Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. Indeed, the human person is made of three interrelated parts: 1. The soul -- which is the personhood of a person (including the heart for motivation, the mind for thinking, the emotion for attitude, the conscience for moral estimation, the will for decision making, etc.). 2. The body -- which is the physical "house" of the soul (by which the soul is able to act in and interact with the physical world). 3. The spirit -- which is the spiritual capacity of the soul (by which the soul is able to engage in fellowship with God, and which is so closely connected to the soul that it requires the superior sharpness of God's Word to divide between them). Now, if the body experiences some form of "depression," such as physical shock after an injury, then that is certainly a matter for physical medical treatment (bathed in prayer). If the spirit experiences depression, then that is certainly a matter for spiritual treatment. (Note: The regenerate spirit is created after God's own likeness in righteousness and true holiness, and as such would not actually be able to experience spiritual "depression;" whereas the unregenerate spirit is always in the darkness of unrighteousness, and thus is always in a form of spiritual "depression.") Yet the real dispute comes when the soul experiences some form of depression. Does the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word speak concerning the matters of the human soul? Does the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word speak concerning the matter of the human heart, the human mind, the human emotion, the human conscience, the human will, the selfish flesh, etc.? When considering "disorders" of the human soul, which is a better source for truth and wisdom -- the wisdom of God's Holy Word or the wisdom of human psychoanalysis? Furthermore, in today's culture, when human psychoanalysis engages such matters, it tends to disregard the close connection of the spirit and soul in a person, to disregard the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word concerning matters of the soul, to disregard the place of God Himself in relation to the person, and (concerning believers) to disregard the reality that God the Holy Spirit HIMSELF resides within a believer. Even so, in today's culture human psychoanalysis attempts to engage "disorders" of the human soul by using only the tools of human wisdom and human ingenuity (at present, usually through pharmaceuticals). Now, the lost world really has no other option, since those are the only tools that are available to them. However, for us who are the children of God, the children of light, we should be following a better way; we should be using better "tools." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 -- "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity EVERY THOUGHT to the obedience of Christ."
  2. Depression and anxiety ARE spiritual issues. Providing information from articles that disregard the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word on the subject will lead astray and will not help the root problem of the heart. When our answers concerning the heart and soul of mankind come from any source other than God's Holy Word, we are already on uncertain ground. Galatians 5:22-25 -- "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." John 14:27 -- "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." Psalm 43:5 -- "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why art thou disquieted within me? Hope in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God." Philippians 4:6-9 -- "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."
  3. Brother "StandingintheGap," I recognize your perspective on this matter (allowing for the fact that the passage does not specifically state that she was fornicating with the man that she was presently with); however, I would contend that Jesus' specific terminology would lend itself toward an accusation of sexual involvement. For Jesus did not say, "He whom thou now livest with." Rather, Jesus said, "He whom thou now HAST." Jesus employed a verb of possession, just as he had in the earlier phrase concerning the previous possession of husbands. Somehow she had "possession" of that man, in a similar fashion wherein she had had previous "possession" of husbands. How might that be? It could not be the "possession" of marriage since Jesus specifically stated that he was NOT her husband. So, how else does a woman "possess" a man who is not her husband? From my perspective it seems fairly clear that Jesus was referring to a sinful, sexual relationship (especially considering that contextually this seems to be the point by which the woman was convicted of sin unto faith in the Savior).
