Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/11/2019 in Posts

  1. 6 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. 5 points
    Jerry

    Sinking In The Mire

    Sinking In The Mire Jeremiah 38:6a Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. The prophet Jeremiah's enemies gathered together against him, seeking to put him to death. As a result, he was cast into the dungeon, where he began to sink in the mire. Jeremiah 38:6b And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire: so Jeremiah sunk in the mire. Adversities and afflictions will often seem to rise against us, much like Jeremiah's enemies rose against him. Left with no firm footing, you may find yourself sinking in the mire of despair, overwhelmed and oppressed. In the midst of discouragement, your eyes fail you of tears, your voice chokes up and your cry to the gates of Heaven seems to come to no avail, and it becomes harder to look up to the Lord in hope. Psalms 69:1-3 Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. Isaiah 38:14a Like a crane or a swallow, so did I chatter: I did mourn as a dove: mine eyes fail with looking upward: But the Lord has not forsaken you, He has not forgotten you, He has not left you to face these trials alone or in your own strength. He is only waiting for you to cry out to Him in faith. Will you look to Him to deliver you from your trouble? Will you trust Him? The following quote from the book of Lamentations very likely expresses Jeremiah's prayer from this same dungeon, where he was literally sinking in the mire: Lamentations 3:52-56 Mine enemies chased me sore, like a bird, without cause. They have cut off my life in the dungeon, and cast a stone upon me. Waters flowed over mine head; then I said, I am cut off. I called upon thy name, O LORD, out of the low dungeon. Thou hast heard my voice: hide not thine ear at my breathing, at my cry. Isaiah 38:14b O LORD, I am oppressed; undertake for me. Psalms 56:3-4 What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee. In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me. Jeremiah 38:7-10 Now when Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, one of the eunuchs which was in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon; the king then sitting in the gate of Benjamin; Ebedmelech went forth out of the king's house, and spake to the king, saying, My lord the king, these men have done evil in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have cast into the dungeon; and he is like to die for hunger in the place where he is: for there is no more bread in the city. Then the king commanded Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, saying, Take from hence thirty men with thee, and take up Jeremiah the prophet out of the dungeon, before he die. Just like King Zedekiah sent his servant Ebedmelech to rescue Jeremiah from his affliction, so too will you find that the Lord God will send His servant (whatever He may choose, however He may choose - according to His will) to help you in your distress. (Note: the name Ebedmelech literally means "servant of the King".) When the mire seems the deepest and you are ready to give up, you will find your Heavenly Father is still at work behind the scenes, setting in motion the plan that will release you from your imprisonment. Psalms 91:14-16 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation. Lamentations 3:57-58 Thou drewest near in the day that I called upon thee: thou saidst, Fear not. O Lord, thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul; thou hast redeemed my life. Jeremiah 38:11-13 So Ebedmelech took the men with him, and went into the house of the king under the treasury, and took thence old cast clouts and old rotten rags, and let them down by cords into the dungeon to Jeremiah. And Ebedmelech the Ethiopian said unto Jeremiah, Put now these old cast clouts and rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords. And Jeremiah did so. So they drew up Jeremiah with cords, and took him up out of the dungeon: and Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison. Keep your focus on the Lord Jesus Christ, trust in Him and His Word - and like Jeremiah was drawn out of the mire of his prison, so too will you be drawn up out of the mire and the waters that have flooded your soul. Drawn With Cords Hosea 11:4a I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love. Drawn From Above Psalms 18:16 He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters. Set Upon A Rock Psalms 40:1-3 I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings. And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD. Whatever the situation your are facing now, when it seems that your soul is sinking deep in the mire, look above - and let Jesus draw you up out of that prison of despair, and set your feet back upon the solid rock! Only in Him will you find the firm footing to face the trials of life. Love Lifted Me (Lyrics: James Rowe) I was sinking deep in sin, far from the peaceful shore, Very deeply stained within, sinking to rise no more, But the Master of the sea, heard my despairing cry, From the waters lifted me, now safe am I. Chorus: Love lifted me! Love lifted me! When nothing else could help Love lifted me! Souls in danger look above, Jesus completely saves, He will lift you by His love, out of the angry waves. He’s the Master of the sea, billows His will obey, He your Savior wants to be, be saved today. November 19th/05 Jerry Bouey http://www.earnestlycontending.com/ewministries/jerry/sinkinginthemire.html
  3. 5 points
    I must have a different KJV. I have been reading it for 44 years and have yet to find a goof or booboo.
  4. 5 points
    Salyan

    How do you explain the Holy Light?

