Pastorj

1 minute ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Extreme.

 

on that note, this entire discussion is just mans babble. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to teach us scripture anyway.

Not at all.  This board was founded by like minded IFB people. There was no place on this board for heretics. Threads were locked and people were banned. That has been the process historically. 

It's impossible to argue with heretics

Administrators, It's time to remove these heretics.

The IRS allows clergy to declare any amount of their salary as a housing allowance as long as they spend that amount and it was declared in the church business meeting or notes.

This saves the pastor thousands of dollars and in Many churches allows the pastor to be full-time, rather than having to work.  You have to look at the full compensation package to understand what a member of the clergy is being paid 

Allowing heresy in this board was never an option in the past. It's one thing to disagree on a topic. It's completely different on doctrine. Double inspiration has been infiltrating our churches and is a very dangerous heretical teaching.

Bro. Tony

I agree completely. I haven't been here in a while,  but it sure seems like the Ruckmanites have come in full force to push their heresy.

Time for administrators to get rid of false teachers,  which was the practice when I was an administrator 

On 9/30/2021 at 5:55 PM, SureWord said:

 

Say what you want about Ruckman and his many issues but he got that part right. 

I'm so tired of hearing the Ruckman card played anytime this issue is brought up. 

This reminds me of how the Hitler card or racist card is played. Won't work for me.

All scripture is given by inspiration. When Paul mention that he was not referring to the originals or the original pen men.

Ruckman is a heretic and his followers should not be on this site. They follow a heretical teaching on the foundation of our beliefs, the preservation of the Word of God.

On 9/29/2021 at 6:42 AM, PastorMatt said:

Would you say it is more prevalent down south than up north, or about the same?

I would say it is very common all over based on where the Pastor went to college

On 10/2/2021 at 5:42 AM, E Morales said:

Thank you for replying and I am happy everything is working well in your church with your husband leading by example. But I personally do not believe that the churches should not be in the pastor or pastors, financially controlled. let me explain, a church should not be paying to the pastors rent, house or light bill, telephone bill, taxes, cell phone, anything that you and I as a normal person would pay as a citizen.  I believe that the church which is the members, should not pay for anything at all, for the Pastor but let me say this also, the pastor is worthy of his wages and should be paid very well for what he does. Not the church paying his personal bills. If the pastor is getting paid well, the church does not need to pay for all the other things and more that I mentioned above.

Gifts are welcome like a car, that you mentioned or a well deserved vacation trip with his family. 
 

I would love my job to pay me minimum wage, and that they would pay all and everything else for me. But this will be breaking the law by not paying Taxes.

The difference is that the IRS has specific rules for clergy. A Pastor doesn't have to pay any taxes on anything part of a housing allowance,  which covers a lot

This is very common in Baptist churches unfortunately. There is the idea that the Pastor is God's man and therefore makes all the decisions because sheep are so dumb that they can't remember to drink water if you don't take them everyday.

Unfortunately I have seen this far more often than I would like.

The correct way is for the Pastor to present his vision,  let the people pray about it and then move forward. Votes are needed for certain things due to legal requirements 

The translators of the KJV were not inspired.  God did not Breathe out the words of the KJV. 

God inspired the original penman and then preserved his Word.  This is critical to understand because the KJV is preserved and can be traced back from Generation to generation which is why I can hold up my KJV and call it inspired. It is also why I could embrace a modern translation if it followed the same process as the KJV.

It is also why I can hold up French, Spanish and other translations and call them inspired 

There are false teachers like Peter Ruckman who taught and pushed a double inspiration where God inspired the KJV.

1 hour ago, SureWord said:

Nothing but semantics. Inspired or preserved? At the end of the argument you believe the same thing. The KJV is the perfect word of God 

The translators who would have PRESERVED God's words would needed inspiration from God to carry it out. If not you would end up with just another "reliable translation".

Absolutely disagree.

Inspiration means "God Breathed". God did not breathe out the KJV. He inspired the original penmen and He the preserved His Word for us from Generation to generation. Currently, the KJV is our preserved Word of God 

This thread shows exactly what I was referring to earlier. The KJV is beloved.

I understand the accuracy of "Thee" and "Thou". When one talks today, do you use Thee and Thou? I highly doubt it. However, you are still able to convey the accuracy of what you are speaking of. Thee and Thou is far simpler to use, but there are ways to convey it.