  4. On the one hand, I myself am compelled to acknowledge that the New Testament does not contain a direct command of tithing for the New Testament believer. On the other hand, I believe that the New Testament DOES provide a principle of percentage giving ("as God hath prospered" - 1 Corinthians 16:2, as well as 2 Corinthians 8:12) for the New Testament believer unto the ministry of the Lord. Furthermore, I believe that the primary motivation for giving unto the ministry of the Lord is out of HONOR for the Lord (as per Proverbs 3:9 & 2 Corinthians 8:9), and that this motivation is the true foundation for cheerful giving (as per 2 Corinthians 9:7). Finally, I believe that the principle of blessing according to the amount of percentage giving with a cheerful heart still holds for the New Testament believer (as per 2 Corinthians 9:6, 8-11) (which would seem to imply that the principle of cursing for not giving at all in honor unto the Lord would also still hold true). So then, with what percentage should a New Testament believer begin? According to 2 Corinthians 9:7 the New Testament instruction seems to be -- "according as he purposeth in his heart." However, throughout the whole of Scripture (including Abraham before the Law, and the instructions of the Law) the tithe out of the first fruits of our increase seems to be a base percentage for giving in honor unto the Lord our God.
  5. Actually, it appears from Genesis 20:13 that Abraham's instruction to Sarah about this matter was not just a two-time thing, but was actually a habitual thing -- "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother." In fact, I believe that this practice is what taught Isaac to do the same, that he learned this practice himself from the example of his father. I agree with this viewpoint. In fact, concerning the case of Rahab, it is possible that she was not even quite yet a convert/believer at the time of her lie.
  6. Philippians 2:5-8 -- "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Matthew 11:29-30 -- "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly of heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
  7. John 4:17-18 -- "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband; for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." In this passage our Lord Jesus Christ Himself seems to be acknowledging that the woman HAD a man (was with a man), while that man was NOT to be viewed as the woman's actual husband. Indeed, when the woman stated that she had NO husband (at that present time), although she had engaged in five previous marriage relationships (as per Jesus' own declaration), and although she was presently with a man (as per Jesus' own declaration), our Lord Jesus Christ directly acknowledged that she had said WELL and TRULY. She had been married five previous times (all acknowledged by Jesus), but she was NOT married AT ALL at that present time (also acknowledged by Jesus). She had a man at that very present time (acknowledge by Jesus), but was NOT actually married to him at that present time (also acknowledged by Jesus). Thus it appears from our Lord Jesus Christ's own viewpoint that physical sexual relationship itself is NOT the defining factor for a divinely recognized marriage.
  8. First, I find no need to "account" for these things. These things are based upon the so-called "doctrine of numerology," to which I grant very little credibility because it lacks Scriptural support. Second, if for the sake of the argument we grant that the 1611 King James translation is the final basis for our Biblical study as English readers, then your numbering system concerning the books of the Bible is incorrect. In the 1611 King James translation the 40th book was NOT Matthew. Rather, the 40th book was 1 Esdras; for the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha between Malachi and Matthew. This would also mean that the 1611 King James translation included 80 books altogether, not 66. Third, the fact that the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha actually raises a question in relation to your belief system. You believe that the 1611 King James translation provided "advance revelations," since you believe that the King James translators were somehow specially guided by God the Holy Spirit in the translational process. So then, since they included 14 books of the Apocrypha, do you believe that we should be viewing these additional books as Holy Scripture as well? If not, then how do you account for the inclusion of the Apocrypha by those who were supposedly so specially guided by God the Holy Spirit? Was the inclusion of the Apocrypha by the will of man, by the will of God, or by the will of the devil? Fourth, if, on the other hand, you deny the credibility of the Apocrypha books (although they were included in the 1611 edition of the King James translation) because those books are no longer included in the 1769 edition of the King James translation (which is the one that we use today), then that raises a different question. Which of the five editions of the King James translation (1611 edition, 1629 edition, 1638 edition, 1762 edition, 1769 edition) is the single one that you have chosen to be your final authority? Furthermore, if you choose any one of the four editions after the 1611, to what extent did the King James translators really possess the "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit, since what they did needed further editing changes? In addition, what "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit was required for the various editors of these additional editions, in order to rightly make editing changes to that which had been originally given in 1611? Finally, if the various editors were so granted "special" guidance of God the Holy Spirit to make editing changes to that which had come before them, then why is it no longer possible for God the Holy Spirit to provide "special" guidance again in our day to make more editing changes in our day (not that I myself have any desire that any such thing should occur)? According to your belief system, how can you doctrinally verify from Holy Scripture that the edition of the King James translation that you have chosen for yourself is the FINAL authority which allows no further editing changes?
