Jump to content

Tyndale

Members
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Disciple.Luke in Exclusively "Local Church Only"   
    This type teaching would likely be found in any Baptist churches who teach what is known as Old Landmarkism or Baptist-Bride.   There may be an association of Baptist churches [American Baptist Association and the Baptist Missionary Association of America] where this type teaching would be more common. 
    James Robinson Graves (1820-1893) has been called the father of "Old Landmarkism."  He wrote a book entitled Old Landmarkism.
    I know of one book that addresses this teaching.  It is entitled Old Landmarkism and the Baptists by Bob Ross, published by Pilgrim Publications in 1979.
    Bob Ross claimed:  "According to Landmarkers, there is no authority in either the Word or from the Spirit for doing the work of the Great Commission; this authority comes solely from the local Baptist church" (Old Landmarkism, p. 5).
    Bob Ross wrote:  "New churches must be granted authority by a 'mother' church; baptism must be by a church-appointed administrator and must be authorized by the church; 'alien immersion' (non-Baptist immersion) is not to be accepted; 'open communion' is not to be practiced; preachers must be ordained by 'scriptural' churches; and 'true' Baptists must not unionize with non-Baptists" (p. 19).
    Thus, Bob Ross seems to be describing the same-type teaching to which you refer.
     
  2. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Preservation and the KJV   
    In the book entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg, the following definition is given for preservation:  “complete, inerrant protection and general accessibility of every writing (vowels and consonants, words, and orders of letters and words) of the Bible, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, for every generation of believers” (p. 13). 
    Ken Brandenburg asserted:  “The position taken by the men writing this book is that scripture teaches God has preserved every and all of His Words to the very letter, and these Words are available to every generation.  This is verbal, plenary preservation.  These Words are preserved in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament” (p. 23). 
    KJV defender D. A. Waite asserted:  “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation, p. 98). 
  3. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Preservation and the KJV   
    In our mutual discussion of the doctrine of preservation, did we not agree that it concerned preservation of the exact same original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?  We seemed to use the term preservation concerning the Scriptures in the same sense to refer to exact-word preservation [the same exact words preserved unchanged] or jot and tittle preservation.
    The Encarta World English Dictionary gave as its first definition of preservation: "protection from harm" and gave as its second definition: "a keeping of something unchanged" (p. 1412).
  4. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Preservation and the KJV   
    Actually the Puritan party was still part of the Church of England.  There were two groups in England that sometimes are confused:  the Puritans and the Separatists [Pilgrims].  They may have had similar doctrinal views, but one group [the Puritans] had remained in the Church of England while the other had left it.  From within, the Puritans sought to purify the Church of England of some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that remained in it while the Separatists had left the Church of England because of those teachings and practices.  Sometimes Puritans would leave the Church of England and become Separatists.
    All of the KJV translators were members of the Church of England.  A few had been part of the Puritan party, but they had been forced to conform [at least outwardly] by canons [church rules] made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James I in 1604.  These church rules were mostly against any Puritan dissent in the Church of England.  Archbishop Bancroft used his canons and the Church of England's High Commission Court to silence or persecute the Puritans and to try to force them into conformity with official Church of England positions. 
  5. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Preservation and the KJV   
    Actually the Puritan party was still part of the Church of England.  There were two groups in England that sometimes are confused:  the Puritans and the Separatists [Pilgrims].  They may have had similar doctrinal views, but one group [the Puritans] had remained in the Church of England while the other had left it.  From within, the Puritans sought to purify the Church of England of some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that remained in it while the Separatists had left the Church of England because of those teachings and practices.  Sometimes Puritans would leave the Church of England and become Separatists.
    All of the KJV translators were members of the Church of England.  A few had been part of the Puritan party, but they had been forced to conform [at least outwardly] by canons [church rules] made by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and approved by King James I in 1604.  These church rules were mostly against any Puritan dissent in the Church of England.  Archbishop Bancroft used his canons and the Church of England's High Commission Court to silence or persecute the Puritans and to try to force them into conformity with official Church of England positions. 
  6. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Alan in Preservation and the KJV   
    I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.
    I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 
    I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.
  7. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Preservation and the KJV   
    I would hold to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.  That would also take into account the marginal notes in the Masoretic Text that the KJV translators themselves sometimes translated and used instead of the actual reading in the Masoretic Text.
    I would hold to the traditional Greek New Testament text.  There were actual twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions available before 1611 so there may be a few textual variations to be settled between them.   The traditional received Greek NT text may differ slightly from the TR editions because of a few places where conjectures were introduced by Erasmus and Beza [readings found in no known preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and readings not known to have been received in every generation]. 
    I do not hold to the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort.  I do not hold to the Critical Text.
  8. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Looking for "Baptist Distinctives" Book   
    There is an older Baptist book first printed in 1876 that deals mostly with Baptist distinctives.   It is entitled Baptists, the only thorough Religious Reformers, and it was written by a Baptist named John Quincy Adams.  It was reprinted in 1980 and in 1982 by Backus Book Publishers in Rochester, New York.  It is said to have been used as a text book on Baptist principles at Spurgeon's Pastor's College.
    I know of a 66 page booklet entitled Biblical Basis for Baptists:  A Bible Study on Baptist Distinctives by L. Duane Brown, printed in 1969 and reprinted several times.
    The 1914 book entitled The World's Debt to the Baptists by John William Porter and reprinted by Baptist Heritage Press in 1991 has some chapters that deal with Baptist distinctives.
    A longer book [598 pages] to consider is Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches by Edward Hiscox.
     
