Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

PastorMatt

Where do we draw the line for IFB?

Recommended Posts

Okay Please help me out about the bible translations. I was born and raised on KJV. I dont know what the TR translation is. Is there a place somewere I can find out more about it? Is the TR translation in the original language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this whole suggestion about the KJV being only 'primarily' translated from the KJV and partially translated from the corrupt manuscripts (Sinai, Vatican) is really bothering me. Because if the KJV was translated at all from the corrupt stream, it would be unreliable. To say such a thing really seems to cast doubt on our having any reliable translation in English at all! The KJV is reliable because it is based on the TR - end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was led to the KJB by the Holy Ghost. Since God directed me to put aside other translations and read the KJB that's what I did and what I continue to do. All the other issues and aspects, which I didn't even know about back then, are besides to the point to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was led to the KJB by the Holy Ghost. Since God directed me to put aside other translations and read the KJB that's what I did and what I continue to do. All the other issues and aspects, which I didn't even know about back then, are besides to the point to me.


Amen, brother. Pseudo-scholars will always find ways to cast aspersions on the King James Bible. In the end, you either believe or you don't, you either have faith in what God gave you or you don't.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this whole suggestion about the KJV being only 'primarily' translated from the KJV and partially translated from the corrupt manuscripts (Sinai, Vatican) is really bothering me. Because if the KJV was translated at all from the corrupt stream, it would be unreliable. To say such a thing really seems to cast doubt on our having any reliable translation in English at all! The KJV is reliable because it is based on the TR - end of story.


The KJB is reliable because that's what God gave us in our language today and it's proved itself to be reliable. You might want to be careful about the statement you made because you're saying that if it was translated from the corrupt stream "at all" it's not reliable.

Anywhere in the KJB that you see italics you're reading something that was added by the translators. Most of the time it is immaterial and is only there for readability, but sometimes it makes a difference. These are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more examples:

1. In I Cor. 14 every time "tongue" is mentioned it's translated with the italicized word "unknown" right before. The word "unknown" wasn't there when they translated it, it was added. You either accept it or you don't, and it does make a difference in the meaning.

2. In I John 2:23 it says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." The entire second half of the verse was added and is not in the TR - that's why it's in italics. This part does agree with a corrupt text, but the fact of the matter is in this case the corrupt text was right and the TR was wrong. If that makes me a radical "whatever you want to call me" than fine, but I have faith in what God gave me today.

3. Here's an interesting one. In Duet. 25:4 your King James Old Testament says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." The words "the corn" were not there at the time of translation from Hebrew to English! That's why it's in italics and that is why in several other versions it says "the grain" or something like that. So you are faced with a decision, you either trust what God gave you or you don't. If you trust what God gave you, then you turn to the New Testament and you see where Paul quotes that same passage in I Tim 5:18, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." NO ITALICS! Paul quotes the passage in Duet. 24:4 and he adds the words "the corn." That is an example of how God can clarify things (and He is mighty enough to do that, amen?) when He moves from one language to another in translation. It's not a matter of getting new doctrine and information, but it is a matter of preservation.

How we got the KJB is secondary, as John said. I don't understand all of this sort of stuff, but I don't have to, I believe the promise of preservation given me in Ps. 12:6-7! I'm just saying you don't want to get drug into those sort of conversations about a perfect Greek Text or sooner or later you'll get hit with something that will shake your faith on it (unless of course you're a Greek expert and you can decipher all this stuff and make it all work somehow, which I don't think most people can). I agree with Seth-Doty that you can take the TR and the KJB as both being the authority, but when push comes to shove you you either believe the book God placed in your hands or you don't. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywhere in the KJB that you see italics you're reading something that was added by the translators. Most of the time it is immaterial and is only there for readability, but sometimes it makes a difference. These are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more examples:

1. In I Cor. 14 every time "tongue" is mentioned it's translated with the italicized word "unknown" right before. The word "unknown" wasn't there when they translated it, it was added. You either accept it or you don't, and it does make a difference in the meaning.


The "unknown" in this case was added for clarity in our english language. Try to read the passage with the word "unknown" left out and see if it can make logical sense that way. It doesn't.




2. In I John 2:23 it says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." The entire second half of the verse was added and is not in the TR - that's why it's in italics. This part does agree with a corrupt text, but the fact of the matter is in this case the corrupt text was right and the TR was wrong.


