Baptists who stand up

[Mexdeaf]

Yep, that's what they say. They don't believe in preservation whatsoever.

And you are absolutely correct, it is a matter of faith, which they do not have, yet they mock those who believe.

You know it is a sin to lie about what others believe?

This is another reason why I hate KJVO.

It is nothing less than a destructive, damnable lie of the Devil. And will be proven as such on the day of judgment.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Strong Words

You know it is a sin to lie about what others believe?

This is another reason why I hate KJVO.

It is nothing less than a destructive, damnable lie of the Devil. And will be proven as such on the day of judgment.

Very STRONG statements that should be approached with GREAT caution and humility since by saying that you literally indict thousands and possibly MILLIONS of good Bible-Believing Brothers and Sisters in Christ who love their Lord and His Word.:tear:

The man of God (Bro.Lester Roloff) who introduced me to the beliefs that I now hold about the Word of God was quite possibly one of the greatest men of true Biblical faith to ever walk in the last century. I'd take his word over the word of one who tells me my Bible is full of mistakes and bad translations ANY DAY. I am NOT a man-follower and he was not a perfect man by any means but I believe he was a humble and Spirit-filled,Spirit-led man who trusted His Lord and His Word as well as any man I knew either before or after his home-going.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[go2church]

Ending of Mark not original and KJV only is a ridiculous unprovable inconsistent counterproductive belief system.

 

[Luke2427]

I was pulled under the bridge by someone who wrote the following:

“...we have Baptists, who can stand up and boldly say, that neither the King James Version nor any other version of the Bible, is God’s Word.”

Rob

A man writes the Constitution in Greek.

It is called a Greek Version of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Is it THE constitution?

No.

It is a version of it.

Is it reliable? Certainly, if it is done well.

Are the truths contained in the version originally from the minds of the founders of America?

Absolutely.

But is it ITSELF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION? No.

When you make VERSIONS THEMSELVES the word of God you actually commit a grave error.

 

[Luke2427]

Very STRONG statements that should be approached with GREAT caution and humility since by saying that you literally indict thousands and possibly MILLIONS of good Bible-Believing Brothers and Sisters in Christ who love their Lord and His Word.:tear:

The man of God (Bro.Lester Roloff) who introduced me to the beliefs that I now hold about the Word of God was quite possibly one of the greatest men of true Biblical faith to ever walk in the last century. I'd take his word over the word of one who tells me my Bible is full of mistakes and bad translations ANY DAY. I am NOT a man-follower

Yes you are. You just proved it.

You gave this man almost DIVINE praise and then said you'd take his word over someone who said something differently.

You are a man follower by VERY DEFINITION. Saying you are not does not negate the things that you said that clearly define you as one.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

You are wrong...period!

Yes you are. You just proved it.

You gave this man almost DIVINE praise and then said you'd take his word over someone who said something differently.

You are a man follower by VERY DEFINITION. Saying you are not does not negate the things that you said that clearly define you as one.

Luke...you have no idea what you are talking about. I also find it VERY interesting how you clipped off my comments above where you did rather than let them stand "in total". There was nothing even close to "divine" in my comments about Bro.Roloff. I simply respected him as a faith-filled man who lived a life "sold-out" to his Saviour. He dedicated his entire life and ministry to helping the most defeated and downcast outcasts of society that came to him (or in some cases were court-ordered there) for help without any expectation of monetary or material gain at all. I was in one of his homes in 1980 for almost a full year and it was a huge help and blessing to me at that time in my life. The only person I follow is the Lord Jesus Christ and I was thankful for the example that Bro. Roloff LIVED in front of those he was trying to help and minister too. His example was that we should NEVER doubt our Lord or His Word and that we should always live by FAITH. It would be nice if you apologized for your incorrect and injurious comments but I do have thick skin and am not really expecting to hear one. When you achieve perfection then maybe you'll have the right to criticize others indiscriminately. Until then I shall ignore you because it is the wisest course of action that I can take gracefully. That really makes me sad.:tear:
For now, I'm thankful that God has given me the privilege to meet and in some cases actually get to know some dear saints of God that have been a true blessing and help to me on this journey of faith that I embarked on in October of 1977. There have been times I have wandered off the path but God has always been faithful to get me back on my way. My time at those homes in Texas was just one of those times.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Oldtimer]

A man writes the Constitution in Greek.

