|
|
|
|
Whom do you worship as God? I ask this because some are teaching that other gods of the nations are God, that there is no difference of them from YHWH, the different names do not mean other gods, but can actually be the same. That is what will be answered in this article. Is Daniel Kikawa teaching from God’s Word? As we carefully examine what he says we will understand that it is not Christianity he teaches, that it is more aligned with the Bibles Mystery Babylon of Rv.17, an eclectic Universalism. Those who are unable to discern truth from error have difficulty seeing this and are easily persuaded. Let me explain. Daniel Kikawa is not teaching Biblical monotheism, he is a polytheist who writes ‘Io “dwells in the uppermost of 12 heavens” (p.28 Perpetuated in Righteousness 2nd edition) which is in direct contrast to the Biblical revelation of only 3 heavens existing. But that is the least of the problems. On p. 20 of Perpetuated in Righteousness, Kikawa writes: “The name 'father' is applied to the Supreme Being in every single area of the primitive culture when he is addressed or appealed to.” So then all of these Cultures' supreme gods sent Jesus, there is no differentiation to Judaism, YHWH, it is the same. This is not correct at all, but there are those who carte blanche accept his teaching. I challenge those who believe this to read through this article to understand what you have accepted. Kikawa brought his theory to the church and the mission organization of YWAM, that the ancient gods of cultures who are also supreme are the same as the Bible’s God: “Christians should cease representing Jesus as the Son of the foreign God of a foreign people, especially if these foreigners had never shown concern for or had any involvement in the lives or culture of the natives. We should instead introduce Jesus as the Son of their creator God.” (Daniel Kikawa, Perpetuated in Righteousness, p.27) The problem should be obvious that Jesus is God's Son of the Hebrews God alone, whom God revealed himself to. Kikawa wants you to apply Jesus the Son of God to any culture, which makes him a counterfeit Son of God of another God the father. The Bible repeats over and over there is no God like YHWH, He alone is God, which is in direct contradistinction to the gods of the nations (Deut. 12:2), the true God said the nation's gods were not god, but Kikawa says they are! In his arrogance, he attributes these cultures that were always in rebellion to God, as not knowing God, to be accepted. God condemns anyone associating with other gods as a belief in polytheism! In Greek mythology, IO was one of the mortal lovers of Zeus. IO was an Argive princess and Naiad-nymph who the god Zeus loved. Kikawa’s book claims the Hawaiian 'Io is Kane, Ku and Lono is the Bibles YHVH Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Io the parentless is also named the self- created.Kikawa claims - all equal, for Kane who is the Son is superior to the other two. “Io sent the Mana across the Po (the darkness), and created Kane, the creator, and creation began” http://www.huna.com/gods_diagram.html Can Kane be God if he is created? Kikawa goes to make the case that “The Yo or Jo sound can only be pronounced in Hawaiian as “Io.” Dr. Fruchtenbaum points out his inability to use the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which deals with the Hebrew language more than just this one instance. He claims the Hawaiian culture worshipped the same one God the missionaries came to bring to them, yet he states in his book (correctly) Most of the Hawaiian researchers' materials that the author has read shows that the Hawaiians had no knowledge of 'Io” (Perpetuated in Righteousness p.57). How does this make sense? He says, Io was secretive and only a few of the priests knew of him. Regardless of this fact, IO is not YHWH, but this is what he is teaching everywhere he goes, all over the world. And it is not just IO, His teaching of “other cultures knew God’ diminishes the uniqueness and importance of Israel and their calling which the Bible makes very clear to anyone who reads it honestly. This makes all these cultures equivalent to Israel in their false worship of another god [s]. Why would Christians, believe what goes so clearly against the Bible? When this main piece of history is excluded, ones conclusion will be skewed; that piece is called Israel. To say all cultures all nations are equal and that their supreme gods is the same as Israel’s God when God says they are not. This can be categorized as an anti-semitic theology. Kikawa speaking about Io as the parentless, the supreme being and quotes Elsdon Best in “The Maori as He Was.” Best was considered the most prolific collector of Maori traditions. In “The Maori as He Was,” he says something very different: “In regard to the superior cult of Io, the Supreme Being, its ritual was resorted to, or practised, only in connection with what were considered highly important matters. It never became known to the many, but was jealously conserved and retained by the few, hence it was not affected by degeneration as were similar concepts in other lands. The Maori preserved the purity of his conception of the Supreme Being by means of withholding it from the bulk of the people, hence Io was never degraded to the level of a tribal war-god, as was the case with Jahweh. To force monotheism on a barbaric people must necessarily result in a form of degeneration of a superior concept” (The Maori as He Was by Best, p.70).