++++
This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank
book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself.
This word refers to facts not suppositions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Ps 119:15 I will meditate on Your precepts, And contemplate Your ways.
• Ps 119:27 Make me understand the way of Your precepts; So shall I meditate on Your wondrous works.
• Ps 119:78 Let the proud be ashamed, For they treated me wrongfully with falsehood; But I will meditate on Your precepts.

We follow the Lord on three levels. (Ps119:58-59)
   1) We look to Him with our HEART, and receive favor through His Word.
   2) With that foundation we "THINK" on our "ways"
   3) And with such basis, our ACTIONS -- the direction our feet take
      us -- are according to His "testimonies"

Notice the order:
   heart  -> thoughts -> actions
   spirit -> soul     -> body

QUESTION:
I don't want to be doing something that is New Age but sometimes when I am praying I just want to stop and be quiet and then I become so aware of God and His greatness that I feel, I dunno, maybe the word is "awe". It's not an emotional thing, it's just makes my breath "catch" a bit and my thoughts stop and sometimes I cover my face with my hands because I can't comprehend that He knows me and is listening to me. Does that reek of "charismania" and is it wrong?

ANSWER:
Oh...of course our emotions will be involved. As we understand things, some things address our emotions. We would not be human without emotion. And so, as we meditate on something, the richness of it hits us, and our emotions become awestruck.

But that state of being awestruck is not "meditation". It is merely the emotional "reaction" to having meditated. Make sense? If you were being "charismatic" your "understanding is unfruitful" (1Cor14:14). Meditating involves the "understanding/mind". (vs15)

[Top]

EDITORIAL:
As this week-end's Fig Leaf was being prepared, the paragraphs on abortion also raised other thoughts in my mind to address somehow. But the Fig Leaf was not the place. And then, an e-mail came, asking; with the request, "I feel that you're the only one who'll be honest. Please answer if possible." Even though the message could be posted with anonymity, in this case, it simply doesn't seem right to do so. So, let us address this topic a bit further in a general fashion. I expect there are others of you who are dealing with this, too.

First of all, I cannot presume to pretend to understand what it must be like to have an abortion. Some people, when attempting to be empathetic, will say things like, "I can imagine what you must be going through." Well, sorry. I CANNOT IMAGINE it! First of all, I'm a man. Second of all, I've not been privy to such a situation. It's just like "divorce". A happily-married person may attempt to empathize with someone going through it to counsel them, but unless you've been there, the imagination cannot conceive of what it is like. You that know anything about my life, you know -how- I know this...! And you that have been through it, you know I speak truth.

Along with the gruesome gory details with which I painted the picture of the abortion process, I have also read that there is a very high percentage of women who, after having the abortion, go into terrible fits of depression and guilt, and some even become suicidal. They often need counseling to learn how to deal with what they have done.

I do know what it is to have been married. 'Was just discussing with a Brother in Christ recently, as we were jointly remembering our unequal yokes, how, even though the yoke is unequal, the two have "become one". (1Cor6:16) While there may not be a "witness" of the Holy Spirit (Rom8:16), that oneness allows the two to see into each other's souls and hearts. The unsaved spouse sees "God" within the Believer.

They say that the bond between mother and child is the closest human bond there is. God even uses it as an example of His love, in not forgetting His own; "Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb?" (Is49:15) And this part I can only imagine, since no man can ever fully know this which is totally woman's domain... to have a baby growing inside one's own body. To feel the squirming and kicking. The emotions of the shared bodily hormones as the mother's body provides nourishment for the baby.

And so, as the baby is being viciously ripped apart during the abortion, how can the mother NOT "share" in the horror! As the baby is in that losing battle for its little life, how can that struggle NOT become part of the mother's psyche and emotions! I would have to think it would be multiplied times worse than the ancient mothers who sacrificed their babies on the fiery altars. At least, by then, the baby was outside the womb, and there was no longer that physiological bond. 'Just' emotions.

Dear Lady: (whoever you may be)

[...and co-conspiring husband/boyfriend. Yes, man, if you suggested/coerced it, or condoned it, you are just as guilty. You "..approved of those who practiced.." the deed. -Rom1:31 She might have had the procedure done, and it was her body; but that was -your- child that was killed. Remember that "two become one flesh".]

If you've had an abortion, and you have struggled with emotional turmoil and guilt because of it, those struggles are as it should be. It is part of God's design, to help you realize just what it is that you have done. Psychology may try to convince you that it is now "OK". As they try to help you learn to "forgive yourself". But it is -NOT- "OK", what you did. And you will never be able to adequately forgive yourself.

However, having said that, we now get to the question in question. Can there be forgiveness for such a deed? Emphatically, -YES-!! But it is from a different Source than the world's psychology and counseling.

How much of a heinous sin does it take before God says, "That's it! You sinned too much. You cannot be forgiven!"? David had done something similar. He didn't -commit- abortion, but he did commit adultery, and murdered the husband and married Bathsheba, to cover up the illegitimacy of the pregnancy. In the end, God took the baby's life. The whole situation ended up with the same results.

David comes to God, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; according to the multitude of Your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me." (Ps51) [Editor: it is recommended that you find a quiet corner some place and read this entire chapter.]

