Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/13/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    They CANNOT be the same because they were translated from DIFFERENT textual families and through DIFFERENT viewpoints of textual philosophy. Any talk that the "modern translations" are simply an attempt to "modernize" the language of the King James translations is FALSEHOOD. They are not different because they use "modern, updated language." They are different because they were translated from a DIFFERENT SOURCE. So then, IF the SOURCE for the King James translation is truth, then by definition they must be falsehood. On the other hand, IF the SOURCE for the "modern translations" is truth, then by definition the King James translation is falsehood. As for myself, through the Biblical doctrine of preservation and its doctrinal details, I believe that the source for the "modern translations" is FALSEHOOD. Therefore, I will NOT respect them, but will OPPOSE them. I know that some would claim that a King James Only position is a myth because it does not have direct support from the Holy Scriptures. For me my King James positioning, in opposition to the "modern translations," is a doctrinal CONCLUSION that is BUILT UPON my understanding concerning the DOCTRING OF PRESERVATION. So, I would ask - IS THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION A MYTH?
  2. 1 point

    Hubs in the hospital...

    He's still in pain - the level goes up and down. It's a slow process. But he is enjoying the extra study time. We have a lot of sickness with our church right now. Over half the members are ill (and that includes myself and our son). We've sure been going through the fire since last November.
  3. 1 point

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    Leviticus differentiates passover and feast of unleavened bread: Leviticus 23: 5-8. "On the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein." This instruction clearly shows us that the Easter mentioned in Acts is not the same as Passover, as Dave has pointed out. While I do not accept any modern versions, both the NIV and the NASB are clear as to the difference as well. Easter has always been a pagan festival, in homage to Ishtar, the fertility goddess. It has NOTHING to do with Christ, so Tyndale got it wrong. Period. Christ is our Passover Lamb, not our fertility lamb. And before you jump on me as you did Dave, Jordan, rest assured that I don't believe Tyndale was stupid in any way. Just wrong to call Christ our Easter Lamb. Just as wrong as the modern translators who were wanting to refer to Christ as the "pig of God" because the people of Papua New Guinea didn't know what sheep were and held pigs as sacred. There is no mistake about Easter in the KJV. "Pascha" means Easter, and is the word used in Acts. "Pesach" means Passover. Two different words, two different meanings. The feast of Eostre (Ishtar, Easter) took place around the same time as Passover. Herod was referencing Easter - the festival of Ishtar - not the resurrection of Christ nor even Passover. Herod was an Edomite. His ancestors had converted to Judaism, but that doesn't mean Herod did. By his referring to the feast of homage to Ishtar, it is clear he was a pagan.
  4. 1 point

    Hubs in the hospital...

    Great news LuAnne
  5. 1 point

    Jehovah's Witness

    When we used to foster children, we had two lads from a JW background. Social services told us the mother was a devout JW, but I was told by someone that she had been disfellowshipped.. We were told that we could not take them to church,. In such cases my wife and took turns to attend services. On the first Sunday, the elder said "can we come to church with you?" We didn't have them for very long but they came with us to church each Sunday they were there.
  6. 1 point
    The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation. In that study the following questions would be answered -- 1. Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word? 2. If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word? 3. If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word? 4. If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word? 5. If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word? As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered -- 1. What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word? 2. Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad. As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.
  7. 1 point
    No Nicolaitans

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    I'll be honest; in that, I thought you were avoiding my questions. After you responded, my first thought was that you didn't respond sooner, because you had to look up something to justify your personal beliefs. You are free to believe what you want, and I can't prove if you're right in your own mind or not. What I can respond to is the scriptural support you provided. You do realize that you are using a "hearing" miracle to justify your "written...also known as...translation" beliefs??? Here...let me try something... Are those your words? Let me answer for you... Yes they are. I used the exact words that you used. Did I leave anything out...or possibly make it say what I wanted it to say...or something totally different than what you actually said? Hmmmm....
  8. 1 point
    Jordan Kurecki

