Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Better hope your surgeon is not a modern versionist.


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

You Better Hope Your Surgeon Is Not A Modern Versionist

After years of reading my King James Bible and comparing it to the ever changing Evangelical modern versions like the NASB, NIV and NKJV, I have repeatedly noticed how they all continue to make totally unnecessary translational changes that end up creating confusion and discord even in the simple area of identifying the parts of the human body.

The modern versions are so utterly confused at times, that it occurred to me that it would be tragically humorous if your next operation or yearly medical check-up were performed by a doctor or a surgeon who learned his human anatomy from one of the modern bible versions rather than from the true Bible - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

The following word studies are just a few of the numerous examples of the utter confusion found in today?s so called ?New and Improved? Bible versions.

Hands, Body, Arms, Back, Chest or Black Eye?

King James Bible - Zechariah 13:6 "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of "What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS" are the 1917 Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Wycliffe Bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's literal translation, Darby's translation, the Douay-Rheims, the Italian Diodati, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the KJV 21st Century version, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Reina Valera -"Y le preguntar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wow! :eek

It's should be so obvious that all versions are not the same and that all versions can't be equally true or equally God's Word, yet that's the belief of so many professing Christians these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi brother. Yes, there is a lot of confusion out there in Bible Babylonia, and most Christians read their "bibles" less and less and don't believe any of them are the pure and inerrant words of God. We do live in interesting times.

May God keep us believing His precious words of truth.

Will K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Fascinating post! :) Yet another reason to hold to the Blessed Old Book! :clap::clap: All those modern versions are perversions.



Amen, sister. They are indeed perverted, degraded and inferior to the real deal found only in the King James Bible - God's Book to the nations. Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time low and it will only get worse as Satan and fallen man pump out more comic book versions of the bible and people believe and read them less and less. All part of God's eternal purpose. He Himself is sending a famine of hearing His pure words. There will be a falling away from the faith before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and no one will be able to stop it.

We do live in interesting times.

Bless you dear saint.

Believing the Book,

Will K
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Amen, sister. They are indeed perverted, degraded and inferior to the real deal found only in the King James Bible - God's Book to the nations. Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is at an all time low and it will only get worse as Satan and fallen man pump out more comic book versions of the bible and people believe and read them less and less. All part of God's eternal purpose. He Himself is sending a famine of hearing His pure words. There will be a falling away from the faith before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and no one will be able to stop it.

We do live in interesting times.

Bless you dear saint.

Believing the Book,

Will K



:amen::amen::amen: YES! Man...in his finite mind couldn't accept God's Word...the KJVO, and decided he needed to change it over and over, again. Sad...but, true. What is NOT to get? I am simple-minded...too. :Green

In Christ ~

Molly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Advanced Member

More about LOINS - Ezekiel 21:6 - 7 ?Sigh therefore, thou son of man, with breaking of thy LOINS; and with bitterness sigh before their eyes...every HEART shall melt, and all hands shall be feeble...?

The Hebrew word is clearly and undisputably ?loins? in 21:6 and a very different word is translated as ?heart? in 21:7. ?with breaking of thy LOINS? is the reading found in the Bishop?s bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Green?s ?literal? 2000, Rotherham?s Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Bible, the Jewish Publication Society version 1917, the Judaica Press Tanach, the KJV 21st century 1994, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 ?los lomos?, the 1991 Italian Diodati ?lombi?, Luther?s German bible 1545 "Linden", and the Portuguese Almeida ?lombos?.

However, beginning with the liberal RSV and continuing now with the NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and Wallace?s NET version, we read of the ?aching HEART? or the ?breaking HEART? instead of the ?loins?, but they DO translate the word for ?heart? as ?heart? in verse 21:7. Even Wallace?s NET version and the NASB then tell us in their footnotes that the literal Hebrew is ?breaking of loins?. Let?s hope your surgeon knows the difference between these two very different parts of the human body, even though some modern versionists do not.