    Lucian, I would like to challenge your approach to 'proving' what is heretical vs. authentic. Your post appears to suggest that you are allowing miracles to 'prove' truth. I would challenge you that truth should prove all things by itself. I assume you're Orthodox? I think we can establish a base that we can both agree with - that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. God Himself inspired its writing, and the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). Can we start with the agreement that the Bible is God's direct Word to mankind? As God is Holy, True and Perfect, so His Word is True. It cannot be anything but True. Therefore, we can judge all things by it. We are, in fact, instructed to prove all things; hold fast that which is true (1 Thess. 5:21). Consider: And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Acts 17:10-12) So we are told to look in the Bible to see if what we are taught by other sources is true. Consider also: For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:16-21) Here Peter is referring to the Transfiguration described in Matthew 17. This was an amazing, miraculous event where the disciples not only saw Jesus as God in His glory, but also saw the great (dead) prophets speaking to Him! What an amazing sign and event this was - yet Peter tells us in this passage that the written Word of God (the Bible) is a more sure source of information and truth (i.e. prophecy) than that miraculous sign. The principle here is that the Bible is to be our first source of Truth - more so than any sign. We do see in the Bible where at different times, God used signs & wonders - especially in His dealing with the Jews. But that was never His primary form of communication. God sent prophets to tell His people His truth; many of those prophets He used to write down His Word in the Bible. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37). Moreover, we are repeatedly warned that there will be false prophets, and false christs, that will use signs and wonders to deceive people: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders... (2 Thess. 2:9) And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many... Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. (Matthew 24:11, 23-25) (Mark 13:21-22) And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast... (Rev. 13:11-14a) This last one specifically refers to fire being used as a false sign! Remember also, that in the time of the Exodus, the priests of the false Egyptian gods were able to recreate some of the miracles of the plagues. Satan is not without power, and uses that power to deceive people lest they believe in the true Gospel of God and be saved. And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the Lord had said. And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. (Exodus 7:22; 8:17) This, then, is what the Bible says about all signs and wonders; that they must be proven by Scripture, that Scripture is always the final Word, and that they can be the work of false prophets and must not be implicitly trusted. Is this Holy Fire used to demonstrate the veracity of Orthodoxy? Then one must look at the doctrine of Orthodoxy. How does it compare to the Bible? Ephesians 2:5-6 says: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast. Is Orthodox doctrine in agreement with this? Does it agree with the teaching of Isaiah 53 and the rest of Scripture which teach that Christ is our substitutionary atonement - that God literally accepted His Death as sacrifice for sin in our stead? If not, you must reject the doctrines of men in favor of the teaching of the Word of God. Trying to worship God using the doctrines of men is vain. Look at Matthew 15:9 (But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men) and Mark 7:7; study Colossians 2 which warns about replacing the simple Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ's finished work alone for a works-based attempt at pleasing God. (which can never succeed: But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6) You had asked what I thought about the Holy Fire. First, my library training (I'm a Library Tech by education) teaches me not to trust a site that has an inherent interest in the subject. In other words, of course an Orthodox site will cite proof for this phenomenon. Any claim of scientific proof needs to be backed up by an impartial witness. Secondly, a quick Wikipedia search shows that this phenomenon has apparently been debunked by multiple individuals over the past millennium. Thirdly, (and actually the most important), since the Bible warns me of false teachers using miracles, and since I know Orthodox doctrine is not in line with the Bible, I honestly don't care whether it's an authentic miracle or a hoax. It could be a miracle of Satan, or it could be a hoax of the priests. Doesn't matter. I will trust the Bible, God's Word, as True and Truth and follow its teachings rather than that of the Orthodox church. Food for thought. I was not 'raised Baptist', rather as a born-again believer I choose to attend the Baptist church that I do because I believe its teachings align most closely with the Bible.
  5. 5 points
    Jim_Alaska

    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.
  6. 5 points
    Matt Souza

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    I never put much weight into those who is against the KJV only when their only explanation is experience, common sense, & audience request. I'll put my faith and trust in God and His Word, not what man says. As to the original topic: While I believe the KJV is perfectly preserved for English speaking people, I do not have a problem with Archaic words being updated. Modern version failed because they have changed meaning of verses by re translating the verse.
  7. 4 points
    Matt Souza

    God will bless Assyria...