  9. In this post I wish to respond concerning the question over the second half of 1 John 2:23. And within the second to last paragraph of that which you posted on my personal profile: By the fact that you have repeated this case to me three different times, it seems that it is important to you. So then -- Your presentation of this case is somewhat false (and thus somewhat manipulative and deceptive). You provide us with THREE options to choose (which all turn out to be false options), but you neglect to provide the FOURTH option wherein the truth is actually found. The three options that you provide to us for the case concerning the second half of 1 John 2:23 are as follows: 1. The King James translators just made up this portion of 1 John 2:23, and thus took liberties with the Holy Scriptures by adding these ten words. (I answer -- This option is false.) 2. The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 from the devil. (I answer -- This option is false.) 3. The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 as an "advance revelation" from God the Holy Spirit. (This is the option that you desire for us to choose; however, I again answer -- This option is false). Now, these were the only three options that you offered us. Yet there is a fourth option that you neglected to offer us, as follows: 4. The King James translators included this portion of 1 John 2:23 because it already existed in previous sources of Holy Scripture, sources which they did indeed have available to them for their consideration. Brother West, you yourself attempted to cancel this option as even being possible with the following statements: The problem here is that you are wrong about what the King James translators had available to them. In truth, they did NOT develop these "10 words" completely new for the King James translation. In truth, the second half of 1 John 2:23 ALREADY EXISTED in previous English translations. Although it was not included in the 1526 Tyndale, the 1537 Matthews, or the 1560 Geneva translations, it WAS included in the 1395 Wycliffe translation and in the 1568 Bishop's Bible, which certainly were available to the King James translators for their consideration. Furthermore, this second half of 1 John 2:23 was also found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Aramaic translations/versions, in Luther's German translation of 1545, in the Spanish Sagrada Escrituras of 1569, and in the Italian Diodati of 1649, which were also available to the King James translators for their consideration. Finally, although this second half of 1 John 2:23 was not included in Stephanus' Greek text of 1550, it WAS indeed found in Beza' Greek text of 1598. Indeed, this portion of 1 John 2:23 WAS found in various Greek texts that the King James translators certainly had available to them for their consideration. Therefore, in the particular case of 1 John 2:23, the use of italicized words does NOT indicate that the King James translators were unaware of any source support for the second half of the verse. So, why then did they put the second half of the verse in italics? Since (as far as I am aware) none of the King James translators communicated their reasoning in print, and since none of them remain alive today to ask, we can only speculate. One possible answer is that some of the King James translators were not as confident as others about the authenticity for that portion of 1 John 2:23. Thus in order to demonstrate THEIR HUMILITY (as per your own declaration of their character, Brother West -- "To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement"), those who were less confident humbly allowed it to be included; and those who were more confident humbly allowed it to be placed in italics. Another possibility is that the King James translators believed that the second half of 1 John 2:23 should be included, but they placed it italics in order to humbly acknowledge that it was not included in previously accepted English translations of the Holy Scriptures. (Note: As for myself, I find that there is more than enough source evidence for its authenticity. Even so, I have NO doubts against it.)
