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
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

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. 

Done properly that could be of benefit. The problem is, most who have claimed to want to do this or actually set out to do this, have done so with profit in mind. Once they found out simply updating a few words wasn't enough to earn them a patent, thus meaning they couldn't have a monopoly on the product, they made many other changes until their version was different enough from the KJB to qualify for a patent.

I never checked out the entire work, but years ago Ray Comfort came out with his "Comforted Bible" which was supposed to the KJB with "thee and thou" type words updated. However, the portions I did read were accurate to our KJB with only the old words updated. Maybe someone else knows if the entire work is accurate to our KJB.

Myself, I am so used to the "thou shalt not", reading the updated version didn't suit me so I gave that Bible away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The Bible software that I use (theWord) has a Bible module that can be installed for free, and it is supposedly an updated King James version as you're talking about; however, I just don't have the time to thoroughly check it out....that would be a massive undertaking! 

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 hours ago, MatthewDiscipleOfGod said:

The Geneva Bible contains errors while the King James does not.

Spoken like a normal 'make the nonKJB guy look stupid without  really  saying it' kinda response, considering you know I would get in trouble defending against that statement. Slandering the Geneva is accepted while slandering the KJB is not.

Thanks anyway. There are great multitudes of people in heaven because of the word of God before the KJB. Just saying there are errors changes nothing. Have you not read Psalm 12 in the KJB says the word was preserved from this generation (David's) forever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Spoken like a normal 'make the nonKJB guy look stupid without  really  saying it' kinda response, considering you know I would get in trouble defending against that statement. Slandering the Geneva is accepted while slandering the KJB is not.

Thanks anyway. There are great multitudes of people in heaven because of the word of God before the KJB. Just saying there are errors changes nothing. Have you not read Psalm 12 in the KJB says the word was preserved from this generation (David's) forever?

God is amazing and the fact folks can be saved from reading such a wide variety of Bible versions proves how much directly involved God is in our salvation. I have a friend who was saved reading "The Living Bible". I know more men than I can count who were saved reading the NIV and have grown in Christ still using the NIV. As watery and weak as I find those Bibles to be it's beyond me how this could be, other than the direct working of God in their lives to bring this about.

(Just a note for those who may be quick to take some offense, I'm in no way endorsing The Living Bible or the NIV in any of its versions)

The Bible a person carries doesn't necessarily indicate they are more or less in Christ, growing in Christ, mature in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, John81 said:

God is amazing and the fact folks can be saved from reading such a wide variety of Bible versions proves how much directly involved God is in our salvation. I have a friend who was saved reading "The Living Bible". I know more men than I can count who were saved reading the NIV and have grown in Christ still using the NIV. As watery and weak as I find those Bibles to be it's beyond me how this could be, other than the direct working of God in their lives to bring this about.

(Just a note for those who may be quick to take some offense, I'm in no way endorsing The Living Bible or the NIV in any of its versions)

The Bible a person carries doesn't necessarily indicate they are more or less in Christ, growing in Christ, mature in Christ.

I would have to contend with you on this John. But only from the standpoint of MVs, I am not referencing the Geneva in this.

Having known, known of and witnessed to many members of "other Christian" denominational churches (several 100s or more) in multiple states, all who use MVs of one perversion or another, I conclude the polar opposite of what you are saying here. Not disputing your experience but I have to qualify your experience as incredibly rare. Matter of fact, you may know the only examples of this.

All without exception that I have known or known of in witnessing and acquaintance are what we as fundamentalists would call babes, watered down and lacking any heart change, demonstrating no separation from the world and have little interest and nearly no urgency in trying to spare their own family circle or friends from hell. I believe the reason why they don't have concern or urgency in this is simply because they themselves have no idea what they were "saved" from.

I know many of the modern popular "Christian" authors make claims like yours but that does not match my personal experience over 32 years in multiple areas.

If folks can't seem to grasp anything beyond the free gift of God in salvation (post salvation is what the majority of the NT is all about) then why do we assume they have the Gospel right? If a clergy or minister will not teach Biblical discipleship to their people, why would we assume they are born again themselves?