Will Kinney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

robycop3, you just read (or maybe you didnt) some of the proof. If you dont agree with God when he said he preserved his word, thats your decision. But remember, this is a KJV board, and yes the proof is posted all over in the threads of the KJV.

Nice study brandplucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Psalm 69:1 - ?Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my SOUL.?

The Hebrew word used is the usual word for SOUL (And man became a living SOUL - Genesis 2:7 etc.) and Psalm 69:1 so translated in the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops? 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, the Jewish translations of JPS 1917 and the Judaica Press Tanach, Webster?s 1833, Darby, Young?s, Douay, the KJV 21st Century, Green?s 2000, the so called Septuagint as well as the Modern Greek translation (psuche), the Italian Diodati 1649, Rivudeta 1927, the Spanish Reina Valera 1902, 1960, 1995 (mi alma) and Luther?s 1545 German bible (die Seele).

The NASB keeps on changing its text from one edition to the next in scores of verses. The 1972 NASB says: ?the waters HAVE COME UP TO MY SOUL?, but the 1977 and 95 editions now read: ?the waters HAVE THREATENED MY LIFE?. Then in their footnote they say Literally ?soul?.

But wait. There?s more. Beginning with the liberal RSV , we now read ?the waters are come up to my NECK? in the NRSV, ESV, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard, and Wallace?s NET version.

Not to be outdone in the realm of novelty, the 2000 Message says: ?I?m in over my HEAD? while the New Berkeley Version of 1969 says: ?the waters come up to my LIPS.?

Let?s see - SOUL, NECK, LIPS, HEAD - yep, pretty much mean the same thing, right?

Will Kinney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

robycop3, you just read (or maybe you didnt) some of the proof. If you dont agree with God when he said he preserved his word, thats your decision. But remember, this is a KJV board, and yes the proof is posted all over in the threads of the KJV.

Nice study brandplucked.



Any Scriptural support for KJVO? NEWP!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

okay i will readily admit, that versions like "the message" are very deluded and stray from the most-literal translations, but while you were counting all that junk and how many lost people picked up an niv and learned that Jesus loves them and can and will save them. the idea here is that God is BIG and can speak his truth whether it says hands, chest, or eye. if it said nothing the very rocks would cry out. the truth of Gods word cant be lost in a few "less than literal" words. its not the "THEE's" and "THOU's" that make the bible effective in teaching, correcting, and rebuking, it's the Holy Spirit that touches the very heart of a mans soul.
one of my favorite artists is Josh Groban, but he primarily records in Italian so when i want to know what i sing-along with i have to look up translations. the literal translations make far less sense than the emotional (feeling) translations...
"Sento nell'aria profumo di te/ Piccoli sogni vissuti con me" ="I smell in the air the scent of you
Little dreams had lived with me" what this more clearly would mean, if stated in English originally is that "i'm reminded of you and the future I thought we could have had every time i smell the freshness of the air." it's the same feeling and idea just a little more clear to mr/ms GED (no theological degree) so why bicker about the minimal? just trust that the BIG God, who controls the big planets and the sub-atomic particles, can and will work out his will whether its KJV or a children's story version. :bonk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
okay i will readily admit' date=' that versions like "the message" are very deluded and stray from the most-literal translations, but while you were counting all that **** and how many lost people picked up an niv and learned that Jesus loves them and can and will save them. the idea here is that God is BIG and can speak his truth whether it says hands, chest, or eye. if it said nothing the very rocks would cry out. the truth of Gods word cant be lost in a few "less than literal" words. its not the "THEE's" and "THOU's" that make the bible effective in teaching, correcting, and rebuking, it's the Holy Spirit that touches the very heart of a mans soul. ... so why bicker about the minimal? just trust that the BIG God, who controls the big planets and the sub-atomic particles, can and will work out his will whether its KJV or a children's story version. :bonk:[/quote']

Hi sinclair. I understand your point, and I heartily agree that God can and does still use modern, weak and inferior bibles to reach people with the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I have never said, nor do I believe, that only King James Bible believers are saved.