  10. To all, At present I am encountering a difficulty with handling the discussion to the extent that I desire. For the past few days, I have been unable to access my OnlineBaptist account from any computer at my own house. On the other hand, I AM able to access my account from other people's houses, which is what I am doing at present (at my in-law's). This has happened before and lasted approximately a week. I believe that it is a problem either with my router or with my internet provider. Therefore, having to access my account at other's houses limits my response-ability, because I do not have regular daily access. ___________________________________ To Brother West, You posted the following on my personal profile: Until the concluding two paragraphs, this presentation seems to be a response to the opening quote -- "Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles." To this quote you then stated to me -- "I really do not know where you are going with this." The problem is that I myself did not present the original quotation. That original quotation was made above in this thread discussion by Brother Tony, not by me, as follows: Therefore, I cannot tell you where Brother Tony intended to be "going with this" statement. In order to know that, you have to talk to Brother Tony about it, not to me. __________________________________________________ Now, concerning your closing paragraph of that posting on my personal profile, as follows: First, let us recognize that chapter and verse divisions for the entire Old and New Testament Scriptures did NOT first begin with the King James translation. Although they were not included in the 1526 Tyndale translation or the 1537 Matthews translation, they were included in the 1560 Geneva translation. Even so, if for the sake of the argument we grant that these chapter and verse divisions were "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny as true doctrine), then the King James translators did NOT themselves receive that "advance revelation." Then the King James translators were only continuing the "advance revelation" that had originally been granted to the Geneva translators. In addition, if we grant that such "advance revelation" can occur and be added through a sequence of English translations (which I emphatically deny), then there would be no grounds for claiming that a more modern English translation has not possibly also provided us with even further (and/or corrective) "advance revelation." What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that such "advance revelations" that occurred in the Tyndale translation, then in the Geneva translation, then in the 1611 King James translation, then in the four further editions of the King James translation, has ended with the 1769 edition of the King James translation? What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that God has not provided additional "advance revelations" in one or more of the English translations from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s? Second, since I would definitely deny that these chapter and verse divisions are "advance revelation," and since there is no direct Scriptural support for them, you ask whether I would reject them altogether. In answer I would say - No, there is no need to reject them altogether. These chapter and verse divisions serve as very useful TOOLS in locating specific statements of Holy Scripture for both Bible study and Bible memorization. Even so, there is good reason to retain them, and not to reject them. However, since these chapter and verse divisions were man made and were not a part of the original inspiration or divine preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they should NOT be viewed as carrying the "jot and tittle" authority of the very Holy Scriptures. Thus if a preacher or teacher indicates that a particular chapter division or verse division is "unfortunate," he is only expressing disagreement with a man-made tool, not with the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Scriptures themselves.
  11. So, you believe that which you (admittedly) cannot support directly from Scripture. By definition this seems to mean that you have chosen yourself (your own belief) as your final authority in this matter. However, I myself am NOT AT ALL bound to accept you (your particular beliefs that you cannot support directly from Scripture) as my authority for doctrine.
  12. Brother Jerry, I was NOT at all seeking to defend the falsehood of the Jewish false teachers. Rather, I was seeking only to present the facts for the origin of the Hebrew word "shekinah" within the Hebrew language and to present its original relationship to Old Testament Scripture. That the usage by Jewish false teachers has tainted the word is NOT to be denied and may be sufficient enough for us to reject any usage of the word altogether. Yet in itself the word is not corrupt, nor does its basic meaning present something false. Using English for the sake of ease - Scripture tells us directly that "the glory of the Lord abode ["shahkan"] upon Mount Sinai." Altering the Hebrew verb "shahkan" into its adjective form to modify the glory of the LORD simply means saying something like the following in English - the abiding glory of the Lord, or the Lord's abiding glory.
