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.

Preservation and the KJV


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

Would the scriptural teaching that no words of men were to be added and no words of God were to be omitted or changed relate to the doctrine of preservation and would they suggest that preservation directly concerned the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?  In translating the Scriptures, do translators sometimes have to add words in order for their translation to be understandable in the different language, suggesting that preservation may not directly apply to translations that add some words of men?  Would any words added by translators for which there were no original language words of Scripture be preserving actual words that proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles?  

What exactly or precisely is meant by the assertion that the KJV is the preserved word of God? 

Does it mean that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?  It is true that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures and is a revision of earlier English Bibles.

On the other hand, is it possibly intended to suggest that the KJV always has a literal, word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture so that it is claimed to preserve exactly the same number of words [without any addition or omission] as the number of words that God gave to the prophets and apostles along with preserving the same meaning of each word?  If preservation is directly applied to different words in a different language, would that possibly suggest that meaning or thought preservation is in effect being claimed instead of exact, specific word preservation?  Do the Scriptures themselves clearly and directly teach a preservation of different words than the exact, specific ones given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

How does the KJV directly preserve each and every specific word given by God to the prophets and apostles if there are at least a few times where the KJV translators themselves suggested in their marginal notes that they did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their underlying text?

Are there different number of words in different editions of the KJV or do all editions of the KJV have the exact same number of words and have the exact same words?  Which of the varying editions of the KJV is the specific one that is claimed to have every preserved word of God?

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You are getting into the difference between translation methods; of which, there are three main methods...

  1. Formal or Literal (word-for-word)
  2. Dynamic (though-for-thought)
  3. Free (the idea behind or paraphrase)

The methods explain themselves.

If we want to know God's actual word(s), then we would want a Formal Equivalency (or Literal translation). Probably, the two most popular Literal translations are the King James Version and the English Standard Version (ESV). However, though both are a literal translation, one must also consider the underlying texts from which they are translated. 

Dynamic Equivalency gives what the translator's believe to be a translation based upon the overall "thought" of a passage. So, instead of translating the actual words of a text, they are translating what they think are the thoughts behind the texts. They may loosely follow the actual words, but the main thrust is the thought behind the text. Hence, the New International Version (NIV). Certainly, this type of translation method is prone to error since the translator(s) will be inserting their own interpretation.

Free translating...aka...paraphrasing is basically translating the idea behind the text...and is unhindered and unrestrained by the actual words of the text. Indeed, this type of translation method is more than prone to error. The Living Bible and The Message are two popular paraphrases. I personally refer to "The Message" as "The Massacre". :)

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. There will always be some type of addition needed when translating one language into another. In fact, if one has access to the Greek, and one is able to translate the Greek, one would see that the sentence structure is quite different than that of English sentence structure. So, whereas, the King James translates word for word, it also repositions words so as to make sense to an English reader. 

In my view, it comes down to this...

God told us to study his "WORD". We are to live by his "WORD". He magnifies his WORD above his name (Psalm 138:2). In light of this, I want to know...HIS WORD. With the help of the Holy Spirit and study, I can grasp the "thought" (Dynamic Equivalency) behind his actual word(s); I can grasp the "idea" (Free paraphrasing) behind his actual word(s). I don't need someone else telling me what THEY think God's thoughts were or what his ideas were. If I have his actual words, I can get that from him. ;)

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You are getting into the difference between translation methods; of which, there are three main methods...

  1. Formal or Literal (word-for-word)
  2. Dynamic (though-for-thought)
  3. Free (the idea behind or paraphrase)

The methods explain themselves.

If we want to know God's actual word(s), then we would want a Formal Equivalency (or Literal translation). Probably, the two most popular Literal translations are the King James Version and the English Standard Version (ESV). However, though both are a literal translation, one must also consider the underlying texts from which they are translated. 

Dynamic Equivalency gives what the translator's believe to be a translation based upon the overall "thought" of a passage. So, instead of translating the actual words of a text, they are translating what they think are the thoughts behind the texts. They may loosely follow the actual words, but the main thrust is the thought behind the text. Hence, the New International Version (NIV). Certainly, this type of translation method is prone to error since the translator(s) will be inserting their own interpretation.

Free translating...aka...paraphrasing is basically translating the idea behind the text...and is unhindered and unrestrained by the actual words of the text. Indeed, this type of translation method is more than prone to error. The Living Bible and The Message are two popular paraphrases. I personally refer to "The Message" as "The Massacre". :)

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. There will always be some type of addition needed when translating one language into another. In fact, if one has access to the Greek, and one is able to translate the Greek, one would see that the sentence structure is quite different than that of English sentence structure. So, whereas, the King James translates word for word, it also repositions words so as to make sense to an English reader. 