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I definitely don't speak that style of English or any style of English of any translation. Also, if I picked the Bible based upon my area's style, I would be using the ebonics Bible and it would have no grammatical structure, spelling errors, abbreviations, and not use complete sentences.
  8. 4 points
    Jerry

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    Ditto Jim. On my part, it has only been 21-22 years of being Kjvonly (though leaning that way for several years before I actually started doing personal research on the matter). I especially focussed on Bible difficulties - and have never found an “error” that couldn’t be reconciled in some way - whether by studying out the exact English words of the passage or by comparing related passages. And inthe same manner, have proven over and over that other versions do have errors - whether by omissions creating a contradiction or difficulty or by reading the exact wording of that verse or passage in that modern version to see there is a conflict (and not finding the same error or conflict in the Kjv). For the record Robycop, it is one thing to prove there is an error and another thing to just say there is. Just because you disagree with how someone reconciles or explains a Bible difficulty does not prove there is actually one. You’ve already explained your issue with the word Easter in Acts 12, now list or show us the myriad other actual errors you have personally found - if in fact you have found some. I can guarantee that the believers in the authenticity of the Kjv here can defend the Kjv from all those supposed errors, and show from each passage or related passages that our King James Bible is not in error. Can you do that with your favourite modern Bible version(s)? If not, you are just creating more smokescreens and being a stumbling block to the faith of any believer following your philosophy. For someone who claims to love the Lord and His Word, that should be something that you would strive against. P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again.
  9. 4 points
    Jim_Alaska

    How do you explain the Holy Light?

    Thank you Salyan, well thought out and said. Lucian, you would be well served to closely study what Salyan has written here. Please don't just read the words over quickly, but study them and compare them to Scripture.
  10. 4 points
    Rebecca

    Happy Birthday Online Baptist!

    This site is old enough to have a drivers license. They grow up so fast.
  11. 4 points
    DaveW

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    (My last post was posted at the same time as Mr Roby, when it seemed as though he was ignoring the thread....) Oh my - the old Easter issue..... Have you READ the Bible sir? Acts 12 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered himto four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Notice in the text quoted above that vs 3 says he arrested Peter in the days of unleavened bread? That is somewhat significant, as the days of unleavened bread was the feast that directly followed the Passover feast. That means that the Day of Passover had already finished and sometime during the next 6 days Peter was arrested, during the days of unleavened bread. It may take some actual Bible study, but if you research the Passover and also the feast of unleavened bread you will see it is true. Therefore when Herod intended to bring forth Peter after Easter, it CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN referring to the Passover, for that was already days past when Peter was arrested. Sure enough Easter as we know it today was not a known named event, but the pagan feast of harvest was certainly known, and at that time, and based on the harvest moons, just as Easter is today. The Translators, who were aware of the pagan feast and its alignment with modern Easter used the CORRECT term to distinguish the even from the Passover WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE TEXT, it could not have been, seeing the Passover was already days past, and it was now the time of the feast of unleavened bread. Any version that renders the word as passover rather than Easter is simply incorrect according to the Bible itself. Easter is the correct rendering, and in fact the only rendering that makes Biblical sense. Strike one, try again.
  12. 4 points
    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...
  13. 3 points
    Salyan

