Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    134

Everything posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. Hmmmm. Brother Young, I am compelled to disagree with your understanding of Numbers 31:16-24 and with your understanding of Joshua 22:16-19. Concerning Numbers 31:16-24: 1. In verse 16 Moses did indicate that the women of Midian, "through the counsel of Balaam," had caused the children of Israel "to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor." 2. In verse 16 Moses did indicate that this trespass against LORD resulted in "a plague among the congregation of the LORD." (By the way, neither Numbers 25 nor Numbers 31 say anything about a plague being anywhere other than "among the congregation" of Israel.) 3. In verses 17-18 Moses did instruct the soldiers to kill all of the male children and all of the non-virgin females of Midian. (Note: They had ALREADY killed all of the adult males of Midian when they conquered them.) On the other hand, he instructed them to keep alive all of the virgin females of Midian. Yet Moses said not a single word about this being in order to deal with some plague/disease that might have existed among the Midianites. (Indeed, IF this was in order to deal with some plague of STD, why were the MALE children killed, while keeping alive the FEMALE virgins?) 4. In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers and their spoils (including the female virgins of Midian) to remain "without the camp seven days," but he did not say a single word about this being to protect the congregation of Israel from some plague. 5. In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their captive Midianites and any soldier that had killed someone or that had touched a dead body. Yet this did NOT require a purifying of those who might only have touched a LIVING Midianite. (Note: IF a plague of STD was the problem, then touching ANY Midianite, living or dead, should have been a problem for possibly passing that plague along.) 6. In verse 20 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their raiment, all that was made of animal skins, all that was made with goats' hair, and all that was made with wood; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion. 7. In verses 21-24 Eleazar instructed the soldiers concerning the burning of that which would burn and the cleansing by water of all else, including their clothing on the seventh day; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion. 8. In fact, there is NOT a single word about plague anywhere throughout verses 17-24. The ONLY mention of plague in this entire context is in verse 16; and that mention grammatically places that plague in the PAST TENSE ("And there WAS a plague among the congregation of the LORD"). Furthermore, that mention of plague in verse 16 ONLY speaks about a plague that was past tense "AMONG THE CONGREGATION" of Israel (not among the Midianite peoples or nation). 9. Thus any insertion of plague among the Midianites is CONJECTURE, and any insertion of dealing with plague through the cleansings of verses 17-24 is CONJECTURE. It is going BEYOND the revelation of Scripture. Concerning Joshua 22:16-19: 1. In Joshua 22:1-9 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh have completed their obligation to help the other tribes of Israel to conquer the land of Canaan, and are thus permitted to return unto their designated land on the east side of Jordan as promised by the Lord through Moses in Numbers 32:16-33. There is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that there is anything wrong, defiled, unclean, or plagued about this land. In fact, in verse 4 that land is described as the land of their possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD had given them on the other side Jordan; and in verse 9 that land is described as "the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses." Furthermore, there is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that after they returned unto this land of their possession, they would be required to engage in ANY manner of purifying for the land. (Note: IF this land was defiled, unclean, or plagued, then their women and children had spent the entirety of the time that they had been helping the other tribes of Israel in such a plague infested land, as per Numbers 32:16-27.) 2. In Joshua 22:10 the problem is raised in that the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh built an alter by Jordan, "a great altar to see to." In fact, throughout verses 11-16 the ALTAR is the problem -- "And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel. And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them. And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten princes, of each chief house a prince throughout all the tribes of Israel; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel. And they came unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, unto the land of Gilead, and they spake with them, saying, Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?" Indeed, the rest of Israel initially viewed the building of this ALTAR as a trespass committed against the God of Israel, as a turning away from the Lord, and as a rebellion against the LORD. 3. In Joshua 22:17-18 the rest of the children of Israel challenge the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh with the following question -- "Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the LORD, but that ye must turn away this day from following the LORD?" With this question they do NOT ask whether they were not cleansed from the plague of Peor. Rather, they ask whether they were not cleansed from the INIQUITY of Peor. Furthermore, with this question they reference the plague as being PAST TENSE; and they ONLY reference the plague as being "in the congregation of the LORD," NOT as being in any body of land. Finally, with this question they indicate their concern, NOT that some plague might continue to infest, but that the INIQUITY of turning away "from following the LORD" might continue. 4. In the closing portion of Joshua 22:18 and in verse 20, the rest of the children of Israel express their concern that a trespass by the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh might cause the Lord God to "be wroth with the WHOLE congregation of Israel," even as in the case of Achan. 5. In Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel offer the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh that IF they had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel. 6. In Joshua 22:20-29 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh explain their decision to build the alter, NOT AT ALL as a rebellion against the Lord, NOT AT ALL as an altar for sacrifices, and NOT AT ALL as a replacement for the alter of the Lord in tabernacle, but ONLY as a memorial of witness between them and the rest of the children of Israel that ALL were a part of the same people and the same covenant. 7. In Joshua 22:30-34 the rest of the children of Israel express approval for this altar as a memorial of witness, and thus return unto the land of Canaan with NO FURTHER CONCERNS. Indeed, the chapter ends positively with NO concern about any unclean, plague infested land, and with NO purifying activity of any kind. (Note: IF, as you say, the land was still infested with plague, then I would expect something to have been done about that, or at least some concern about it.) Remember, in Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel had offered that IF the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel. Since this chapter concludes positively with NO move by them from their land, it would appear that they were NOT AT ALL concerned that the land was at all unclean.
