Stone:

I have had that experience also.

C:

We don’t need to physically attend a church or become a member. The media brings this information to us through TV, radio, books, videos, guest speakers, retreats, conferences,
and in sometimes, even door-to-door visitation or literature and mail. I am written other posts on other topics. Do I think this is true for every church. No. Affiliations are important whether or not an individual church owns its assets or not. If a church owns its assets, it may have some flexibility in the decisions it makes in respect to which organizations it affiliates oneself with; however, it’s important to know the teachings of different affiliations. I do agree with you though that there are many affiliations and they change often. When a subject comes up for a motion, second motion, vote, and implementation, it’s important for the church not only to know its own beliefs and values but also the values of the ministries it supports. churches sometimes have to have their ministers clarify their position to the congregation when there is a dispute. This is also true for teachers and elders and deacons and other members of the church administration. If they don’t clarify their position, others will assume that they are in agreement. I realize you may not agree with everything on this website. It’s a forum. It gives people an opportunity to discuss their concerns. It also gives people the opportunity to defend themselves and their ministries. Some forums don’t. I am not one of the official administrators of this website. I am just a blogger. I am certain that at times the administrators don’t agree with me either. But they still allow me to post my concerns. They allow others to respond in agreement or disagreement just like you have.

Independent Baptist Churches own their property. In this way they are independent in that they may be more flexible in their decision processes. Many do go outside their church and rely on external ministries for a variety of their needs. I am not saying all churches do this. I am not saying all churches teach this who call themselves independent either. I am saying though that this is a popular teaching among enough that it concerns others. We think about physical attendance of church in respect to church membership. People are also influenced by other media including books, movies, TVs, and the internet, etc… The technology brings these teachings to our house even if we are not members ourselves. On other postings I have mentioned that we have choices. One choice we have is t urning of the TV or radio

There are ways that the achievements of an individual can be publicly recognized: plaques, fountains, gardens, buildings, bridges, dedications in books and publications, special celebrations, DVDs, named streets, furniture, and endowments. I’ve listed a few examples.
A promotion is a great way to honor a person’s achievements. Some churches have special offerings or provide heir members and staff and faculty with gifts. In some churches there are even restricted designations for preachers which may not have achieved the educational level of a senior pastor. I don’t think the title dcctor should be used unless one actually has earned a doctorate degree through traditional postgraduate education. I know this is a common practice and I know it’s not limited to just religious institutions either. I know some major institutions have banned the practice altogether. Some overworked families may just welcome some time off and a paid vacation. Some mothers mighit appreciate a volunteer babysitter for a mother’s day out.

The issues that I felt were relevant at the time i was there were issues that have been on the news and are on public record. I wasn’t aware of all these since I hadn’t made my decision at an earlier time or really spent a lot of time reading the newspaper or watching the news. It’s important to be aware of current events not only in one’s immediate locality, but in the state as well as the country and abroad. Unfortunately there is not an emphasisi on current events and often it’s not taught in a way that seems relevant to young people. i didn’t acquire an intereset on my own until I was in my thirties and my life was directly impacted by events. At an earlier point, it was just an “academic requirement.” This is not just true with current events but also with math and other subjects that need to be taught in a way that’s relevant and applicable to daily life. Many young people also have a limited amount of experience and can’t necessarily see the application beyond the books or blackboard. The teacher has to convince the students that there are actually applications one will use later in life outside the classroom. Some people also feel that it’s a taboo to mention politics, money, and religion cause these subjects are contraversial and people disagree. lIt’s avoidance to me. These subjects must be taught and people must be taught how to handle disagreements in a way that’s civil, not just to avoid them. Others expect people to learn through osmosis pretty much by stumbling and trial and error. Some are more motivated and can be self-taught and others need more traditional instruction. We had libraries back then so we didn’t have immediate access to information the way people do now with search engines on their computers or portable ipods. We had the reserve section of the library which required membership. also each library had different materials on reserve for different periods of time. Some of the larger libraries in metropolitan areas or at colleges and universities had larger collections and some of the smaller libraries didn’t have the information at all or had it stored away on microfische. I’m so old that these tehcnologies existed but were not readily available to everyone everywhere.