  13. In my case it is not simply "overtones;" rather, it is a very direct accusation. (And I am not shy to acknowledge it as such.) Except that I have not asked for an "example" of a place wherein you think that the King James translation has provided "advanced revelation" upon the original Hebrew and Greek. Rather, I have asked for you to provide actual doctrinal truth FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE that the Lord our God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation. Indeed, above I provided the following challenge: _______________________________________ However, let us consider your presented "example." -- 1. The King James translators did NOT "carry on" any "advance revelation" in their translational choice to use the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37. In fact, if the word "churches" in this verse actually is "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny), then the King James translators only continued the "advance revelation" that had already been revealed through the 1526 Tyndale translation (as you yourself admited above). 2. No, as an advocate of the "original languages," I do NOT "cry error" to the translational choice of the King James translators for their usage of the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37. 3. Yes, the King James translators certainly were "learned in the original languages," just as they were quite learned in the English language as well. So, let us consider the English word "church." In its etymology the English Word "church" comes from the Middle English "chirche, kirke," back through the Old English and the German ultimately to the Greek word "kuriakon." Now, the meaning of the Greek word "kuriakon" is "a temple or religious building dedicated unto a god." Even so, the most basic meaning for the English word "church" is "a building set apart or consecrated for public worship." The particular deity for whom this building is consecrated is NOT specified in the word, only that the building is consecrated for the religious worship of some deity. As such, the English word "church" is an English synonym for the English word "temple." So then, why does the English word "churches" find its place in the translation of Acts 19:37? In the King James translation the whole English phrase "robbers of churches" translates the single Greek word "ierosulos." Now, the Greek word "ierosulos" was formed by the joining of the Greek noun "ieron" (translated by the English word "temple" throughout the King James translation) and the Greek verb "sulao" (meaning "to rob"). Even so, the basic meaning for the Greek noun "ierosulos" is "robbers of religious buildings." Considering then the basic meaning of the Greek word in Acts 19:37 and the basic meaning of the English word "church," the King James translators were quite accurate in their translational choice, as per their superior understanding in both the Greek language and the English language. We have no need to view them as being in some form of error. Nor do we have any need to view them as presenting "advance revelation." They simply translated the Greek that already existed with an accurate English phrase.
  14. Nor have I ever claimed to be infallible or a Bible scholar. Nor have I ever claimed to have "mastered" the subject of Biblical doctrine. However, I am more than willing to claim that I am a Bible STUDENT, who ever seeks to diligently study and grow in the understanding of God's truth and wisdom from His Holy Scriptures, that I might show myself "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
  15. What was said (not at all implied, but directly said) was the following: Now, in your above posting you have employed the word "TEXT" without any modification or definition. As such, your usage of that word "TEXT" can be misleading. Are you using it as a reference to the Hebrew and Greek "text" of Scripture? Or are you using is as a reference to the King James English "text" of Scripture? Knowing the context of your doctrinal position, it seems clear to me that your usage of the word "TEXT" in your statement above is a reference to the King James English "text" of Scripture. In fact, based upon the manner that you have presented your doctrinal position on the matter, I do indeed believe that you would be willing to die before you would be willing to alter one "jot or tittle" of the "text" of the King James English translation. Yet NOONE has accused you of seeking to alter in any way the English "text" of the King James translation. Rather, the accusation against you is that it is a false doctrine to claim that the King James English translation ("text") is itself advance revelation upon the Hebrew and Greek original "text" of Scripture. No lie has been spoken against you. You yourself did INDEED state that the King James translation provides "advance revelations." ______________________________________________ And I proceeded to point out one of those errors in your original presentation. Indeed, I proceeded to declare that it was "a foundational doctrinal error that I view as a separational offense. Even now, I stand by my accusation. Good for you; neither have I. In your statement above, you again employ a word in a misleading manner. I refer to your usage of the word "originals." By your usage of this word are you referring to the "original" manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament? Or by your usage of this word are you referring to the "original" writings of the Hebrew Old Testament? Contextually, by your added sarcastic statement, "My, my, what a lucky kid," in reference to "little Tim," it appears that you were indeed referring to the "original" manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament. By your further claim that "only one brother acknowledged" this, I do not know to which brother you refer; but I can provide my own statement within this very thread discussion concerning the matter, as follows: So then, you ask the question - "Did little Tim have the originals?" (And for that matter, did his grandmother and mother, who taught Timothy the truth of the Scriptures?) If you are referring to the "original manuscripts," then the answer is - NO. But if you are referring to the "original writings" from those original manuscripts, as preserved from generation to generation by the almighty power and providence of God, then the answer is a hearty - YES!!!
