Eichenwald would be a little less offensive, obnoxious, overbearing, and outlandish and almost likable if he showed even a small dose of humility. Alas, he does not. He is at war with me and my kind. Worse, he is at war with God.

He charges that there were “no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian,” a statement that is embarrassingly false. From the early days of the church they recognized their manuscripts as the New Testament that we have today. The churches did not vote on it but generally accepted the use of manuscripts that make up our present canon. But Kurt is an unbeliever using his influence to try to dig out the foundations of the Christian church. He attacks the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, declares that Paul did not write I Timothy, and II Peter is a forgery, “an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today.” No, that is only true of most unbelieving scholars.

Kurt declares that Constantine determined what books made it into the New Testament at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; however there is no historical support for such a charge, a charge made by many with an axe to grind. I have all the extant writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene church leaders and none support that popular fiction.

One of Eichenwald’s sycophants wrote, “Nearly everyone who’s studied the matter agrees the canonical gospels were written no earlier than the early 70s CE (i.e. Mark) making it impossible for them to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.” Not so. Remember, Matthew and John?

One of the main reasons for confidence for the New Testament being completed before 70 A.D. (except the Revelation) is that no New Testament writer refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (and hundreds of villages burned to ashes) and the Temple in 70 A.D. That was one of the most horrific, shocking events in history with the destruction of the famous city and at least a million, one hundred thousand people killed. Plus, the most famous place of worship in the world was destroyed, yet not a word mentioned by the Bible authors! Sure, it is the argument from silence, but it is a silence that is deafening.

Kurt declares that the incident in John 7 and 8 of the woman taken in adultery “simply never happened.” However, Jerome reported on this passage after 400 A.D. and he declares that the Latin and Greek manuscripts did contain the disputed passage, so some manuscripts recorded it and some did not. That is not unusual. Believers believe that God kept His promise and preserved His words.

Many manuscript experts tell us that the passage does not belong there but if that is true why do most modern translations use it? Modern translators know that removing the disputed story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in the Bible market. They use the passage because of cowardice and cash. They knowingly use a passage that practically all their experts agree should not be in the Bible! Modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their convictions), they should do the principled thing. Most liberals can’t spell principle but they can spell principal–money!

Conversely, scholars focused on preservation, find the passage in the oldest trusted manuscripts and believe it belongs there. Since God promised to preserve His Words, I believe He did just that. The manuscript issue is about “words.” Jesus said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” And Jeremiah 23:30 says, “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor.”

Kurt then takes his knife and cuts the last 12 verses from Mark 19. He says they were wrongly added much later by an interpolator; however, Dr. C. I. Scofield tells us, “The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.” Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., used these verses in his writings. Since a preacher that close to the Disciples quoted those verses, don’t you think he would have objected if he read corrupt verses in Mark? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna). Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years, was martyred in 156 A.D., and was a disciple of John the Apostle. No, the last twelve verses belong in Mark as the Bible shows. Bible haters are wrong.

Furthermore, it would be very strange for Mark to end his Gospel of good news without mentioning any of Christ’s post resurrection appearances or His ascension; and to close his book with “for they were afraid” is unimaginable. The Good News of the Gospel is to expel our fears!

Daniel B. Wallace is a New Testament professor at Dallas and during a debate with unbeliever Bart Ehrman, Wallace reported that a first century fragment of Mark had been found in Egypt. The same as our common Mark! The traditional ending of Mark is the true ending.

Eichenwald attacks I John 5:7 telling us that the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture and that verse is an interpolation–added by a fanatical scribe wanting to add the Trinity to the teaching of Scripture. However, this verse is in the oldest manuscripts going back to Vaudois or “Waldensians” in northern Italy who were visited by missionaries from Antioch in the 120s. They translated the Bible into Old Latin in 157 and would not change a letter of their manuscript. There is little doubt that the manuscript used was at least a first generation copy of the original, if not the original, and the Waldensian translation was passed down from generation to generation until the Reformation. When Erasmus added I John 5:7 to his third edition of the Greek New Testament it appeared in the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

Moreover, leading early church leaders such as Tertullian wrote “which three are one” in 200 AD and Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.” Sounds as if they were quoting I John 5:7.

Kurt makes the silly assertion that “The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God.” He wrote that statement to deflect from sodomy, known today as homosexuality or by those unconcerned with accuracy as “being gay.” Kurt declares that homosexuality is no worse sin than lying, greed, and other sins thereby making perversion, pride, prejudice, and prayerlessness the same in God’s eyes! What insanity! He did not get that from Scripture even with his ability to twist Bible verses like a pretzel. Another thought: while this is no defense of pride, you won’t get AIDS from pride.

Yes, sin is sin as far as eternity is concerned; however, there are present life consequences that are deadly. Non thinkers say that one might as well commit adultery as to think about committing it but that is stupid. Thinking about adultery does not impact others while physical adultery divides families, devastates children, and may destroy health.

