Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know if its a good idea to let them view where they cannot post. It might be better in the long run for them not to view it. As for me I would not want to read post that I cannot reply to, I would rather they be blocked off from my sight.

There has been a couple or so sly remarks about not being able to view all of the forum, it they are able to view it those remarks will probably be even slyer.

If I went to a RCC forum & they had areas for RCC members only, I would not feel left out. I feel that any group, weather its Baptist, Methodist, JW's, Pentecostal, Mormons, coC, or what ever names they chose to go by has ever right to have a section that's for members of that type of church.

Those who feel left out, those who get aggravated about this, are genearlly those that are trouble maker, & trying to spread what they believe hoping to make converts.


Turns out you had good insight into this problem/discussion we had. I stand corrected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jeremiah 36:32, "Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words."

I don't believe the King James editions have to match for them to all be perfect. In Jeremiah there were multiple editions of the same "originals" and they all varied. Typographical errors are a non-issue, I think we'd both agree on that.

Brother Seth,

Do you think someone is a borderline cultist for thinking that the Bible they hold in their hands is perfect? Did I get you right on that? Please clarify. Where is the perfect word of God, is there such a thing?

I'm not trying to argue or set a trap, these are honest questions.

I have never been able to answer if there was a "perfect word of God" before the KJV. Obviously there were the originals and they were perfect. But as far as what the KJV came from - it didn't come from "one perfect book," even though it is "one perfect book" now though. I know enough about manuscript evidence to know that the KJV not only came from the TR, but some parts of it rejected the TR and went with the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Those are the corrupt manuscripts that all modern versions are based off of that we all soundly reject here.

So what do we do in that situation? Stick with the TR and reject the KJV or what? I know that situation is a rarety, and an in-house discussion among KJVO people, but it's still something to be considered. Where is the "one perfect book in Greek?" Honestly, is there such a thing? I don't know if there is or was at the time of the KJV translating.

By faith I trust what God has given me in the King James Bible and believe it to be perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know enough about foreign languages and their translations, but I've been told by solid Believers that there are sound translations in other languages. To be clear, that's not to say that all non-English translations are sound, some most certainly are not and there are some "better" than others, but from what I've been told by some who should know, there are at least some sound non-English translations of the Bible.


I agree. I was on the mission field for two years and used the KJV translation of the New Testament in Melanesian Pigin. I only knew of one place in it where it did not agree with the English KJV. It said we should confess our "sins" one to another, and our Bible says to confess our "faults." Big difference, obviously.

The idea that someone must learn a specific language to read the perfect word of God isn't a new idea. I do not believe that the perfect word of God is isolated only to English, but never forget, when the Bible was in Hebrew only you had to learn Hebrew if you wanted the word of God. When it was in the Greek originals, you had to learn Greek. I don't think you have to learn Hebrew, Greek, or English to have God's perfect word. I don't see any reason to think that God can't have it translated into other languages. That being said, I KNOW it's perfect in English, and so that's what I trust. If any other language disagrees, I stick with the English.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't believe the King James editions have to match for them to all be perfect. In Jeremiah there were multiple editions of the same "originals" and they all varied. Typographical errors are a non-issue, I think we'd both agree on that.


Yes, we would both agree typographical errors are a non-issue.

Brother Seth,

Do you think someone is a borderline cultist for thinking that the Bible they hold in their hands is perfect? Did I get you right on that? Please clarify. Where is the perfect word of God, is there such a thing? I'm not trying to argue or set a trap, these are honest questions.


No, I think they are a borderline cultist for thinking the KJV was "re-inspired" rather than simply retaining existing inspiration by being a faithful translation of the already inspired word of God. If the KJV had truly had been re-inspired in 1611(or technically a bit earlier, during the translation process) further editions would not have been necessary.

Let me give you an example. Right now, as I sit here writing this I have two KJV bibles in my lap. One is a second edition rock of ages study bible and the other is a a Thomas nelson pocket bible.

When you open the rock of ages KJV bible to Joshua 19:2 says "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,"

On the other hand the Thomas Neslon pocket bible when opened to the same verse says this: "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,"

Now that is not just a spelling difference, that is a meaning difference albeit on a very minor issue. I will tell you that in my opinion that the rock of ages KJV has the correct reading. The question is this though, could you hold each KJV bible in your hands and say it is the perfect word of God in spite of a very small but real difference? If not you need to narrow down the definition of Gods perfect word a little more tightly than simply the "KJV". If you could accept both KJV bibles with that minor difference then I don't see why you would not accept the TR as equally valid. It is important to note that when comparing different editions of the the KJV, the TR, or most manuscripts in the "majority text" line there are some differences. The vast majority of them are going to non-issues. Spelling, punctuation, or a different word that still means the same thing. A very small number do change the meaning though. It should also be noted that the number of real differences is minuscule when compared to the vast number of both major and minor differences in the "critical text" line and the versions translated from them.


