Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Sometimes I feel that non IFB saints, and Calvinists, and, A-millenialists, post their views on OLB just to antaganize us and get converts  to their agenda. They do not really want an honest discussion. We need a solid Statement of Faith. One of the reasons why some of the discussions degenerate into rancor, ill-feeling and dislike is that some folks that are in the forums are not true IFB and they do not want to be. They are leavening OLB with there non-biblical beliefs.

Also, I do think that you should consider someone joining OLB to state there church name. If they are not near a local IFB church than they need to give the name of the previous IFB church they sere a member of.

 

Alan,

 

I think that we deal with the trolls very well. I say let them come, there is always the chance that they will see some validity in the IFB stand for truth. After all, how can we stand for the truth if we never have an opportunity to preach it? I think it a good thing that we have visitors like this so that we can point out their errors and put forth the truth of the IFB position.​

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

So I would like to see the rule about 'KJV only' changed to 'KJV and previous

English versions of the 'proper' line of Bibles, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Bishops, and Geneva Bibles'. I believe it would deepen

our understanding of the text, and reveal some interesting discussions on real 'biblical' teachings. I will still be here whether or not that happens.

I know some will say it brings confusion into the realm, but I disagree, it will solidify what we truly believe.

That's not going to happen, Genevan...

Concerning the Scriptures:

We believe that every word of the scriptures was given by inspiration of God and that every word of of the scriptures has been preserved by his divine power from the tainting of man thus retaining their inspired character in its entirety.
We therefore hold the scriptures to be the foremost authority for faith and practice and reject every doctrine or teaching contrary to the teachings of the 66 books of scripture as nOT of God and false. We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does nOT permit using OTher versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of theKJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholic Adventists, Inc.

​Ha! If the liberals had their way it would also include...

First United Holy Christian Congregational Assembly of Latter Day BaptiPresbyMetholicSuni Adventist-Shias, Inc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Saylan,

Thank you for reinterating the position of OLB on the King James issue. I personnally appreciate it very much and commend you for your stand.

Old Fashioned Preacher, that was hilarious!

I still feel that these trolls that get into these discussions  to push their own non-IBF positions are doing harm to honest and sincere IFB's. Calvinism, A-millenialsim, amd any form of 'Replacement Theology' to most IFB's are heretical doctrines and cause serious division among the brethren. Since these types of saints do not activley soul win converts they draw their converts from their non-biblical 'Bible' studies. And, that is the main reason they are on the OLB forum.  

 

​Sadly, there are many IFB's teaching a form of Replacement Theology that don't even realize that they are.
I'm not speaking in terms of Israel being replaced by the Church, the Bible clearly makes distinction between the two factions.  The Church is not Israel.

However, a great many IFB's have been teaching different forms of  Replacement Theologies.  We talked about one of those replacements in PM a while back. 

When IFB's teach or preach their opinions or their traditions as being fact when they are in clear contradiction to what is written in God's Holy Word, then they are teaching a form of a Replacement Theology.  Replacement Theologies are more prevalent in Churches today, (not just IFB, but all denominations across the board) than most are willing to admit... and it is mind-boggling. 

And so many cannot see the truth written in God's Word because they have been conditioned to believe a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

That's not going to happen, Genevan...

​It is still what I would like.

I knew when I stated such, it would be denied, yet I feel better 'verbalizing' it.

Many don't understand that when they read something in the KJV and acknowledge it as fact, it was more than likely already

written in the Geneva Bible. Thus making what God said in the Geneva just as equal as the KJV. Yet there is much in the 'perversions'

that do the opposite. The older text of the 1560 does nothing but lift the Lord and his truth high, whereas the 'perversions' downgrade

the Lord and his truth. Equalizing the Word of God used earlier than the KJV, with the modern 'perversions' downgrades God's ability

to preserve his word continuously from Davids day to ours, since most will say it was "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

as is spoken in David's day in Psalm 12. Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

​It is still what I would like.

I knew when I stated such, it would be denied, yet I feel better 'verbalizing' it.