The pitiful prose of Eichenwald easily demonstrates a writer who is desperate to prove the impossible. His writing screams desperation: “I have to find some of those Bible contradictions, after all I have to crank out 8,539 words for Newsweek.” He even says the Bible forbids debates so Congress is disobeying God! Christians can’t wear pearls or gold. Public prayer is wrong. He equates criticism of government to resistance to government. The writer evidently knows nothing about proper research, especially biblical research: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written? What were the circumstances? There are many more examples of his egregious perversion of Scripture.

Eichenwald declares that his missive was not an attack upon the Bible or Christians but it is exactly that. A poor attack to be sure but an attack without any doubt. And to think they killed a bunch of trees to print such tripe!

An honest, liberal journalist should be willing to look at all sides of an issue. Kurt refused to do so as do most radical leftists.

But then, it’s in their genes!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

These religious jerks say they share the gospel with people while they are sharing their wives! One dude said of his non-traditional missionary work: “If I can go to the next swinger’s event and get 10 people to believe in Christ…my job is done.” One female swinger said, “I feel this is God’s plan.” Incredible! I can’t think of anything in history more abhorrent, abominable, and asinine than this. Only very evil minds could conceive the highest and the lowest endeavors to be juxtaposed in the same event: sharing wives and spreading the Gospel! Of course, the “gospel” they spread is not taught in the New Testament. In the New Testament when a man was convicted, he got converted and then he got changed. No change indicates no conversion.

Whenever people are converted to Christ (not Christianity) it changes them. II Cor. 5:17 declares, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Is that verse true or not? It was true of people who came to Christ in the New Testament and it was true of me. When I repented and trusted Christ as a teen, it changed my friends, my habits, my thoughts, my desires, my dress, my speech, my work ethic, my study habits, my entertainments, etc. While I did not experience perfection (speak to my wife, no, don’t speak to my wife) I was totally changed. When men trust Christ, there is always a change in their morals, mores, manners, and motives.

The “Christian” swingers even have their own website whose opening pitch to faithless, feckless, fellow fornicators is, “For Christian Swingers things are not easy – often other religious people judge you, out of ignorance or envy, telling you that your lifestyle and love practices are wrong.”

Well, such lifestyle and “love practices” are wrong and stupid. Any man who climbs into bed with a woman (or man!) other than his wife is irresponsible, indecent, insane and will sooner or later be infected. You name your infection since there are many out there. Need I be so quaint as to remind the barnyard lovers that Christ warned that it was adultery if we even lusted after a non-spouse. Moreover, one thing is sure, I don’t envy the swingers. Rather, I pity them.

Zipping his trousers, a swinger declared, “But the Bible teaches us ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ and there’s that verse about the first stone… but if you’re keen on keeping your privacy, well – yours, and don’t want your friends, coworkers, other PTA members, or just about anyone else to know that you don’t have a problem with faith and enjoying free love with other couples, this site can help you!”

It seems the “Judge not” verse is better known (or is it only more quoted?) than John 3:16. For sure, fornicators would rather speak of non-judging than speaking of God so loving the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have ever lasting life. Yep, that plays better in the barnyard. As to throwing the “stone,” he neglected to add what Jesus told the woman “taken in adultery.” He told her to “go and sin no more.” Good advice for the barnyard lovers.

Fornicators often use King David as an excuse for their immoral behavior but that dog won’t hunt. David did not have a plan to sleep with Bathsheba and every other female neighbor. He was tempted to adultery but afterward he repented, weeping copious tears, asking for forgiveness. Moreover, David paid a terrible price for his sins. Of course, sin always has a payday.

So the Bible and personal experience prove that “free love” isn’t free. The price tag is enormous: disgrace, disrepute, dishonor, disease, and death. Plus, they will live with guilt, fear, self-hatred, and apprehension while they “share the gospel.”

These people are like those in Jer. 5:8, “They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” The thought is that they were “inflamed with lust” like wild beasts or barnyard animals.

The basic problem with these people is the fear of God is absent. How could they believe in a sovereign God who is aware of everything and keeping tabs on our lives? So, basically they don’t believe in God or only believe in a very surface way–which is not saving belief.

Not believing in a holy God who holds us all accountable, they have no shame. They are like the people in Jerusalem during Jeremiah’s day. The prophet wrote in Jer. 6:15 “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush.”

That’s where we are today: people living like barnyard animals without shame. The animals have no shame because they have no knowledge of God, sin, and judgment to come. Animals are not expected to live like humans and humans are not expected to live like animals. Humans have no defense and animals don’t need one. However, humans can be forgiven while animals don’t need forgiveness.

Only humans can be faithless, feckless fornicators but animals cannot be since they are doing what animals do. I have more respect for barnyard animals than I have for “Christian” swingers!

Swinging “Christians” are proof that we live in a time of ignorance, iniquity, and immorality.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”