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.

Publisher Whitaker House KJV Sword Study bible is NOT a true KJV


jdosher
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Same word; one is capitalized for emphasis.

Thanks. How do you think, Why are these two verses written differently?


 "...Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee." (Ps.2:7) KJV1611

"...Thou art my Sonne, to day haue I begotten thee" (Heb.5:5) KJV1611

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  Difference between the hebrew & Greek readings.

We have a perfect translation in English KJV1611. Now we are only interested in the English text, i.e. the meaning of verses in English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
54 minutes ago, Konstantin said:

We have a perfect translation in English KJV1611. Now we are only interested in the English text, i.e. the meaning of verses in English.

The KJV has had MANY changes though in its text and form since the original 1611, as there were known mistakes and issues in it that were corrected in later editions, such as the 1769 and the 1873!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, DaChaser said:

The KJV has had MANY changes though in its text and form since the original 1611, as there were known mistakes and issues in it that were corrected in later editions, such as the 1769 and the 1873!

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

The Bible has dual authorship

No, it doesn't.

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21).

No, there's not.

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).

That's not what that verse says.

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13).

So...only the prophetic verses are from God?

...but weren't they also written down by the men whom you said made mistakes?

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers.

No, it's not just the prophetic meaning.

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth.

No, the Author uses his word to convey his word.

 

1 hour ago, Konstantin said:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

Please use this in your own life.

Wait...

...wasn't that also written by men who made mistakes? Wait...that's not prophetic either. Oh dear...

...and don't respond to this please. I've never seen such foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
45 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

No, it doesn't...

No, there's not...

...and don't respond to this please. I've never seen such foolishness.

Sorry, but I answer: My post is one piece. You are trying to destroy the context of my post by dividing it into parts.

Therefore, I can only tell you: "No, Nicolaitans!"👋👇

 

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
45 minutes ago, Konstantin said:

Sorry, but I answer: My post is one piece. You are trying to destroy the context of my post by dividing it into parts.

Therefore, I can only tell you: "No, Nicolaitans!"👋👇

 

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

Seriously? Okay. Then I'll answer your one post with one answer...

Why are you quoting non-prophetic verses, when (in your opinion) non-prophetic verses are not from God...and why do you trust prophetic verses when they were written down by the same men whom you claim made mistakes?

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 Okay. Then I'll answer your one post with one answer...

Why are you quoting non-prophetic verses, when (in your opinion) non-prophetic verses are not from God...and why do you trust prophetic verses when they were written down by the same men whom you claim made mistakes?

The answer to your question is already below 👋🙂👇

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Konstantin said:

The answer to your question is already below 👋🙂👇

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

image.gif

In other words, you're avoiding actually answering...

That's fine. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Difference between the hebrew & Greek readings.

“…Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee.” (Ps.2:7)

In this verse, Scripture speaks of the birth of Israel as the people of God at the beginning of the Millennium. It is said:

 “Israel is my sonne, euen my first borne” (Ex.4:22)

 “…Thou art my Sonne, to day haue I begotten thee.” (Heb.5:5)

This verse is about the birth of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ on the Day of Pentecost, about His enthronement (Rev. 11:17) in the future.

Edited by Konstantin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/31/2020 at 1:10 AM, Konstantin said:

The Bible has dual authorship. There are mistakes and inaccuracies in it because it was written by "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21). The text of the Bible is "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13), which is clear to everyone. KJV1611AV calls these men according to their names (the 47 persons).  But these men "were moued by the holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore, the Author of the prophetic meaning of Bible verses is God. God's Word is "a more sure word of prophecie"(2 Peter 1:19), than "the word of men" (1 Thess. 2:13). The prophetic meaning of Bible verses is hidden from unbelievers. The Author of the Scripture uses the mistakes of the men of God to convey His words to people who seek the truth. The Bible of King 1611 is AV approved by the Author of the Scriptures. Bible publications 1769 and 1873 are not AV. Scripture says:

"Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly diuiding the word of trueth." (2Tim.2:15)

The 1611 Translators were not inspired by God to make a perfect English translation, as they made the best of their time, was a revision of those before them, and later editions did correct the mistakes an d errors made in the 1611!