It is called a Greek Version of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Is it THE constitution?

No.

It is a version of it.

Is it reliable? Certainly, if it is done well.

Are the truths contained in the version originally from the minds of the founders of America?

Absolutely.

But is it ITSELF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION? No.

When you make VERSIONS THEMSELVES the word of God you actually commit a grave error.

So, you are saying God made a mistake?

 

[John of Japan]

Ending of Mark not original and KJV only is a ridiculous unprovable inconsistent counterproductive belief system.

Funny that the scholars are respectful of each other's views about the ending of Mark, but you have it all figured out!! :saint:

I suggest that before you make such all fired sure statements, you learn what textual critics actually say about the longer ending of Mark. If you are serious about learning, a good start is Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, by five scholars. Of those well known Greek scholars, two (grammarian David Alan Black and textual critic Maurice Robinson) argue for the inclusion of the longer ending of Mark, and Dr. Black is actually an eclectic in textual criticism!

For myself, I've studied the arguments on the endings of Mark in great detail, and I believe it belongs in Scripture.

 

[John of Japan]

A man writes the Constitution in Greek.

It is called a Greek Version of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Is it THE constitution?

No.

It is a version of it.

Is it reliable? Certainly, if it is done well.

Are the truths contained in the version originally from the minds of the founders of America?

Absolutely.

But is it ITSELF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION? No.

If I were to hand a Japanese version of the constitution to a Japanese person, they would indeed say it was the US Constitution. Simply because it is a translation doesn't mean it has lost it's meaning and nature. The Word of God in translation still conveys the truths of Scripture, though some nuance may be lost.

When you make VERSIONS THEMSELVES the word of God you actually commit a grave error.

So are you going to stand up in front of your people on Sunday and say (whatever their translation is), "Folks, you don't really have the Word of God there, but I guess I have to preach it anyway." Have you learned Greek and Hebrew yet? If not, then you yourself don't know the Word of God, by your statement here.

 

[go2church]

Funny that the scholars are respectful of each other's views about the ending of Mark, but you have it all figured out!! :saint:

I suggest that before you make such all fired sure statements, you learn what textual critics actually say about the longer ending of Mark. If you are serious about learning, a good start is Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, by five scholars. Of those well known Greek scholars, two (grammarian David Alan Black and textual critic Maurice Robinson) argue for the inclusion of the longer ending of Mark, and Dr. Black is actually an eclectic in textual criticism!

For myself, I've studied the arguments on the endings of Mark in great detail, and I believe it belongs in Scripture.

I don't believe it does, that was the question. I know there are differences of opinion, though it should be noted not one modern translation includes the ending of Mark without a footnote about the questionable nature of verses 9-16.

My statements about the KJV only stand

 

[Amy.G]

My KJV has a footnote that says the oldest manuscripts omit verses 9-20.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Deacon

Sorry for being so late in coming into this discussion, but I have been away.
And thank you for posting this challenge in the form of a poll.

The complete quote where that this statement was contained, was.......
“At about some point between the years 1382 and 1769, the English Bible was a work in progress. But we ended up with a PERFECT BIBLE IN ENGLISH, and Satan hated it; and for years worked hard to cast doubt upon it. Then about 115 years ago, he started getting the upper hand, and today we have Baptists, who can stand up and boldly say, that neither the King James Version nor any other version of the Bible, is God’s Word.”

The point being made by this statement(about this bold stand), was to demonstrate just how far we(Christendom), have fallen from our faith in God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Sure enough, there are “Christians” who will boldly tell us that we don’t really have God’s Word, because we only have a “version”; (as if there is something magical about Greek & Hebrew & Aramaic).

