Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

TheSword

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    1,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to OLD fashioned preacher in After the Tribulation   
    Okay, let's try this ONE LAST TIME.
    You want to fellowship, discuss, etc? Start in the intro area and give your testimony of salvation.
    I think there is probably a discussion on this that's not locked (if you want to comment on it [after reading it] and can't find it, ask and someone can probably find it for you).
    You want to come right out of the blocks with "setting everyone straight", your stay is extremely limited in time. Got it?
     
    Is this in retaliation to a pre-wrath position? Nope, it will be the consequences of your approach and attitude if you persist. BTW, FWIW -- one of our mods is pre-wrath (be sure to mention that if you get banned and decide to tirade elsewhere about your treatment here.)
  2. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from John81 in The body of Christ   
    Again, on what basis are you making this claim? If you figuratively interpret "body" in Eph 4, then in order to be consistent you must also interpret "Spirit", "hope", "Lord", "faith", "baptism", "God", and "Father" in a non-literal way.
    You cannot read the understanding of congregation or assembly (ekklesia) into the meaning of body (soma) because it does not fit within the semantic range and is never used in that sense. We may use "body "to describe an assembly in modern English, but 1st century Greek-speakers did not. This word refers to a physical mass and almost always associated with the corporeal tissue of a human, animal, or plant. In the rare instances it does reference a non-physical body, it is always used to reference a heavenly body, thereby rendering an earthly congregation/assembly invalid. This is what I meant in my earlier post by anachronism.
    Yes, Ephesians is about unity, but there is no reason to restrict its meaning and applicability to a single local body. Additionally, if your interpretation is correct, it conflicts with Rom 12:4-5:
    "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
    Since, at this point, Paul had never been to Rome and was certainly not a part of the church there (he was baptized in Damascus if you recall), he cannot be including himself in anything but a universal body.
    As mentioned above, you cannot make this assumption based on the text. You have to bring in outside pre-understandings to make that work.
  3. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from John81 in The body of Christ   
    You're reading your understanding into the text (an error known as eisegesis). There is no linguistic or textual evidence to assert that the singular usages of "church" are meant to taken as plural. The Greek language does not typically work this way and you will find multiple examples each of "the church at", "the churches at", and "the church" which nullifies your claim. You have to show from the context of the passage why each of those occurrences should be understood to be plural
    Additionally, you're also reading a modern usage of western English into the way 1st century Greek was used (an error known as an anachronism). I know of no instance in biblical Greek (or classical and ancient for that matter) where the singular stands for the plural the way you're asserting. If you find one, please show me because I don't want to be wrong. 
    EDIT: You might be able to make a case for Matt 6:19-20 where Jesus uses moth and rust in a general sense that could refer to a plural; however, it lacks the definite article that is present in every instance of "the church..." that we're talking about, which makes a numerical designator irrelevant and even nonsensical.
    On what Scriptural basis do you come up with and apply the term "Family of God" in contrast to the church? Additionally, why is there never a reference to the body of Christ at a particular location, but always used in a universal sense? Can there be multiple bodies of Christ or does He have but one body?
  4. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Invicta in The body of Christ   
    You're reading your understanding into the text (an error known as eisegesis). There is no linguistic or textual evidence to assert that the singular usages of "church" are meant to taken as plural. The Greek language does not typically work this way and you will find multiple examples each of "the church at", "the churches at", and "the church" which nullifies your claim. You have to show from the context of the passage why each of those occurrences should be understood to be plural
    Additionally, you're also reading a modern usage of western English into the way 1st century Greek was used (an error known as an anachronism). I know of no instance in biblical Greek (or classical and ancient for that matter) where the singular stands for the plural the way you're asserting. If you find one, please show me because I don't want to be wrong. 
    EDIT: You might be able to make a case for Matt 6:19-20 where Jesus uses moth and rust in a general sense that could refer to a plural; however, it lacks the definite article that is present in every instance of "the church..." that we're talking about, which makes a numerical designator irrelevant and even nonsensical.
    On what Scriptural basis do you come up with and apply the term "Family of God" in contrast to the church? Additionally, why is there never a reference to the body of Christ at a particular location, but always used in a universal sense? Can there be multiple bodies of Christ or does He have but one body?
  5. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Ukulelemike in HELP! - Early Church beliefs on Salvation   
    Oh my, look at all these worms you just spilled