This is a common passage used to attack the TR and your correct that the second part was not included in early editions of the TR. However it was found in some earlier english bibles, the later editions of beza's text and some of the greek texts as well, though not in the majority. It is inaccurate to say that the translators went with it because of the Alexandrian text line.



3. Here's an interesting one. In Duet. 25:4 your King James Old Testament says, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." The words "the corn" were not there at the time of translation from Hebrew to English! That's why it's in italics and that is why in several other versions it says "the grain" or something like that. So you are faced with a decision, you either trust what God gave you or you don't. If you trust what God gave you, then you turn to the New Testament and you see where Paul quotes that same passage in I Tim 5:18, "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." NO ITALICS! Paul quotes the passage in Duet. 24:4 and he adds the words "the corn." That is an example of how God can clarify things (and He is mighty enough to do that, amen?) when He moves from one language to another in translation. It's not a matter of getting new doctrine and information, but it is a matter of preservation.


This one I don't really get your point. You do realize that "corn" in the KJV is used in the old english sense that just means grain don't you? It definitely does not mean "maize" or corn in the cob like what we would call corn these days. Generally in the bible it means wheat.

The OT passage without the italics would not be clear in english. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out" might make sense in hebrew but does not make sense in english. "the corn" was added for clarity in english which is no doubt what paul did when quoting the verse in greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the I Cor. 14 point, I've seen people defend our interpritation of tongues by saying the word "unknown" shouldn't be there. You can read the entire chapter without the word, but like you said it does make more sense if you use "unknown." The word "unknown" in the text can be used (incorrectly of course) to support the satanic jibberish that Charasmatics do. I've seen well meaning Baptists defend against this by saying "unknown" shouldn't be there, which of course it should.

As far as I John 1:23, while it wasn't taken from the corrupt line it does agree with it. So you have a case here were some of the "good" Greek manuscripts agree and some of them do not. In the end, I believe it was settled with the KJB, as I do in all cases.

You're right, "corn of wheat," but what I was trying to point out was that Paul said something In Greek that wasn't in Hebrew, when he was "quoting" Hebrew. It happens all the time. Both are right, both are the word of God, but they are not the same. I believe if something in the KJB disagrees with something in Greek it's a similar situation, even though the KJB was not "God-breathed" like the originals were. But it is still the preserved word of God.

GREEK: Matthew 8:17, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."

Vs.

HEBREW: Is. 53:4, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the doctrinal statement that the churches I have joined use.

1. We believe that love one for another as Jesus loves the believer manifests our discipleship, proves our love for God and symbolizes our authority as New Testament churches. Love is therefore the great commandment of the LORD Jesus Christ upon which all others are dependent (Matt. 22:35-40; John 13:34, 35; John 15:12; 1 John 4:7-21; 1 John 5:1-3; Rev. 2:4, 5).

2. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice (Psalm 119:160; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

3. We believe in the personal triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, equal in divine perfection (Matt. 28:19).

4. We believe in the Genesis account of Creation (Gen. 1; 2).

5. We believe that Satan is a fallen angel, the archenemy of God and man, the unholy god of this world, and that his destiny is the eternal lake of fire (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:11-19; Matt. 25:41; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:10-17; Rev. 20:10).

6. We believe in the virgin birth and sinless humanity of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:18-20; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22).

7. We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ (John 10:30; John 1:1, 14; 2 Cor. 5:19).

8. We believe the Holy Spirit is the divine Administrator for Jesus Christ in His churches (Luke 24:49; John 14:16, 17; Acts 1:4, 5, 8; Acts 2:1-4).

9. We believe that miraculous spiritual manifestation gifts were done away when the Bible was completed. Faith, Hope and Love are the vital abiding Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. chapters 12-14).

10. We believe that Man was created in the image of God and lived in innocency until he fell by voluntary transgression from his sinless state, the result being that all mankind are sinners (Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:6-24; Rom. 5:12, 19).

11. We believe that the suffering and death of Jesus Christ was substitutionary for all mankind and is efficacious only to those who believe (Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2).
12. We believe in the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ and the bodily resurrection of His saints (Matt. 28:1-7; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:42-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

13. We believe in the premillennial, personal, bodily return of Christ as the crowning event of the Gentile age. This event will include the resurrection of the righteous to eternal heaven, and the Millennium will be followed by the resurrection of the unrighteous unto eternal punishment in the lake of fire and that the righteous shall enter into the heaven age (John 14:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19; Rev. 20:4-6; Rev. 20:11-15; Rev. 21:8).