  16. Ok, I did a little research of my own within the Hebrew language itself. The Hebrew word "shekinah" appears to be an adjective form of the base Hebrew verb "shahkan." This base Hebrew verb "shahkan" is indeed found in the Hebrew Scriptures a large number of times. The meaning for this Hebrew verb "shahkan" is: (1) To let oneself down, to settle down (whereby it is used a number of times concerning the pillar of cloud/fire in the wilderness); (2) To lie down, especially to take rest; (3) To dwell, to abide; (4) in passive - To be inhabited, as a place; (5) in Hebrew Hiphil - To cause any one to dwell. Since the Hebrew verb "shahkan" is used in Hebrew Scripture a number of times with reference to the pillar of cloud/fire and even with reference directly to the glory of LORD over mount Sinai, it seems that there is some Biblical ground for using the adjective "shekinah," which is derived from the Hebrew verb "shahkan," to describe the glory of the Lord on Mount Sinai and in the pillar/cloud of the wilderness. Consider the following examples: Exodus 24:16 -- "And the glory of the LORD abode [Hebrew verb "shahkan"] upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." Numbers 9:22 -- "Or whether it were two days, or a month, or a year, that the cloud tarried upon the tabernacle, remaining [Hebrew verb "shahkan"] thereon, the children of Israel abode in their tents, and journeyed not: but when it was taken up, they journeyed."
  17. Is it "high-minded" to walk in obedience unto the Lord my God? God forbid! Romans 16:17-18 -- "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 1 Timothy 6:3-5 -- "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." Titus 1:10-11 -- "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake." (Note: I would think since you hold so strongly to the "advance revelation" of the King James translation, and since I equally as strongly oppose it, that you would equally determine to break fellowship from me as I have to have no fellowship with you.) It should be noted that in each case wherein I have expressed myself on the matter of separation from your false doctrine, I have communicated that I believe your false doctrine is one that is WORTHY of separation. I do not view every doctrinal difference from my own as worthy of separation. Indeed, I would view that doctrinal difference as wrong; for if I viewed it as right, I would hold to it, rather than reject it. However, I do not view all doctrinal differences as those which "cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine" (as per Romans 16:17-18) or as those which are contrary to a walk after godliness (as per 1 Timothy 6:3-5) or as those which deceive and spiritually subvert less mature believers (as per Romans 16:17-18 & Titus 1:10-11). On the other hand, I most certainly do view your false doctrine concerning the "advance revelations" of the King James translation as a false doctrine that IS worthy of separation. Now, concerning your examples above: 1. I have only encountered one individual who has taught a 3.5 year tribulation as opposed to a 7 year tribulation. I do indeed view this as a false doctrine. Concerning that individual, I believe that he himself is somewhat confused in his Bible study. However, considering other things which that individual holds, which I would also consider false, it is likely that I would indeed separate from him over his body of false ideas. 2. I do not view the "Baptist" conflict over "closed," "close," or "open" communion (with various definitions thereof) as being worthy of separation. However, depending on the manner in which some might communicate or press the issue to cause overmuch division, offences, and strifes, I might choose to separate therefrom. 3. I have indeed encountered Baptists who hold to the "gap theory" concerning Genesis 1:1-2. Depending on how far they apply the matter or how hard they push the matter, I could indeed come to the place wherein I might break fellowship with them. (Note: Attempting to undercut or oppose the Biblical doctrine and practice of separation will not work effectively with me. It most certainly will not turn me aside from my opposition of your false doctrine concerning the "advance revelations" of the King James translation.)