    It'd be easier to recommend a book. In short, what we call "Baptist" today has a lot of original influences but is largely an organic movement apart from the various denominations that sprang out of the Reformation. Historically, most strands can be traced back through England and the Netherlands and associated with various separatist movements. There have always been Baptists on both sides of the Calvinism line. The early Baptists  in England were divided between the General Baptists (mostly Arminian view, but not completely) and Particular Baptists (wholesale Calvinism) over the issue of general vs. particular/limited atonement.
    More generally speaking, with some investigation you'll find that there have always been groups of people/churches that have held to what we know as Baptist distinctives, though maybe not all of them at once.
  6. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in HELP! - Early Church beliefs on Salvation   
    I listened to it...
    First warning went up early when he said something to the effect of..."Of course the scriptures are the final authority, BUT we can't discount the writings of the early church."
    He quotes from people like Origen and Tertullian
    Basically, the video is an hour long advertisement for Arminianism without mentioning Arminius.
    Salvation is in two stages...#1 - you're saved by faith, but... #2 - you maintain (or keep) your salvation through an obedient-love relationship (works)...
    Plus, on the few occasions that he does quote "Bible", he uses the RSV...
    Plus, he said that all Baptists believe the same about salvation...
    Plus, he seems to consider all non-Catholics as Protestants...
    Plus, he seems to consider all Protestants as Evangelicals...
    Plus...
    ...
  7. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Matthew24 in HELP! - Early Church beliefs on Salvation   
    I've started listening to it and unfortunately at 15 minutes in he's still not on to making his first point...I'll comb through my resources sometime this week (particularly the one's he says he's using as resources) and have a look though. However, I have to go with UM's statement that just because they were alive in the 2nd century does not necessarily make them more right. Start with the Bible and if what they say doesn't match, then they're wrong no matter who they knew during their lifetime. The pastor(s) of the church at Corinth knew Paul personally too and look what happened there...
  8. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from John81 in The body of Christ   
    Not necessarily. An Independent Baptist church is merely one who does not submit itself to a larger denominational body like the Southern Baptist Convention or American Baptist Association and refuse any authority over the local congregation other than Jesus Christ. However, a great many will still associate with other like-minded churches for various joint efforts or merely as an acknowledgment of the professed truth that binds them such as with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. In most cases "independent" merely means that the local congregation is completely autonomous and needs no higher structure.
    The existence of a local church as the body of Christ does not negate the existence of a universal body of Christ. That is to say, universal as in comprising all true believers of all ages and not anyone who calls themselves a Christian (i.e. ecumenism, unitarianism, or universalism).
    When you examine the biblical evidence, there is indeed overwhelming evidence to support the autonomy and importance of the local church, just as you stated. However, you also cannot escape the concept of a universal body of believers, particularly in the Second Coming in which the entire body of believers from all ages returns to reign with Christ (which you alluded to). You also have to contend with passages such as Jesus' declaration of the truth on which He will build His church (Matt 16:18). If there only the local church is the body of Christ, then only the Church which was in Jerusalem is the valid body of Christ. Additionally, there is Paul's statements in Gal 1:13 and Phil 3:5 in which he says he persecuted the church of God (not churches), and we know he travelled outside of Jerusalem to do this. All 9 references to the church in Ephesians, Col 1:18, and Heb 12:23 all indicate that an individual local church is not what is in mind in these passages.
    All of that is to say I believe there is ample biblical evidence to support both the church as a local body of believers and the Church as the sum total of believers.
  9. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Invicta in The body of Christ   
    Not necessarily. An Independent Baptist church is merely one who does not submit itself to a larger denominational body like the Southern Baptist Convention or American Baptist Association and refuse any authority over the local congregation other than Jesus Christ. However, a great many will still associate with other like-minded churches for various joint efforts or merely as an acknowledgment of the professed truth that binds them such as with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. In most cases "independent" merely means that the local congregation is completely autonomous and needs no higher structure.
    The existence of a local church as the body of Christ does not negate the existence of a universal body of Christ. That is to say, universal as in comprising all true believers of all ages and not anyone who calls themselves a Christian (i.e. ecumenism, unitarianism, or universalism).
    When you examine the biblical evidence, there is indeed overwhelming evidence to support the autonomy and importance of the local church, just as you stated. However, you also cannot escape the concept of a universal body of believers, particularly in the Second Coming in which the entire body of believers from all ages returns to reign with Christ (which you alluded to). You also have to contend with passages such as Jesus' declaration of the truth on which He will build His church (Matt 16:18). If there only the local church is the body of Christ, then only the Church which was in Jerusalem is the valid body of Christ. Additionally, there is Paul's statements in Gal 1:13 and Phil 3:5 in which he says he persecuted the church of God (not churches), and we know he travelled outside of Jerusalem to do this. All 9 references to the church in Ephesians, Col 1:18, and Heb 12:23 all indicate that an individual local church is not what is in mind in these passages.