Let me remind them once again, that not only does the Bible not say one word about the language that God’s Word had to be in, but Jesus Himself used a TRANSLATION.
Was Jesus making a mistake?
--------------------------------------------------
This is a very important issue; And Gregory Perry Sr. was right when he said....
“The Big Problem I have with the results of this poll is that I have always believed that a basic belief that "The Bible Is God's Word" is necessary to even come to the place WHERE ONE CAN BE SAVED. If a person does NOT believe that the Bible IS God's Word, how then can he/she EVER believe the truths contained therein? "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing BY the word of God"(Romans 10:17)......”

I also believe this Gregory.

My hope and prayer is, that when people are faced with their unbelief, that they will repent.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Making Sad Note Of....

Sadly...I must now make note of the fact that as of today...there are now (4) of our number here on the Baptist Board that have answered option #1 in the OP's poll in the affirmative. Folks...this is truly TRAGIC and we really need to pray sincerely for God to open their hearts to the truth. What these folks are telling us, whether they realize it or not, is that they have no solid foundation for their FAITH and that what they profess to believe is ultimately based on their own subjective opinions or judgements as to what they think is truth....or not. Very sad...and even sadder that they are members of our fellowship here on the BB AND STILL BELIEVE THAT. I'm glad they are here so they can be exposed to the truth....but as I said...we need to pray for them.:tear:raying:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Amy.G]

Would any of the 4 be willing to explain your vote? I don't understand.

 

[Rippon]

The complete quote where that this statement was contained, was.......
“At about some point between the years 1382 and 1769, the English Bible was a work in progress. But we ended up with a PERFECT BIBLE IN ENGLISH, and Satan hated it; and for years worked hard to cast doubt upon it. Then about 115 years ago, he started getting the upper hand,...

The above is funny and yet sad as well. Let's try to follow the logic here. For nearly 400 years it took God to refine the English Bible into a perfect Bible in English. You attribute that to God. Why did He take so long to perfect it? Why did the Almighty then yield his power to Satan 115 years ago?By the way,what happened in 1898 anyway? Satan started to get "the upper hand" on the Lord?! That is pure bunk.

 

[stilllearning]

[/B]

The above is funny and yet sad as well. Let's try to follow the logic here. For nearly 400 years it took God to refine the English Bible into a perfect Bible in English. You attribute that to God. Why did He take so long to perfect it? Why did the Almighty then yield his power to Satan 115 years ago?By the way,what happened in 1898 anyway? Satan started to get "the upper hand" on the Lord?! That is pure bunk.

Hi Rippon

No “bunk” involved.

In the 1380's English was a brand new language; Yet a copy of the Holy Bible was seen as an imperative(praise the Lord). Now this was God’s Word(it had the entire 16th chapter of Mark and a complete copy of 1John 5:7), yet it was filled with misspelled words; Therefore it wasn’t “perfect” yet. The “refining process” that took place in the following years was a combination of these spelling corrections and the political process of removing the Apocrypha.

You asked two important questions, ... “➀Why did the Almighty then yield his power to Satan 115 years ago? ➁By the way, what happened in 1898 anyway?”

You know as well as I do, what was happening between 1881 and 1901. W&H had come out with their man-made GK New Testament and an English NT made from it, but they were needing some help to get this “NEW BIBLE” accepted by the Church and they got that help from BBW. I won’t mention his name, but he was a “well respected” scholar and theologian that around the year 1900, announced that the GK & HB copies of the original manuscripts of the Bible, would no longer be considered “inspired”.
Throughout history, up until this moment, they were considered inspired(by believers), but no longer would they be.

This was all that W&H needed, to get them over the hump and start us out, on this downward spiral in the area of our trust in God’s Word. C. H. Spurgeon saw this coming and tried to warn us about it, with his “downgrade controversy”, but he was regarded as a troublemaker and the downgrade continued.
------------------------
As for you first question; As to WHY the LORD allowed this to happen?
I don’t know.

But He did warn us about it.......
“I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
(Luke 18:8 AV)

and

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
(2 Timothy 3:13)

But in the next verse, He tells us what we should do.......
14 “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];”

When someone(ANYONE), tries to tell you that the Bible has mistakes, disregard it out of hand and keep trusting the Lord!