On 5/31/2020 at 2:26 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

No, it doesn't.

No, there's not.

That's not what that verse says.

So...only the prophetic verses are from God?

...but weren't they also written down by the men whom you said made mistakes?

No, it's not just the prophetic meaning.

No, the Author uses his word to convey his word.

 

Please use this in your own life.

Wait...

...wasn't that also written by men who made mistakes? Wait...that's not prophetic either. Oh dear...

...and don't respond to this please. I've never seen such foolishness.

Only the Originals were fully inerrant and inspired!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

The 1611 Translators were not inspired by God to make a perfect English translation, as they made the best of their time, was a revision of those before them, and later editions did correct the mistakes an d errors made in the 1611!

No. Bible says the 1611 Translators were inspired by God to make a perfect English translation.

In 1603 King James I came into power. In the first year his reign he made a decree concerning the Bible.

‘…In the first year of James the king the same James the king made a decree concerning the Bible. We read (Еzra.6:3):

‘in the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.

The height and width indicates the ‘volume’ of the Book. Sixty to sixty cubits, prophetically are 66 God-inspired books. We read the commandment more:

With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house’ (Еzra.6:4).

The Bible includes the Old Testament -- ‘three rows of great stones’, and the New Testament -- ‘a row of new timber’. The Old Testament consists of three major sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus Himself has listed these three sections:

‘…all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ (Luke 24:44).

The Scripture says that the king of England Jacob not only have granted permission, but yet also have financed all the costs of this work ‘out of the king’s house’…’ ©

The books of the New Testament also have prophecies about KJV1611

'we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost'
 (Acts 21: 8-11)

Our period of time (about 2000 years) is divided into 5 parts. Four 'daughters, virgins, which did prophesy' are the Antiochian manuscripts. When the prophet Agabus came, there was no longer any need for these daughters to prophesy. 'The Prophet Agabus' came in 1611.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Konstantin said:

No. Bible says the 1611 Translators were inspired by God to make a perfect English translation.

In 1603 King James I came into power. In the first year his reign he made a decree concerning the Bible.

‘…In the first year of James the king the same James the king made a decree concerning the Bible. We read (Еzra.6:3):

‘in the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.

The height and width indicates the ‘volume’ of the Book. Sixty to sixty cubits, prophetically are 66 God-inspired books. We read the commandment more:

With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house’ (Еzra.6:4).

The Bible includes the Old Testament -- ‘three rows of great stones’, and the New Testament -- ‘a row of new timber’. The Old Testament consists of three major sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus Himself has listed these three sections:

‘…all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ (Luke 24:44).

The Scripture says that the king of England Jacob not only have granted permission, but yet also have financed all the costs of this work ‘out of the king’s house’…’ ©

The books of the New Testament also have prophecies about KJV1611

'we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost'
 (Acts 21: 8-11)

Our period of time (about 2000 years) is divided into 5 parts. Four 'daughters, virgins, which did prophesy' are the Antiochian manuscripts. When the prophet Agabus came, there was no longer any need for these daughters to prophesy. 'The Prophet Agabus' came in 1611.

None of that would be from the scriptures, as again, 1611 had known issues that were fixed and corrected in later editions of the Kjv!

Think final corrected form was 1873 Cambridge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, DaChaser said:

None of that would be from the scriptures, as again, 1611 had known issues that were fixed and corrected in later editions of the Kjv!

Think final corrected form was 1873 Cambridge!

Some people think the final version was the Authorized King James Version; Pure Cambridge Edition1900.  But the Bible says AVKJV1611 is the word of God.

 

God shows us another manner that divides our time into two parts as 4+1:
We read (John.19:23-24):
 
'Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.’