    Antichrist will come from

    I agree that that's how the term originated. However, by the New Testament times, and perhaps before, it was used both for traditional Judea, and for all Israel as a whole (particularly by outsiders). Example of the word 'Jew' used to refer to non-Judaic tribes: John 6:41,52 (Capernaum, Galilee) Examples of the word 'Jew' used to refer to corporate Israel: Matthew 2:2-6 (the wise men referred to the one that 'should rule Israel' as 'the King of the Jews') John 2:13; 5:1 (The Passover & feasts were not given only to Judah/Benjamin/Levi, but to all Israel) Romans 3:9, 29, 9:24; 1 Cor. 1:22-24; 10:32, 12:13 (Jews as opposed to Gentiles, which are commonly understood to be non-Israelitish peoples). Galatians 1:13-14 (Reference to the Jews religion - while centered in Jerusalem, it was never only a Judean religion) Basically any reference to synagogues or Jews in Asia or Europe. I think it's a stretch to assume that the only reference we have to those following Judaism or identified as Jews in these parts of the world were only from 3 tribes. Frankly, long before the New Testament times, I suspect that all the references in Esther to 'Jews' referred to them corporately. We know that many tribes were removed to Persia; are we to assume that the national identity was sustained in exile to such a great extent that they were not all affected by these events? All modern Jews - most of whom have no idea which tribe they are descended from - celebrate Purim just as all Jews were told to do in Esther 9. That's arguing from silence.
  14. 3 points
    No Nicolaitans

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Now wait a minute... You reject the SDA's version and others because they're from false religions...BUT...you accept the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus even though they were discovered in the possession of false religions. Interesting... You sir, are the epitome of doing what's right in your own eyes. Your whole and continuous argument has consisted of absolutely nothing more than what you believe and what your supposed "audience" wants. Shame on you.
  15. 3 points
    And of course the translators have the HONESTY to denote EVERY instance where they included extra words for clarity. How many other "translations" do that? Most don't have any indication of when they have done similar. Thanks for pointing out the honesty of the KJV translational process. Not really having much success with these errors.... in spite of your constant implying that there are many.
  16. 3 points
    Pastor Scott Markle

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Indeed, its faithfulness to its SOURCE would reveal if it is a valid translation of THAT source; but it would NOT reveal if the SOURCE ITSELF is a faithful source. You see, the question of this matter is NOT whether a given translation is a faithful translation of a given source. Rather, the question of this matter is whether a given translation is a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD. In order for that to be the case, at least TWO things must be true: 1. The translation MUST be a faithful translation of its source. 2. The SOURCE ITSELF must be a faithful source of GOD"S PRESERVED WORD, without corruption and error. Even if a translation is a faithful translation of its source, it is still NOT a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD if the source itself was not a faithful source of God's preserved Word, without corruption and error.
  17. 3 points
    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.
  18. 3 points
    DaveW

    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......
  19. 3 points
    Jerry

    Is writing fiction a sin?

    Lucian, not sure why you chose the confused emoticon. The Bible teaches that as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. See Proverbs 23:7. If our fiction is based on evil (ie. the promotion of evil - characters performing evil, evil being the primary themes, worldviews based on evil philiosphies - evolution, man becoming gods, multiple gods, or to use the opposite philisophy - a worldview based on utter and complete chaos, etc.), then it is evil to dwell on those things. See Philippians 4:8.
  20. 3 points
    Basically Baptist Doctrine is based on what you read in the bible alone as your authority for faith and Practice. Catholic doctrine is based on what the catholic church teaches for authority in faith and practice. Catholics believe that you must be part of their church and keep all their commandments to be saved. Baptist believe as the bible teaches, that salvation is given to anyone who puts their faith in Christ alone. This means baptist believe anyone can be saved regardless of what church they attend or not. Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 3:21-30 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Romans 10:6-13 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7 or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
  21. 3 points
    DaveW

    Do only Baptists get saved?