In my view, it comes down to this...

God told us to study his "WORD". We are to live by his "WORD". He magnifies his WORD above his name (Psalm 138:2). In light of this, I want to know...HIS WORD. With the help of the Holy Spirit and study, I can grasp the "thought" (Dynamic Equivalency) behind his actual word(s); I can grasp the "idea" (Free paraphrasing) behind his actual word(s). I don't need someone else telling me what THEY think God's thoughts were or what his ideas were. If I have his actual words, I can get that from him. ;)

This explanation by NN is spot on. And it becomes extremely relevant when translating the Bible into a foreign language today, or judging an old translation that you find on the foreign field. I ran into this in Papua New Guinea several years ago.

Where this whole subject becomes iffy, in my own un-asked-for opinion, is when a native English-speaking person today is looking for an academic, intellectual, scholastic proof that the KJV is worthy of their faith in it's inerrant perfection. For in the end, proof will never be fully found in such a manner. For the born-again Christian, the foundation of everything is, and will always be, faith. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin". If I ultimately will solely trust my intellect to discern and decide what is of God and what is not, I have in the end set myself up as judge. This is actually the very foundation of humanism. You can NOT discern the perfect Word of God by human study and intellectual exercise. For who can ever know the things of God (such as the Words of God) unless they are revealed to him by the Spirit of God? The KJV has the power of God on it. That has been proven for the last 400 years. It is alive. It speaks to people and smites their hearts with a divine power that no other English translation has ever shown.

There have been English speaking illiterate dirt farmers, simple pioneers and settlers, ex-drunks and un-churched prostitutes, simple itinerant preachers and harried housewives that have for centuries known the this Bible is the living Word of God. They know nothing of manuscript evidence or dynamic equivalency, and have never heard of Tyndale, Wycliffe or the Textus Receptus. But they know full well where they got the Word that was quick and powerful and sharp, and that cut their hearts clean down to the dividing of their soul and spirit.

Sometimes, for us educated to know more, we actually have to be able and willing to "know" less. This is the beginning of the journey from human knowledge into Godly wisdom.

He that hath ears to hear...

Edited by weary warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Eloah pluralized is Elohim. How is Elohim translated into English? Singular. God. In Hebrew we know more than one God is creating, Elohim. Sadly this is lost in English. Maybe the modern translations have corrected this, but I do not know. So LORD God becomes Yahweh Elohim or Yahweh Gods, talk about the Trinity. That's shouting ground for hillbillies. Want to really shout, look up Deuteronomy 6:4, the Trinity in the Law.

That's just one example how the English doesn't live up to the Hebrew. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

Eloah pluralized is Elohim. How is Elohim translated into English? Singular. God. In Hebrew we know more than one God is creating, Elohim. Sadly this is lost in English. Maybe the modern translations have corrected this, but I do not know. So LORD God becomes Yahweh Elohim or Yahweh Gods, talk about the Trinity. That's shouting ground for hillbillies. Want to really shout, look up Deuteronomy 6:4, the Trinity in the Law.

That's just one example how the English doesn't live up to the Hebrew. 

I politely disagree. In English we are told "Let us make man in our image", and that's a pretty clear plurality. The trinity in the law may have been made clearer for the Hebrews in their language, but that was because they didn't yet have anything but the law. We have I John 5:7 et al. By your logic, would our verses given to us but not to the Hebrews not then make the scripture in the Hebrew language inferior to the English? By the time English language came along centuries later and we had received the scriptures, all had been made clear. God saw to it that the dumb hillbilly got the exact same information in his language that the Hebrew scholar had received in his 4000 years earlier. The English is not behind the Hebrew, anymore than the Law is behind grace. Each had their own individual place and purpose designed by God. They are each separately perfect in their own form and function and time. There is never a problem until we try to cross-pollinate them. Remember, we were told in I Corinthians 13:8, which was not written in Hebrew, that "when that which is perfect is come (the completed Word of God) then that which is in part shall be done away with". The completed word of God has been deemed perfect by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added.

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different smaller type.  It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the number of words in a different type in the 1611 edition.

  Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so.  You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics.  I know of one such edition printed in London in 1795.  There are also a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

Well, I did say, "that I know of." Whether other English versions incorporate italics or not is a moot point if they're translated from the wrong texts. That's my opinion though.

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different type. 

I used the word "italics" simply so people would know what I was referring to.

It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the 1611 edition. 

I don't know if that's true or not, so I won't comment on it.

Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so. 

Nor would I.

You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

No sir, this is all that I said...

Quote: As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. End quote.