And it was fulfilled the prophecy: 'They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture' (Ps.22:18). The four parts of 'his garments' were as equivalent to each another, and the vesture was not a ‘patchwork’, it was ‘without seam’. The vesture was made, as a single whole, without seams, it was not subject to any division.

God 'at sundry times and in divers manners' (Heb.1:1) shows us his Word KJV 1611
 
Scripture says:

‘The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.’ (Ps.12:6-7).

Cambridge1900 and 1873 editions are fake versions FV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Um. No. Just no. 

First of all threescore is not 66 its 60.

Second of all this man conpletely ignored the literal, grammatical approach to scripture, instead allegorizing and eisegeting beliefs onto the biblical text.

I’m a King James guy, but not because of nonsensical reasoning like that posted by Konstantin.

 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
20 hours ago, Konstantin said:

No. Bible says the 1611 Translators were inspired by God to make a perfect English translation.

In 1603 King James I came into power. In the first year his reign he made a decree concerning the Bible.

‘…In the first year of James the king the same James the king made a decree concerning the Bible. We read (Еzra.6:3):

‘in the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits’.

The height and width indicates the ‘volume’ of the Book. Sixty to sixty cubits, prophetically are 66 God-inspired books. We read the commandment more:

With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king’s house’ (Еzra.6:4).

The Bible includes the Old Testament -- ‘three rows of great stones’, and the New Testament -- ‘a row of new timber’. The Old Testament consists of three major sections: the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Jesus Himself has listed these three sections:

‘…all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’ (Luke 24:44).

The Scripture says that the king of England Jacob not only have granted permission, but yet also have financed all the costs of this work ‘out of the king’s house’…’ ©

The books of the New Testament also have prophecies about KJV1611

'we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost'
 (Acts 21: 8-11)

Our period of time (about 2000 years) is divided into 5 parts. Four 'daughters, virgins, which did prophesy' are the Antiochian manuscripts. When the prophet Agabus came, there was no longer any need for these daughters to prophesy. 'The Prophet Agabus' came in 1611.

King of England, Jacob??? What? I think that was Cyrus, king of Babylon. 

 

This is an interesting view, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context you are applying it to. This is a complete and total fabrication that has not a single shred of bearing in reality. As said before, threescore is 60, not 66.  None of it makes any sense, save to try to pick and choose random facts to seek to fit a theory. Though I WOULD be interested to know where you got all of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

King of England, Jacob??? What? I think that was Cyrus, king of Babylon. 

 

This is an interesting view, but it makes absolutely no sense in the context you are applying it to. This is a complete and total fabrication that has not a single shred of bearing in reality. As said before, threescore is 60, not 66.  None of it makes any sense, save to try to pick and choose random facts to seek to fit a theory. Though I WOULD be interested to know where you got all of it. 

If you don’t understand anything, then why do you need to know where I got all of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Um. No. Just no. 

First of all threescore is not 66 its 60.

Second of all this man conpletely ignored the literal, grammatical approach to scripture, instead allegorizing and eisegeting beliefs onto the biblical text.

I’m a King James guy, but not because of nonsensical reasoning like that posted by Konstantin.

 

 

Hi, a King James guy. Here we are considering the prophetic meaning of verses, i.e. "a more sure word of prophecie" (2Peter 1:19), not literal ones, i.e. "not as the word of men" 1Thess. 2:13

Edited by Konstantin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, Konstantin said:

If you don’t understand anything, then why do you need to know where I got all of it?

I don't understand it, because doctrinally and theologically, it is complete gibberish.  It is like those who say that each day of creation is a thousand years, because in 2Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord a thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years-the two have nothing to do with each other, as one is history, and the other speaks of prophecy. Though at least there, there is somewhat of a reason people mistake them, since both have to do with God and how He understands time, while yours have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

I am just curious of where you get it, because I'd be interested to see if there is any kind of logical joining of these completely disparate things by whoever interpreted it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 14 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...