    All of that is to say I believe there is ample biblical evidence to support both the church as a local body of believers and the Church as the sum total of believers.
  10. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in The body of Christ   
    Not necessarily. An Independent Baptist church is merely one who does not submit itself to a larger denominational body like the Southern Baptist Convention or American Baptist Association and refuse any authority over the local congregation other than Jesus Christ. However, a great many will still associate with other like-minded churches for various joint efforts or merely as an acknowledgment of the professed truth that binds them such as with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. In most cases "independent" merely means that the local congregation is completely autonomous and needs no higher structure.
    The existence of a local church as the body of Christ does not negate the existence of a universal body of Christ. That is to say, universal as in comprising all true believers of all ages and not anyone who calls themselves a Christian (i.e. ecumenism, unitarianism, or universalism).
    When you examine the biblical evidence, there is indeed overwhelming evidence to support the autonomy and importance of the local church, just as you stated. However, you also cannot escape the concept of a universal body of believers, particularly in the Second Coming in which the entire body of believers from all ages returns to reign with Christ (which you alluded to). You also have to contend with passages such as Jesus' declaration of the truth on which He will build His church (Matt 16:18). If there only the local church is the body of Christ, then only the Church which was in Jerusalem is the valid body of Christ. Additionally, there is Paul's statements in Gal 1:13 and Phil 3:5 in which he says he persecuted the church of God (not churches), and we know he travelled outside of Jerusalem to do this. All 9 references to the church in Ephesians, Col 1:18, and Heb 12:23 all indicate that an individual local church is not what is in mind in these passages.
    All of that is to say I believe there is ample biblical evidence to support both the church as a local body of believers and the Church as the sum total of believers.
  11. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in HELP! - Early Church beliefs on Salvation   
    I've started listening to it and unfortunately at 15 minutes in he's still not on to making his first point...I'll comb through my resources sometime this week (particularly the one's he says he's using as resources) and have a look though. However, I have to go with UM's statement that just because they were alive in the 2nd century does not necessarily make them more right. Start with the Bible and if what they say doesn't match, then they're wrong no matter who they knew during their lifetime. The pastor(s) of the church at Corinth knew Paul personally too and look what happened there...
  12. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from OLD fashioned preacher in HELP! - Early Church beliefs on Salvation   
    I've started listening to it and unfortunately at 15 minutes in he's still not on to making his first point...I'll comb through my resources sometime this week (particularly the one's he says he's using as resources) and have a look though. However, I have to go with UM's statement that just because they were alive in the 2nd century does not necessarily make them more right. Start with the Bible and if what they say doesn't match, then they're wrong no matter who they knew during their lifetime. The pastor(s) of the church at Corinth knew Paul personally too and look what happened there...
  13. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in joanna   
    In the New Testament, absolutely nothing either way. Now, there is a lot we can learn from the Old Testament about the use of instruments as part of praise and worship. For instance, only a few instruments were ever used, and only by the Levites-it wasn't a free-for-all with whatever people wanted to do and play.
    The instruments were harps, psalteries, cymbals, trumpets and cornets (1 Ch. 15:28). These are not the type of instruments used to create worldly dance music. Notice that there were no drums. These are instruments that provide good accompaniment to the human voice, because it is the human voice that enunciates the words of edification and praise.
    As for the New Testament, we see nothing for or against the use of instruments, so really there would be liberty in their use, though again, looking at the constrained use in the temple, we can gain insight into their proper use, should a church decide to use them. And their use should be to enhance the message, not supplant it. Too often today music is understood to be 'worship'; often when a church advertises some sort of worship meeting, you can almost guarantee it will be an hour and a half of a 'worship team', meaning a rock group, performing. That's not worship, that's entertainment.  The main reason for a church meeting is not music, else we would see more in scripture addressing it-it is the preaching of the word of God, for edification of the church; it is reproving, rebuking, exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine. It is for the perfecting of the saints for the work of God.
    So music, and instruments, are a matter of liberty for each church to decide on their own, but its use should not be worldly, nor overwhelming.
     
