why are MV believers ruled ...?

Yer RIGHT DR. B!
Let's get the whole town of Geneva to bow the knee to our system of state church government by forcing everybody in town to "toe the line or die"!



In HIS service;
Jim

 

Do you have the current 2005 edition of the Cambridge KJV edited by David Norton?

 

That is what happens on a debate forum. You make a statement and back it up with evidence and others agree or refute it and provide their own evidence for their position. If you think people disagreeing with you is being baptized with fire, perhaps you should study the history of medival Europe where people were reallyu burned at the stake. I don't see that happening here.

There is no scripture evidence for any type of onlyism, just personal preference.

 

I know that I'm not KJVonly, but wanted to post anyway, and besides, my best friends are KJVonlyists. I just wanted to warn all my IFB brothers that this radical 'Anti-KJVOnly'ism is ripping away at the very fabric of our treasured Baptist heritage. It popped up during the last century, and I'm greatly fearful that if this movement is not soon stopped, or at the very least, controlled, IFBism, as we know it, will cease to exist. Considering that my education is only in darn computers and business, I feel that I am not adequately equipped to battle this onslaught. I will, however, support in prayer, and financially wherever and whenever I can.

 

Sadly, the problem goes both ways. Radical KJVOnly'ism is no less guilty of a divisive spirit than those on the other side.

There is no monopoly on divisiveness on either side of the issue.

I do agree, the this issue does a have the potential of doing irrepairable damage.

 

Very interesting post! What exactly do you mean by "radical 'Anti-KJVOnly'ism"? And how exactly do you see it "ripping away at the very fabric of our treasured Baptist heritage"?

 

I also agree with Roger. AISI;
One side is vehemently against. The other side is vehemently for. The "agin its" can get pretty mean spirited. The "fer its" get equally mean spirited.
Can there EVER be a truce and let each congregation do as they believe they are led of the LORD?
I don't think so. Why is that Jim? Because we got carnally minded folks on BOTH sides swear and be darned they are right.

I like what Brother David Gibbs (Christian Law Association) said at one of our conferences. "If you KNOW you are right, but have lost the JOY, you are carnal."

For BOTH sides; THINK about that statement a while. Don't answer. Just think about it next time you post anything. And perhaps...pray for the feller you are replying to?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

OH! And one more thing. Don't just pray, "Oh God SHOW this man I am right! "



In HIS service;
Jim

 

Alright, mark the occasion - Roger and Jim are in total agreement .

 

Yea!

At last!

This day is March 11, 2005. 3:15 pm mountain standard time. This is Jim's 1400th post and FINALLY we have found a source of agreement!

Yea!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Very interesting post! What exactly do you mean by "radical 'Anti-KJVOnly'ism"? And how exactly do you see it "ripping away at the very fabric of our treasured Baptist heritage"? </font>[/QUOTE]You do realize, of course, that this was tongue-in-cheek, don't you? You also know the very fabric of our Baptist Heritage, don't you? You know the one where we are able to get along with all of our Baptist brothers regardless of differences.

 

No, sorry. I didn't realize it was tongue-in-cheek.

 

Do you have the current 2005 edition of the Cambridge KJV edited by David Norton? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Logos, I just saw this.
No, I do not have it. I would be curious to check it out though. Wanna mail me yours? LOL (kidding)
I remember a brother here had posted a site where that edition was being touted by somebody or other. (kinda foggy memory)

If I understand it, he sought to "update" it but fasiled miserably by inserting his own doctrinal bias on it. Am I correct? Anybody out there able to help me get it right?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Do you have the current 2005 edition of the Cambridge KJV edited by David Norton?

</font>[/QUOTE]No, I do not have it.

Jim [/QUOTE]

I don't have a copy of this 2005 Cambridge KJV edition yet. I do have a copy of Norton's new book A TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE,
and it presents some of the changes that he would make.

Norton wrote: "The first principle is that the text should be that of the translators, not that of subsequent revisers, and that the text of the translators is the first edition" (p. 131).

For the most part, Norton's changes are a going back to renderings of the 1611 where he determined that 1611 rendering was the choice of the KJV translators themselves and that later editors had revised them based on the Hebrew and Greek. Thus, this 2005 Cambridge would claim to be more in line with the intended text of the KJV translators themselves than most other present KJV editions.

His other changes are supposed to be an attempt to update consistently the spelling and punctuation.

 

Thank you Logos;
I found the publisher's site and saved it. when I can afford 90 pounds (WHAT is that?) I will order it for further study.
It will be interesting. I will also order his book about the KJV history.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

about $175

 

If my IFB brothers would simply become "conservative" SBC brothers you could forget about KJVO ripping Baptist Fabric.

Before you yell at me, notice I said "CONSERVATIVE".

 

By the way, you can still give your money to individual missionaries. We won't stop you.

 

Phillip, But then we wouldn't be "Independent" now would we?

And we would just set out to "rip up" the SBC. (he says not so jokingly and nervously smiling)

Roger...$175.00

It better be gold trimmed!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

This is where you guys just don't get it. The SBC is SIMPLY a mission organization to better utilize the money given. By providing big schools for missionaries, training and other things we feel that this is the best way to provide mission field workers. Yes, there are administrative costs, but not nearly what people think they are when looking at percentages.

Did Paul not gather together material goods to provide for the mission field from multiple churches?

Finally, here is where you DON'T get it. WE ARE independent. We do not have to give a single dime to the SBC, nor do we have to listen to them. They work for us, we don't listen to them.

They do provide Sunday school materials that we purchase, but we are free to buy from anybody else.

We are 100% independent. Southern Baptist Churches believe in the local church and its autonomy.

I wish you guys could get that through your heads.

My point was, maybe there are KJVO's in SBC churches, but there seem to be a lot more in the IFB. We don't seem to have that problem, especially where I live. KJV preferred, maybe by the older folks, but I have not heard one complaint when the pastor uses another clearer translation.

Are there KJVO SBC groups? Probably, I've never seen one, but I see them all over the IFB.

Finally, let me say that I have no problems with IFB beliefs. It seems our big difference is in mission field, a minor issue at that in reality (IMHO).

Remember again, I am referring to "conservative" group of the SBC. I have a major problem with the "liberal" factions in the SBC.

I expect that you will simply use KJVonlyism to further cut down the SBC.

So, in your opinion you would like to destroy one of the largest protestant missionary programs in the world.


I have watched Dr. Bob's posts very closely and I must say that if I were living in his area I would no doubt be IFB.

I find two issues I may disagree with Dr. Bob about and one is missions (assuming he has a problem with pooling money).

The only other issue is that I feel the MT to be a better source than the CT, but this is simply an OPINION of mine and may certainly be WRONG.

Otherwise, our beliefs seem to parallel closer than many other different groups.

But, there are no IFB near me and SBC is as close as I can get. Its better than Freewill or Landmark which we do have around here and the Landmarks are probably KJVO.


Are their nut-case SBC churches? Absolutely, because the churches ARE autonomous. Are there problem IFB churches, certainly, there are KJVonly IFB churches, right?