Seems fishy to me. Just saying....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a little 'opinion' to insert here.

By the foolishness of preaching?

I think a real convert to the Lord, when witnessing or preaching, does not necessarily use a 'direct' quoting system when doing such, and many have been won to the Lord by other's own testimonies.

How could it be termed 'foolishness' if it is direct quoting?

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, wretched said:

I would have to contend with you on this John. But only from the standpoint of MVs, I am not referencing the Geneva in this.

Having known, known of and witnessed to many members of "other Christian" denominational churches (several 100s or more) in multiple states, all who use MVs of one perversion or another, I conclude the polar opposite of what you are saying here. Not disputing your experience but I have to qualify your experience as incredibly rare. Matter of fact, you may know the only examples of this.

All without exception that I have known or known of in witnessing and acquaintance are what we as fundamentalists would call babes, watered down and lacking any heart change, demonstrating no separation from the world and have little interest and nearly no urgency in trying to spare their own family circle or friends from hell. I believe the reason why they don't have concern or urgency in this is simply because they themselves have no idea what they were "saved" from.

I know many of the modern popular "Christian" authors make claims like yours but that does not match my personal experience over 32 years in multiple areas.

If folks can't seem to grasp anything beyond the free gift of God in salvation (post salvation is what the majority of the NT is all about) then why do we assume they have the Gospel right? If a clergy or minister will not teach Biblical discipleship to their people, why would we assume they are born again themselves?

Seems fishy to me. Just saying....

Indeed, the vast majority of professing Christians are weak, watery, or even only cultural Christians. Most churches use MVs. Many churches have pastors that are unsaved, most (if not all) their congregation is unsaved.

Most MV users I know are not strong Christians, but there are a few who are. Similarly, many I know who use the KJB are strong Christians, but there are those who are not. Then there are also those Christians who are near or outright cultish who use the KJB but are off in understanding and practice.

At the time I was saved I wasn't reading from the Bible, I had just watch the movie A Thief In The Night and heard the pastors presentation of the Gospel. However, prior to that the only Bible I had read seriously from was an RSV I received in Methodist Sunday school as a child.

So, I'm certainly not saying everyone, not even most, but a small percentage of men have managed to grow into strong men of God while using an MV. In my case, I grew to a point mostly using the RSV, then switching to the NASB (trying many other MVs in between) until around 1990 I heard the Lord direct me (not an audible directing) to the KJB and that's when real growth and maturity took off in my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Removing the usage of "ye," "thou," "thy," and "thine" from the King James translation would make it LESS accurate; for the usage of those 2nd person personal pronouns are in the King James translation for very specific grammatical reasons.  I myself certainly would be AGAINST a less accurate translation. 

While most of us here get this, most readers don't. For most readers they know little or nothing of modern grammar and not a bit about any form of older English grammar. I even know several KJB preachers who don't even read the "ye, thou, thy, thine" as in the text of the KJB but insert "you, yours" and other modern words.

I don't recall his name but I read an article a KJB pastor wrote on this subject either earlier this year or late last year where he pointed out how updated wording could be used while still including a proper understanding. It was an interesting read but the only thing I really recall about it was his use of "y'all" in his presentation.

With the dismal education system in America a large percentage of the population has very low reading skills with some being barely literate at all. I've encountered many people over the years who have a difficult time reading the more simplistic MVs and an even more difficult time when it comes to comprehension. These people are near totally lost trying to read anything of a higher level.

Sad that so many children in America once learned to read using the KJB but today millions of adults, even college graduate adults, either can't read, can't comprehend (or both) the writing in the KJB.

(Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against what you said, just pointing these factors out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Spoken like a normal 'make the nonKJB guy look stupid without  really  saying it' kinda response, considering you know I would get in trouble defending against that statement. Slandering the Geneva is accepted while slandering the KJB is not.