    Salvation is not in any church. Roman's 10 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. No mention of any church there, just trusting in Christ. And also: Ephesians 2 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it isthe gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. No mention of any church. Salvation is about what Jesus Christ has done to pay for our sins.
  22. 3 points
    DaveW

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Strangely enough, our friend gave a KJV to a someone who came up with a word that he didn't understand, and to alleviate the problem our friend here FIRST OF ALL explained the meaning of that word to the gentleman. The result was that the gentleman grew in his knowledge of God by the explanation, and ALSO grew in his knowledge of English. Our friend here presents this as a negative, but how is a gaining in knowledge a bad thing? Also, our friend has unknowingly followed a Bible principle. That of explaining the meaning of a word that is unfamiliar - NOT OF CHANING THAT WORD, but explaining it. 1Sa 9:6-11 (6) And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go. (7) Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we? (8) And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way. (9) (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.) (10) Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was. (11) And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here? Interesting here that the writer of this passage inserts vs 9 as explanation to the readers, for in his current time the Man of God was called a prophet, but then in vs 11 which is a retelling of the actual account, the word used is not prophet, even though that would have been the common word in the writer's time, but the word "seer" is used because that is what Saul spoke on that day. So what we have here is a direction by example of the writer of the book of 1 Samuel (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit remember) not to CHANGE the archaic word used to the modern term so the audience understood, but to EXPLAIN the archaic word for the audience. I had just this example the other day - talking of the Seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the word "twain" is used in reference to the pairs of wings. I knew that there were some in our audience who might not understand that word, so I stopped momentarily and explained "the word "twain" simply means "two", and I could see the light of understanding shine in a few eyes to whom this was new knowledge. From then on when I read that verse as I did a few times, I didn't change it to "two" - they all understood it with no problem, and they now had a greater knowledge of the English language than they did when they came in, and when they read that word in other places of the Bible or indeed in other settings, they have understanding. And by the way, what happens when you get to a word that is still in modern use but not common? - it is not an archaic word, but it still needs to be explained, and even moreso if there is no modern alternative. When I was learning to be a photogrammetrist, (sorry for those don't know it is a specialised area of geomatics), they didn't find common English terms for things such as Parallax, but they taught me what Parallax meant. I had no idea what "Sterovision" was but instead of finding another word that I understood, they explained what it meant. They didn't find a common term for a graphic pantograph mechanism, they explained it to me. They didn't find a common word for a stereotriangulated solution, they explained what it was. Personally I have found that when people come across a difficult or archaic word, often the first they will do is find a dictionary - especially nowadays on line. If they still don't understand, then will ask at church, and hopefully get a reasonable and sufficient answer. I have some people here who are seriously deficient of education, but they ask questions, they seek understanding, they learn and they grow - and the learn how to understand the Bible. Note: for those who understand neither the old word "photogrammetrist" nor the modern equivalent "Geomaticist", I will EXPLAIN IT for your understanding: It is the science of compiling map data from aerial photography, airborne laser scanning data, or other survey tied spatial data - I draw maps from photos taken from planes.
  23. 3 points
    DaveW

    How do you explain the Holy Light?

    Can you show some sort of Biblical support for such a thing? I don't care if science can prove it, although the first article didn't state any scientific proof as far as I could see, and the second spoke of temperature reading in an uncontrolled setting by a single man - hardly scientific. The most important thing is "is it Biblical?" Lots of unexplained things happen in this world. If it does not have Biblical support, then it is simply not of God.
  24. 3 points
    DaveW

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Two things: First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew. Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request". If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting. This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says. God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life. If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like. Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong? Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance. You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense". If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas. Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.
  25. 2 points
    2bLikeJesus

    Hiding From Plain Sight

    I won't stop at that. I plan on hand delivering the CD's and discipling him as much as he will allow. He was a pleasure to talk to and as you can imagine, very intelligent. I am hoping we can get into some good bible study. I may get a chance to ease him into coming to church after our Pastor lays down the law on how he is to be treated. I have run into the type of situation one other time in my last church 20 years ago when we were in a building program actively erecting a new church building and doing as much of the labor as we could on our own. Suddenly many of our carpenters, plumbers and electricians disappeared from the church.
  26. 2 points
    2bLikeJesus

    Our Glorified Bodies

    1 Corinthians 15:52 (KJV) 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. I believe our bodies will be like Jesus's incorruptible. You will be able to touch and feel and be touched, eat (yeah!), and even pass through walls like Jesus did after his resurrection. Can't wait to come back as the Lord's host in an incorruptible body. That will be terrible and fun at the same time.
  27. 2 points
    Jerry