  2. Indeed, Scripture clearly defines the sin of Israel as follows: Numbers 25:1-3 -- 1. "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab." The sin of fornication. 2. "And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods." The sin of idolatry. 3. "And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor." The sin of idolatry. "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel." Indeed, Scripture clearly indicates that "there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD" because the women of Midian had "caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor." (See Numbers 31:16) However, the Scriptures do NOT actually say that this plague was "contracted" through sexual transmission FROM the women of Midian or Moab. That part is CONJECTURE. Indeed, Scripture clearly indicates that 24,000 Israelites died from this plague. (See Numbers 25:9) Indeed, Scripture clearly reveals how this plague upon the children of Israel was ended as follows: Numbers 25:7-8 -- "And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." This one act by Eleazar ended the plague, NOT the killing, burning, washing, and quarantine of Numbers 31:17-24. Indeed, the application of this account is Scripturally revealed for us today -- 1. That we should not engage in fornication lest our Lord God's anger be kindled against us. 2. That we should not engage in idolatry lest our Lord God's anger be kindled against. Here then is the problem: Calling this plague something more than a PLAGUE, by specifically defining the category of this plague's nature, is going beyond the revelation of Scripture. Furthermore, specifically calling this plague an "STD" then influences one's view on how they CONTRACTED this plague, since by definition an STD is contracted/transmitted through sexual activity FROM the sexual partner. Finally, having called this plague an STD and concluding that it was contracted FROM the Midianite women then influences one's application concerning how to deal with fornication, fornicators, and STDs today.
  3. I myself would confidently contend that "plague" in these contexts means a physical disease of some kind. On the other hand, I would contend that it is conjecture to state that this physical disease was necessarily an STD of some kind for these contexts, or that it was contracted directly from the women with whom they fornicated. I would agree that STD would be a sound consideration for such a phrase as "a disease that is spread BY fornication." However, I am NOT aware of any Biblical passage that uses such a phrase.
  4. I assume that in this thread discussion we are speaking only about the doctrine of salvation (soteriology). As such . . . Of the five points commonly argued, I would hold to ZERO points with Calvinism, THREE points with Arminianism, and TWO points with neither one.
  5. Indeed. So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be -- ". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ." or -- ". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ." However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother). Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation. However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all. I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture. The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19. Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.
  6. Hmmmm. The English language is known to have existed in three forms, each of which are viewed as being different enough to classify as different languages: 1. Classical English 2. Middle English 3. Elizabethan English (which is the very origin and foundation for the English that we speak today) Now, the English language is indeed a living language, and thus every year it experiences changes in word creation and word nuances. Thus it may be acknowledged that present day English has some variations from the origins of Elizabethan English (primarily in the creation of many new words and word nuances). Yet the grammatical construction of the King James translation, which at present is that of the grammatical and spelling revision of 1769, is NOT contrary to the English of the modern day in wording or grammar. The grammar rules are the same. The word meanings, with very few exceptions, are the same. (But you could try to present a list of all the grammatical or word-meaning differences, if you desire.)
  7. Interesting response, considering that it does NOT acknowledge the devil's work to create corruptions in the Scriptural TEXTS of God's Word. Allow me to repeat my above comments in a more organized and emphasized manner, so that you might see more clearly the point: 1. Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe. 2. 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? 3. 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? 4. 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? 5. 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? (Specifically because those lines of translational work are founded upon TWO completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL traditions) (parenthetical added by Pastor Scott Markle) 6. As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of TEXTUAL and translational work. 7. But to follow the FIRST line of TEXTUAL and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people. 8. And to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us. 9. 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. You see, until you acknowledge the TEXTUAL issue in this doctrinal debate, you will NOT have touched upon the foundational conflict of the debate and disagreement.
