Fundamentalist

[Gold Dragon]

Most evangelicals and fundamentalists accept textual criticism (lower criticism). It is higher criticism that we reject.

A majority of fundamentalists do accept "lower" textual criticism but many do not, particularly KJVO.

 

[EdSutton]

Jillian, Westcott and Hort did not "translate" any Bibles. They worked on a Greek text of the NT using some of the newly discovered, older manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, which was a new discovery in their time. Please don't just believe everything you read about Westcott and Hort and the "new versions" but seek out the information for yourself. You'll find that most of what you have read and been told is not what you think it is.

Rippon's suggestion is a very good one.

With all respect, you might want to consider not attempting to "answer" one who can not respond to your posts. The one you addressed this to can not reply, at least currently, so this might be a little 'unfair', at best.

This has nothing to say for or against the content of your post, BTW.

I have made this suggestion to others, and want to be consistent with all.

Ed.

 

[EdSutton]

My beliefs are based solely on the King James version bible, which I know extremely well. Listening to Alexander Scourby read it on tape players, many many times since 1979. I covered the Old Testament well over a hundred times and the New Testament well over 500 times, and those are conservative estimates. I listen to the bible like others listen to a radio; alot.

Well, it's nice to know where to come with all the questions to which I don't have answers. :thumbs:

Isaac Newton the bible scholar and scientific genius said the end would come in 2060. But, since the bible says that God alone knows when, I don't trust what Newton said.

Or not!

If a scholar (who has been through the entire Bible well over a hundred times, by his claim) does not trust another scholar, why should this ignorant farmer and non-scholar, trust the first self-styled "scholar"??

Ed

 

[BobRyan]

I do believe in Genesis 1-8 and in the fall of man and didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.

Ok my mistake.

I thought you said you believed in evolutionism.

I already said I was liberal. I grew up in a culture where both fundamentalist and liberal (Christian) were bad titles.

Well I would love to hear how "liberal" is another term for "fundamentalist" when it comes to Gen 1-8.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gold Dragon]

Ok my mistake.

I thought you said you believed in evolutionism.

I believe in evolution. In your mind, it conflicts with Gen 1-8 and the fall of man. In my mind they do not.

Well I would love to hear how "liberal" is another term for "fundamentalist" when it comes to Gen 1-8.

Liberal isn't another term for fundamentalist.

 

[BobRyan]

Sounds like a good thread topic to start up.

Would you also be willing to state that when the primary audience for Moses -- the "intended reader" read something like "SIX days you shall labor.. and rest the seventh day FOR in Six days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and rested the seventh-day" that they knew this reference to Genesis 2 was really a reference to evolutionism or did Moses intend them to accept it as 7 actual days in your view?

Exegesis is all about determining the intent of the author for his readers.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gold Dragon]

Sounds like a good thread topic to start up.

Would you also be willing to state that when the primary audience for Moses -- the "intended reader" read something like "SIX days you shall labor.. and rest the seventh day FOR in Six days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and rested the seventh-day" that they knew this reference to Genesis 2 was really a reference to evolutionism or did Moses intend them to accept it as 7 actual days in your view?

Exegesis is all about determining the intent of the author for his readers.

in Christ,

Bob

Done that many times before and am not really interested in going through it again. If you want to start a thread on this topic, go ahead. Depending on the tone of discussion, I might pop in a few posts.

 

[antiaging]

//I believe this is part of the apostacy prophecied
in 2 Thessalonians, the falling away from the faith.
They are falling away from the true Word of God,
and now using corrupted bibles that have the words changed.//

TeeHee.

I have no idea why people copy stuff from other sources (illegal on this board)
That have already oft been copied by other people (who are now
banned for not using BB protocall). I myself have said it before:
The Prime Directive of bb (bullentin boards):

READ BEFORE YOU WRITE.

It will save a lot of repeated errors and grief.

Here is an Old Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ,
and by our assembling vnto him,
2 That ye be not suddenly mooued from your minde,
nor troubled neither by spirit, nor by worde, nor by letter,
as it were from vs, as though the day of Christ were at hand.
3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes:
for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first,
and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition,

Yep, this Bible (Like the Bishop Bible before it and
the King James Version after it) are written in early MODERN ENGLISH
(not middle English - hardly anybody on this BB can read middle English).
Yep, 2 Thess 2:3 has no mention of 'apostasy' in it.