I know enough about manuscript evidence to know that the KJV not only came from the TR, but some parts of it rejected the TR and went with the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Those are the corrupt manuscripts that all modern versions are based off of that we all soundly reject here.


I know enough about manuscript evidence to call you on that. :wink For one thing at the time the KJV was translated Sinaiticus wasn't even know beyond the monastery it was eventually discovered at in the 1800's, and while Vaticanus was known, it wasn't used. I would like to see you provide any evidence of where the KJV follows either of those two manuscripts more closely than the TR or the majority text.



So what do we do in that situation? Stick with the TR and reject the KJV or what?


Me personally, I don't have a problem with accepting both. I know their are a few small differences, but I also know the genuine differences are few and almost nothing when compared to the considerable differences in the critical text line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I agree. I was on the mission field for two years and used the KJV translation of the New Testament in Melanesian Pigin. I only knew of one place in it where it did not agree with the English KJV. It said we should confess our "sins" one to another, and our Bible says to confess our "faults." Big difference, obviously.

The idea that someone must learn a specific language to read the perfect word of God isn't a new idea. I do not believe that the perfect word of God is isolated only to English, but never forget, when the Bible was in Hebrew only you had to learn Hebrew if you wanted the word of God. When it was in the Greek originals, you had to learn Greek. I don't think you have to learn Hebrew, Greek, or English to have God's perfect word. I don't see any reason to think that God can't have it translated into other languages. That being said, I KNOW it's perfect in English, and so that's what I trust. If any other language disagrees, I stick with the English.



This might be a bit off topic, but I would like to mention this. There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages.

I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




This might be a bit off topic, but I would like to mention this. There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages.

I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.



That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
There are some of our fellow Baptist brothers & sister, along with some of the educated pastors, & many churches that has the name Baptist in the name of their church, that believes a man is not qualified to hold the office of pastor unless he holds a degree from a seminary & can read the Bible in the original languages. I know of many pastors that would not meet that qualification including me.


And they would be completely wrong. Such requirements are nowhere in the Scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




That is an area where I suspect we would all agree. Not only is it not a "necessary" qualification going to the "greek" is a frequently abused practice. If done carefully and properly it is no problem, indeed it can be an asset, but quite frequently it isn't done that way at all. Rather the greek word is misapplied or misunderstood in a passage and the preacher tells the congregation that "in the greek" the word "literally means" something totally different than what the real meaning of the passage is. Without thinking about it some preachers come across as engaging in bible correcting from the pulpit. When that type of preacher "goes to the greek" it tends to get them in trouble by making them think they know or see something "new" that they really don't.

Agreed. Sadly, I knew a man who was called of God to preach. He didn't have a degree, felt no calling to attain one, and the evidence of the Spirit being present and active in his ministry was there. This man began doing prison ministry, ministering in nursing homes and various other places as he awaited the Lord's further leading. Eventually several area pastors/churches became upset (jealous?) because of this mans ministry. Some of them confronted him and said unless he came under their authority, went to seminary, etc., he couldn't be preaching and teaching the Word. The man politely refused. The local pastors got together and went around to every place that man ministered and put pressure on the prison, nursing homes, etc., until they all dropped that man from being allowed to minister in those places because the local pastors had "informed" them this minister of the Gospel was sanctioned by them and didn't have a degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


Agreed. Sadly, I knew a man who was called of God to preach. He didn't have a degree, felt no calling to attain one, and the evidence of the Spirit being present and active in his ministry was there. This man began doing prison ministry, ministering in nursing homes and various other places as he awaited the Lord's further leading. Eventually several area pastors/churches became upset (jealous?) because of this mans ministry. Some of them confronted him and said unless he came under their authority, went to seminary, etc., he couldn't be preaching and teaching the Word. The man politely refused. The local pastors got together and went around to every place that man ministered and put pressure on the prison, nursing homes, etc., until they all dropped that man from being allowed to minister in those places because the local pastors had "informed" them this minister of the Gospel was sanctioned by them and didn't have a degree.


Isnt it a good thing that Paul, Peter and any other preachers in the bible were not required to have a degree. I dont remember Jesus calling all of the disciples off the boat then taking them to the nearest Seminary school. I think that a preacher can preach and even lead a church with out a degree. I have never set under a preacher that used the old language bible, just the KJV. So to say that they have to read it would be like telling us we have be able to read it as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

Just a note, sissy - no degrees are mentioned per se in relation to Paul, Peter, etc. - but Paul was an exceptionally well educated man, speaking many languages and having sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Personally, I believe God chose the fishermen to show that uber education isn't important in order to be a follower of Christ, and that He chose Paul (and some others) to show that even the well educated have their place in His ministry.