  9. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from MountainChristian in KJV vs. the 1611 edition   
    KJV editions printed by the same publishers with the same copyright can sometimes have a few differences or variations when those editions are printed in different years.
    I have several KJV editions printed by Holman and other publishers.  Some of the differences seem to have been introduced when some Bible publishers switched to a computer-based text, and the publishers may have been unaware that this computer-typed edition of the KJV differed from what was in the earlier edition with the same copyright.  At some unknown date likely after 1980, someone typed up a KJV on a computer, and that person introduced some likely unintentional changes or differences in its KJV text.  A larger number of differences were evidently in the first edition of this computer-based KJV text, and someone noticed and corrected some of them in a later edition of this computer-based text.  Different publishers have printed this same KJV text.  Sometimes the variation introduced by the typist involved only spelling while a few times a word was added or omitted.
    Here are some examples of some changes that were evidently introduced in a computer-based KJV text used in some Holman KJV editions and some editions by other publishers including Thomas Nelson, World, and Barbour.
    At Genesis 5:3, an extra "and" was introduced--"and after his image" instead of "after his image."
    At Genesis 14:5, "Emims" in most KJV editions was typed as "Emins" in the computer-based text.
    At Genesis 29:33, "that" is omitted in the computer-based edition--"heard I" instead of "heard that I."
    At Leviticus 24:11, "of the LORD" in many KJV editions was typed as "of the Lord."
    At Deuteronomy 2:11, "call them" was typed as "called them."
    At Joshua 13:14, "the tribe of Levi" was typed as "the tribes of Levi" in the computer-based text.
    At Joshua 24:11, "And ye" was typed as "And you" in the computer-based text.
    Holman's KJV Study Bible introduced and printed first in 2012 used this computer-based KJV text, but editions of it printed at some point in 2014 have corrected them back to the typical KJV text.  I do not know if Holman has changed them in all its other editions printed in 2014 and afterwards.
  10. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Alan in Looking for "Baptist Distinctives" Book   
    There is an older Baptist book first printed in 1876 that deals mostly with Baptist distinctives.   It is entitled Baptists, the only thorough Religious Reformers, and it was written by a Baptist named John Quincy Adams.  It was reprinted in 1980 and in 1982 by Backus Book Publishers in Rochester, New York.  It is said to have been used as a text book on Baptist principles at Spurgeon's Pastor's College.
    I know of a 66 page booklet entitled Biblical Basis for Baptists:  A Bible Study on Baptist Distinctives by L. Duane Brown, printed in 1969 and reprinted several times.
    The 1914 book entitled The World's Debt to the Baptists by John William Porter and reprinted by Baptist Heritage Press in 1991 has some chapters that deal with Baptist distinctives.
    A longer book [598 pages] to consider is Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches by Edward Hiscox.
     
  11. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in How would you define/explain "The Priesthood of the Believer?"   
    There would be at least four verses that directly teach the priesthood of New Testament believers (1 Pet. 2:4, 1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:6, Rev. 5:10), but I would agree with you that there are other passages that support this teaching such as some you cited (Heb. 4:16, Eph. 2:18).
    Perhaps one other supporting passage that I did not notice being mentioned in your study would be 1 Timothy 2:5.
    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
  12. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Alan in new member   
    I graduated from an independent Baptist college in the 1970's.  Since then, I have been an active member of independent Baptist churches in the places where I have lived.
    I will try to be a solid contributor to any discussions in which I engage.
  13. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Alan in new member   
    Hello everyone,
    I have been a believer many years.  I am an independent, fundamental Baptist.  I just recently joined this Baptist forum.
  14. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from HappyChristian in new member   
    Hello everyone,
    I have been a believer many years.  I am an independent, fundamental Baptist.  I just recently joined this Baptist forum.
  15. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from Rosie in new member   
    Hello everyone,
    I have been a believer many years.  I am an independent, fundamental Baptist.  I just recently joined this Baptist forum.
  16. Thanks
    Tyndale got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in new member   
    Hello everyone,
    I have been a believer many years.  I am an independent, fundamental Baptist.  I just recently joined this Baptist forum.
  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...