Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      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

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​I do have a hard time not seeing the hand of God on the KJV.

 

in about 1588 the Spanish Armada lost to Britain, at that time the Spanish Armada was the largest navy in the world. It was a miracle that Britain won.

then in 1611 you have the KJV translated. a few years before this there was a Jesuit plot to assasinate King James, and he was uncovered right before he was about to light the fuse on some explosives that would have killed the King.

then some years later you have the printing press ready.

and then you have english becoming the dominant world langauge.

 

all these events happenning around the same time lead me to believe God's hand was in the KJV and that he preserved his words through this translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

Another excellent book is Touch Not the Unclean Thing by David Sorenson. It gives as well a fairly exhaustive list of TR backed translations into hundreds of languages,including many native American languages, reaching back to the earlypart of the 2nd century with the Italic and Syriack, both very early TR texts, which shows that the TR New Testament was complete and common enough by that time to have it translated into other languages, in toto. Around 125AD, well before the council of NIcea, by the way, who many claim are the ones who set the canon of scripture, yet there were complete NT translations based off the TR well before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​Absolutely. 3rd most common native tongue but a second language worldwide,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​The Lord deals with His people according to His perfect wisdom and timing. I was a follower of Christ for nearly a decade before the Lord brought the matter of a Bible version to my attention. One day, as clear as can be, the Holy Ghost directed me to the KJB, and I wasn't even considering the matter at the time. Even so, the direction was so clear I got a KJB and the Word opened to me like never before and I've used the KJB ever since.

I know some fine men of God who use other Bible versions, some of which I find so watered down and/or hard to understand it's amazing to me they can walk with God so closely using them. All things are possible with God! The Bible they use is, ultimately, between them and God. I'll share with them how the Lord directed me. I'll share with them some of the ways I've found the KJB to be superior to the NIV (or whatever version they use). I'll show them resources or share web links on the subject. At that point, it's still between them and God. I certainly won't dismiss them as unbelievers when they exhibit the fruits of salvation.

The Bible one reads from doesn't prove, or make, them a true or false believer. Just as there are many true believers who don't use the KJB, there are also many false believers who do use the KJB. Our salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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?

 

... 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? 

The proper text was with the proper people all the time Jordan. Whether it be the Geneva Bible or before.

Tyndale's text was full of error. Yet correct doctrine still existed. God still uses mans failures to accomplish his will.

The testimony against translators, that believe wrong doctrine, could be applied to all translators, not just Westcott and Hort. Most translators have had messed up lives just like most regular people down through the centuries.

The translator matters not, but what he translated does!

The error in some bibles is clearly in the wording, or the lack thereof; not in the character behind it.

Find the proper bible amongst the proper folk, and find the proper doctrine. I hold to Geneva Bible Only, because of what Baptists hold as doctrine, and not because of the translators. Translators come and go. Bible texts that are true never go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

Another book that will explain all of your manuscript/text questions as well as the faith in God's preserved Word perspective and likely cement your stance on it is Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. You can buy the print copy or you can read the PDF version for free at buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf (or google "forever settled pdf").

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It isn't the 'archaic' words that make the KJV the most important aspect, it is that many of those words have been kept because they more completely translate what was said in the Greek and Hebrew. Like the 'ye' and 'thee', showing plural and singular, respectively: replacing them with the generic 'you' or "your' will in many cases completely change the context, or at least can hurt the understanding. One of the best examples of this I have seen is when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemas in John 3, and He says to him,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ye must be born again."  Now,  understanding the plural/singular issue in the 'archaic' words, we know that Jesus is saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto THEE, (Nicodemas), YE, (everyone) must be born again.  If it was changed, all you would have is, Verily verily I say unto you, you must be born again. Okay, so WHO must be born again? Nicodemas? Just him? Or is someone else involved in this? The context would fall into question if the archaic terms were removed, unless it was written 'Verily verily I say unto you, Nicodemas, that all men must be born again. Now this would make for an acceptable translation, but its also clumsier. Wordier. And unnecessary.

Now, there are some words that are archaic that I don't see there would be a problem with changing, words that have changed in meaning, like 'conversation', which in 1611 could mean a speaking back and forth between people, OR  a term referring to one's manner of life and activities. Current language has basically removed on of them. So, when the context is conversation was we understand today, it could be left, and when referring to the other, perhaps a more fitting term could be applied, like, well, "manner of life", or something.   The danger, however, in the minds of many, myself included, is when there is a dispute of words. Like, the gap folks who believe that the PROPER translation of  gen 1:1&2 is "IN the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void"  The insistence that it SHOULD say this, even though no other translation has ever read this way, could cause an important change into the text.