  18. And yet, Brother West, you said the following in your above article: 1. You employed the phrase "advance revelations" in application to "the King James Bible," which came approximately 1500 years AFTER the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek had been completed. It seems then that you are advocating that the King James translation has provided us with "advance [added] revelations" above that of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. 2. You further indicated that ONLY "the King James Bible" could establish these "advance revelations" about which you speak. It seems then that you are advocating concerning the New Testament apostles and prophets of the first century, upon which our Lord Jesus Christ founded His church (as per Ephesians 2:20), He Himself being the Chief Corner Stone, that those New Testament apostle and prophets could not have known these "advance revelations" of truth, since they would not exist for another 1500 years after their time when the King James translation came forth. Indeed, it seems that you are advocating that no New Testament believer throughout the first 1600 years of the church age could have known these "advance revelations" of truth, until the Lord our God brought them forth for English speaking peoples through the King James translation, since they ONLY can be established by the "King James Bible" (as per your teaching). Now, I myself have clearly and emphatically declared this to be a FALSE DOCTRINE. Indeed, I myself have declared it to be a false doctrine worthy of SEPARATION. Thus I present my previous posting again:
  19. Brother West, Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture. If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter). For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.
  20. Agreed. And such diligent study not only is necessary for the definition of words, but also for the grammatical usage of words and phrases. Mishandling a passage because of a misunderstanding of grammar is sadly too common - and by this I am talking about a misunderstanding of ENGLISH grammar (not to mention how many go to the Hebrew and/or Greek without really understanding Hebrew and/or Greek grammar). Words not only have definitions, but also have grammatical usage. What they mean is significant, but how they are used in a sentence or context is equally significant.
  21. If what you mean by that which I have emboldened in your quotation above is that the King James translation somehow provides an "added revelation" of "new doctrine" that was not previously in the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek - then I am compelled to express an emphatic disagreement. I would stand in agreement rather with that which Brother Jerry presented: To consider your example: This appears to be a reference unto Revelation 17:9-10. Being able myself to look up and read the Greek of Revelation 17:9-10, I would present that the Greek reads just as the English in these verses. The Greek reads just as the English that the seven heads of the beast upon which the whore rides are seven mountains. The Greek reads just as the English that the woman/whore sits upon these seven mountains. The Greek reads just as the English that there are seven kings, that five of those kings have fallen, that one of those kings is, and that the seventh king is not yet come. The Greek reads just as the English that the final king, when he comes, will continue for a short space of time. There is nothing different between the Greek and the English; there is no added revelation or doctrine in the English.
  22. Brother Hugh, I thank you for expressing this, and I may need to express an apology to you. When I first began my posting above, and throughout the majority of my typing thereof, I misunderstood and thought that I was responding to a post from Brother West. It was not until I was at the end of typing out my response that I realized my mistake, that I was responding, not to a post from Brother West, but to a post from you. Thus my response may have been a little more forceful toward you than it needed to be. Even so, I do NOT withdraw or apologize for the position that I presented in my above posting; but I do apologize if I came across too forcefully in my presentation thereof. Being an English reader myself, who is VERY particular about English grammar in my studies of Scripture, I can certainly appreciate your concern in this matter. I would NOT teach that a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is necessary to be a godly student of God's truth. Indeed, I WOULD teach that an English student of God's Holy Word can be completely confident to know the wisdom and will of God through a diligent study of the King James translation. However, the doctrine of God's Holy Word (in particular the doctrine of divine inspiration and the doctrine of divine preservation) compels me to acknowledge that the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek IS God's very Word for ALL of mankind and must be the ULTIMATE foundation for ALL translational work into ANY language of mankind. The Lord our God by His Holy Spirit did not GIVE His Word to mankind in English. Rather, He gave His Word to mankind in Hebrew and Greek. I myself trust the infinite wisdom of the Lord my God to do so in this fashion. Nor did the Lord our God promise to preserve His Holy Word in English. Rather, He promised to preserve every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Word as originally given in Hebrew and Greek. I myself trust the almighty power of the Lord my God to do just as He promised. Even so, upon this foundation the Lord my God has also providentially provided a wonderful and accurate TRANSLATION of His Holy Word from the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek in the King James translation (even as He has providentially provided similar translations in various other languages of the world). For English readers I would hold forth the King James translation with complete confidence as the authoritative Word of God in English. Indeed. For English readers - the King James translation can be taken with complete confidence to study it diligently, to learn it whole heartedly, to meditate on it consistently, to live by it submissively, and to teach it confidently. Indeed, to the extent that an individual understands more of English grammar than of Hebrew or Greek grammar, that individual will likely glean more from the King James English translation than from the Hebrew and Greek. However, to the extent that the Lord our God allows an individual to learn Hebrew and/or Greek, to that extent a study of God's very Word in Hebrew and Greek can be useful for that individual to learn and grow. Necessary - not at all; useful - indeed.