I spoke only of the translators...nothing was said about anything else.

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics, and there are a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Okay. Italics or not...I'd still trust a non-italicized King James version over any other English version...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different smaller type.  It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the number of words in a different type in the 1611 edition.

  Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so.  You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics, and there are a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Aint' that something, or is it? Imagine if you actually believed the Bible was preserved? Then imagine if you were a doer of the Word instead of a hearer only. What a wonderful eternity you could have.

Based on your posts, it appears you have nothing to add to this forum except the nonsense fed to you by someone's merchandise. Put your energy into the Word and drop the trivial, intellectual speculation you attempt to portray friend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, wretched said:

 Imagine if you actually believed the Bible was preserved?

 

My opening post in this thread made it clear that I do believe that the Bible was and is preserved.  My belief would be based on exactly what the Scriptures themselves state.

I stated: "From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles."

Do you clearly demonstrate that your beliefs concerning the preservation of the Scriptures are any more consistent, sound, and scriptural than mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

I stated: "From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles."

The problem is, many of us have been around for a long, long time. And we've seen this silly game played for many years. And we've seen it played by those who are better and more clever at it than you have been, at least on here. I guess what gets my goat is not that you would try this lawyer-talk shell game on here so much as the fact that you seem to actually believe we are foolish and shallow enough to not see through it. It's actually kind of insulting.

I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Yeah, we know. It's the tired, old "original manuscripts" argument presented in a sloppy, quasi-intellectual underhanded manner. I don't even care that you believe that. Everyone has the right to be as obtuse as they choose. We are just all getting just a little weary of your childish word games. We are trying to be courteous and patient (some more than others), but you're not making it very easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, weary warrior said:

I politely disagree. In English we are told "Let us make man in our image", and that's a pretty clear plurality. The trinity in the law may have been made clearer for the Hebrews in their language, but that was because they didn't yet have anything but the law. We have I John 5:7 et al. By your logic, would our verses given to us but not to the Hebrews not then make the scripture in the Hebrew language inferior to the English? By the time English language came along centuries later and we had received the scriptures, all had been made clear. God saw to it that the dumb hillbilly got the exact same information in his language that the Hebrew scholar had received in his 4000 years earlier. The English is not behind the Hebrew, anymore than the Law is behind grace. Each had their own individual place and purpose designed by God. They are each separately perfect in their own form and function and time. There is never a problem until we try to cross-pollinate them. Remember, we were told in I Corinthians 13:8, which was not written in Hebrew, that "when that which is perfect is come (the completed Word of God) then that which is in part shall be done away with". The completed word of God has been deemed perfect by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The whole Bible was written by Hebrews, the biggest part in Hebrew, then Greek, finally some in Arabic. God gave us no Bible without using a Hebrew and God Himself came to earth in the Hebrew family of David. When God returns He will rule the earth from the Hebrews homeland. That puts them far above us English speaking people because God chose Abram. 

Hebrew - Elohim plural, English - God singular. That's not the same. God can never change, His word can never change. There is a change there. Plural is not singular. Man done that. We are still like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Its a safe change because the three Gods are One. Its within the doctrine of the whole book but its still a change. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, weary warrior said:

 And we've seen this silly game played for many years

this lawyer-talk shell game on here

 argument presented in a sloppy, quasi-intellectual underhanded manner. I don't even care that you believe that. Everyone has the right to be as obtuse as they choose. We are just all getting just a little weary of your childish word games. We are trying to be courteous and patient (some more than others), but you're not making it very easy.

I wonder how it would be being courteous, kind, and patient for some posters to seem to attempt to attack personally my integrity, my faith in God, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.  Perhaps the criticism is because it is thought that I may not blindly accept certain non-scriptural opinions of men that some may add to their doctrine of the Bible.

I do not consider learning or stating the truth a silly game or nonsense. 

Would the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, guide believers to accept all truth or would He guide to accept only some truth while dismissing or avoiding other truth?  Why would presenting actual true facts concerning the KJV and concerning editions of the KJV seem be attacked by those who would claim to stand for the truth?  Would it be wrong to attempt to be faithful and true in what some may consider to be the least important details and facts concerning the KJV?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much

 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

The whole Bible was written by Hebrews, the biggest part in Hebrew, then Greek, finally some in Arabic. God gave us no Bible without using a Hebrew and God Himself came to earth in the Hebrew family of David. When God returns He will rule the earth from the Hebrews homeland. That puts them far above us English speaking people because God chose Abram. 

Hebrew - Elohim plural, English - God singular. That's not the same. God can never change, His word can never change. There is a change there. Plural is not singular. Man done that. We are still like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Its a safe change because the three Gods are One. Its within the doctrine of the whole book but its still a change. 

