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.

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?

 

I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.

 

I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).

 

on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.

 

What is your position and why do you hold to it?

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I started reading KJV because it was only large print Bible I had. Then I started attending my IFB church and that's what they use. I admit I do have to check another version sometimes to figure out what they're saying at it is hard to understand sometimes.

 

I don't know what textual theories even are.

Edited by Miss Daisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I started reading KJV because it was only large print Bible I had. Then I started attending my IFB church and that's what they use. I admit I do have to check another version sometimes to figure out what they're saying at it is hard to understand sometimes.

 

I don't know what textual theories even are.

The textual theories that Jordan refers to, are the standard arguments that bible 'scholars' and critics use: the oldest manuscript is the best, because its closest to the originals in time. Or that the Bible should be interpreted no differently than any other work of literature, meaning one can make it to be whatever they want it to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Many years ago, just as clear as could be, the Lord directed me to use the KJB. Thankfully I OBeyed and reading the KJB the Word was suddenly clear to me, memorization of the Word became almost easy, and my growth in the Word and in Christ excelled.

 

It wasn't until later I even learned of KJO, the history behind the many MVs, the basis and arguments of text sources, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The King James Bible is perfect for many reasons which I don't have time to get into. God promised to preserve his words. Modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, are always coming out with new versions which change words. The King James Bible has stood the test of time and doesn't lack important passages that the modern Bibles lack. Finally, the modern Bibles contain legitimate conflicts which are not in the King James Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The King James Bible is perfect for many reasons which I don't have time to get into. God promised to preserve his words. Modern versions, such as the ESV and NIV, are always coming out with new versions which change words. The King James Bible has stood the test of time and doesn't lack important passages that the modern Bibles lack. Finally, the modern Bibles contain legitimate conflicts which are not in the King James Bible.

That "stood the test of time" is a very important factor and one that most KJB detractors have a difficult time trying to deal with. That's why they will most often ignore and steer clear of the 400 year track record of success only the KJB has and instead argue that the language is "archaic" and "nOBody can understand it".

 

Interesting to consider that young children used to learn to read using the KJB but today it's claimed neither high school or college graduates can understand the KJB. I would say that's an indictment against the education system, not the KJB.

 

I see now they are promoting the MEV as being the newest and best Bible today. That's the same thing they said previously about the ESV, NIV and so many others. How long before yet another MV is deemed necessary for the sake of publishers profits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

what does MEV stand for?

Modern English Version

 

They are marketing it as an updated KJB. That sounds good, and the parts where that's all they did was to update the spelling or wording is fine, but they did more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:

 

1: Ruckman-style, "the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version. I am not of this mind. 

 

2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.

 

Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.

 

As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.

 

The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.

 

That's a start for now.

 

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

Edited by Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

 

Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

 

“A little English will clear up the OBscurities in any Greek text” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147)

 

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

 

"We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or  to demonstrate thebelief superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew”  (Peter Ruckman,  PrOBlem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).“

 

MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

 

Sorry, should have used ' ' instead-I was more referring to the general theory, not a specific quote-my error, and I withdraw the quotes.

BY the way, ever read the Ruckman book, "Black is Beautiful"? Interesting book, all about Ruckman's beliefs concerning UFO's and such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have to chime in here:

 

To answer the OP:

I am KJV because the Bible demands it.  The Bible promises a perfectly preserved text.  When we study what the Scriptures say about themselves, the only Bible that matches all of the combined criteria is the KJV - none of the other versions come close.  Not even the TR qualifies.

 

Mike - I have a lot of respect for you, and appreciate your insight, wisdom, and hold you in high regard.  However, you are wrong about Dr. Ruckman. 

You have assembled a few quotes, taken out of context.  Can you even begin to explain anything he meant with the quotes you provided?

 

I have to ask because I was there - I attend Dr. Ruckman's school, and graduated in 1996.  I have read the vast majority of what he has written, and listened to countless hours of his teaching and preaching.  I know what he said, and I know what he MEANT when he said it.  Do you?  Or are you simply drawing off what somebody else wrote about him second and third hand?  Just curious.

 

No heat here....just curious.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Miss Daisy, I don't want to get sidetracked here.  I am addressing the KJV issue.  Dr. Ruckman is a man after all, just like all of the rest of them, and he has his faults and failures, just like everyone else.

 

My issue here is that people are constantly misquoting him and falsely accusing him of a position he does not hold by taking his comments out of context, and assigning a meaning to them he does not intend.  Anyone who has read his books in full would understand that.  And anyone who posts quotes like these above has done one of two things:

 

1.  Copied a quote from someone else without checking into it, or,

2.  Purposefully maligned him for some weird reason.

 

So UFO's are not germane to the discussion.  It is merely a "guilt by association" tactic meant to discredit the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know who the guy is. I'll have to look him up. But if he does hold to some weird view as a Christian about UFO's as a popular Christian who influences other christians, they yes it can be "germane" to the discussion about someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

 

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

 

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

 

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

 

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

 

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

 

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro Sam Gipp has a great website where he has scripted videos leading a young man to "why we should use the KJV"  It is at http://bigdealKJv.com/

 

It answered a lot of questions I had and helped me understand its importance and how other versions are incorrectly translated or downright leave verses out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!


I make no comment to the information you include here - I am not interested in taking part in the discussion - but the attack against Bro Matt and the tone towards Mike is completely out of line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

 

Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

 

So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

 

Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

 

Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

 

No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

 

Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

 

My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

 

It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

 

 

In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have to chime in here:

 

To answer the OP:

I am KJV because the Bible demands it.  The Bible promises a perfectly preserved text.  When we study what the Scriptures say about themselves, the only Bible that matches all of the combined criteria is the KJV - none of the other versions come close.  Not even the TR qualifies.

 

 

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

If as you say God has promised to give us a perfect preserved word, why does it have to be in english?

 

What about Russian? to my knowledge the only Russian Bible translation is from a Critical text, They do not have anything in their language that is perfect, has God failed them or lied to them? If you are willing to admit that God would leave them without a perfect bible, why do we English speaking people think God owes us a perfect english translation? on what basis do we have to say the King James is better than the Geneva, the Bishops, or even the Wycliffe Bible... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

 

Some honest questions that I never find good answers to.

 

Again i am playing devils advocate, I do hold to a King James only position for English.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By BibleBeliever5
      Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.
       
      In Christ,
      Joseph
    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 22 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...