  14. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in HELP! - Early Church beliefs on Salvation   
    Simple: toss aside the extra biblical writings and sayings, and hold to the Bible alone. Let THAT be your guide. Churches were going wrong even while Paul was out evangelizing them, so early writers, even those connected to the Apostles, could have gone wrong within a generation or two. Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone.
  15. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to John81 in A form of Spiritual Blindness   
    Most blind Christians I encounter are blind because they fail to read the Word themselves and they either have a pastor who doesn't preach enough meat or they don't pay attention to the preaching.
    This, in part, is why there are so many Christians who cling to both the Republican and Democrat parties as if it's a Christian duty. Each is blinded in a different way but both stem from a lack of knowing and understanding Scripture.
    Most of us know of Christians who are Masons or Shriners or some similar thing. They find no problem with this because they typically not only don't know the Word, they also don't know much beyond the surface of the groups they belong to.
    Many actual Christians are involved with the "social gospel" because they believe they are doing what Jesus commanded. They do ere not knowing the Scriptures.
    Point out to some Christians you are sure you are going to heaven when you die and they become indignant and think you arrogant. Lack of knowing and understanding Scripture opens the door to so many false ideas. Show them what First John says about the matter and they are dumbfounded that's in the Bible.
    While I've heard people say things like, "cleanliness is next to godliness" and claim that's a quote from Scripture; I'd never heard the one our pastor heard a few years ago when a Christian man said to him, "you know what the Bible says, 'if you build it they will come'." Our pastor couldn't help but laugh a bit and then say, "That's not in the Bible!, that's from a movie!"
    Indeed, many Christians are blind to the truth, often because of their own self-imposed ignorance due to not spending time in the Word.
  16. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Donald in A form of Spiritual Blindness   
    There are a few kinds of Spiritual blindness talked about in the Bible; The blindness of the unsaved or the blindness of the Jewish nation, etc.  But there is also a Spiritual blindness that can effect Christians.  This blindness that effects Believers, is always caused by unrepentant sin; Sin will blind us to our sinful condition.
    Well over the years, I would occasionally run in to a professing believer, who would be infected by a particular form of this Spiritual blindness; That is one, that effects their view of the world.  You could tell this, because when you would talk to them about the soon return of our Lord Jesus Christ, they would talk as if it was hundreds of years off; And if you pressed them about why they have that view, you would find out that they are blind to the great wickedness and depravity that is all around us.
    Now for sure, the fish stinks from the head down and 99% of professing believers who have this outlook on life, are either unchurched or have pastors who never preach about sin or wickedness at all, but always exclusively about, the love and mercy of God.  Most recently I was talking to a dear older woman, who was born in 1933 who’s father was a Methodist preacher.  And as usual, I asked her if she “was born again?”  She responded with “of course I am”.  In response to that, I said “Well, I will see you in heaven one day; and you might just get their before I do; But we both might go together, if the Lord returns soon.”. Well, she was shocked to think that I held such a radical view and told me that, she wasn’t expecting His return, any time soon.
    ------------------------
    These kinds of encounters, invigorate me to preach harder against sin and the lost state of this world we are living in.  Even though this kind of preaching isn’t popular and can easily get a preacher fired from his position(2 Timothy 4:2-4).
    Each of us, should be aware of the danger we are faced with, in a world of Believers who are blind to the truth’s of God’s Word and we must remain dogmatic about these "fundamentals" of the faith.
     
