What About Our 'own' Convictions?

[AVBibleBeliever]

I will not baptize a baby because it is not biblical and I can prove from the scriptures I challenged Dave to lead a study from.

 

The reason that some do teach it is because of parts of those scriptures where they say ALL.  But they miss the parts that would show it could not include babies.

 

However you will still meet with opposition to it because the ALL means ALL.  But if Chrsitaians will also understand Paul's writing

 

1Cor 7:13,14 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.   For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 

I saw that this is connected to 1Peter 3:1-8 but what we see here is that Paul by inspiration says that if one of the parents is saved their children are holy.  I would believe that it is those under what we call the age of accountability.  This means that those children are looked on as holy and if they died before the age of accountability they will go to heaven.

 

You and I are made holy by imputation of Christ's Holiness but they are holy from the believing spouse, how much more when both are saved. 

 

If I am correct then there is no need to baptize an infant for many who beptize infants do it so if the baby dies before the age of accountability the child will go to heaven. Of coourse we know the Bible teaches no such thing on infant baptism.

[AVBibleBeliever]

standing firm are you saying you have an Original Autograph. 

 

Please please send it to me I want to see it. 

 

It must be very old and delicate? 

 

what type is it? 

 

Is it on papyrus or sheep skin? 

 

How do you keep it preserved?

 

Is it complete?

[AVBibleBeliever]

I've been an IFB for some 28 years but have been out of my 'element' much as you are, here on this forum, because I have been attending a SBC for 3 years. During those 3 years, I still don't like the rock music, the pants on women, the men in shorts with 'necklaces', the tOBacco chewing, the MV's and some of the other things that SBC  folks do. But though we still try to 'live right, dress right and spit white', we don't try to impose our beliefs on the SBC's because, again, I feel out of my element there. But here, on this IFB forum, I can still voice such things as that the King James Bible (not 'version') is God's pure, holy, inerrant, unadulterated Word for English Speaking people and that the others are corrupted and false, that Jesus Christ is coming back in the clouds pre-millennially, : because this is an IFB forum; not a ''Geneva bible'' forum. Why are you here: to learn or to sway others to your doctrine?

I know and preached at IFB churches in NC where large portions of the congregation and the deacons and elders all smoke cigarettes.  I know IFB's churches, that I preached at, that DON'T believe the KJV as we do here on this site.  I know of some IFB churces were I have watched as women have walked into the church no just in pants but shorts and skorts too.  And everyone of them will say, God's Word is pure, holy, inerrant, Jesus Christ is coming back in the clouds pre-millennially, that Israel has not been 'replaced', and that Calvinism is lie and a slander against the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

So you are right in there with the best.

[LindaR]

standing firm are you saying you have an Original Autograph. 

 

Please please send it to me I want to see it. 

 

It must be very old and delicate? 

 

what type is it? 

 

Is it on papyrus or sheep skin? 

 

How do you keep it preserved?

 

Is it complete?

I guess you didn't pay attention to SFIC's explanation of "apograph". 

 

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J]
apograph

 

AP'OGRAPH n. Gr. An exemplar; a copy or transcript.

Dr. H. D. Williams explains what an "apograph" is in his booklet "The Miracle of Biblical Inspiration"
 

[AVBibleBeliever]

oopps posted before I finished

[AVBibleBeliever]

LindaR,

 

 well the quote I saw was this (I don't see standings post my ignore list is active for them.

 

Standing Firm In Christ, on 27 Jun 2014 - 2:15 PM, said:

"Baptizing is not pouring out.  It is immersion.  Pouring out is translated from the Greek "excheo".  Ekcheo is never used in regards to water baptism in the original autographs."

 

So the thought went because standing is stating emphatically that the original autographs say something.  So the Idea is that they had an original autograph and I wanted to see it.  they would be the first to have one seeing not even the RC has any original autographs, no university, no private collector, no museum has even a piece of an Original Autograph.

 

But once again they is not being forthcoming, seeing there are no original autographs available for us to see, all we have are copies and we can't even verify their accuracy because we have no Original Autographs to compare them with. 

 

How can a person state with full assurance that the Original Autographs say something when in fact they have never seen and original autograph in their life.  It is a false claim.

