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

  • Members

This was posted after one of my posts.  
It is not a very clear post.  No explanation. No elaboration.  But OBviously was addressed to me, since it followed one of my posts.  And I never said the "ends justifies the means."  
I said I could not comment on her  methods, because I don't have the time or resources to check them.  
What that means is that I would have to get the sources she cited and check them for myself.  I don't trust her critics to be honest in their representation of her.  
Why?
BECAUSE THEY DON'T DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF HER ARGUMENT.   If her argument is wrong, then prove it wrong - don't waste my time trying to convince me she "lied."  ALL MEN ARE LIARS, including her critics.  So why should I trust her critics more than her????????????????  It makes no sense.
 
I have addressed the accusations of her claiming inspiration...
 
I have been absolutely clear in my position, but because I am not ready to throw Riplinger or Ruckman under the bus based on hearsay, inuendo, and 2nd hand information, then my posts are largely UNREAD in their entirety.  I am getting the same treatment they get.  
 
Second hand accusations don't cut it for me.  All of this stuff is Diotrephes at work.  
And I think we all have better things to do.
 
I would suggest that we simply close the thread.  We are not getting anywhere nor  are we edifying each other.

i had to chuckle when I read the above bolded. I wonder, if Steve believes that all men are liars, then why should Steve trust Gail more than her critics? It makes no sense.

The thing is, it has been proven that Gail misquotes people in order to make her position seem more credible. She also has a prOBlem with giving proper resources to substantiate her claims in other alleged quotes.

This, to me, would raise red flags to her credibility. As it should for any Christian. I admire her for wanting to defend the KJV. However, it does no good to attempt to defend the truth through lies and deceit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Why are you King James only?

 

I wasn't there when they translated the "Textus Receptus". I don't [personally know the men who translated the 1611 KJB. But I believe that Jesus is The Word of John chapter one, and the King of Glory of Psalm 24, the Shepherd of Psalm 23 and I the powerful Voice of Psalm 29 whose Spirit moved over my heart and shook my wilderness, broke my prideful heart. divided the flames of fire and I have never been the same. He is the Bridegroom of Psalm 19 whose Law is perfect, and His word is PRESERVED the Bible says and  I can testify assuredly. with the officers in John 7:46 who said "never man spake like this man" . Those are just a few of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the "Very pure" word for my ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I completely understood Riplinger's point in Hazardous Materials, basically she says your stupid for using Greek and Hebrew because Satan is corrupting the bible through corrupt lexicons, all based on quotes that you can't even trust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I regard Mr Ruckman as........
Well to be honest I rarely consider him either way.
This Riplinger woman I have heard of - I think someone gave me the book at one stage.....

I am rarely critical of either of them.

The thing that erks me about this is that normally rational people become rabid the moment someone dares to be critical of them.
Well, newsflash! They are sinful people. They make mistakes or are possibly even sinfully deceitful.
Ruckman is by no means a blameless man.

Want some unequivocal proof of ungodliness?
How many times has he been married?
He is self confessed to have a temper and to use language that the overwhelming majority of us would find unacceptable.

These are public facts.

He is due criticism.

This has no bearing on what he teaches, but it does have a bearing on his right to teach........

Funnily enough matters of character are used in regard to Wescott and Hort by KJV defenders - including me.
And matters of character are used by critics of false Christian teachers - think of how Calvin is (rightly) attacked because of his moral failures.

Goose and Gander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
“Let me say very plainly at the outset of this article, I do not believe New Age Bible Versions is a dangerous book; I believe it is an undependable book. I agree with Mrs. Riplinger that the multiplicity of modern versions has caused great spiritual damage. At the same time, I have decided I must warn our readers of the many errors we have found in New Age Bible Versions. ... Some might be thinking, ‘Why are you defending the modern versions? Aren’t they corrupt?’ Yes, the modern versions are corrupt, and I am not defending them. I am against error, though, regardless of where it appears. We do not have the right to make false statements even about the devil himself. When our speaking and writing is filled with error of fact and is characterized by shoddy research and indefensible extremism, we discredit our entire position. I am not saying there is no good in New Age Bible Versions. The book contains many helpful insights and it documents the frightful corruption of the modern versions, but it also is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true. There is no reason, friends, to promote a book like this when there are so many dependable volumes which defend the preserved Word of God and expose the error of the modern versions. We would recommend the following: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. For a smaller overview we recommend Jack Moorman’s Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret. [These are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.]”