  23. Indeed. And that whole system of textual "criticism" (which actually started somewhat before Westcott and Hort made it so popular) is a bunch of bologna (unless perchance you think that bologna is good, then you will want to insert some other negative descriptive). That whole system is (in my opinion) the devil's attempt to defeat God's divine work of preservation. The devil certainly cannot win that battle, because he simply cannot defeat the divine work of God; but he sure can deceive many throughout the course of the engagement.
  24. The Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Greek. No, this comes down to a correct understanding of Biblical doctrine concerning Holy Spirit inspiration and the promise of divine preservation. However, to consider your parenthetical question - (Doesn't this come then down to personal opinion and private interpretation) - from the perspective in which you intended it, I would ask a set of return questions -- Which edition of the King James translation have you chosen as your final authority, of which there are five (for as some have said elsewhere in this forum concerning this subject, things that are different are not the same); and then would not your making such a choice equally come down to "personal opinion and private interpretation"? Furthermore, the King James translation is a TRANSLATION from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. So, from which Hebrew and Greek did the King James translators choose; and why? Would this then come down to the "personal opinion and private interpretation" of the King James translators? In fact, by claiming the King James translation as your FINAL authority, even above the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, you would actually be making the King James translators to be your final authority. No, I am quite comfortable holding that the King James translation carries inspirational authority for English speaking peoples (and I will NOT use ANY other translation). However, I will NOT concede in any fashion that the King James English translation is "advanced revelation" from God the Holy Spirit. It is a TRANSLATION from the Hebrew and Greek, which the Lord our God providentially provided for English speaking peoples. Indeed, I agree that the original penmen of the Hebrew and Greek were directly inspired (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) by God the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I would agree that the Lord our God promised to preserve those original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures/Writings (not the original manuscripts, but the original writings from those original manuscripts) in a "jot and tittle" manner unto EVERY generation of His own people. Thus I would hold that unto 1611 and even unto this very day the original writings of Hebrew and Greek from the original manuscripts (although NOT the original manuscripts themselves) STILL exist among the Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that have been passed down from generation to generation. (NOTE: I DO acknowledge and contend heartily that our adversary the devil has also been busy throughout that time developing corrupted and false "scriptures" by which to deceive from the truth of God.) Due to the precision of the Hebrew scribes and Masoretes, I would hold to the Masoretic textual family (not altered by the Septuagint) for the Old Testament Scriptures. Due to the proliferation of the Greek New Testament manuscripts for the Received textual family from generation to generation of this New Testament church age, I would hold to the Received textual family for the New Testament Scriptures. (In fact, this is the same position that the King James translators took for the Hebrew and Greek texts from which they translated the King James translation.) Yes, the Hebrew and Greek texts were already inspired. Yes, the Hebrew and Greek texts were divinely preserved (and remain so unto this very day). Yes, translation does not take away the authority of divine inspiration, that is -- to the extent that the translation remains accurate to the originally inspired and divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek. Even so, I am very, VERY confident in the accuracy and authority of the King James translation. Yet I recognize that it still is a TRANSLATION. As such, it CANNOT supersede or disannul the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated - UNLESS it actually is "advanced revelation" by the additional direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit upon the King James translators. However, I am compelled to deny any such doctrinal position because the Holy Scriptures NEVER promote, prophesy, promise, or proclaim any such teaching concerning the King James translation itself.
  • Create New...