See, and its not just that-any number of accidental or intentional minor changes might be made, according to pre-conceived ideas, that could change doctrines, and that's dangerous. I would not even trust myself. Who could we trust? It was such an important thing that King James had it worked on by 50 men, all of whom would put our best scholars to shame today, and they had thousands of manuscripts, earlier translations and other writings at their disposal.  As opposed to the new versions that had TWO men, and both apostates by their own mouths, using only TWO primary texts, one questionable due to its origin, (Vaticanus) and the other questionable as to its authenticity AS an ancient text.

No, all things considered, we have an excellent translation, which has overseen many revivals and countless souls saved-better to STUDY to shew ourselves approved unto God, rather than to dumb it down and take a chance of doing great damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I use the KJV. You have but to compare the others in English to see that other versions are detracting from basic doctrine in subtle ways. If we don't understand something we should wait on the Lord (through the Holy Spirit)  to come to a proper understanding. By looking to something besides the source we open the door to changing the basic text to fit what we can accept in our human minds or being drawn to what some one else thinks (not to say someone else does not have the right answer sometimes). We can consider what light someone else can shed on a subject but need to be convinced in our own hearts and minds to form a solid conviction about any given subject based on God's word.

If I was charged with a serious crime I would want a lawyer who knows what the law says as opposed to a para legal who just knows parts of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I use the King James Version but I don't know what edition it is. I do know its not 1611 after seeing what they look like. I had no idea the 1611 had went through so many changes over the years. I wish Cambridge or Oxford would update it again with a version for those of us in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The differences are not what they seem.  Most were to correct printing errors and spelling changes and textual changes.  As Sam Gipp says, it's been purified.

Most KJV bible's today are based on the 1769 Oxford edition.  Mine own happens to be a 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Scrivener.

A little over two years ago there was a fella here whose name escapes me now that was doing a comparison of changes between the two above and modern publishers reprints.  Several of us here at OB noticed that the publishers were changing some words to conform with the MVs.

I have since been watching David W. Daniels of Chick Publications excellent research regarding the Critical Text and Septuagint.  In short, they are frauds which never existed until the 1840s.  There is ZERO evidence of the Septuagint during bible times and we know that Jesus and Paul quoted from the Masoretic Text.

I am King James Only because the Holy Spirit burdened my heart relentlessly to put God's preserved Word in my hands.  Anything else will be found wanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).

 

Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.

I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.

It is indeed from good stock but it wasn't the finished work, the final preservation of God' perfect Word in the English.  The Authorized Version is God's preserved Word and since the two are not in complete agreement, the Geneva bible must be rejected for that which has been purified and made perfect.

For a short time I was a Geneva bible man, but the Holy Ghost was patient with me and showed me that the King James Bible is God's perfect and preserved Word.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).

 

Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.

I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  

Perhaps, but we also spend a good deal of time teaching that conversation means manner of life, not just talking, that 'to let' means 'to restrain', that ye and you are plural and thee and thy are singular-but it is the job of a pastor to do such things. And it isn't difficult, either. Besides, today you'll have to explain that 'assembly' does not mean what you do with an IKEA bookshelf. The language changes so rapidly anymore that even 'modern' words keep changing. In my own church, even the most mentally challenged person in the 'assembly' has fine understanding that the church is the people, not the building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

While I have no problem with the Geneva Bible and understand it well, the Lord directed me to use the KJB a quarter century or so ago. I've not read a 1560 Geneva Bible, but do have a 1599 Geneva Bible but the print is so small it would now be difficult for me to read from.

I keep a KJB next to my chair in the front room, one on the stand next to my computer (which is also now my church Bible...had to retire the other one as the print got smaller :-) , and another next to my bed; as well as a New Testament with Psalms KJB in my car door pocket. On my Kindle Paperwhite I have downloaded a KJB specifically formatted for use on the Kindle. Those are the Bibles I read from and study daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/4/2016 at 7:47 PM, swathdiver said:

It is indeed from good stock but it wasn't the finished work, the final preservation of God' perfect Word in the English.  The Authorized Version is God's preserved Word and since the two are not in complete agreement, the Geneva bible must be rejected for that which has been purified and made perfect.

For a short time I was a Geneva bible man, but the Holy Ghost was patient with me and showed me that the King James Bible is God's perfect and preserved Word.    

I appreciate your opinion, especially about the Holy Ghost being patient and showed you that "the KJB is God's perfect and preserved Word".

How he showed you is interesting though.

Did he use it by 'convicting you'?

Or did he use the text of the KJB to 'show you'?

The reason I ask - I used the KJB for about 12 years in my preaching and teaching.  I was my Pastors right hand man, who was the one who taught our congregation the 'strength' of the KJB

But that was against the MV's.

I felt led of the Holy Ghost for all those years to be KJVO.

I was led by the accuracy of the text against all the MV's.

Then I met the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. 

Led by the Holy Ghost by the accuracy of the text. Comparing to the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is why I think the "ye" and "thou" plus lots of other old English words should be updated to modern English. A 1769 change, in 2016. I've read the "thou shalt not" until reading "you shall not" would be difficult for my brain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...