[emphasis mine] In other words, they had a concept of supreme god among the other gods. Which means they were NOT monotheistic, Kikawa changes their words. The Maori have this creation story in their Matorohanga school, it states that “'Io” evolved the world out of chaos, created life, and caused all the gods to appear. Support of 'Io's first activities are contained in a cosmogony obtained from the Ngati Maru tribes of Hauraki (101, p. 109). Is that the Bible story? No it is not. Here is what it states:“'Io dwelt in space, the world was dark, and there was water everywhere. 'Io spoke for the first time and said, “Darkness, become a darkness possessing light.” Light (ao) appeared. Then 'Io reversed his words by saying, “Light, become a light possessing darkness.” The light returned to darkness. 'Io spoke a third time and the gist of his command appears to have been in the direction of separating darkness and light so that each would function as he commanded” (p.437, The Coming of the Maori, Peter Buck). Is that the bible story? No it is not. Peter Buck and Abraham Fornander the most quoted sources in Kikawa's book ‘Perpetuated in Righteousness’ (Fornander, An Account of the Polynesian Race, Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities; Folk-lore. Peter Buck, and The Coming of the Maori; Vikings of the Pacific). Is this describing the God of the Bible or his Genesis account given to Moses? Absolutely not! Just because the words light and dark are contained, the meaning is different. Don’t be fooled. History or Not history? Kikawa plays fast and loose with facts, whatever he finds any semblance of truth of history he twists them to fit into his self made puzzle to revision the bibles history. He gives a number of options to choose from. He traces the Hawaiians came from Israel, or Egypt, or the Tower of Babel, wherever he can make it fit in ancient history. Using so many options he gives a false narrative that one of them must be true, when in fact none of them are. He writes that it is not clear when all the Polynesian people left for the Pacific. On p.62 he then writes that some left at the time of the scattering at the tower of Babel and others “did not separate themselves at this point but may have been part of the nation of Israel for a time.” He says that they went the other way to the Islands following the stars for God’s call. He also writes: “It may be the Hawaiian people are descended from these ancient Egyptians” (p.67 2nd ed). If they are from the Egyptians, then they are not Hebrew. But then he proposes another answer for his Hawaii Israel connection. “That the Menehunes could be the people of Menes who became part of Israel. That the Hebrew and Polynesian people have a common heritage for a time, are in the genealogies of the Polynesian people.” (p.72 2nd ed) Dr. Fruchtenbaum who is one of the leading Messianic Jewish scholars on Judaic history and culture wrote in response: “to claim that the Polynesian peoples ‘may have been part of the nation of Israel for a time’ is one of the more horrendous assumptions in the book. There is absolutely no truth to this whatsoever.” Kikawa, “Our Polynesian genealogies also speak of our journey from Uru, called Ur by our Chaldean brothers” “It was ''Io calling them saying, “To the East, in the midst of the great ocean follow the rising sun!” So the course was set to the rising sun, `'Io's creation of light and life” (p.41 4th ed.) Kikawa presents his story as if its true, that God who called them to the Pacific similar to Abraham called by God in Genesis 12 to Canaan. Which is it—choice A, B, C or another? Coming from the Tower of Babel is a terrible argument since they were idolaters and had no connection to Israel who was not even formed yet. Neither did any group of Israelites that came from Egypt separate themselves from the exodus to travel to the Islands. “According to our genealogies, we then moved from our home in Uru, called Ur of the Chaldees by our Arab brothers. Our ancestors sailed down through the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Sea” (p.16, 2nd ed.) Where does it speak of this in Scripture? Its not there! Ernest Renan who wrote History of the People of Israel, which Kikawa quotes, says: “The Maoris of New Zealand have editions of all ancient homeland called Uric, which was to the northwest of Irihia. This land of Uric is probably identical with an ancient land known to the Hawaiians as Ulli-nui. An attempt has been made by Abraham Fornander, S. Percy Smith, and others identify the land of Uru with Ur of Chaldea,' but they admit there is not sufficient information to decide. They seem to have overlooked the people of Uru who live in South America” (p.170 History of the People of Israel, Cole W. Jensen) [underline mine]. So not everyone agrees with his postulations, even those he refers to! But he does not let these obvious facts get in the way of his theory. He does not show any historical facts about their wilderness journey to the Pacific Ocean journey, but does insinuate his imaginative story is historically true. His history is mixed with wrong information and sprinkled with what he calls