David recognizes that we are "conceived" in sin. (vs5) Asks for God's discipline. (vs7) Asks for a "clean heart" (vs10) And finally, the "joy" of a restored heart. (vs12) David realizes that there is no sacrifice sufficient to cleanse him. (vs16) He cannot be cleansed by works (Eph2:9) of penance. It is only God's mercy. All he can do is come to God with a repentant "broken and contrite heart" (vs17, Jas4:8-10) Thus, notice: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1Jn1:9)

Yes, I expect that the emotional pain and horror of it all will remain as long as these "former things" (Is65:17, Rev21:4) are in remembrance. Even Paul mentioned his past as he called himself the "chief" of sinners (1Tm1:15) because he had "persecuted the church" (1Cor15:9)

But as far as God's imputation and accounting (Rom4) "apart from works" (vs6) is concerned, "As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us." (Ps103:12) There is "no more condemnation.." (Rom8:1) Due to Christ's accounting us as "justified", even if we have memories... we can have "peace with God". (Rom5:1)

And then, when you are still hurting deeply, wipe away the tears enough to look up Psalm 23, and realize that it is, that "-HE- restores my soul; -HE- leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.." (vs3)

Addendum:

Hopefully, the reader would understand that when Jesus said "neither do I condemn you" He also went on to say, "go and SIN NO MORE" (Jn8:11) God's forgiveness is not 'license' to go do it again! ..or do it in the first place because, well... "God's grace will forgive me"! "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" (Rom6:1-2) And if you have felt the emotional upheavals and turmoil so you know the trauma involved, well... if you do it again, fear "lest a worse thing come upon you". (Jn5:14)

"..whoever confesses and -FORSAKES- [his sins] will have mercy.." (Pr28:13)

When the answer spoke of David sinning with Bathsheba, David was a Believer; repented and received forgiveness.

For the person who does not know the Lord, the urgency is not necessarily to repent of all the many sins committed; but rather, the need is to come to the foot of the cross of Christ in repentance and implore, "God be merciful to me, THE SINNER" (Lk18:13) and to be "born from above" (Jn3:3) and receive a New Nature... that of the "spiritual" man (1Cor2, Jn3:5-8), to become "in Christ" where he becomes a "new creation" and everything "becomes new". (2Cor5:17)

Amen!

[Top]

QUESTION:
Was wondering what you know about the song Ave Maria which I heard playing in a Christian radio station. Is this not a song worshiping Mary? Thank you.

ANSWER:
Indeed, it is... Actually "praying to" Mary. Below are the words, first in Latin as they are sung, and then, the English translation. You will see that it is the "Hail Mary" that catholics 'pray' over and over...

Ave Maria, gratia plena;
Dominus tecum:
Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus
fructus ventris tui [Jesus].
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus,
nunc et in hora
mortis nostrae. Amen.

Hail Mary, full of grace;
The Lord is with thee:
Blessed art thou among women and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour
of our death. Amen.

Q/A -Praying to Mary?

[Top]

The following came from a subscriber who participates in some message board. The person is also a church musician (organist), and we communicate frequently. He sent a question from the message board, asking if I wanted to answer it...or should he? I will include to you-all my two-cents-worth:

QUESTION from the BOARD:
I need some info here from my Catholic collegues, or anyone else who knows the answer. When a Fundamentalist Christian balks at doing a setting of the Ave Maria in a Presbyterian worship service, because "We do not worship the mother in our church," a possible retort might be.............what? I realize folks might come down on either side of this issue.....I'm very interested in the rationales for both sides.

VW ANSWER:
Well...I'm no "Presbyterian"...and I not only would "balk" at 'performing'...when it comes on, on the radio, I either turn it down momentarily, or 'off', or tune to a different station. If I have a choice to not hear it...I don't.

Not only is it worshiping the so-called "mother", the pagan Queen of Heaven (Ashtoreth), whom Solomon was condemned for worshiping because he was drawn away by his many pagan wives (1Kg11:4-6), which was called "evil in the sight of Jehovah", and for which reason Israel was dispersed into exile (Jer7:18, 44:17)...

But it ends with false doctrine, which does not belong in any "CHRIST-ian" church service. Yes, it begins loosely paraphrasing from Luke ch1, but then ends with Mary "praying for sinners" and also being there for her followers "at the hour of death". Those are not Scriptural doctrines.

It is false doctrine because...

1. It is idolatry. Whom they call "Mary" is not the same 'Mary" who gave birth to Jesus in His physical "flesh and blood" humanity. Theirs is the ancient Isis, Ashtoreth, Queen of Heaven, Aphrodite, Diana, Libertas. And God said, "You shall have no other gods before Me." (Ex20:3) And not only is she a goddess, they have their statues to her to which they bow down and kiss; and God said, "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness...you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.." (Ex20:4-5) When they worship their so-called "Mary", they are breaking the very first two of God's "Ten Commandments"!

2. there is only "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Tim2:5) Jesus is the One who promises, "I will pray the Father.." (Jn14:16) -Jesus- is our "advocate" (1Jn2:1), not "Mary"!

3. And from Stephen's martyrdom, we know that Mary does not receive us when we die...he prayed, "LORD JESUS (not "mary"), receive my spirit". (Ac7:59) Jesus promised, "I will...receive you to Myself" (Jn14:3) He makes absolutely NO MENTION of "Mary". The song makes -their- "Mary" into -an- "antichrist", of which John says, "..even now many antichrists have risen up.." (1Jn2:18)

[Top]