And remember........
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know that?

I was stating the answer per how a KJVO would answer, 'why isn't the NKJV seen as being a revised KJV version?"

 

[Yeshua1]

If I were to hand a Japanese version of the constitution to a Japanese person, they would indeed say it was the US Constitution. Simply because it is a translation doesn't mean it has lost it's meaning and nature. The Word of God in translation still conveys the truths of Scripture, though some nuance may be lost.

So are you going to stand up in front of your people on Sunday and say (whatever their translation is), "Folks, you don't really have the Word of God there, but I guess I have to preach it anyway." Have you learned Greek and Hebrew yet? If not, then you yourself don't know the Word of God, by your statement here.

I think that Luke is trying to state here that while the English versions such as kjv/Nasb/Niv can all be considered to be the word of God to us in that language, and your translation into japanese would be the word of God in your language, that its folly to elevate JUST ONE version as being ONLY word of God to us for today!

What if the people never have spoken English, cannot get them theword of God than?

 

[Rippon]

I don't have time to address all your errors

In the 1380's English was a brand new language;

No,it existed for a number of centuries beforehand. It was evolving though as all languages do.

Now this was God’s Word(it had the entire 16th chapter of Mark and a complete copy of 1John 5:7),

You know of course,that it wasn't based on the RT which came about much later. There were two so-called Wycliffe versions. The first was extremely literal and the second was in the vernacular of the time. Both were based on the Vulgate which has its share of errors I hope you will agree.

yet it was filled with misspelled words;

According to our modern standards. Their wasn't a uniformity of spelling then.

Therefore it wasn’t “perfect” yet.

You are so cute with your ill-logic.

The “refining process” that took place in the following years was a combination of these spelling corrections and the political process of removing the Apocrypha.

Why didn't the Lord get it right from the start? He had to arrive at perfection? He had to let it go through a refining process which took a few centuries?If it wasn't perfect,why do you think God was its Author? I'm using your reasoning skills.

You know as well as I do, what was happening between 1881 and 1901. W&H had come out with their man-made GK New Testament

Didn't Erasmus come out with his "man-made Greek New Testament"?

C. H. Spurgeon saw this coming and tried to warn us about it, with his “downgrade controversy”, but he was regarded as a troublemaker and the downgrade continued.

The Dowgrade controversy had nothing to do with the KJV or the ERV.

By the way,CHS approved of the ERV. He quoted passages from it that his congrgation did't have in their KJV's. Yes,the KJV is also missing verses.

He liked the OT as rendered in the ERV,the New Tesament was strong in Greek but weak in English he said.

When someone(ANYONE), tries to tell you that the Bible has mistakes, disregard it out of hand and keep trusting the Lord!

Any translation is a version. Versions have mistakes because humans have translated the Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

No,it existed for a number of centuries beforehand. It was evolving though as all languages do.


You know of course,that it wasn't based on the RT which came about much later. There were two so-called Wycliffe versions. The first was extremely literal and the second was in the vernacular of the time. Both were based on the Vulgate which has its share of errors I hope you will agree.



According to our modern standards. Their wasn't a uniformity of spelling then.



You are so cute with your ill-logic.



Why didn't the Lord get it right from the start? He had to arrive at perfection? He had to let it go through a refining process which took a few centuries?If it wasn't perfect,why do you think God was its Author? I'm using your reasoning skills.





Didn't Erasmus come out with his "man-made Greek New Testament"?




The Dowgrade controversy had nothing to do with the KJV or the ERV.

By the way,CHS approved of the ERV. He quoted passages from it that his congrgation did't have in their KJV's. Yes,the KJV is also missing verses.

He liked the OT as rendered in the ERV,the New Tesament was strong in Greek but weak in English he said.





Any translation is a version. Versions have mistakes because humans have translated the Scriptures.

again, the KJVO position forces one to hold to the KJV having SAME staus as the originals, to have been fully ispired/inerrant revelation from God! the translators would HAVE to have Apostolic authority on them to do such!