It is the MVs (Modern Versions of the 20th Century /1901-2000/
that say 'apostasy in them, not the Great Old Bibles
of the 16th-18th Centuries: 16th (1501-1600),
17th (1601-1700), and 18th (1701-1800).

Oh, the Translators of the Geneva Bibles had the English word 'apostasy'
(brought from the Greek) meaning falling from the faith - but they
chose 'departing'. IMHO that means a departing from THE EARTH.
In verse one Paul says He will talk about the 'assembling' conducted
by Jesus - here is where he speaks of it again: in 2 Thess 2:3.

That is the way I believe and I prove it from the KJVs
NOT from the MVs. TeeHee - searching for a Bible that proves
my theory and end up using the KJVs not my MVs.

But anybody could have looked that up, if they were interested
in reading the BB.

//Information provided by Robert Stewart//

Oops, you gave credit.
Please give a pointer.
I for one check especially all references to or about the Bible to
see if it really does say that especially in God's Holy UNALTERED & INERRANT
written Word - available in 100s of English Translations.

Anyway, IMHO, all the misinformation & poor opinions of
your quotation have been already debunked on the BB many times.
I see no reason to WRITE MY OWN STUFF AGAIN. Come on -
if it is in print somewhere, we Freedom Readers have already blown up
the untruths, wrong hunches, misinformation, propaganda.
Don't dare tell me ever that my TNIV is other then the UNTARNISHED
INERRANT Written Word of God preserved WITHOUT ERROR for
the 21st Century (2001-2100) (The century I live in).

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (TNIV = Today's New International Version, 2006):
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way,
for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs
and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Yep, the 'rebellion' is what I call the pretribulation
Rapture2 (Resurrection1 followed immediately by a Rapture1) of Jesus.
It opens the Tribulation Period (AKA: the Wrath of God) and is
phase one at the beginning of a 7-year-long 'day' of the Lord
(AKA: Day of Christ) called the Tribualtion Period.

But it sure is a lot easier to show in the OLD BIBLES
where 'departure' (or a form of it) is used in the 12
English Bibles preceeding the KJVs and 'falling away'
in the KJVs.

Ed, departing means departing from the faith.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Daniel 11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

["forsake the holy covenant"]

Jesus is returning once, not twice.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

the second time --- one rapture, at His return, at the end of the tribulation period.
Jesus is not coming once before the tribulation period and then again after it, as some mistakenly think.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//Jesus is returning once, not twice.//

The Bible, book, chapter, verse, version, edition please.
Thank you.

I can show any of the following statements from
the Holy Bible (in any of the fine English Versions
as I'm not skilled in Hebrew nor Greek).

I believe that the Second Coming of Jesus happens
on ONE 'Day of the Lord' that is 7-years long (the 70th
week of Daniel).

Here are some things called:
Day of the Lord, Day of Christ, or Day of God,
or Judgement Day', etc.:

'Day of the Lord' means the appropriate time when
God intrudes in the affairs of mankind.

1. The First Coming of Christ as a Baby in a Manger
2. The Resurrection of Christ
3. The whole Church Age (AKA: Time of the Gentiles) [1768 years & growing]
4. The 7-year Tribulation Period Judgement
5. The second ½ (3½-years) of Great Tribulation Period Judgement
6. The Millinnial (1,000 years) Messanic Kingdom on Earth of Jesus
7. The Great White Throne Judgement at the end of this world

Interesting, 7 'Day of the Lord's. Seven is the number
that denotes perfection .

 

[Ed Edwards]

//Ed, departing means departing from the faith.//

I respectfully disagree.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Paul says he is going to speak
of two things. The Second Coming he mentions all
over 2 Thessalonians 2:1. When is the gathering
of the Church Age saints mentioned again?
Why in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: 'falling away' (KJVs),
'departure' (Geneva Bibles & 5 earlier
English Versions); 'the apostasy' in many MVs.

 

[antiaging]

//Ed, departing means departing from the faith.//

I respectfully disagree.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Paul says he is going to speak
of two things. The Second Coming he mentions all
over 2 Thessalonians 2:1. When is the gathering
of the Church Age saints mentioned again?
Why in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: 'falling away' (KJVs),
'departure' (Geneva Bibles & 5 earlier
English Versions); 'the apostasy' in many MVs.

Departure can mean departure from the faith or departure from somewhere else. The bible does not say it means departure from the Earth.