  17. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Standing Firm In Christ in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Leviticus 22:22 Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.

    I never heard or read the word, "wen" until I saw it in my KJV.  The only way to know what it means is to look it up.


    Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
    2990. יַבָּל yabbelיַבָּל yabbel yab-bale'
    from 2986; having running sores:—wen.
     

    Now, without looking up the definition, I could not know exactly what "wen" means by the KJV text alone.  Yes, the text does indicate that it is some kind of defect.  But what is the harm in finding out exactly what kind of defect the text is referring to?
  18. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    wretched,
    I actually agree with you about the "man's books" to a great extent. I haven't looked at a commentary in years. I do still periodically use dictionaries and lexicons from time to time. Do I feel like that's laziness? No sir...I feel as though God has provided a tool to help me study.
    If all we need is the Spirit, then why did God provide pastors and teachers? I agree that the Bible says that the Spirit will teach us all truth...but the Spirit uses other men as one of the avenues that he teaches truths to us.
    2 Timothy 4:13
    The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
    Now, would you give Paul the same advice that you have given here?
    What were the books and parchments that Paul so earnestly desired? God's word? Study aides? Commentaries? We don't know, but Paul sure desired to have those books and parchments, didn't he? 
     
  19. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Standing Firm In Christ in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Using a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon is no different than listening to a preacher explain a verse or passage.  Should we stop listening to preachers, since their explaining of a verse or passage is not actually what the KJV says verbatim?  LoL

    If  one can "Amen" a preacher that expounds on a Scripture verse or passage, then one shouldn't have a problem with the use of a Greek or Hebrew Lexicon.  imo
  20. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Here's a link to the one from 1604 - http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/cawdrey/cawdrey0.html#m
    Here's the link to the one from the 1650s - https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8jYP-B1Q9a0C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PT9
    If you notice a date discrepancy, the second one is a reprint done in 1707 of the one from the 1650s...
     