I’m so old that it took an entire environmentally controlled room to store a hard drive. I even used manual, portable, and selectic typewriters in my school days. I remember when calbe had 10 channels and when many houses had antennas on the roof with lousy limited reception. I should say the only interest I had in history was a daily quiz. AS I got older, that changed.

There are responsibilities for the church to provide disclosure. I also think individuals and families have responsibilities to do some research also prior to becoming members. We may have been able to claim partial ignorance back in the 1970s, but i don’t think that’s true today cause even i rural areas, many have access to computers and ipods and cell phones, and most have access to TV and radioand telephones.

If the church administration or school faculty will not answer questions before it is time to make a major decision, perhaps it’s time to consider another option where those questions will be answered, or just take one’s time until those questions are answered. I don’t think serious questions should be brushed off, especially when they require time, commiftment, investment. I’m not sure why I let myself get influenced by “phooey” and other expressions or refeerrals to other people, being singled out publicly, or even the silent treatment. Children are as important as adults. Their concerns should not be taken lightly. I am not saying all churches do this. i am not even saying the churches I attended after 1981 did this. i went to one which did. It reesulted in a decision I might have not made otherwise. There are many posts written by others. I realize I am not alone. I do believe there is a network here even if churches can make decisions at a local level at a business meeting or in the form of a grassroots movement rather than from top to bottom.
My posts deal with a church and university I attended between fall, 1977 and winter, 1981.
A decision made at an earlier time in youth can have a serious impact on one’s life. I know they dont’ like to tell young students this. But it’s true.

I’m hoping that I will see change that has been recommended. I know some skeptics feel it’s improbable or miraculous. That’s not something within my control at this point. I can only deal with the situations that affect my life directly. The rest has to be submitted to God and i just have to wait like others and see what actually transpires over time.

I mentioned another reference in my previous post. I found an article called Independent Institutions with Advanced Degrees? Independent Institutions with Advanced Degrees Are a Joke which also references the previous article i mentioned in the previous post. They claim truth. Yet, they are not being true about the qualifications, educational background, and relevant work experiences of their faculty and administration. This is important. We expect ministers to perform similar duties as teachers, host, administrators, social workers, human resource directors, chauffeurs, medical health professionals and legal advocates. Missionaries are often also expected to perform various trades including construction, plumbing, wiring, and others with limited staff and supplies. We demand professional standards for these other occupations. Actually there are professional standards expected for ministers too, but some use the church exemptions to ignore some of those requirements. I can understand church exemptions in respect to beliefs and values. i don’t think they substitute for licensing and insurance though. i’m not sure they should be a loophole to cut corners on safety either. many occupationsand trades have organizations that hold their members accountable. I guess I have mixed feelings cause I also see this argument taken to a ridiculous extreme by others. Sometimes I feel like I’m in the center of a frayed rope in a tug-of-war between those who think they belong to the correct church and others who want to totally remove my right to practice my faith in public or private. Church needs to be a place of trust. I wonder whether we should call this website dysfunctional or toxic ministries. That might be more fair to the ones who are trying to do what’s right in God’s sight. Why should the churches that are good examples be forced to change their identification? it’s like asking a good citizen in the communitiy to change one’s identification soley because the offender has the same name. I think they should find another way to rebuke and discipline the offender. I remember Katie discussing this on another post.

I consider myself to be of at least average intelligence, and I certainly have a difficult time wading through this type of language to understand what our God and Creator wants us to know. This passage of scripture is case in point. It is an extremely important message that our Creator wants us to learn from and yet in the KJV its muddled up with words that most of us today can’t understand. I wish these good KJV folks could simply open their eyes and come to understand that their favorite translation was made for folks that walked this ol’ Earth several centuries ago.

I have no idea Greg. I was just trying to speak Jacon’s language. Trying to beat him at his own game I guess. If he can judge us using the KJV then we should be able to tell him not to judge right?