Thanks anyway. There are great multitudes of people in heaven because of the word of God before the KJB. Just saying there are errors changes nothing. Have you not read Psalm 12 in the KJB says the word was preserved from this generation (David's) forever?

I certainly don't want to make you or anyone else look stupid. The King James doesn't have errors but the Geneva does. Why would I want to settle for second best? My first Bible was the NIV and I believe people can be saved using almost any translation. The Geneva isn't even easy to come by since most publishers don't print it. I have pretty much every edition in electronic format but I wouldn't bother to get it in a printed version.

I'm just glad we won't have these kinds of debates in Heaven. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Spoken like a normal 'make the nonKJB guy look stupid without  really  saying it' kinda response, considering you know I would get in trouble defending against that statement.

 

1 hour ago, MatthewDiscipleOfGod said:

I certainly don't want to make you or anyone else look stupid. The King James doesn't have errors but the Geneva does.

GP does have a legitimate hesitation when it comes to being perceived as "promoting" the Geneva Bible in seeking to "defend" it on this site.My suggestion is to drop any questions that directly require a defense of his Bible and send him a PM or email. If it is agreeable to both parties, continue the discussion via PM or email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As for the Geneva being available - the original 1560 edition is.

Hendrickson Publishers has been printing it since 2007 and sales are doing very well according to an email discussion I had with them.

And it's more affordable than most KJB Bibles with a leather cover.

So not being available is a weak reason to not use one.

As for the text having errors? I have been using my 1560 edition since 2007 and have found none.

And using it, one will see the 'error' of the KJB text. Since the translators changed the text when they published the KJB.

We could argue - I could be kicked off OB - but it would be an opinion battle and not one cohesive to either of our views.

Experience is the best defense.

And my experience of reading and studying the text of the Geneva, 1599 and 1560 editions, compared to my studies on the 1611 and 1769 editions of the KJB, have proven out my own 'opinion' on which text is most trustworthy.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In the nearest book store to us a person has to look real carefully to even find the KJB section. There are lots of NIV, NLT, ESV and other MVs but only a small section of KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/9/2016 at 10:39 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Removing the usage of "ye," "thou," "thy," and "thine" from the King James translation would make it LESS accurate; for the usage of those 2nd person personal pronouns are in the King James translation for very specific grammatical reasons.  I myself certainly would be AGAINST a less accurate translation. 

King James Lite. 

21 hours ago, John81 said:

While most of us here get this, most readers don't. For most readers they know little or nothing of modern grammar and not a bit about any form of older English grammar. I even know several KJB preachers who don't even read the "ye, thou, thy, thine" as in the text of the KJB but insert "you, yours" and other modern words.

I don't recall his name but I read an article a KJB pastor wrote on this subject either earlier this year or late last year where he pointed out how updated wording could be used while still including a proper understanding. It was an interesting read but the only thing I really recall about it was his use of "y'all" in his presentation.

With the dismal education system in America a large percentage of the population has very low reading skills with some being barely literate at all. I've encountered many people over the years who have a difficult time reading the more simplistic MVs and an even more difficult time when it comes to comprehension. These people are near totally lost trying to read anything of a higher level.

Sad that so many children in America once learned to read using the KJB but today millions of adults, even college graduate adults, either can't read, can't comprehend (or both) the writing in the KJB.

(Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against what you said, just pointing these factors out)

I often forget rejecting God in our school system closes the door to knowledge and understanding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/10/2016 at 10:06 PM, OLD fashioned preacher said:

 

GP does have a legitimate hesitation when it comes to being perceived as "promoting" the Geneva Bible in seeking to "defend" it on this site.My suggestion is to drop any questions that directly require a defense of his Bible and send him a PM or email. If it is agreeable to both parties, continue the discussion via PM or email.

Thank you OFP. I didn't notice this while responding since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 11/3/2014 at 11:22 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Why are you King James only?..............What is your position and why do you hold to it?

Most here know that the Textus Receptus and Nestle-Aland Greek text are not from just one Greek Bible manuscript but rather composed of many different ones and then compared with each other in order to come up with one Greek text (along with minor variations and notes sometimes placed in the margins).