 

From David Cloud - http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html

THis is the same link Jordan gave above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have very OBviously not done a good jOB of communicating my point here.  I take responsibility for that.

 

I am not "rabid" nor am I Machiavellian.

 

I am calling for a more careful approach to these subjects.  If we are all KJV Believers, then our authority rests on the Scripture itself, not on man.  Man can help us see certain truths through their preaching, teaching, and writing.  However, all of this must be filtered through the Bible itself. 

 

I am no stranger to this debate.  I have been reading things from as many different perspectives as I can get my hands on for the last 24 years.  I have read Dr. Ruckman's materials, and I have read the materials of his detractors as well.  I have read all of the criticisms of Riplinger.  There is nothing here that has been presented that I have not read or heard before. 

 

The criticism against Riplinger is that she does a poor jOB of accurately presenting the views of the people she quotes.  Examples are given in each instance. 

 

The prOBlem is that I have no way to check her quotes, nor do I have any way to check the quotes of her critics.  Where does that leave us?

 

In my view, if I were to write a critical response to somebody's book, I would address the SUBJECT MATTER, not their use of quotations.  I would deal ONLY with the main thesis, the arguments presented, the conclusions, and how these correspond to Scriptural Truth.  Period.

 

Her detractors do not do that.

In my mind, this casts doubt as to their motives and the validity of their criticisms. 

 

In fact, the quote I provided above from Br. Cloud admits that he cannot find fault with the OVERALL idea, just her methods. 

 

In my view Cloud's critique is very subjective, because now I am being asked to take his word on the matter. 

 

I don't trust people when their argument against somebody else's work is nothing more than a smear campaign on their personal character.  I am sure if we looked hard enough, we could find plenty of "dirt" on the critics as well.  I don't think that approach is Biblical. 

 

I simply cannot take somebody else's word that she has "lied" or misrepresented others.  I am being asked to believe one person, and dismiss another based on.....wait for it....what that one person said.  No dice.  Can't do it.  Won't do it. 

 

"Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar...." Romans 3:4. 

 

Let's just stick to the Scriptures, use it as our guide, follow its example, and judge all things by the KJV, not by man's opinion of another man.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Looking for "first-hand" evidence?  Won't find it.  None of us have met Gail.  We have only seen her books and seen the writings of others who have critiqued the books and found her misquotes and errors.

The evidence you seek, (if you truly are seeking it) is out there on the www.  Google it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

First hand evidence would be me getting all of her primary sources and checking them for the accuracy of her quotations.  

Her critics have produced a very small number of alleged discrepancies.  I can't check them either.  

 

Where does that leave us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If one cannot check the discrepancies that critics have given, then one really should not look condescendingly upon or bad mouth the the critics who HAVE done the homework.

Might be worth doing the homework first before one says "all men are liars so why should I trust the critics?". Though all men are liars, it does not necessarily mean they never tell the truth. If that were the case, we'd all do better to not even talk with others about anything. LoL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I have been following this whole thread from beginning to end. I have refrained from posting numerous times simply because my thoughts and convictions stray from Jordan’s original question.

 

But now, after much prayer and thought, I feel I must post the burden that The Lord has laid on my heart.

 

This thread has drifted from the original topic to posts about who follows who; why others are wrong; (Riplinger, Ruckman) and others. And I just keep coming back to the “why” of it all. Let me lay it out plainly since what I have said so far is OBscure.

 

I guess this will come in the form of questions. Why do so many feel the need to read after men or women that they don’t know personally, or who have ministries outside of their own church?

 

Are your churches so weak that you are not being fed proper spiritual food? The local church is, or should be, the place where we are fed, where we grow in Grace and love toward our God and our brethren. There is no substitute for the local church.