 

Not only that again he goes to the Greek takes out one word from the context, takes a Greek meaning and attaches it to the English, then forces that meaning back into the English Text as create a pretextual explaination.  But if one compares English scripture with English scripture they would understand that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (identified as such by Paul), and  Peter spoke of as being poured out on the Gentiles. 

 

They can't prove anything from English, they always have to go to unreliable Greek sources which are actually classical Greek definition.  this is one of the reasons I have them on my ignore list they are being disingenuous at best.
 

 

 

[Standing Firm In Christ]

My interlinear is not unreliable.

[LindaR]

How can a person state with full assurance that the Original Autographs say something when in fact they have never seen and original autograph in their life.  It is a false claim.

 

Not only that again he goes to the Greek takes out one word from the context, takes a Greek meaning and attaches it to the English, then forces that meaning back into the English Text as create a pretextual explaination.  But if one compares English scripture with English scripture they would understand that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost (identified as such by Paul), and  Peter spoke of as being poured out on the Gentiles. 

 

They can't prove anything from English, they always have to go to unreliable Greek sources which are actually classical Greek definition.  this is one of the reasons I have them on my ignore list they are being disingenuous at best

 

AVBibleBeliever,

 

Do you not believe that God preserved His Word in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic?

[No Nicolaitans]

Do any of the King James translator's original copies still exist today? I don't mean a printed Bible from 1611...do any of the ACTUAL copies exist that the translators used to ACTUALLY pen the King James?

 

The answer is no. So those who think it is error to refer to Greek and Hebrew...because we don't have the original manuscripts...also have none of their own "original manuscripts" to compare our King James Bible to today. How do they know the King James that we have today is a faithful copy of the "original manuscripts" that the King James translators made when they penned their translation?  

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Careful NN, he'll put you on ignore too.
RoFL

[DaveW]

Do any of the King James translator's original copies still exist today? I don't mean a printed Bible from 1611...do any of the ACTUAL copies exist that the translators used to ACTUALLY pen the King James?

The answer is no. So those who think it is error to refer to Greek and Hebrew...because we don't have the original manuscripts...also have none of their own "original manuscripts" to compare our King James Bible to today. How do they know the King James that we have today is a faithful copy of the "original manuscripts" that the King James translators made when they penned their translation?

They do have some pages of GREEK that have translation notes from one of the KJV translators.
But I don't think the pages are original Greek manuscripts..... so what he translated from must have been a faulty copy......if you follow someone's logic anyway.

[No Nicolaitans]

They do have some pages of GREEK that have translation notes from one of the KJV translators.
But I don't think the pages are original Greek manuscripts..... so what he translated from must have been a faulty copy......if you follow someone's logic anyway.

 

I think I see what you're saying...and correct me if I'm reading you wrong...

 

I wasn't referring to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that the translators used to make their translation; I was referring to the actual pieces of paper that the translators penned themselves as they translated...the actual-original sheets of ENGLISH that they penned when they made the translation. 

 

My understanding is that the original translation papers from the translators were lost in a fire in the 1630s; therefore, the English-onlyists don't have any "original manuscripts" either.

 

Does that make sense, or was I not interpreting what you were saying correctly? 

[Genevanpreacher]

How do they know the King James that we have today is a faithful copy of the "original manuscripts" that the King James translators made when they penned their translation?  

 

Maybe compare this article to our modern KJB even.

 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

[DaveW]

I think I see what you're saying...and correct me if I'm reading you wrong...

I wasn't referring to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that the translators used to make their translation; I was referring to the actual pieces of paper that the translators penned themselves as they translated...the actual-original sheets of ENGLISH that they penned when they made the translation.

My understanding is that the original translation papers from the translators were lost in a fire in the 1630s; therefore, the English-onlyists don't have any "original manuscripts" either.

Does that make sense, or was I not interpreting what you were saying correctly?

I was being a bit silly and it OBviously didn't work.....
They referenced copies only, but they believed they were handling the Word of God.
And yes, there is no complete original - there are a few pages, not of the actual translation but of translation notes, but not an original, so I agree that the argument they use against original Greek etc also applies.

[LindaR]

For the "English only" people who don't believe that we should go to the Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic), where was God's Word BEFORE 1611?