The problem with N-A is in it's composition Philosophy. This philosophy believes older, shorter, readings are better regardless of the origin of the script. It also teaches that what has been historically handed down to us has been manipulated and changed and added to from its original form. As a result their composition is ever changing to fit with "new manuscript discoveries" and the latest "modern research practices". It also ignores older Latin, and other languages script when considering how authoritative a Greek reading is. Additionally N-A holds several corrupt text in high regard such as the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrea manuscripts. Non of these have ever been historically used yet for the N-A they are considered the "best" manuscripts. All modern bibles, regardless quality use the N-A in translation.

The TR on the other hand is pretty much the opposite in collection philosophy and has been the standar for all English bibles up to the King James. It also derives its collection philosophy from scripture rather then "modern research practices". It believes what has been handed down by and used faithfully in the church community is better. (2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) It also believes that origins of the manuscript matters, that text cannot contradict itself and has to be verifiable across many scripts to be considered authoritative. It also considers all manuscript languages to determine the correct Greek text.

The KJV translators also used the same philosophy in considering the word that would go into their English bible. They not only checked the TR but also conferred with Latin, French, German and other English bibles. The KJV was the perfection of all the bible that came before it and today is the final English product of the TR bible translating Philosophy.

No other bible in common use today other then the KJV uses the biblical translation method. Today they all use secular research methods which tend to ignore what the Bible itself has to say about transmitting the Word of God. That is the main reason I cannot accept the N-A and the modern English bible which use it.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

To me, seeking for a better bible then the KJV is a waste of my time. It is already considered one of the best and accurate English bibles even by the modern bible crowd. It is much more profitable to the believer if they stick to the best and then learn it.

Modern bibles main goal is a bible that conforms to the reader's level but the KJV seeks to conform the reader to God. So while many new bibles claim to be easier and simpler to read then the ones which came before it, the KJV will challenge, expand and grown the reader, not only in bible knowledge but also in their reading, writing, comprehension and composition skills. It not only is the best Bible in English but it also is considered the best literature in English that any one can read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/5/2016 at 11:13 AM, Ukulelemike said:

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. 

This is all true and you have a good point, but, there is a small difference between your examples and the translation of "Ecclessia".

"Thee" and "Ye" were wisely used by KJV translators because it actually reflects better the meaning of the original text.....Greek and Hebrew both have singular and plural forms of the word "you" and English no longer does (it should...that's why us Southerners still say "ya'll" and Pittsburgh types still say "Yinze" and some say "yous-guys" and about a million other local forms.   But....

"Church" even back then...wasn't the best or most accurate way to translate ecclessia.

"To let".....did mean prevent, the KJV is right here, and that reflected the original perfectly.

"Church" however, didn't reflect the intent of the originals here.....the Geneva was simply better in it's choice of translation here.  

It is true as you point out that it is our job to clear up some archaicisms (and I don't mind making sense of some phrases like) "considered it not robbery to be counted equal with God"....or "we do you to wit".....or "gaddest thou not".

But those are all accurate and faithful translations of and transmissions of the Original author's intent.

Translating ecclessia with the loaded (especially to an Anglican) and essentially inaccurate word "Church" is not.  The Geneva was superior here and the KJV was not.  

I'm KJV, I don't want anyone giving up their KJV as it's doubtless the best translation of the Scriptures in English there is, and I maintain there will ever be, but I can't deny the facts of the case here, even though I wish I could.  

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I looked in my 1604 dictionary, but "church" wasn't listed. So, I looked in the 1650s dictionary, and it is listed. According to the definition of church then, it fits well with the context in which it's used in the King James. It still describes an assembly; albeit, for a particular purpose...but still an assembly of people...

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8jYP-B1Q9a0C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PT94

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, John Young said:

The KJV was the perfection of all the bible that came before it and today is the final English product of the TR bible translating Philosophy.

Brother John why did they not use the TR for the NKJV? 

 

 

 

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, 9 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...