Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Recommended Posts

  • Members

...you read this, and REALLY consider this question?

 

What if Baptists today are using the wrong Bible, the KJV?

 

That Psalm 12:7 thing is interestin'.

 

It never once refers to versions of the scriptures. And I find that fact a curiosity. Yes it refers to his words, I know that.

 

I have heard that for most of my spiritual life as an IFB, and I question 'where' such a thing started. How could Gods words be pure, if he had to 'purify' it. It wasn't the words that needed to be 'purified' but it showed 'how' pure Gods words were. It was the silver that needed to be purified, not Gods word. From Davids time to now it is perfect, not only since 1611.

 

So, if it was 'purified', and according to this belief, David stated that so, would it not have been 'purified' BEFORE David wrote this section of his Psalm 12? If so, where does it make it a future situation? You know, 1526-1611?

 

Just my opinion, sorta.

 

There is zero evidence that this section of a Psalm of David referred to seven versions of the Holy scriptures.

 

Once again, not wanting to be an offense, but there it is.

 

Read the WHOLE Psalm 12.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AND, concerning Baptismal Regeneration in the KJV text... the 1560 Geneva Bible states...

 

"Which were in time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the days of Noe, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved in the water. To the which also the figure that now saveth us, even baptism agreeth (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request to God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ..."

 

In this old English translation the fellas thought the way our Baptist forefathers thought, that our salvation was in the shed blood of Christ AND the fact of the resurrection, of which our testimony of baptism pictures. If Christ didn't arise, our faith is vain, and we are all still in our sins. 

 

And, look at the wording, "eight souls were saved IN the water..." not BY the water (as the KJV says).

 

So yes, Uke, the word of the Lord does not actually say "saved BY the water", according to the men of God before us, and previous to the KJV.

 

That bible verse, from the 1560 Geneva Bible.

 

Look also in Acts 22:16, and read the one word missing from the KJV, that is in the Tyndale 1526, as well as the Matthews 1537, and 1560 Geneva Bible - "in".

 

                                                                             "...in calling on the Name of the Lord."

 

Kinda an important word, that Alexander Campbell just loved not having there. You might remember the 'father of baptismal regeneration' who converted multitudes of 'Baptist' brethren to his way of thinking, using the words of these verses.

 

There are literally hundreds of verse differences, with doctrinal differences, between the 1611 KJV and 1560 Geneva.

Even between the 1611 and the 1769 KJV there are differences in the punctuation and some of the wording in the verses. (NOT just the orthography, but real word differences.)

 

It seems we Baptists have been teaching scriptures right without even having the right wording in our Bibles. No controversy. No bashing. Just historic bible publishing history, from bibles that are not discarded as some say, but readily available for free online in our world today.

 

Words to ponder, words to get upset about from a supposed IFB? Not really.

 

I am independent. I am fundamental. I am Baptist to the core. And I follow the ways of God that lead to the discovery of the true Baptist doctrines.

I do not preach and teach from the Tyndale. It has a multitude of 'non-biblical', 'non-Baptist' wording of verses. It's not as close to the KJV as some say.

I do not preach and teach from the Matthews 1537, for the same issues, as well as it is not always based on the old texts as some teach.

But I do preach and teach from the 1560 Geneva Bible, for the accuracy it portrays, in it 'agreeing' with Baptist doctrines.

 

I am not bashing KJV, just pointing out there is a difference with it and the 1560 Geneva Bible, when it comes to 'proving' the doctrines of our faith as Baptists. Every denomination, (outside of Baptists who actually believe God wrote his word down for us to learn how to believe), will hate the Geneva, because it teaches in words, what our Baptist forefathers of the faith preached through discernment using the KJV.

 

Now lest I get 'deported' from this site - please take notice: the Original KJV had, according to Scrivner , quoted in Edward F. Hill's book "The King James Version Defended", states there were 2738 alternative verse translations in the 1611's gloss, the side column where notes and references were, (2156 in the O.T., 582 in the N.T.) 

 

8422 marginal notes, 4111 literal meanings in original Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament, as well as 67 variant readings.

With 112 literal renderings of Greek, and 37 variant readings, in the New Testament.

 

So unless I misunderstood my 'teachers' about the KJV, they were serious about knowing what God said, enough to clarify it in the gloss of the publication of 1611.

 

Jus' saying.

 

Not trying to get kicked out nor offend anyone, but wanting to share information about the accuracy of our Baptist heritage.

 

Real IFB men of God need to get off their 'traditional-highhorses' and get into the 1560 Geneva Bible and see what we really ought to teach as fact, and not just 'discern' doctrines and tell people that the verses have a 'code' only understood by Baptists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The very first attack Satan ever had against man was creating doubt about God's word, and then supplanting it with "another" interpretation of what God must have "really" meant or known.

 

Genesis 3:3-5 (KJV)
3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 

Matthew 16:23 (KJV)

So when I see someone trying to attack God's word in like manner, my only response is:

 

Matthew 16:23 (KJV

23  Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

Bro. Garry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The very first attack Satan ever had against man was creating doubt about God's word, and then supplanting it with "another" interpretation of what God must have "really" meant or known.

 

Genesis 3:3-5 (KJV)
3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 

Matthew 16:23 (KJV)

So when I see someone trying to attack God's word in like manner, my only response is:

 

Matthew 16:23 (KJV

23  Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

Bro. Garry

But in this case Gary he is quoting an older version of scripture, the Geneva Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow! I just clicked done. And already there are responses that I knew I would get.

A bunch of nonsense. 

 

Ever read the verse: "He that answereth a matter before he hear it, it is folly and shame to him." ?

 

Yes I know this is a KJV only site. That is why I asked the question here, I thought men here would really take the time and seek the truth, instead of saying, "I already know".

 

I repeat, wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

wait a minute I read an original Geneva Bible at a friends office and it does not have all the modern letters like our king James today has.

 

So which Geneva is the better one the 1560, 1599 or todays?

 

Oh never mind I will just keep my AV I have and keep trusting int he Lord and forget about which version is best.  I am getting to old for this kind of nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And, let us face the facts here gents, if you are not studying to show yourself approved unto God, what use are you? How will anyone take notice of your faith?

If all we can say to someone about our faith is, "I know the verses say one thing, but that is not what they really mean" and things need to be 'spiritually discerned', We are no different than any other 'denomination' that teaches false doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But in this case Gary he is quoting an older version of scripture, the Geneva Bible.

 

His quote: "There are literally hundreds of verse differences, with doctrinal differences, between the 1611 KJV and 1560 Geneva."

 

I am sorry, I hold to the doctrine of an inerrant word of God divinely and miraculously preserved.  What source texts are used for the Geneva bible?  Are they the same exact source texts used for the KJV translation?  No.  With that in mind, I reject your statement that "he is quoting an older version of scripture" that disagrees with the other.  I believe what he is quoting is NOT scripture at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow! Again!!

 

So when all 'good old' bibles before KJV were preached from, people only heard the word of men, and not God?

 

Nobody heard or had the word of God in English before 1611?

 

What about all those preachers that preached from the KJV right after it was printed, but were converted hearing the Geneva Bible earlier? Kinda throws out the 'from faith to faith' thing, or maybe you don't believe that verse either? (Romans 1:17)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm sorry, but I spent 2 years arguing with a textual critic for a theology professor when I attended a BBF bible school.  I am not going down that path again where we get into the "earliest manuscripts" say, battle again.  I will just keep in mind that whatever opinions you may profess here are not based on the word of God in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...