Many don't understand that when they read something in the KJV and acknowledge it as fact, it was more than likely already

written in the Geneva Bible. Thus making what God said in the Geneva just as equal as the KJV. Yet there is much in the 'perversions'

that do the opposite. The older text of the 1560 does nothing but lift the Lord and his truth high, whereas the 'perversions' downgrade

the Lord and his truth. Equalizing the Word of God used earlier than the KJV, with the modern 'perversions' downgrades God's ability

to preserve his word continuously from Davids day to ours, since most will say it was "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

as is spoken in David's day in Psalm 12. Or am I missing something?

​Those who have studied the matter know the translators of the KJB consulted and compared the previous translations (Geneva, Bishops, Great, etc.) and there are stats and charts which show how much each of them and the KJB are the same.

While the older Bibles are exceedingly superior to the MVs, it makes for better continuity and ease of discussion when everyone here is quoting from and discussing things from the same Bible.

Being used to the wording of the Geneva Bible I can understand why you would prefer to use such more and why some of the wording in the Geneva fits your thinking better. If I read a book or article which uses MVs I make sure I have my KJB next to me in case a particular quote isn't clear to me or I can't reconcile it in my mind with what I recall from the KJB. While many others use the NIV, NLT, or another newer version because they say they understand it better, for me those are much more difficult to comprehend. I can read a verse or passage from the NIV (for example) and think "huh?" and then turn to the KJB and read the same verse or passage and it's clear to me.

In my case, the Lord led me to the KJB and upon heeding the Lord's command I found the Word to be so clear to me as it never was before no matter which MV I had tried (at that point I had not read any of the pre-KJBs).

Anyway, I can understand your thoughts on this, but this is a KJO board and everyone having the same Bible as our reference does help overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members

You are right to a degree.

When referencing a section of scripture to discuss, it would be of intrinsic value to see if anyone previous to the 1611 worded a 'studied' verse the same way.

(The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.)

Thereby giving 'weight' to what some refer to as 'traditional' IFB beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We have a defender of the KJB here, tho he hasn't posted here in some time, BrandPlucked, and he sometimes compares what other translations/verses say with what the KJB says. Properly done, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how other translations/versions use the same word or term as does the KJB. After all, the KJB translators diligently considered those versions which came before the KJB as they studied the "originals" as part of the process of putting together the KJB.

The board rule is that the KJB is to be used for quotes and the position of the board is that the KJB is perfect as is, with no need of correction from any other sources. It's acceptable to use something from another translation/version as it applies to something within the KJB so long as the use of the other translation/version isn't in the form of attacking the KJB, trying to diminish the KJB, or saying the KJB is wrong on some point. Along with this, the rule of this board is that no translation/version is to be promoted other than the KJB.

So properly used, a non-KJB verse may be posted. That would mean such use must be within the bounds of the rules and position of the board.

Brand Plucked has often shown the KJB verse followed by what others say in agreement with the KJB or which go astray as a part of his defense of the KJB.

It really comes down to intent of the post and keeping within the bounds of the rules and positions of this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We have a defender of the KJB here, tho he hasn't posted here in some time, BrandPlucked, and he sometimes compares what other translations/verses say with what the KJB says. Properly done, there is nothing wrong with pointing out how other translations/versions use the same word or term as does the KJB. After all, the KJB translators diligently considered those versions which came before the KJB as they studied the "originals" as part of the process of putting together the KJB.

The board rule is that the KJB is to be used for quotes and the position of the board is that the KJB is perfect as is, with no need of correction from any other sources. It's acceptable to use something from another translation/version as it applies to something within the KJB so long as the use of the other translation/version isn't in the form of attacking the KJB, trying to diminish the KJB, or saying the KJB is wrong on some point. Along with this, the rule of this board is that no translation/version is to be promoted other than the KJB.

So properly used, a non-KJB verse may be posted. That would mean such use must be within the bounds of the rules and position of the board.

Brand Plucked has often shown the KJB verse followed by what others say in agreement with the KJB or which go astray as a part of his defense of the KJB.

It really comes down to intent of the post and keeping within the bounds of the rules and positions of this board.

​Well said but, I caution, not so much that it becomes monotonous and forms into an agenda.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...