Sword Scripture Text Conference

Have a good trip, Pastor_Bob. I'm looking forward to your report for reasons obvious to all who know me. You're a good man and I know will report things accurately.

For my own part, I'm puzzled by the whole conference. Under John R. Rice and Curtis Hutson (and Dr. Smith until now), no conferences were ever held that did not center on soul-winning and revival. I sincerely hope that Dr. Smith is not diverting some of the emphasis on that core philosophy.

 

Since he is my son, I totally agree with this assessment. :love2:

 

I have been to Liberty Baptist Church in Chickamauga several times. My brother-in-law used to be a member there.

 

I am not arguing anything, only responding and searching out the desires of those who are "wanting" to know.

I suppose my next wish would be that you already learned what you needed to "know" under Dr. Lee Roberson.

I know Bro. Steve Goolesby quite well. He's a grad of Tenn. Temple. Know him?

 

I know the name but not the man.

It was Dr. Roberson who taught us not to push one translation above another. I was in chapel when he specifically and expressly told us we were not going to argue over the KJVO position. He said he would continue to preach and use only the KJV but was not going to tell anyone else that they couldn't use any other. So I have indeed learned what I needed to know under Dr. Roberson.

 

Mexdeaf and I are both witnesses to this also--don't know if it was the exact same chapel service.

 

"The [ MVs ] down-grade the great doctrines of the Bible ."

Just that statement alone is so false it is silly . I suppose one of the 'doctrines' is that the KJV is the only true Word of God from that line of thinking .

 

Indeed, then you would have no problem admitting he was KJVO.

 

Wrong forum for attacking the KJB and those who hold to it.

 

It is enough.

The [MV's] use less eloquent words to relate the same doctrine, thus the statement is valid.

The familiarity of the Scripture alone is reason enough not to detour to another version.

I believe SWOL is well aware of this truth and it stands to reason for any person to incorporate common sense to be allowed to use sound judgement.

 

Eloquence is in the ear of the hearer . And doctrine is upheld according to some arbitrary rule of eloquence ? I fail to see how a different form of words diminishes or waters-down doctrine .

On another sidenote :KJV = the commonly accepted version ?! What does that mean ? The KJV is commonly respected , by it is not so commonly used ( or understood -- sometimes by its own adherents ) among most evangelical churches .

 

You should take the advice you gave to Rippon... Take it to the versions forum....

You should start a thread that corresponds with this one.
That way, this thread can stay open so Pastor Bob can report.

 

Can I just say I both agree and disagree? (and ask a question or two along the way?)

I. I know of nowhere that the KJV is not acceptable for use.

But....

Churches who read in unison will have no confusion if they all read from the NASB or NIV or whatever

And I would love to see some proof for the statement that a church who makes no stand on the version issue "commanly have conflicts in other areas". Did Dr. Norris present any or does he say such on his own authority?

II. I agree with (except the lazy part, that presumes that our way of speaking is somehow more lazy than that of 16th century English). I have found that it is difficult to rememorize in today's language. But I'm old and set in my ways and most of the scripture I have committed to memory was memorized as a child (think dark ages, no MVs). To change versions now, not worth the effort. But, my children perfer the NIV as that is what they have used since they began to read (our church presents Bibles to all of our first graders so there is not so much confusion. The Bible of choice is NIV. Parents of course are free to give their children whichever version they please)

With that comes the idea that children are taught vocabulary from modern English not King James' English. They may or may not understand the word usage of the KJV, especially unchurched children.

III. Along with what has already been brought up, are we to presume that a pastor has abdicated his authority to speak as an oracle of God if he dares to use an MV? Again, where is the scriptual support for this position or does Dr. Norris again rely upon his own authority? (cause I get itchy when a pastor puts himself up as a higher authority than He who is our High Priest. That whole priesthood of the believer idea just gets in my way of accepting the mere words of a man)

I needed to add my thanks to Pastor Bob for bringing back this report for us. :thumbs:

 

Thank you Pastor Bob.

 

The KJV uses grammar that is archaic at best.

Plus, I always cringe when I hear "which" used to refer to God. In 1611, it was standard. In 2008, it's improper grammar, for one should use "who" or "whom." "Which" is not used of personal beings.

 

Isaiah 14:12 is an issue of translation, not of textual matters. The TR is a Greek text, not a Hebrew text. In addition, "Lucifer" isn't in ANY Hebrew text, period. It came from Latin.