...to say that they have to read it would be like telling us we have be able to read it as well.
So true! And those who cannot read the ancient languages would just have to trust what's being told them...just like people had to do before scripture was translated into the common tongue. Isn't it great to be able to read God's Word and let Him teach us directly, instead of having to rely on a man who may or may not be a megalomaniac?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a note, sissy - no degrees are mentioned per se in relation to Paul, Peter, etc. - but Paul was an exceptionally well educated man, speaking many languages and having sat at the feet of Gamaliel. Personally, I believe God chose the fishermen to show that uber education isn't important in order to be a follower of Christ, and that He chose Paul (and some others) to show that even the well educated have their place in His ministry.

So true! And those who cannot read the ancient languages would just have to trust what's being told them...just like people had to do before scripture was translated into the common tongue. Isn't it great to be able to read God's Word and let Him teach us directly, instead of having to rely on a man who may or may not be a megalomaniac?


Sort of like "narcissism" on steroids..

Theory*:
Could this be the driving force behind Calvinism? Men have always tried to make their god in their own image..........

Romans 1:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Good response Seth, I appreciate it! I'm not "anti-TR," but I'm always a little cautious when doubt is cast upon the KJB. As far as the manuscripts thing, I'll try and dig around and find that info that you "called me on." :) Brother Gipp has an excellent little book called Is Our English Bible Inspired, it's very good and there's certainly nothing radical in it like I've heard in this thread. He talks a lot about inspiration and preservation and how they work hand-in-hand. No where in the book is there a suggestion that the KJB was "re-inspired," but perhaps he says that the inspiration was preserved. I don't remember exactly.






Yes, we would both agree typographical errors are a non-issue.



No, I think they are a borderline cultist for thinking the KJV was "re-inspired" rather than simply retaining existing inspiration by being a faithful translation of the already inspired word of God. If the KJV had truly had been re-inspired in 1611(or technically a bit earlier, during the translation process) further editions would not have been necessary.

Let me give you an example. Right now, as I sit here writing this I have two KJV bibles in my lap. One is a second edition rock of ages study bible and the other is a a Thomas nelson pocket bible.

When you open the rock of ages KJV bible to Joshua 19:2 says "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, or Sheba, and Moladah,"

On the other hand the Thomas Neslon pocket bible when opened to the same verse says this: "And they had in their inheritance Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah,"

Now that is not just a spelling difference, that is a meaning difference albeit on a very minor issue. I will tell you that in my opinion that the rock of ages KJV has the correct reading. The question is this though, could you hold each KJV bible in your hands and say it is the perfect word of God in spite of a very small but real difference? If not you need to narrow down the definition of Gods perfect word a little more tightly than simply the "KJV". If you could accept both KJV bibles with that minor difference then I don't see why you would not accept the TR as equally valid. It is important to note that when comparing different editions of the the KJV, the TR, or most manuscripts in the "majority text" line there are some differences. The vast majority of them are going to non-issues. Spelling, punctuation, or a different word that still means the same thing. A very small number do change the meaning though. It should also be noted that the number of real differences is minuscule when compared to the vast number of both major and minor differences in the "critical text" line and the versions translated from them.




I know enough about manuscript evidence to call you on that. :wink For one thing at the time the KJV was translated Sinaiticus wasn't even know beyond the monastery it was eventually discovered at in the 1800's, and while Vaticanus was known, it wasn't used. I would like to see you provide any evidence of where the KJV follows either of those two manuscripts more closely than the TR or the majority text.




Me personally, I don't have a problem with accepting both. I know their are a few small differences, but I also know the genuine differences are few and almost nothing when compared to the considerable differences in the critical text line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do not recall where it is in the Old Testament, yet there is some scriptures referring to schooling or studying in the Old Testament that some use to build the doctrine that pastors must have Bible degrees to be a pastor of a New Testament Church. I heard it spoken on one time by the president of a Baptist seminary. He did not come right out & say the pastor must have a degree, yet in a round about way he spoke it seemed to be his belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Okay Please help me out about the bible translations. I was born and raised on KJV. I dont know what the TR translation is. Is there a place somewere I can find out more about it? Is the TR translation in the original language?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You know, this whole suggestion about the KJV being only 'primarily' translated from the KJV and partially translated from the corrupt manuscripts (Sinai, Vatican) is really bothering me. Because if the KJV was translated at all from the corrupt stream, it would be unreliable. To say such a thing really seems to cast doubt on our having any reliable translation in English at all! The KJV is reliable because it is based on the TR - end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was led to the KJB by the Holy Ghost. Since God directed me to put aside other translations and read the KJB that's what I did and what I continue to do. All the other issues and aspects, which I didn't even know about back then, are besides to the point to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 1 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...