Bible Versions

[rsc2a]

"We are independent so we don't participate in cooperative missions."

vs.

"We send all our kids to the same college."

 

[16KJV11]

So what's the difference?

Between a IFB church and a SBC church?

Those that say they are IFB and would never join a SBC church, why?

This particular pastor preaches against sin, Halloween, R-rated movies, preaches that we should evangelize, preaches that we should live holy lives, that we should be involved in church..............like I said I'm really trying to find a reason that they are different.

No, they aren't KJVO, but them not being KJVO, where are they different in practice and faith?

Serious question.

I have heard our local SBC preacher say that he is as independent as we are.
It is very possible that he is.
Check the missionaries that they support.
Does any of the church's mission money go to the cooperative program?

So what if they do? Than what? Is that so bad?

Yes, if the money is given to individuals or institutions that support unscriptural platforms or ideas.  You don't have a choice in the issue. 

From the SBC website:
In order for a church to be recognized as a cooperating church with the SBC, it must "be in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work,? and be "a bona fide contributor to the Convention's work during the fiscal year preceding" (Article III, Southern Baptist Convention Constitution).

The standard method of contribution is through the Cooperative Program, our unified method of supporting SBC mission causes, and the most common avenue for contribution is through the church's respective Baptist state convention office. You can locate the convention office in your state by clicking here. The staff in that office will be happy to assist you.

The Southern Baptist Convention meets once each year in June. A church would be qualified to send messengers to the annual meeting during any June if it has taken formal action to cooperate (such as a vote of the church body) and has contributed to the work of the Convention during the preceding fiscal year (which ends each September 30).

 

[16KJV11]

Another thing that bothers me about the SBC and conventions in general is that they, as the SBC was confronted with the issue of gay marriage last year, seem to have to have a general consensus in regards to 'the Bible', or cultural issues.  What happens when a moderate or liberal president of the said convention accepts a motion to vote on a controversial issue and an unscriptural official position is accepted by vote of a majority and thus becomes the 'official' position of the denomination?
Yes, SBC are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "SBC" associate the church with the official position?
Even putting that aside, if an unscriptural position is voted in as 'official', wouldn't that position be then acceptable in the colleges and universities that wear the name?
And aren't those the same colleges and universities that you are supporting with the cooperative program?

 

[rsc2a]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

 

[RAIDER]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No more than associating you with morons and idiots.

 

[Bruh]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No, because my next door neighbor has no idea whatsoever what an IFB is.

 

[rsc2a]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No, because my next door neighbor has no idea whatsoever what an IFB is.

Most people couldn't tell you the difference in an IFB, SBC, missionary, or primitive Baptist. They probably couldn't tell you the difference in Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, or Pentecostals.

 

[Matthew1323]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No more than associating you with morons and idiots.

THAT'S RIGHT, BROTHER!

 

[Matthew1323]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No, because my next door neighbor has no idea whatsoever what an IFB is.

Truth be told here.

 

[Matthew1323]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No, because my next door neighbor has no idea whatsoever what an IFB is.

Most people couldn't tell you the difference in an IFB, SBC, missionary, or primitive Baptist. They probably couldn't tell you the difference in Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, or Pentecostals.

In the grand scheme of things, they probably are ok if they can just comprehend the difference between sheep and goats.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The closest I have been to a SBC recently was when I said Hi to Mrs. Hyles Sunday.

Other than Mrs. Hyles I don't really know any bona fide SBCs , except of course on this forum.

Do you think she objects to the cooperative program? They are the leaders of the SBC at First Baptist Dallas.

They are the preeminent church of the SBC in my opinion with their 130 million dollar new building. Makes our building pale in comparison.

 

[Walt]

The pastor studies from the Hebrew and Greek and chooses a translation that best translates from the Hebrew or the Greek.

I've been part of a IFB church my entire adult life, attending a SBC I'm really trying to figure out where this particular SBC church differs from the IFB churches I have attended. Right now all I can see is that they are not KJVO, that being said, I really don't see any difference, honestly.

The main issue is that the different Greek sources use different words. I have no problem with seeing how different translation translate the same word - but a concordance does something similar.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have never understood choosing one and only one Bible version.

When I was growing up my folks were German and Swedish.

We regularly used the Luther Bible and the Gustav Vasa Bible.

Since my mon taught Greek and Latin we frequently read from the book they used in her classes as a reader, Erasmus 1519 Greek-Latin NT.

For English we used the preferred version of our pastor W. B. Riley, The American Standard Version 1901.

All of those were valid Bible versions in the 40s and 50s and they're still valid Bible versions today.

I always carry my phone which has Logos 6 and My Sword Bible which gives me hundreds of valid versions as well as original language texts, Lexicons and commentaries. I most like the Tyndale as it was and is the base English text for our English Bibles today.

 

[rsc2a]

IFBs are considered autonomous, but wouldn't the label "IFB" associate that church with perverts, pedophiles, and ego maniacs?

No more than associating you with morons and idiots.

Of course, there is always the association of the IFB movement with name calling, personal attacks and hate-filled vitriol. Your post would do Ruckman et. al. proud.

 

[rsc2a]

I would be careful of anyone who uses one of the "highly discredited" translations such as the NIV.  Even the liberal theologians have proved it is a poor translation and full of errors.

The NIV is highly discredited by those who have preferences against it, not because it is "full of errors."