    Our Glorified Bodies

    Seems like most of the active threads lately are about endtime prophecy. While it is beneficial to finetune our theology, some of those endless debates just don’t feed my spirit, if you know what I mean. Having some bad health lately, I have been tremendously blessed by passages about one day having a glorified body. Let’s post verses talking about this theme, and what those bodies will be like. A few that have really encouraged me recently are: Psalm 17:15 As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness. One day each of us who are saved will be taken home to be with the Lord forever - perhaps it will be like sleeping and then awakening to find ourselves made like Christ, in His image - holy, righteous, no longer to struggle with our sin nature. A dream (promise actually) worth waking up to! 1 John 3:1-3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Romans 8:16-25 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, the heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. What a day, glorious day that will be.
  28. 2 points
    Jim_Alaska

    God will bless Assyria...

    From Online Baptist Rules: "Feel free to quote the Bible, if you do we ask that you use the KJV. This is done to avoid confusion. The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people, and we ask that you respect that and use the KJV when quoting scripture."
  29. 2 points
    ...and you've spoken with the apostle John, and he confirmed that your interpretation is what he meant?
  30. 2 points
    Salyan

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Okay, I think we need a break from this subject for a bit. Robycop, you were told that it is rude to come in and attack others’ beliefs on their own forum. I personally gave you some leniency because I believe there is room for discussion on what it means to be KJVonly. Some think the KJV supersedes the original manuscripts, yet the manuscripts are how God has preserved His Word through history. You have, however, repeatedly shown that the only authority you will accept in this area is yourself, no matter how contradictory your position may be. I am hereby, in my capacity as moderator, issuing a cease and desist order. This topic is on hold for you; do not attempt to discuss it further.
  31. 2 points
    DaveW

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT ,PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! You keep making this claim and thus far you have shown one that has been disproved, and one that actually supports the accuracy of the KJV. I DEMAND - YES DEMAND -that you stop making this false claim UNTIL you have backed it up with solid evidence.
  32. 2 points
    DaveW

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    Well brother, from the way he has been talking, I was expecting lots of errors to be pointed to and difficult things to answer (but I am confident that a suitable answer could be found), and yet all we have had is a couple of instances which are answered easily, and the second of which actually points to errors in other version whilst displaying the integrity of the KJV translational process. Not really sure what he was trying to achieve with this last one????? For those who don't know, the passage he has pointed to about Goliath, in many versions credits someone else with killing Goliath, when the KJV, because of the words added for clarity AND italicized to show such, clarifies the point by pointing out that in that passage it was "the brother of" Goliath..... 2 Sam 21 19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother ofGoliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. to leave out the italicized phrase "the brother of", would appear to credit Elhanan with killing Goliath, but as we all know David did that. So which is right? He talks elsewhere about ease of understanding, then tries to use this against the KJV? How much explanation would have to be done to give a proper understanding of this matter when 1 Sam 17 says one thing and 2 Sam 21 says another. Yet a KJV reader would read the two passages and understand instantly and clearly. Again we have a contradiction of this man - you cannot use both sides of the same argument.
  33. 2 points
    Jim_Alaska

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    When I was first saved over forty years ago, I was taught first the basics of reading and studying the Bible. One of the first basics I remember is being taught that the italicized words were words that were added to facilitate the readers understanding. Silly me I thought everybody knew this, but I guess I was wrong. Now, for someone to come along at this late date and insist that this basic feature of italicized words is adding to Scripture, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at the worst.
  34. 2 points
    Yet I never indicated that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in an "original autograph" manner, that is -- preserving the original manuscripts themselves down to our time. Rather, I indicated the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, that is -- preserving the original WORDING of His perfect Word as it was perfectly given, which preservation can certainly be carried through manuscript copies as long as those manuscript copies are perfectly accurate to the original WORDING. Indeed, I DO reject Sinaiticus & Vaticanus because: 1. They were NOT passed down to us through the stewardship of God's true church. 2. They were NOT available to and among God's true church for a multiple number of generations. 3. They disagree significantly with the textual material that was available and passed down from generation to generation through God's true church. 4. They disagree with each other in a VERY significant number of places. As such, I would contend that they do NOT pass the test of acceptability in accord with the Biblical doctrine of preservation. Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe. But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the same basic textual tradition, whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT textual tradition than those translational works that came before them? Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the textual and translational tradition that had come before? As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us? As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of textual and translational work; but to follow the FIRST line of textual and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people, and to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us. I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception. Throughout your various comments and responses in this discussion with me, you continually present faith in the Lord our God to preserve and provide His Word as He so pleases. Such faith is certainly right and good. However, throughout these comments and responses, I find a GLARING reality that you appear continually to disregard and neglect, even though I have referenced that reality a number of times. It is the reality of the devil's work to corrupt God's perfect Word, and thereby to deceive.
  35. 2 points
    DaveW