MC,

I understand your point of view and concerns.

I was taught that each instance of the word "God" (in the Old Testament) refers to all three members of the godhead, just as each instance of the word "LORD" refers to the Father.

Now, I haven't looked up every instance to see if that's true, but I have looked at many instances, and it was true in those cases.

I can't answer for the translators, but as Christians, we know and understand that there are three members of the godhead...yet they are one. 

Therefore, it seems to me that the translators were accurate in not only referring to the three members of the godhead as one (God), but the fact that they did it consistently also secures my assurance. In that one word, they translated a simple (yet deep) spiritual truth and doctrine...one that the Hebrews rejected even though they had the obvious plural word.

Edited by No Nicolaitans
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Tyndale said:

I wonder how it would be being courteous, kind, and patient for some posters to seem to attempt to attack personally my integrity, my faith in God, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.  Perhaps the criticism is because it is thought that I may not blindly accept certain non-scriptural opinions of men that some may add to their doctrine of the Bible.

I do not consider learning or stating the truth a silly game or nonsense. 

Would the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, guide believers to accept all truth or would He guide to accept only some truth while dismissing or avoiding other truth?  Why would presenting actual true facts concerning the KJV and concerning editions of the KJV seem be attacked by those who would claim to stand for the truth?  Would it be wrong to attempt to be faithful and true in what some may consider to be the least important details and facts concerning the KJV?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much

 

OK, Son. Carry on. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

NN, thank you very much for those words. I can see how you had a better teacher growing up in the faith.

KJVO is so bad here they are men that teach a man can not get saved unless the KJV is being used. Some mock the other translations not knowing they are mocking Jesus' birth, life, doctrine, death and resurrection. Things like this hurt my soul, because I love Jesus.

I'm having a hard time after learning the translation isn't identical to the original. I was taught even down the word “a” or “the” would match up in every case. They don't. 

I was told, “The Isaiah dead sea scroll matches up word for word, even the punctuation matches perfectly with the KJV.” Seen the photos of the scroll and its not true. Learning the teachings are false has been a crisis for me. I do not want others to go through this.

Jesus will help me and I'll get it unlearned.

The KJV Church I belong to teaches doing, then do some more. This has helped me a lot and my Pastor is so very careful to not add to the word and to not subtract from the word. 

My recommendation of the KJV means nothing, but the 400+ years of the Holy Ghost blessings mean everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Every time this breaks out. I just can not understand it. Someone comes along and questions using the KJV. So, I trot out my trusty personal statement of faith and doctrines for the section on God's Word...

The Word of God

I believe the original texts are the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety, written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the sole authority for the Christian's faith and conduct.  I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God for teaching and preaching to English speaking people. This is what I will use when I quote scripture. I believe other English translations contain the Word of God.

The 1769 KJV fits me and I believe God is honored that I have it settled. MEVs are too much like casual conversation for me. I like to remember this is God speaking to me and answering questions I have; so, casual is not an option for me. The KJV makes me pause, think, and study God’s word for understanding. It causes me to meditate on God's Word and I know that pleases Him. (2 Timothy 3:15, Psalms 119:89)

The translators of the KJV had a dedication to God which is unsurpassed even shunned by translators and editors of today’s modern English versions (MEVs). If you want to have a casual conversation with me, that’s fine. If by opportunity we speak of God, the conversation will not be in the English of the KJV, just American English (unless I quote the little scripture I’ve memorized).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

Brother Tyndale,

Would you please answer the question that I posted earlier today?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

While you did not answer my questions, I will consider yours.  I believe that God was just as faithful to preserve the exact, specific words of the original language Scriptures before 1611 as in 1611 and as after 1611.  I believe that a consistent, sound view of Bible preservation would be true both before and after 1611. 

I assume that you know that there are some variations or differences in the existing manuscript copies of Scripture that God has allowed to be preserved. 

The KJV translators made use of textually-varying Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic text editions and textually-varying Greek New Testament text editions along with some other textual sources in their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions, and they did not follow any one edition 100% and did not identify or name any one as being their sole perfect standard.  If it is satisfactory and proper for the KJV translators to use more than one edition, would not the same be true for other translators? 

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators maintained that "it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation."  In their preface, the KJV translators asserted:  "For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt those things that are evident, so to determine such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

I would think that the scriptural truths concerning making righteous judgments, proving all things, using just measures, and not using unjust divers measures could provide some sound guidance concerning what consistent, sound, just criteria textual authorities should use to deal with textual variations.

D. A. Waite, a leading KJV defender and author, has maintained that there are no textual families and that all manuscript copies are like orphans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...