gleaning, which are “choice quotes” that he has lifted from various stories. It becomes apparent that his deceptive means (knowingly or unknowingly) are used to bring about the conclusion he wants. There are far too many looking for the next best help tool when they should learn how to better explain the gospel to meet the needs to all people. Truth is not pragmatic; the ends does not justify the means. Using the cultures myths as if it is truth is not a Biblical proclamation of truth. Where did these ideas originate from? Kikawa learned his false narrative by another who also taught in YWAM, Don Richardson. Who also thinks the name of god, another nations sky god or a supreme being automatically means it is the same God that was REVEALED to the Hebrews. Again one should not make Bible doctrine from theories or assumptions by a few minor similarities. Richardson’s formula for including these cultures into Christianity ... tell the culture there former supreme (sky) god that they do not know today is God the Father who sent his son. Not only is this void of common sense, it a myth of Biblical proportions (2 Tim.4:4; 1 Tim.1:4; Titus 1:14). The founder of YWAM, Loren Cunningham said to Kikawa, “thank you for your in depth research that that is giving us keys that I believe will help us teach modern day youth in Japan.” Danny Lehman a teaching elder at Calvary chapel Komo Mai brought this heresy on his radio broadcast (this is posted to read). He also invited Leon Sui to church to teach where he led people to worship, Io. Sui is well aware of the stand we took on this years before but used the opportunity. In fact Leon Siu of Aloha Ke Akua worships Io as he did praying to “Io” as God (at Komo mai): “As we stood at the edge of Hale-ma'uma'u Crater, singing praises to 'Io (Jehovah/Savior), “The Gathering Place” (Hilo New Hope). 'Io - Jehovah God- is indeed alive and well in Hawaii nei. (http://across.co.nz/articles.'Io.html). Shame on them for not caring, misleading others to call on who is not God masquerading him as the true God. To believe in this religious inclusivism puts them in a precarious position of NOT believing the truth that is His Word. John Dawson who was president of YWAM states: “Daniel Kikawa's pen points the way to an exciting new understanding of God's loving preparation of Hawai‘i's native sons and daughters for the coming of the Gospel of His Son, Jesus Christ.” … (Endorsement for Perpetuated in Righteousness) Dawson is from New Zealand, went on to approve Kikawa’s book: “Marvelous!…This is what we need for every people group. If only [they} had the clear picture of the Lord’s redemptive destiny that the Hawaiians now possess.” “Daniel Kikawa and the Hawaiian’s are showing us the way.” “Daniel Kikawa’s memorable first book - Perpetuated in Righteousness - enabled us to behold early Hawaiian history as with new eyes.” New eyes but not true eyes! John Dawson endorsed what Kikawa is teaching on the video “God's Fingerprints in Japan,” that God made the Hawaiian culture. On the back cover of the Video DVD Dawson's endorsement states, “After seeking to communicate to Japanese people their beauty for so many years. I know that we have the key to open the correct door.” (I thought the gospel was the key to evangelize the nations. According to Dawson the key is what Kikawa offers--syncretism). At the end of Kikawa's video, Dawson gives a glowing endorsement of what Kikawa is teaching. Dawson comments are posted on Aloha ke Akua website, “…We would like to use this video as a central part of our missionary work in Japan and to use it as an example for our missionaries around the world, of how to present the gospel to indigenous peoples." The Bible says Israel is his special treasure above all the peoples. This directly challenges the nations placed equal to Israel. Deut. 7:6"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth”(repeated in Deut.14:2). This is why God took Abraham to form a nation that would be under him. Outside of the nation of Israel, no nation held to a single God as the Creator, in fact with the all the truth delivered Israel had difficulty keeping it. Micah 4:5 “All the nations may walk in the name of their gods, but we (Israel) will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.” There has always been a distinction between YHWH and others gods. We need to consider Exodus 23:13 "Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips.” God spoke his name and commands only to Israel. But what was taught in YWAM and some Calvary chapels under themes such as re-contextualization, cross cultural evangelism promoted by Lehmann is not accurate or true. Our God is NOT a God of myths, we do not use myths to preach the truth, or to explain truth Who or what is IO “the cult of Io was the acme of the esoteric beliefs of the higher minds of the people. It was unknown to the majority of the people, being confined to the first order of priestly adepts and the superior families” (p.69, The Maori as He Was) The noted part-Maori scholar -sir `Peter-Buck (te Rangi-Hiroa) was-among those who found-the Io cult impossible to accept in its entirety. (p.252 The lost Caravel by Robert Langdon). [emphasis mine]. Kikawa made the supreme gods of so many cultures (10 in his book) the same God of the Bible. But He does not prove they were the