  21. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to No Nicolaitans in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Please forgive the long post...this is sort of a personal testimony.
    At the risk of offending some and even possibly bringing ridicule upon myself for questioning a long-held and heart-warming belief...
    We often like to speak of how we will one day live in a mansion in heaven. We like to sing about having a mansion just over the hilltop. The generally accepted view is a modern-day view...We will live in a...well...a big-huge mansion...somewhere up in heaven...
    Now, before I go any further, let me say that anything the Lord prepares for us will surely be magnificent...it may even be something akin to what we view as a "mansion" or even better. However, we apply a modern-day meaning to the word "mansion", yet a "mansion" (during the time when the King James was written) meant nothing like what we mean today when we think of a "mansion".
    John 14:2
    In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    Please note...the "mansions" are in the Father's house...they are part of it. Years ago as a young Christian, this one thing was probably the catalyst that caused me to start studying more and digging deeper; it made me wonder what these "mansions" could be. My thought at the time was..."I thought we would have our own mansion, and all of the mansions would be scattered throughout heaven, but this says the mansions are in the Father's house. Either all of heaven is the Father's house, or the Father's house is a distinct part of heaven. Then it must be a HUGE house if his one house is big enough to contain enough mansions for everyone who is saved!"
    Now, could God do that? Sure he could! He can do anything!
    So I was happy with that for a while...but it kept nagging me.
    I had heard of people looking things up in the Greek, and someone had given me a Greek Lexicon that I had never used...so I looked it up. It said the meaning of "mansion" was "an abode, a residence" (or something like that).
    When I saw that, I sort of panicked. It caused me to question several things. If the King James says "mansion", but the Greek says "abode"...something must be wrong! After all, a mansion is a mansion! Why did the King James say mansion when the Greek says the word means an abode? Is the King James wrong? Is the Greek wrong? Are there errors in God's word? But there can't be errors in God's word!
    Let me tell you...the Devil really used that against me for a while.
    I fought with those "wonderings" for quite a while...too afraid to let anyone know what I was dealing with. I finally asked my pastor about the mansions...what they could be? His reply was something like..."It says mansion doesn't it? We'll live in a mansion brother!" His meaning was that we would live in a mansion (as we think of mansions today).
    That was no help...
    Why did I have to go look in the Greek?!?!? Boy, I was fine believing God could have mansions stacked on top of each other inside his house...why did I have to go look at that Greek? It really messed me up...causing doubts about God's word...
    ...but it kept nagging me.
    Mansion, abode. Mansion, abode. Why did I have to go looking in that (yes, I said it) STUPID Greek?
    Then one day it dawned on me. The King James was translated in the 1600s.    I wonder what "mansion" meant in the 1600s?
    It took me a bit of time to find any type of dictionary from the 1600s, but I found 2 of them. The first one was A Table Alphabeticall by Robert Cawdrey (from 1604). From what I read, this was the first "real" attempt by anyone to make an English dictionary. It didn't have many words in it, but to my surprise...it did have the word "mansion" listed! Here's what "mansion" meant in 1604...
    mansion, an abiding place
    So, in the 1600s, a "mansion" was an abiding place?!?!?
    So I looked in the second dictionary that I had found. It's called Glossographia Anglican Nova. (I think it was done in the 1650s). Here's what "mansion" meant in the 1650s...
    mansion, an abiding
    BAM! Finally! Here I was...trying to apply a modern-day meaning to a word from the 1600s! It took a long time for me as a young Christian to figure it out. I went through a lot of personal times of worry because of it...like I said, the Devil really used it against me...making me wonder if there were errors in God's word.
    King James: mansion
    Greek: an abode, a residence
    1600s mansion: an abiding place
    The King James is right in using the word mansion. The Greek is in agreement with "an abode". They agree together. Now, I can see that the context of the verse itself shows (me) that these "mansions" aren't what we would view as "mansions" today, but back then...I didn't know any better.
    The Lord Jesus Christ has gone to prepare an abode for us...and though it won't be a "mansion" over the hilltop, our abode will be part of the Father's house, and I think that will be far more glorious than any piddly mansion we see today.
  22. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to Ukulelemike in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    While its true the Bible doesn't command that commentaries be written, neither is it commanded against. The Bile says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I don't see where this limits one to only the Word, in order to be able to rightly divide the word of truth.  People began to write commentaries very early on, not perhaps complete like we have with Matthew Henry or others, but it is all an aspect of teaching the word. I was once lambasted on an IFB site, which was primarily Ruckmanite, because I had the AUDACITY to study history to have a better understanding of the historical context for things in the Bible. How DARE I ADD to God's word by reading about the history of the time! It got so bad that I left. (By the way, I mention it as a Ruckmanite site, because they made it clear it was, not because I blame Ruckman, but some of his acolytes to hold him in such high esteem, rather like Jack Hyles' acolytes, who believed, in both cases, neither man could do any wrong and were held up in a most spiritually unhealthy manner.)
    The danger, of course, comes in taking the writings of men, be they commentaries, margin notes, etc, as authoritative. In fact, I find some of the margin notes in the BEST of Bible to be dangerous, and I have more than once crossed them out. And, that being said, I rarely use commentaries or Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean dictionaries, etc, because I have faith in the word of God in the KJV and find way too much questionable content in many areas. But, as is mentioned above by heartstrings, there are words we just don't use anymore, as well as words which have vastly changed in meaning, and in some cases, using other writings can be a help. 
  23. Thanks
    TheSword got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Actually, it reads:
    the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing
    The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).
    I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."
  24. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to heartstrings in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    Here are some more which are used differently today.: prevent, quick, quit, reins, road, smart, corn, halt, let, meat, meet, occupy, overcharged, singular, careful, dumb. Then there are words like "ouches" and "besom" that most people would have no idea because the word isn't used today at all. Nobody here is complaining about the King James, bro, we're just saying it takes digging and studying to learn what you need to know.
  25. Thanks
    TheSword reacted to heartstrings in The King James Version attacked from with in   
    The King James is the perfect, unadulterated, preserved, "very pure" word of God for English speaking people, but Modern English has been corrupted over time. This is why a word like "conversation" today means "having a discussion" whereas in the King James it meant "manner of life". There are loads of words like that in the King James but doesn't bother me a bit to look them up. It's part of what's called "studying". 2 Timothy 2:15
×
×
  • Create New...