This is also why you can't "Update" the KJV, which is what the Modern KJV, 21st Century KJV, NKJV and a number of other updates did. Notice, I called them updates. A translation cannot come from a translation. A modern translation would require people who are qualified to translate from the original languages into modern English.

14 hours ago, John Young said:

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

That translation though should not be from the KJV. It should be from the original languages. The KJV is a translation. When you translate, you never translate from a translation.

47 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

For clarity I must contend -- "Legalism" is dealing with salvation AND sanctification, not standards.  I know a number of pastors and preachers who argue that "legalism" is a Biblical matter that concerns ONLY the issue of salvation.  With this I must strongly disagree.  The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was dealing with the matter of Biblical "legalism" throughout the entire epistle to the Galatians; and his primary focus was not the issue of salvation, but was the issue of sanctification (as per Galatians 3:1-3).

I don't disagree with you, but it is not dealing with Biblical preferences that are based on principles found in Scripture that good men disagree on. I believe we are saying the same thing.

1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Thanks. Unfortunately, that would not be the proper way to translate to the other language. You would want someone who is a linguist to translate from the original Greek/Hebrew to get the most accurate translation. A lot is lost when you translate from one language to another and it is always best to go back to the original language.

1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

Would you use the KJV if you were a missionary to a place that doesn't speak English or would you use an equivalent version in the language of the country you are going to?

12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, I believe that "legalism" IS a Biblical concept, and a "bad" one at that.  I believe that the Biblical concept concerns a reliance upon the law (a keeping of a set of commandments, whether God-made or man-made) as the foundational power either for salvation or for sanctification.  I believe that the apostle Paul handled the matter of "legalism" concerning salvation throughout the epistle to the Romans and that he handled the matter of "legalism" concerning sanctification throughout the epistle to the Galatians.  (The matter of Biblical "legalism" is also handled at various other places within the Scriptures.)

Concerning the matter of "standards," having and even teaching "standards" is NOT in itself the essence of Biblical "legalism."  However, relying upon a set of "standards" as the foundation for sanctification/spirituality WOULD be a characteristic of Biblical "legalism."  In truth, such a reliance upon "standards" as the foundation for sanctification/spirituality will inevitably breed Biblical hypocrisy (which the Lord our God utterly hates).   

I agree completely. Legalism is dealing with salvation, not standards.

When Pastors teach things that are not Scripturally based (Command or Principle), that is just called Heresy or Bad teaching. Unfortunately this is very common in a lot of our churches. Now we have to be careful in this area because the Bible is not a book full of do's and don'ts. There are a number of principles where the application can vary. 

Be dogmatic on doctrine, be flexible on your preferences.

The term legalism and legalistic is thrown around typically when one doesn't like your Biblical beliefs. Your legalistic if you hold to a dress code, tithing or any number of positions that cause differences in opinion. Unfortunately, this definition is a modern definition and not a Biblical one.

Please define what you believe Legalism is - Are you saying that legalism is standards that are not based on Scripture?

I haven't read the thread, but based on the original post, here is my two cents

1. God has promised to preserve His Word for every generation. God has done so in English through the KJV. In Spanish, it's another version. There is a German equivalent, French equivalent, etc.

2. The KJV is not double inspired - Ruckmanite false theology. 

3. The likely hood of a modern English translation being accepted is slim to none. Those who have the ability to translate from the original languages see no reason to leave the KJV. Those who want a Modern translation, don't have the skillset to translate

4. Those who hold to an KJV only would never consider it and those with only KJV for the most part understand the KJV well enough that we are comfortable with it and 

So the question is, what would be the reason to create a modern translation? We live in a day where the majority of Americans don't understand the Kings English. Therefore, the KJV is not in the language of today. If a missionary were to go to an area where the Bible was not translated, we would have no issue translating it in that language. I would love to see a modern version, but as stated above, do not believe an accurate 21st century translation will ever happen.

The ends do not justify the means. Find another way to lead them to Christ, but participating in the Devils holiday is wrong for churches and all Christians

Halloween is an evil day and no Christian should participate in anyway. I am shocked at how many "good Churches" do Trunk or Treat. If you look at every aspect of this day, there is nothing holy about it.

21 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I've never thought he died. I have often thought he must have been very uncomfortable.

 

He was absolutely uncomfortable. The point of the verse is the timeline,  not the experience 

He most definitely was alive for the 3 days 

Heaven