same god among these different cultures. There is no biblical grounding in his presentation, to make all these other gods the same as Israel’s God? He keeps saying Polynesians had a concept of a Supreme Being, Io, who was God the creator of the universe. But, the sources explain od a god being elevated to supreme, a god over other gods. “It was found that the concept of a supreme god was not confined to New Zealand. In the Society Islands, Ta'aroa had been elevated-to a similar supreme position as that of Io in New Zealand” (p.526 The Coming of the Maori, Peter Buck). Kikawa refers to Handy at least seven times in his book, yet Handy also says the opposite of Kikawa. The proof is overwhelming, but his reading of the same references he comes to a completely different conclusion. “At that time Handy pointed out that the combination of Io and Uli, in the name Io-uli, suggested a relationship between lo and Uli, “patron god of the priesthood of Hawaii.” While then expressing the opinion that the Maori cult of a supreme being, Io, was “truly an ancient feature of Polynesian religion” he cautioned that proof was lacking that this reference to Io in Hawaii was to a supreme being (5, p.97). Now, after his later findings which include several Hawaiian prayers in which ‘Io is mentioned, he concludes that “the worship of ‘lo in Hawaii is specifically the veneration of Buteo olitaries, the Hawaiian hawk [`io], and that ‘Io and Uli are one and the same god, ‘Io being his esoteric name.” Handy also wrote, “The Samoan and Tongan mythologies postulate the preexistence of Tangaloa, the Supreme Being and creator, as does the lore of the Society Islands that of Taaroa; but in Samoa and Tonga there is no suggestion of the name of Io or Iho. In Hawaii, on the other hand, are several instances of the occurrence of the name lo; but proof that this refers to the Supreme Being is lacking. In the Kumulipo chant is an intriguing line, the meaning of which is entirely- obscure, which reads, “Eggs and Io are life to birds” (146, p. 41). And in a prayer the name appears again, “Decorated at its ends is the malo of the bird-god Io-uli” (99, p. 248) If, as is possible, though to my mind not probable, Io here refers to a Supreme being (p.97) E. S. C. Handy who wrote Polynesian Religion and the Hawaiian cult of ‘Io investigated Matarohanga’s account of the name Io in some Hawaiian charts. He found that the name Io was applied to the Hawaiian Hawk because it cries the sound ioio. He concluded it was specifically a bird cult primarily for the hawk and secondly for the owl. Handy warned against trying to establish Io as the supreme being in Hawaii. To claim Io is THE God, as Kikawa teaches, we would have a bird speaking God’s holy name. Strange isn’t it—that someone wants to sanitize the myths of the indigenous people to make them compatible with Christianity so they can reach these same people in these cultures and not remove their errors. More on Io What is avoided is the information that would be contrary to his theory. Io is also known as Phoronis (an adjective form of Phoroneus: “Phoronean”).[1] She was sometimes compared to the Egyptian goddess Isis, whereas her Egyptian husband Telegonus was Osiris.[ Io was a priestess of the goddess Hera in Argos,[5][12] whose cult her father Inachus was supposed to have introduced to Argos.[5] Zeus noticed Io, a mortal woman, and lusted after her. In the version of the myth told in Prometheus Bound she initially rejected Zeus’ advances, until her father threw her out of his house on the advice of oracles.[14] According to some stories, Zeus then turned Io into a heifer in order to hide her from his wife;[5] others maintain that Hera herself transformed Io.[14][15] The ancients connected Io with the Moon,[21] and in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, where Io encounters Prometheus, she refers to herself as “the horned virgin”. From her relationship with Phoroneus, as sister (or descendant), Io is sometimes called Phoronis.[22] The mythus of Io is one of the most ancient, and at the same time one of the most difficult to explain. The ancients believed Io to be the moon, and there is a distinct tradition that the Argives called the moon Io. (Eustath. Ad Dionys. Perieg. 92; Suid. And Hesych. S. v. Iô.) That Io is identical with the moon cannot be doubted (comp. Eurip. Phoen, 1123; Macrob. Sat. i. 19) Io is also called a moon goddess who wanders the starry heavens symbolized by Argus of the hundred eyes (transformed into a horned heifer that represents the crescent moon) She is an argive princess and Naiad nymph who was loved by the God Zeus that when Hera interrupted Zeus tryst he transformed the maiden into a heifer. It is this very concept that is now in the church that will have some point to the antichrist saying he is the Christ. The Bible says in the latter times people will believe myths (fables), not the truth. “and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4). 1 Timothy 1:3-4: “As I urged you … you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.” Using fables or endless genealogies cannot make one’s cultural origins equal to the Hebrews. This is exactly what we see in this ear-tickling book, where he mixes the holy with the profane and has deceived many into this multiplicity of nations under the same God. |
|