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    Tyndale used Passover and Easter interchangably in his text. In fact Tyndales NT said Christ is our Easter lamb. The anglo saxon NT used the word Easter every place where the Greek word “Pascha” was used. Easter is the same as Passover in Acts 12. And no the days of unleavened bread starting does not mean it could not have been Passover. Ezekiel 45:21 KJV [21] In the first month , in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. I dont think William Tyndale was so stupid that he thought Christ wasn’t the passover lamb. Its clear from his translation, and the anglo saxon bible that Easter at one point in the English language was a synonym for passover. This rediculous idea about a Pagan holiday being called by the same Greek name in NT time as the Jewish Passover is nonsense and it makes it hard for people to take us seriously when we defend the KJV. Easter in Acts 12 is not a pagan holiday and neither is it a “goof”, It was simply a synonym for Passover in the English language at that time. According to Webster 1828 E'ASTER, n. A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque. According to Smiths Bible dictionary Easter. Act 12:4. In the earlier English versions, Easter has been frequently used as the translation of pascha, (Passover). In the Authorized Version, Passover was substituted in all passages but this; and in the new Revision, Passover is used here. See Passover. Easton: In the early English versions this word was frequently used as the translation of the Greek pascha (the Passover). When the Authorized Version (1611) was formed, the word “passover” was used in all passages in which this word pascha occurred, except in Acts 12
  9. 1 point

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    I'm just a simple guy, but I think I can see a parallel between what Mr. Roby zeros in on and other so called "pet theories". We have had those that have passed through before trying to set us straight with their pet theory ideas. We see this also outside of our forum. They are always the ones that cannot seem to focus on anything outside of one issue that takes up their whole thought processes. We've seen it here in the form of just one that I will mention out of the many, and that is with the former member SFIC who has been banned , his sole issue in any interaction with others was with the tithe. Out in the real world outside of the Internet these folks can be seen promoting their pet theories such as; women wearing pants; women should wear hats; men wearing beards; universal and local church; the tithe. Anyway you get the idea. Although it may be interesting for some who have never heard these theories and the valid arguments against them to read for the first time, the proponent of these pet theories is almost never convinced of the error of his or her ways and ends up being banned or just moving along to what they consider easier targets. So, having said all of that it leaves my simple mind to wonder if the Bible itself might address situations such as these. Pr 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; If any of what I have written seems uncharitable I would offer this: 2Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
  10. 1 point

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    And once again you are missing the point and presenting something sideways. The whole point of the NKJV is to own the copyright.... ANYONE who uses the NKJV to print a Bible must pay the owners of that copyright. Plenty of people print KJV Bibles without making money, some without even covering their costs. EVERY other Bible version (as far as I know) has a requirement to pay the copyright holders a reproduction fee. THAT is why the NKJV was really produced - to gain rights to the reproduction fees. No matter what printer prints it, the NKJV copyright holder makes money. And by the way Brother Markle, the UK copyright is regarding the veracity of the KJV text, meaning it cannot be changed and still called the KJV. It can be freely reproduced without payment to the UK copyright holders, as long as the text is preserved. Not chasing money there......
  11. 1 point
    Pastor Scott Markle

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts: 1. That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES. (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.) 2. That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.
  12. 1 point
    I agree whole-heartedly with the answers that have been given above by Brother Dave and Brother John. Yet I would add that spiritual growth AFTER salvation may be greatly helped or hindered by the church that an individual chooses and by the teaching that an individual receives through that church. 1 Peter 2:2 states, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." According to this verse, spiritual growth AFTER salvation is rooted in and founded upon the teaching of God's Word. Therefore, a church that is less Biblically faithful in its teaching will be less helpful to a saved individual's spiritual growth; and a church that is more Biblically faithful in its teaching will be more helpful to a saved individual's spiritual growth.
  13. 1 point
    John Young

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    A selection of all the "Goofs and booboos" of the modernist movement in the ongoing process of trying to find and fix the Goofs and booboos.... I'm sure the'll get them all eventually...
  14. 1 point
    I admit to not having read all f this that you wrote. but promise that I will read it all. Topics like this, because of their length do not lend themselves well to being posted in the general message section of the board. That's because the general section is formatted as a message board and aimed at conversation such as posts and replies. Because of its length a post this long doesn't lend itself to conversation as such. This is actually in the form of a devotion or study and would be better received by all as a devotion in the board section for "devotions". A lot of members think that if they don't post something like this in the general section no one will read it. But i have found that this is not so because it will show up as a new post from you in everyone's personal settings for new posts. It will also show a a new post in the "devotions" section on the right side bar.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00

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...