- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2,817
- Reaction score
- 341
- Points
- 83
admin I normally don't read post that go on forever but I have known you to be fair and honest along with longsuffering for mitex let him wander away . I get headaches reading these posts. What I'm saying is don't lower yourself ....unknown who mitex is he could use some grace and mercy..
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 63
Mitex said:
There are many Christians that have grown up hearing nothing other than the NIV or NKJV or some other translation. My current pastor has used the NIV for probably 30 years and he never criticizes it. The fact that you sat under someone using the KJV doesn't make you right and everybody else wrong. You harp on the assumption that pastors who use modern translations cast doubt in peoples' minds concerning the word of God while all the time you cast doubts in the minds of every other Christian who doesn't have the same experience you did.
I showed you that you are wrong concerning Charles Spurgeon and yet you will not acknowledge that he never believed the nonsense you do because you are dishonest. You were dishonest in implying Spurgeon was Ruckman before Ruckman was born knowing full well that taking one quote and leaving many others out that show beyond a doubt what he really believed did not fit your agenda.
Because of your personal experience with a pastor who preached out of the KJV you require all other Christians meet the same requirements you have. You know full well that there have been many changes in the KJV 1611 and not a single publisher today prints a KJV edition that isn't different than all the other current editions.
The bottom line is you are self deceived or you are just are downright dishonest. You want everything to be black and white because that is what you want your reality to be. I think what you really need to do is just grow up.
C
christundivided
Guest
Mitex said:
I just love the term "AV". All bible translations are authorized by someone. King James doesn't mean anything when it comes to authority.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
By your own confession the church that you took over was started by preachers believing and preaching the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. My point about you taking over a church and causing them to abandon their Bibles for your preferred version is this:admin said:Yep! I have already helped a church abandon the KJV for the NIV. The plant in Michigan started with the NASB95 and then abandoned that for the ESV. I could not convince them to go the NIV route. They must prefer the 5" thick ESV Study Bible.
The church I am in now uses whatever translation makes best sense of the passage.
See... truth is not about a particular version. It is about the clear meaning of God's Word which reveals Christ and causes our devotions to be on Him alone. That is what it is all about, right?!
1) Had a "KJVO" taken over a local church and "taught" them out of their NASB, NIV or 5 inch thick ESV the pastors would have been labelled as "church splitters", "heretics" or worse.
2) Had the congregants vocally objected to the introduction of your preferred version, they would have been labelled as "church splitters", "trouble makers", or worse.
Personally, I find this entire tradition of seminary students or pastors leaving their church to take over established churches as peculiar. Not something that I have done or ever foresee doing, nor do I see precedence for it in the Scriptures. This particular point might, no doubt, be better suited for another section of this forum.
The word of God is truth (J 17:17) and those who cause others to doubt the word of God are purveyors of doubt. The Lord Jesus Christ is truth (J 14:6) and those who cause others to doubt the Lord Jesus Christ are skeptics of the worst sort. The truth is about the Lord Jesus Christ and His word.
Our ministries must be focused on the Lord Jesus Christ and His word. For all those that you genuinely helped find salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ from whatever version you preferred that week, I'm genuinely happy. For those you helped understand the word of God through your teaching and use of the meanest of translations, copies or compilations I'm genuinely happy. I rejoice with you and in the Lord Jesus Christ for His wonderful mercy and grace. I have no real objections that you or anyone else reads or preaches from your preferred version. We don't have any cards or notes on our pulpits, nor do we insist that speakers preach from "only the KJV", like a certain non-KJVO Fundamentalist University does. We do encourage all believers in our local churches to read from the same Bible and sing from the same song book in any congregational reading or singing - for practical purposes. No one is "kicked out of the church" for owning, reading or bringing their version to our meetings. Since we do not have a clergy-laity practice in our church (viz. only those ordained or with degrees in divinity, etc. are permitted to speak) we have a diverse set of people speaking in open meetings and many times they read or speak from their preferred version. Do we encourage them to read from the Standard version? Yes. Do we lord over them and force them to read from the Authorized Version? No. Do we belittle their version in any way? No. Do we attack their version? No. Do we make fun of their version? No. Do tell them to burn their version? No. Do we tell them that their version has errors in it? No. Do we tell them that their version doesn't follow the original? No. Do we encourage them to READ, BELIEVE, SEARCH, PREACH and OBEY their God given Bible? Yes, on a daily basis, both in the Church and outside of the Church in public and private ministries. I personally use more versions on a daily basis than most Christians do or have done in a life time. I certainly believe every version at least as much, if not more, than you believe the A.V.