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Well you decide on a daily basis which bible version is right DEPENDENT UPON YOUR OPINION and the CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CONFRONT YOU. Now, as to your point there - sometimes it is very easy to see which is a corrupt Manuscript - when it is covered in corrections, with barely a single page of the whole mss NOT showing the evidence of corrections; or when even the holders of that mss consider it to be worthy of the rubbish pile...…. These might be good reasons to doubt the accuracy of such mss. Not just because I like what one says over the other, but because there is actual evidence that it was corrupted and corrected ON THE ACTUAL MSS ITSELF. Pretty easy decision...….
  36. 2 points
    Salyan

    Holy Spirit Working Today

    There are a few different subjects there. Miracles and healings do happen today, and I believe my pastor would agree. I think the usual position is that they do not occur as regular sign gifts in the same way as seen in the early church. Signs & wonders are also part of the sign gifts, which were given for a particular purpose which I believe has passed. Even at the time, there were specific reasons/limitations given ('sign to the Jews, etc.). Any supposed signs & wonders today should be run by those requirements. In my experience (I have some Pentecostal background), these requirements are not met or even considered by those professing to engage in the 'sign gifts'. We also have to be careful since, as I was telling Lucius, Satan can counterfeit these wonders. We know that the canon of Scripture has been fulfilled, so I would question whether prophecy is needed in the same way as it was when (and before) the Bible was being written (and the sign gifts, since their purpose was often to prove that God was with the prophets). Anyone seeking to call themselves a prophet would have to meet the test of Scripture - are they 100%, all the time, specifically accurate? Since we have a more clear word of Prophecy (i.e. the Bible), any perceived direction (i.e. dreams) would need to be tested by God's Word. I would be leery of trusting dreams and wonders where we have God's Word for direction. That being said, I've heard of Muslims being led to follow Christ through dreams - but these were people that had zero access to the Bible. I've also heard, from a trusted Christian elder, of an occurrence in a jungle where a missionary had a conversation and shared the Gospel (in English) with someone only to find out later that that person couldn't understand English! I personally believe that the Holy Spirit can and does perform miracles, healings, and even wonders (like tongues) when He deems it fit, but it is not a regularly given 'sign gift' as per the early church and Pentecostal teachings.
  37. 2 points
    Pastor Scott Markle

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    As you have given answer above to my questions concerning the doctrine of preservation, allow me to do the same: 1. Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word? Most certainly. 2. If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word? In a "jot and tittle" manner. 3. If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word? To a generational extent, that is -- for each generation. 4. If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word? For the sake of His people. 5. If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word? Till heaven and earth should pass away. Concerning the corollary questions: 1. What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word? He is VERY STRONGLY against it. 2. Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? Most certainly. With these answers, I expect the following: 1. The Lord our God has and will make certain to preserve manuscripts (not necessarily originals) that contain the precise wording of His Word in the original languages. 2. These preserved manuscripts and copies thereof will be passed down generationally, first through the children of Israel for the Old Testament Scriptures and through the true church of the Lord for the addition of the New Testament Scriptures. 3. The devil has and will work to motivate various manmade alterations and corruptions unto the precise wording of God's Word, thus we should expect to encounter both pure Scriptural manuscripts and corrupt Scriptural manuscripts in competition with one another. (Note: This viewpoint would be defeated if we find that the Lord our God has promised to PREVENT the existence of any alterations or corruptions to the Scriptural manuscripts of His Word.) Even so, I am compelled to following conclusions: 1. Not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted as the truth, for some of them contain corruption by the work of our adversary the devil. 2. Since not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted, I must discern which are valid and which are corrupt. 3. Any individual who claims that ALL manuscripts are valid simply misunderstands the reality of the devil's work of corruption in this matter.
  38. 2 points
    No Nicolaitans