 

Paul says this about the local church: 1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. If we believe God’s inspired Word why do some feel the need to seek it elsewhere? If our churches are what they should be, why waste our time and resources elsewhere?

 

2Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

Now I know that someone will say that they are just defending the KJV. But this issue goes far beyond this concept. There are false teachers and preachers world wide, does that mean we have to address each one? I think not! 2Tim. 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprOBate concerning the faith.

 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. Simply put; God is able!

 

I am not saying that these things should not be addressed; they certainly should be as they pertain to our own churches. But why go outside to look for windmills to tilt at? Do we who comprise a local Church of the Living God not have enough to do to keep ourselves pure; preach the Gospel; teach our own people; visit the sick; study; pray?

 

Brothers and sisters, I will end by encouraging each one to fully support your local church by your attendance, prayers and care one for another. Rebuke false teaching in your midst, but don’t get all caught up in the errors of others. It is not profitable. The local church needs you and all of your heart, mind and soul.

 

God bless you as you serve Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have been following this whole thread from beginning to end. I have refrained from posting numerous times simply because my thoughts and convictions stray from Jordan’s original question.

 

But now, after much prayer and thought, I feel I must post the burden that The Lord has laid on my heart.

 

This thread has drifted from the original topic to posts about who follows who; why others are wrong; (Riplinger, Ruckman) and others. And I just keep coming back to the “why” of it all. Let me lay it out plainly since what I have said so far is OBscure.

 

I guess this will come in the form of questions. Why do so many feel the need to read after men or women that they don’t know personally, or who have ministries outside of their own church?

 

Are your churches so weak that you are not being fed proper spiritual food? The local church is, or should be, the place where we are fed, where we grow in Grace and love toward our God and our brethren. There is no substitute for the local church.

 

Paul says this about the local church: 1Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. If we believe God’s inspired Word why do some feel the need to seek it elsewhere? If our churches are what they should be, why waste our time and resources elsewhere?

 

2Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

Now I know that someone will say that they are just defending the KJV. But this issue goes far beyond this concept. There are false teachers and preachers world wide, does that mean we have to address each one? I think not! 2Tim. 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprOBate concerning the faith.

 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. Simply put; God is able!

 

I am not saying that these things should not be addressed; they certainly should be as they pertain to our own churches. But why go outside to look for windmills to tilt at? Do we who comprise a local Church of the Living God not have enough to do to keep ourselves pure; preach the Gospel; teach our own people; visit the sick; study; pray?

 

Brothers and sisters, I will end by encouraging each one to fully support your local church by your attendance, prayers and care one for another. Rebuke false teaching in your midst, but don’t get all caught up in the errors of others. It is not profitable. The local church needs you and all of your heart, mind and soul.

 

God bless you as you serve Him.

 I think it is necessary that we know what the false doctrines are and who the false teachers are. Paul warned of them and even named names. The 'grievous wolves' can and will, the first chance they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

With regards to what Jim brought up, I think the great danger lies with so many these days either replacing the local church with TV preachers, books by various Christian authors, radio sermons, online preaching; or in giving little heed to their local church pastor while looking to others for spiritual guidance.

 

I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to or reading Pastor Markle's sermons which he posts here (for instance) but we shouldn't skip attending a home church to do so. The same is true with reading or listening to other Christian authors and preachers.

 

Hopefully, we each have at least a good, if not very good, home church and pastor, and that's where we should receive most of our Christian teaching and training; that's where our spiritual gifts and "works" should go to, or through.

 

When it comes to Christian authors or preachers who ere on some points, who may be weak in some areas, or who might be outright fraudulent in some cases, it's up to each of us to decide if they are worth our time and attention. Myself, those who have proven to be fraudulent time and again, I would want nothing to do with, regardless of how sound they might be on some point. There are other, non-fraudulent authors/preachers out there who would be better to give attention to. When it comes to the others I mentioned, there are some I might read or listen to some of their stuff, but if they are very far off on some things I wouldn't recommend them to others.

 

I read a lot, but my main feasting is upon what I receive from sermons, Sunday school and Bible studies at my home church led by our pastor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

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.

 

 

Thank you for your input my friend. Let me know if you are even in New England so we can do lunch.

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...