The NIV is reliable. It is a remarkable good translation. I know. The more I translated from the Greek and Hebrew, the more my translations sounded like the NIV.

This isn't true at all. The NIV is a work of Satan. I read it in the unbiased "Why the King Jimmy is the Way, the Truth, and the Life".

 

[bgwilkinson]

I have always viewed the Bible through the lens of the versions I used growing up.

I learned that Erasmus improperly added the Comma Johanneum to the texts he produced after his first two 1516 and 1519 because of pressure from the Catholic Church, so from my point of view the comma has no place as a part of the Bible.

While it is doctrinally correct it is more likely a comment and not part of the text of the Bible.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I would be careful of anyone who uses one of the "highly discredited" translations such as the NIV.  Even the liberal theologians have proved it is a poor translation and full of errors.

The NIV is highly discredited by those who have preferences against it, not because it is "full of errors."

The NIV is reliable. It is a remarkable good translation. I know. The more I translated from the Greek and Hebrew, the more my translations sounded like the NIV.

This isn't true at all. The NIV is a work of Satan. I read it in the unbiased "Why the King Jimmy is the Way, the Truth, and the Life".

Those who say that valid Bible versions are the work of Satan or devils bibles are blaspheming the Holy Spirit the breather of the words that are in all valid Bibles.

Miles Smith set the tone for accepting valid versions as the Word of God.
His, ?The Very meanest translation is the Word of God", is just as true as the day he wrote it in the preface to the authentic King James Bible. He spoke this in reference to the 1582 Rheims NT.

here is the real KJV1611

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

I learned as a young person that the translators of King James did the translation to please the King as well as to be faithful to the original languages.
The English text was moved from what Tyndale did in the early 1500s to be more in line with the High Church faction of the Church of England, closer to the Catholic view of the Bible.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

We have been attending a SBC and may join in the next few weeks.

My question is this, if a church is not KJVO where would they differ doctrinally with a church that is KJVO?

This is a wide open question.  You are already familiar with the version debate, so I won't go there.  Instead, from reading your other posts on this thread, you are wondering why you were told all of your life not to join the SBC, and what is so different about them.  Let me address this issue:

SBC vs IFB - These are actually very similar, yet totally different, but the same.  Yep.  I said that correctly.  Of course, every church is independent, so there are varying churches and it is wrong to lump them all into the same boat.

Things you will find different in SBC:
Committees.  So many your head will spin.  You won't know who to ask for what.  It is a little like a union factory.  Every body has there little thing that they do.  Don't do their thing and don't ask them to do anything else.
Cooperative Program.  All missions money goes here.  Rarely is there a personal missionary supported by the church.  This is good and bad depending on your view.  You are supporting the largest missions program in the world.
Focus on teaching and small groups.  Everybody's opinion matters, not just the guy with the microphone.
Emphasis on grace rather than performance based Christianity.
Willingness to accept different opinions without bashing people.  This goes along with any version is okay.  Any doctrine (closely related to truth) is okay.
Desire for evangelism.  This is making a big comeback in the SBC.  While the leadership is starting to push for this, most of the "missions" have no intention towards evangelism and proselyting.
Edification.  There really is alot of teaching and focus on worship from the pulpit.
Incredibly shallow members.  They really don't understand what they are saying in small group.

Things you will find similar in the SBC:
Nepotism.
Manipulation (It just looks different).
Sex scandal.
Foolish teaching.
etc.

Look, the SBC is a group of Baptist churches that operates a little differently.  Don't expect them to be full of heresy or absolutely correct. 

 

[Bruh]

We have been attending a SBC and may join in the next few weeks.

My question is this, if a church is not KJVO where would they differ doctrinally with a church that is KJVO?

This is a wide open question.  You are already familiar with the version debate, so I won't go there.  Instead, from reading your other posts on this thread, you are wondering why you were told all of your life not to join the SBC, and what is so different about them.  Let me address this issue:

SBC vs IFB - These are actually very similar, yet totally different, but the same.  Yep.  I said that correctly.  Of course, every church is independent, so there are varying churches and it is wrong to lump them all into the same boat.

Things you will find different in SBC:
Committees.  So many your head will spin.  You won't know who to ask for what.  It is a little like a union factory.  Every body has there little thing that they do.  Don't do their thing and don't ask them to do anything else.
Cooperative Program.  All missions money goes here.  Rarely is there a personal missionary supported by the church.  This is good and bad depending on your view.  You are supporting the largest missions program in the world.
Focus on teaching and small groups.  Everybody's opinion matters, not just the guy with the microphone.
Emphasis on grace rather than performance based Christianity.
Willingness to accept different opinions without bashing people.  This goes along with any version is okay.  Any doctrine (closely related to truth) is okay.
Desire for evangelism.  This is making a big comeback in the SBC.  While the leadership is starting to push for this, most of the "missions" have no intention towards evangelism and proselyting.
Edification.  There really is alot of teaching and focus on worship from the pulpit.
Incredibly shallow members.  They really don't understand what they are saying in small group.

Things you will find similar in the SBC:
Nepotism.
Manipulation (It just looks different).
Sex scandal.
Foolish teaching.
etc.

Look, the SBC is a group of Baptist churches that operates a little differently.  Don't expect them to be full of heresy or absolutely correct.

Thanks, this is helpful.