Paul's words in 1 Timothy speak of departure from the faith.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

From the context of the whole discourse, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 - 2;12, the epistle is referring to deception, that strays from the truth. This also indicates that it is a falling away from the true faith that is meant; departing from the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

"And now ye know what witholdeth" 2:6-- You know because he told you in verse 2:3, that a falling away must happen first. It had not happened yet. Letteth and witholdeth mean the same thing; restrain. From the context of verse 2:7, "the mystery of iniquity", deception and evil are already working, only he who now restrains, because he has not fallen out of the way yet, will restrain until he is taken out of the way, in the apostacy.
From the context: The apostacy has not happened yet, so it is restraining the antichrist from being revealed. He that is restraining, because he has not yet fallen away in the apostacy, will continue to restrain until he is taken away in the apostacy. When the apostacy happens, the restraint is removed, because the apostacy must happen first. The "mystery of iniquity" phrase seems to go along with the idea, that the falling away is the falling away from the faith. Not departing from the Earth.

 

[BobRyan]

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
3 let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,


New King James Version (NKJV)
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,


King James Version (KJV)
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;



Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition,
Note: The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382




Then Paul goes into "more detail". He backs up starting with the present time (His present day)and walks the reader through to the future --

[b] 2Th 2[/B]

5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?

The cure for their error had already been given by Paul - according to vs 5 above.

He points to the present existence of that evil lawless one and takes them through to the future when that lawless one is "revealed" when Christ exposes him at the "appearing" - the "Appearance of His coming"

[b]2Thess 2[/B]

6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

That completes the sweep of history showing the revelation of not only the wicked one but also the appearing of Christ that follows. He shows that this wickedness continues “until he is taken out of the way” by the appearing of Christ – which as they saw in 1Thess 4 is the moment also of the resurrection of the saints. Because 1Thess 4 has already been give to them all Paul needs to do is point them to the time of Christ’s appearing to solve the problem they are having with the timing of the resurrection.

Then Paul clarifies with more detail about that lawless one.

[quote]2Thess 2
9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,[/b]
[/quote]

No part of this mentions the work of the AntiChrist or man of sin AFTER the appearing of Christ. No activity at all is attributed to the man of sin after Christ appears and puts a stop to it.

Paul points out this important list of events that must preceed the appearing and the resurrection that is associated with it (see 1Thess 4 for the appearing of Christ, our gathering together to Him[/b] and the associated resurrection. Truth already given to the church of the Thessalonians)

 

[BobRyan]

King James Version (KJV)
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;



Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition,
Note: The "Early Version" of the "Wycliffe Bible", hand-printed about 1382


John Gill (Author of the first Baptist commentary on scripture)
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=2th&chapter=002&verse=003

2Thess 2:3
except there come a falling away first;
either in a political sense, of the nations from the Roman empire, which was divided into the eastern and western empire; for which, way was made by translating the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium, or Constantinople; the former of these empires was seized by Mahomet, and still possessed by the Turks; and the latter was overrun by the Goths, Huns, and Vandals, and torn to pieces; Italy particularly was ravaged by them, and Rome itself was sacked and taken:

OR rather in a religious sense, of the falling of men from the faith of the Gospel, from the purity of Gospel doctrines, discipline, worship, and ordinances; and this not of some Jews who professed faith in Christ, and departed from it, or of some Christians who went off to the Gnostics;

but is to be understood of a more general defection in the times of the Papacy; when not only the eastern churches were perverted and corrupted by Mahomet, and drawn off to his religion, but the western churches were most sadly depraved by the man of sin, by bringing in errors of all sorts in doctrine, making innovations in every ordinance, and appointing new ones, and introducing both Judaism and Paganism into the churches; which general defection continued until the times of the reformation, and is what the apostle has respect to in (1 Timothy 4:1-3) where he manifestly points out some of the Popish tenets, as forbidding marriage to priests, and ordering abstinence from meats on certain days, and at certain times of the year: this was one thing that was to precede the coming of Christ, another follows, which should take place at the same time;

http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=2th&chapter=002&verse=003

 

[BobRyan]

Done that many times before and am not really interested in going through it again. If you want to start a thread on this topic, go ahead. Depending on the tone of discussion, I might pop in a few posts.

Which point would you be most intersted in?

1. That exegesis is not necessarily the right way to interpret Gen 1-6?

2. That exegesis does not include/insist upon/require that we interpret the text according to the obvious intended meaning that the author had for his readers?

3. That exegesis will show that the primary intended meaning that Moses had in Gen 1-6 for his audience was "evolution"?

I will start the thread that you indicate as representing your view in favor of evolution in Gen 1-2