14. We believe that the depraved sinner is saved wholly by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and the requisites to regeneration are repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 13:3-5; John 3:16-18; Acts 20:21; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8, 9), and that the Holy Spirit convicts sinners, regenerates, seals, secures, and indwells every believer (John 3:6; John 16:8, 9; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5).

15. We believe that all who trust Jesus Christ for salvation are eternally secure in Him and shall not perish (John 3:36; John 5:24; John 10:27-30; Rom. 8:35-39; Heb. 10:39; 1 Peter 1:5).

16. We believe that God deals with believers as His children, that He chastises the disobedient, and that He rewards the obedient (Matt. 16:27; Matt. 25:14-23; John 1:12; Heb. 12:5-11; 2 John 8; Rev. 22:12).

17. We believe that Jesus Christ established His church during His ministry on earth and that it is always a local, visible assembly of scripturally baptized believers in covenant relationship to carry out the Commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and each church is an independent, self-governing body, and no other ecclesiastical body may exercise authority over it. We believe that Jesus Christ gave the Great Commission to the New Testament churches only, and that He promised the perpetuity of His churches (Matt. 4:18-22; Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 1:14-20; John 1:35-51; Eph. 3:21).

18. We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord's churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Lord's Supper is a memorial ordinance, restricted to the members of the church observing the ordinance (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12, 38; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 5:11-13; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2, 17-20, 26).

19. We believe that there are two divinely appointed offices in a church, pastors and deacons, to be filled by men whose qualifications are set forth in Titus and 1 Timothy.

20. We believe that all associations, fellowships, and committees are, and properly should be, servants of, and under control of the churches (Matt. 20:25-28).

21. We believe in freedom of worship without interference from the government and affirm our belief in civil obedience, unless the laws and regulations of civil government run contrary to the Holy Scriptures (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-15).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.    Baptists believe that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice!



II.      Baptists believe that the church is to be independent and self-governing!



III.    Baptists believe that the membership must be born again!



IV.    Baptists believe that baptism must be by immersion!



V.      Baptists in a priesthood of believers.



VI.    Baptists believe in soul liberty,  meaning that we are free to worship God as our conscience dictates.



    VII.    Baptists believe in a separation of church and state meaning that the state is not allowed to interfere with the operation and
      function of the church.

 

KJV only & salvation is Grace through faith, not election.  In plain English no Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism or whatever you want to label this heresy.

 

My 2 Cents  :coffee2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic needs reconsidering for people posting. Maybe only IFB church members only can post. If others have questions we already have the Questions forum or area for asking an IFB any question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe first off the line should be IFB...if they do not designate themselves to be IFB then the denial is at the very beginning...whether lounge or any other part of the site what is doctrinally believed come out in their writing...

It really depends on your purpose for this site...go back and look at your initial purpose for this site...have you moved from that purpose have you added or redefined your purpose?

I am not going to an IFB because there is not one where I live, but of the choices that is had the one I am a member is the closest Baptist church to it...

I will say though if your purpose is IFB church goers I would sacrifice the fellowship for the sake of your pupose because of and for the purity of truth to those young IFBer's whose beliefs are growing and need not be brought into cofusion what can be read by those whose beliefs are not fundamental...does that make sense?

My imput...
Deborah

Job Opening! (hint hint for anyone that lives in that area)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not recall where it is in the Old Testament, yet there is some scriptures referring to schooling or studying in the Old Testament that some use to build the doctrine that pastors must have Bible degrees to be a pastor of a New Testament Church. I heard it spoken on one time by the president of a Baptist seminary. He did not come right out & say the pastor must have a degree, yet in a round about way he spoke it seemed to be his belief.

2 Kings 22:14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this whole suggestion about the KJV being only 'primarily' translated from the KJV and partially translated from the corrupt manuscripts (Sinai, Vatican) is really bothering me. Because if the KJV was translated at all from the corrupt stream, it would be unreliable. To say such a thing really seems to cast doubt on our having any reliable translation in English at all! The KJV is reliable because it is based on the TR - end of story.