  8. NO!!!!! It is not!!! Rather, it is better to read Scripture in English that is ACCURATE to the VERY WORD OF GOD as perfectly inspired and preserved by the Lord our God.
  9. 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.
  10. Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19. First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning. Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew. Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near." If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother. As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation. By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work. You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to). However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.
  11. I believe you mean 2 Samuel 21:19, right? If so, I ask -- What is the specific phrase in the verse wherein the King James translation got it wrong?
  12. 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.
  13. Ah, but the details within the Biblical doctrine of preservation help us to establish parameters by which to discern a valid or invalid Scriptural manuscript. 1. Since the Lord our God gave His PERFECT Word in the original writings thereof, and since the Lord our God promised to preserve that PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY number of variations among Scriptural manuscripts indicates SOME form of corruption therein. It does not necessarily reveal which "jot and tittle" is originally correct, but it DOES reveal the reality of corruption. 2. Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY corruptive variation among Scriptural manuscripts indicates that our adversary the DEVIL has had a hand in the matter, and thus that we should be on careful guard NOT to just accept ALL of these variations, but to be careful in discernment. 3. Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant more credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts that have been in available usage from generation to generation through the stewardship of the Israelites during the time of the Old Testament and through the stewardship of our Lord's true church since the time of the church age. (Note: The Roman Catholic "church" is NOT the Lord's true church.) 4. Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant much less credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts or textual families that have been discarded and/or hidden away from God's own people and true church for multiple generations. Now, such a recognition is NOT an "automatic" dismissal of a Scriptural manuscript, but a careful discernment concerning a Scriptural manuscript that is based upon the DOCTRINAL foundation of Biblical preservation. On the other hand, any who create a textual philosophy that is NOT founded upon this doctrinal foundation are in error; and any who do not recognize the evil working of the devil to develop and spread corruption within God's perfect Word are in error. In fact, from this perspective your own declared acceptance of ALL variations and your own neglect to refence and carefully consider the devil's corruptive work reveals your own position of ERROR.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Again, for the sake of factual accuracy: Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included: Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation. Rights or permission requests (including but not limited to reproduction in commercial publications) that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK (https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/rights-permissions) and approved in writing. Information acquired from the following site: https://www.cambridge.org/ad/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions
  17. And that response reveals the foundational reason that you are open to multiple, various translations without any distinction in source or quality. Your doctrine of preservation appears basically to be the following: 1. God promised to preserve His Word. 2. ALL of the textual manuscripts of God's Word available to us today are the means by which God fulfilled His promise of preservation. 3. Since these textual manuscripts of God's Word contain multiple variations and differences, God must have intended ALL of these variations and differences to exist for us. 4. Even so, the best way for us to understand ALL of the variations and differences that God intended for us is to use multiple translations whereby we can encounter these differences.
  18. 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.
  19. I AM a proponent of the King James translation in opposition to the "modern translations," because of the difference in textual SOURCE for those translations. However, for the sake of factual accuracy, I am compelled to provide a corrective. That is a factually accurate statement. That is a factually inaccurate statement. It would be more accurate to say -- Anyone anywhere in the world, EXCEPT IN THOSE PLACES WHEREIN BRITISH LAW GOVERNS, is free to copy, print, use and distribute the King James Bible text.
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. First, I now prefer to call the problem "easy prayerism" (a phrase learned from brother David Cloud), rather than "easy believism," specifically because Biblical faith in Christ for eternal salvation is doctrinally taught as the "easy" faith of a child, but NEVER taught simply as an "easy" set of prayer-words. Second, I find it worthy of notice that when "numbers" are referenced in the Book of Acts, it is NOT how many were "saved" or even baptized, but how many were ADDED unto the church.
  23. It is interesting the difference in perspective, because all throughout the years of my upbringing, I was aware of the controversy among Baptists between the "local church ONLY" position and the "local AND universal church" position. I myself was raised on the "local church ONLY" position, learning all of the support for that position and all of the arguments against the other position. I was also made to recognize that an extreme form of the "local church ONLY" position would enter the realm of "Baptist briderism," and was cautioned strongly against that "extreme."
  24. Understood and appreciated. In fact, I agree that much in the Independent Baptist movement has become more about supporting the movement, than about holding forth the true doctrine of God's Word. I myself have expressed my burden various times on the forum that there is so little sound Bible study within the movement.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...