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    I wasn't insulted whatsoever. I thought the basis was that they are supposedly based on "older" manuscripts...aka...older is better. I'd much rather attempt to drive from Georgia to California in my wife's 2010 Jeep Compass than my 1998 Ford Escort ZX2. Older doesn't automatically mean better. Our son is 8; I'm 52. He can get around a lot better than I can... Last year, we replaced our roof, heat and air system, and water heater...because the older ones were no longer any good... Earlier this year, we had to replace our stove...the old one wasn't any good any longer... A couple of centuries ago, they used to bleed people in an attempt to get rid of health problems...I'll take today's newer health knowledge... London used to have their sewage running down the sides of their streets...I'll take today's newer sanitary sewage systems... Mark 16 doesn't belong in newer Bible versions that are based on those older...aka...better manuscripts... Doctrine is different in newer Bible versions that are based on those older...aka...better manuscripts... robycop3 says that he has been battling against false doctrine for the last 40 years... Hmmmmmm...now that's interesting.
  39. 2 points
    DaveW

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    How is it in any way profitable for any version to either remove verses or even if they leave the verses in they add a note that says something like "not found in the better manuscripts"? And by the way, they have ABSOLUTELY no basis for claiming a verse is not found in the better manuscripts, because they have no basis for claiming they are better. All it does is casts doubt on the Word of God. Genesis 3 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
  40. 2 points
    As do I. I love to hear a good orchestra that has instruments in balance. I hate having to listen to thumpity-thumpity "praise" music. Instruments in and of themselves are not evil. They are tools in the hands of the musicians and far too often in churches they are used in a questionable if not downright worldly way (even a piano can be misused). It is a wise pastor who forestalls that.
  41. 2 points
    As a pastor there are instruments that are not wrong, but it is a door I don't want to open as it will be easy to head into a wrong direction. I agree with Brother Cloud here.
  42. 2 points
    HappyChristian

    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.
  43. 2 points
    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.
  44. 2 points
    Jerry

    Is writing fiction a sin?

    It is not discussion for the sake of discussion, it is to create fellowship over what the Bible says about various issues - basically to finetune our beliefs, find Biblical passages and principles for or against whatever issue is being discussed. Are you posting questions because you want to find out what the Bible says about something and therefore adjust your beliefs and practices accordingly, or just being “religious” and talking about things with no desire to really find out the truth and apply it? I hope 2 Timothy 3:7 is not applicable to you: Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. i have met many people who,want to discuss and debate endlessly, and it is not profitable to entertain those kind of people - waste of time and resources. But I have also met people who want to dig into the Bible so they can grow spiritually and apply what they are learning - it is profitable to discuss Bible principles with them.
  45. 2 points
    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.
  46. 2 points
    Jerry

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Copywriting the supplemental material or even the particular format of a Bible edition is not the same thing as copywriting the text. Anyone anywhere in the world is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text. Like I say on my website: All Scripture quotations on this site are from the King James Bible. Used by permission of the Author.
  47. 2 points
    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.
  48. 2 points
    Matt Souza

    Goofs and booboos in the KJV.

    How can something be the same (God's Word) when they contradict themselves in some verses? God is not the author of confusion.
  49. 2 points
    Jerry

    Archaisms in the KJV.

    Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah,Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. We don’t need to change the Bible, just need to use good study materials and explain hard words and passages.
  50. 2 points
    Invicta

    How do you explain the Holy Light?

    We used to have a house in a small village in Haute Saône in France In a nearby village, there is a claim that when the church caught fire, two "hosties" that is consecrated wafers, rose into the air and hovered over the altar for three days This fiction resulted in retarding the reformation in that area. I treat that the same as I do the "holy fire". A complete fiction.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00


×
×
  • Create New...