There's no partial translation from those manuscripts. There are a few Latin manuscripts that were in existence around the first century, and others from Byzantine that were reliable, but in which the corrupt manuscripts borrowed from. Thus when KJV critics attack the KJV they accuse them of using LXX or A, B manuscripts simply because the corrupt text had a similar reading as one in the KJV.

 

__________________

 

And to limit inspiration to the originals I believe is equally erroneous. Why make the distinction? Making the distinction gives the impression that original documents were/are more accurate and reliable than future translations and the NT itself contained numerous translations that Jesus and the apostles quoted from. In Revelation 1, John wrote 7 letters to the seven churches in Asia, which one was the "inspired original"? We can't say "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God" and then claim that inspiration was limited to the "originals" which don't exist. Either inspiration includes what we have now, or we don't have the words of God that He said will never pass away.

 

If inspiration did not include future writings, then explain how inspiration would apply to Revelation since Paul's comment in 2 Timothy 3:16 was written before Revelation.

 

:hijacked: sorry, pet peave of mine when I hear "only in the original" comments.

 

:11backtotopic:

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr James Ach, what does your last 3 post have to do with the topic, Where do we draw the line for IFB?

 

 

And why take a quote form a post I made in another topic & post it here when it has not one single thing to do with the topic at hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr James Ach, what does your last 3 post have to do with the topic, Where do we draw the line for IFB?
 
 
andAnd why take a quote form a post I made in another topic & post it here when it has not one single thing to do with the topic at hand?

Are you drinking again? Paul said use a LITTLE wine for thy stomach's sake, you must have several ulcers :)
 
One response was to thread #49 by Salyan.and within that was a response to several others discussing the KJV issue. Even Bro Matt commented on that issue in post #59 WHICH YOU LIKED.

 

My response quoting 2 Kings was in fact in this thread (I have no idea why you asked "why take a quote from a post I made in another topic" when it is post #73 in THIS THREAD. It was answering where the "college" was in the OT)
 
And finally, on post #65, you started out admitting that your comment was off topic.

 

SO to sum this up:

 

* You asked about a conversation I had out of context when everyone else had the same conversation and you even liked some of the comments on it, but when I do it I get the 3rd degree.

 

* You erroneously stated that I quoted a post you made and I showed you that it in fact is on this thread.

 

* You rake me over the coals for answering a question that you asked about schools in the OT

 

* Then you ask me what my posts have to do with the topic when you had one of your own threads that begin by saying "I know this may be off topic".

 

Lay of the liquor and monitor the Nyquil a little bit.

 

And PS, I haven't said much about the topic because several other people have written some fantastic ideas and really nothing I can improve on, so it was my turn to be quiet.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 And is what Bro. Matt means in the very 1st post.

 

"I think that this board is IFB and therefore those who are not, should be limited. There is a board that i used to belong to that would allow non-baptists to join, but you could only post in a couple forums. I don't post there anymore as they have gone very liberal 

 

 

Where to draw the line of who post on this forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James - opening comment is unnecessary and a little unkind.

It's called humor, it wasn't meant to be serious. But I'm a little sick of getting fired on about petty stuff. Good night I posted a single Bible verse as a post and can't even do that without Jerry's big mouth. He gets away with slandering anyone he doesn't agree with and then turns around and tells others they are not acting Christ-like. 

 

I would simply block him but he was more than one account on here so I have no idea how many other accounts he may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh snapple drink, I forgot to respond to the statement about my post not being directly related to the OP (even though I thought I explained it already) so here goes again; I'll be more specific this time:

 

Just because I went to law school and Bible college doesn't mean that there are not equally intelligent people on here, I do not need to have the preeminence and validate my "credentials" by offering 20,000 posts on every subject on the forum. I have visited homeless shelters and prisons with people that have read the Bible their entire lives that know it probably just as well if not better than I do. Sometimes I simply like to "listen" and see what someone else has to say.

 

That being said, there were several people here that posted very good ideas and I did not feel that I could offer anything different nor improve upon what had already  been mentioned, and frankly, their ideas were simply better than mine. Therefore I posted responses to the things I could answer.

 

So excuse me if I failed to wash my hands before I ate, and I'll try not to eat meat in your presence anymore.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed that any subject we all agree on causes little discussion. I post on 4 sites. Two of them disagree on many subjects such as pre tribulation rapture. The more they argue the more I can explain. They make sure that I am very clear. There are understandings on prophecy that God told Daniel we would not understand till the end so there is still prophecy to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 22 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...