I've always thought that the common analogy is pretty much right. You can eat out of a garbage can and still manage to survive, but it's not much of a way to live. All new versions are greatly inferior to the pure and 100% true words found in the pure, complete and inerrant Bible - the King James Holy Bible.

It is a simple FACT that those reading such versions as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, RSV, Holman, NET etc. do NOT believe in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language on this earth. They have abandoned the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and have no inerrant Bible to give to anyone. These modern (per)versions are read less and less even by those who use them. Biblical ignorance is at an all time high and the apostasy is in full swing. All this is predicted in the Bible. Men will depart from the faith and the falling away will happen before the return of the Lord Jesus. (2 Thes. 2) The modern alphabet soup versions are part of God's design to send a famine into the land of hearing the true words of God. (See Amos 8:11-12)

Sure, someone can get saved reading an NIV, NASB, NKJV or whatever. But their faith in the revealed truth of God will necessarily be weakened. You will always be asking yourself the same original question posed by the serpent in Genesis 3 - "Yea, hath God said....?"

Will Kinney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Will, but your ideas are pure conjecture, opinion, & guesswork, short on SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. What SCRIPTURE limits GOD as to how He can choose to present His word?

EVERY valid version is equally valid-and before ya ask, a valid version is one that accurately follows its sources. You cannot prove the NKJV is not valid. You cannot prove the NASV is not valid. You cannot prove the Geneva Bible is not valid. You cannot prove the Bishop's Bible is not valid.

And you falsely say we Freedom Readers have no final authority? Well, YOURS seemsta be SDA official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson & all the Koppie-Katz who followed.

Sorry, Charley; you have NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your ideas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
EVERY valid version is equally valid-and before ya ask, a valid version is one that accurately follows its sources.


What are the valid sources? Or are all sources also valid in your eyes?


And you falsely say we Freedom Readers have no final authority?


Freedom readers? [bible]2 Peter 2:19[/bible]

Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

sir, i simply must disagree. the line of argument you follow is full of fallacies. at least in the respect that God delivered the word to man in Greek and Hebrew so and variance would have to be less than the original. but when we move forward to the day of Pentecost; do we see God making each man understand in his own language? YES! the idea remains that no modern person ever speaks in the KJ vernacular (unless it's an old school, pious, deacon over the offering on a Sunday morning. lol) but to limit Gods ability to speak to people in the way they do, is dangerous. i once read a Hawaiian version on the bible that was for the Polynesians who barely spoke English and they didn't refer the God as "God" rather "da fatha of da Jesus man" because that how they speak. the KJV was just as translated by man as any other. its age offers no more validity. i mean if Jesus relates to God, our hearts in grumblings so deep we cant comprehend, then might it be safe to assume that the holy spirit does the reverse, from God to us. and as for ur surgeon friend, he when to school for 8 or years to learn Latin so the errors in communication would be minimized. :2cents :smile :tum :Green

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi Sinclair. Would you mind telling us which, if any, of these readings are the true ones which God has inspired? Would you do that for us?


The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these ?details? are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 ?forty years? (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR ?four years? (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the ?righteousness? of saints or the fine linen being the ?righteous acts? of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 ?this day have I begotten thee? (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or ?today I have become your Father? (NIV).

Or just pick a couple of them and tell us which readings are what God really said, and how you know that to be true. Thanks.

Will Kinney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question for Bro. Matt and/or any mods: Is or is not discussion about the KJV allowed in this forum? I have a pink bar with red writing at the top of my screen, which reads: "All posts/topics about the King James Bible posts [sic] are to be posted in the following forum. Any KJV topics posted in here will be moved." Is this message obsolete, meaningless, or is there another explanation? I have tried to honor that policy, but, seeing that people are posting freely about the forbidden topic on the general board, I'm just asking if it's really a policy. If it is not, then why the pink bar? If it is, then why is this discussion continuing in this forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...