I don't see how it helps anyone get saved or grow in grace by continued attacks on the extant Scriptures. I'm not persuaded that calling words, phrases, verses, chapters and books "errors", "boo-boos", "mistakes", "mistranslations", "inaccurate", "blunders", "flaws", "absurdities" and worse is the proper method to reveal Christ and cause our devotion to be on Him alone. I'm not for burning Bibles - any of them. I'm not for this silly mocking of versions with acronyms. I am for genuine faith in the extant Scriptures and take just exception to those who cause others to doubt words, phrases, verses, chapter or books in our God given Bible.
I hope this sheds some light on some things and that you spare the reader the usual application of your liquorish twisting machine to my post.
C
christundivided
Guest
Mitex said:
Get a life. You're the one "casting doubt". Your preference for a early modern English translation of flawed texts is silly.... down right dishonorable. You're one of only a few cheering your cause. Do you remember the words in your KJV....
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Your small little group is fading from existence. I wonder how you'll apply Acts 5:39 when the vast majority of those naming the name of Christ finally relegate the KJV to history????
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I hope when you use the word "authorized" you are mentally adding "by the Anglican church" because that's really the only authorization the KJV can claim. Likewise, when you use the words "standard English Bible", I hope you are referring to the NIV.
Mitex said:
What would you think of a secular government and a state church presssuring and forcing local churches and believers to abandon their accepted, loved, and believed English Bible [the Geneva Bible] for a new state promoted translation that favored Episcopal church government views and divine right of kings views?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
logos1560 said:
Rick, your denominational slip is showing, please tuck it in. The full quote reads:
Is there a particular reason that you didn't acknowledge my points or give the full quote? Had a "KJVO" taken over a local church and "taught" them out of using and believing their NASB, NIV or 5 inch thick ESV, wouldn't the pastors have been labelled as "church splitters", "heretics" or worse by some of those on this forum? Had the congregants vocally objected to the introduction of your preferred version, wouldn't they have been labelled as "church splitters", "trouble makers", or worse by some of those on this forum? Do I have a valid point or not?
Secular governments and State Churches have been trying to burn, destroy and rid the Church of God of the extant Scriptures for a millennium - they have never been successful in the long run. The Geneva Bible wasn't called the London Bible, now was it? The Bishop's Bible was the State Church version of choice, but couldn't quite keep that "other version" out of the homes of believers. Personally I think any local church that cow tows to the government or State church is very weak indeed. I also think that if there was as much denominational bias as you want to pretend there is in our Authorized English Version then the Puritans would have gone back to the Geneva when they came into power and no Baptist of any salt would have ever used it. I also find it hard to fathom any good Baptist cow towing to a State Church that had lost it's power long ago. Yet, there was old Charlie by the river bowing down to the A.V. in his famous sermon on the Bible. What's this? Your English Baptist brothers in the faith were voluntarily preaching from our English Authorized Version long before your great grandfather was weaned off the teat? Why Mr. Fundamentalist, John R. Rice, a Baptist by the way, said:
"There are many reasons why the principle translation used in the pulpit and the Sunday school and the home should be the King James Version. There are some complaints against the King James Version, particularly by the liberals. They say there are 'so many archaic words.' [yes, they do, they certainly do, Dr. John, Ed.] Actually, you will not find one archaic word of clouded meaning to every three pages...But someone exclaims, 'Today young people cannot understand the King James Version.' The complaint is silly. [Um..Dr. John, we need to be a kinder gentler nation!, Ed.] I taught college sophomores Shakespeare and there are ten times as many obsolete or archaic terms in Shakespeare as are in our King James translation of the same period, and the translation of the King James Version is more classic, more influential and more eternal than all the writings of Shakespeare...One archaic word in three or four chapters doe snot faze any interested reader...Some enthusiastic teachers may get young people interested in a modern version and so think that they learn it more easily. But the same enthusiasm would get them to enjoy the King James as much....Some people do not love the Bible and do not read it, not because of archaic words but because of the natural, human antipathy to spiritual things, the indifference of the sinful, human heart to divine things. Their real antipathy is not toward the King James Version but toward the Bible itself." Our God-Breathed Book - The Bible, Dr. John R. Rice, pg. 380-381.
Stay focused and deal with the issue. No secular government or State Church can force the Church of God as whole to use any Bible, much less preach, teach and believe a Bible they don't believe. Imagine if you will President Obama becoming a Jehovah's Witness and then trying to force your local Baptist Church to read the Watchtower and preach from the New World Translation. Would a good Baptist such as yourself bow to such pressure? I trow not.