How do you know I can’t forgive them (or even that I haven’t forgiven them)?

The last time I checked, me forgiving people of their transgressions isn’t a prerequisite to salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9
King James Version (KJV)

8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Matthew 7:1-5
King James Version (KJV)

1. Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Yikes! and what about your judgmental attitude? I don’t recall Steve blame shifting. You might want to re-read the article. Bitterness isn’t any worse than judgmentalism. Matthew 7

I am so hurt by these. These guys are our brothers in Christ because they have the same saviour as us and yet they can say with a lot of heart that we – non IFBs – are excluded from it because we don’t read the KJV. They keep telling us that they do not doubt our salvation but their arguments say otherwise. What is implied is stronger than what they express.

I have been praying to God that there will come a time where we will finally be able to respect each other’s differences. Jesus Christ should be our uniting entity – not trying-to-shove-your-doctrines-to-others-so-that-we-can-unite-or-burn-in-hell.

That being said, I do not want to fuel my hurt and anger towards baptists who keep telling me I am not saved because of who I am and what I do (a professional musician with long hair that plays soul music for a living and is a big fan of Black Sabbath). They are identifying people based on their set of doctrines and not by their fruits.

Actually Bob, there was a post year some time back that almost explicitly said that I am not saved because I came to know Christ through a Catholic Bible. And he said that God is misrepresented in all Bibles except in KJV! The nerve!

Also,

I wear my hair long halfway through my back. I listen to Black Sabbath, Megadeth as well as Christian Death Metal bands like Mortification, Bride, Resurrection Band. I listen to Amy Grant, Sandi Patti. I drink beer once a month. I go to the movies every now and then. I go to discos to meet people. I am a professional musician who plays in bars and clubs. I befriended prostitutes and drug addicts. I hate homosexuality but I do respect a lot of homosexuals in fact I don’t mind working with them as long as they keep their urges to themselves. I am not offended seeing suggestive photos and literature but I would prefer not to take a second glance. My idea of a good time is ROCK AND ROLL. The harder the heavier the better.

Now I defy anyone here (especially the IFBs): tell me that I am not a Christian and I am going to hell because of who I am and what I do.

My answer to Kristen has been oddly deleted. So I will type it again! Oh dear……
Kristen, I will answer your questions:

1. Why would God, being perfect, give us a Bible that is not perfect? – If somebody told you that God did not give a perfect Bible, then that guy is lost or a loon! Simply put, God gave us a perfect Bible! He will never give anything less. What is not perfect is the TRANSLATION from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In everything, something gets lost in translation. To truly understand the dynamics of the language of the original manuscript, you must know the mind of a Hebrew who lived and breathed that time. Even the translators of the KJV do not understand fully this. That is not to say they are insincere, it’s just that their knowledge is not sufficient to render a perfect translation. Whatever the language translation, there will be errors.

2.Doesn’t that misrepresent God? And in so doing, make him a liar to present the words as His own? – Of course not! Except for the NWT, no English translation ever misrepresented God. Failure to give a perfect translation does not equate with misrepresenting God.

3. Why would God inspire more than one version of the Bible at all, considering the fact that He’s not the “author of confusion”? He’s a God of order and even 2 versions of the Bible tells non-Christians that we can’t agree. That we are in “confusion”. – If you want to imply that there should only be one version of the Bible, then WE SHOULD ONLY READ THE ORIGINAL TEXTS WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS THEMSELVES! In case you don’t know Kristen, the translators of the KJV used COPIES of the texts and basically used the Received Text as the main source. The received text was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus – a Roman Catholic Monk. Although Erasmus have access to ancient texts, THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE ORIGINAL HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS BY THE AUTHORS. To add insult to injury in the eyes of the IFB, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill up the blanks. What is the Latin Vulgate? Well it is the first Roman Catholic Latin Translation of the Bible by St. Jerome – a – you guessed it right – A ROMAN CATHOLIC MONK. You might ask why don’t Erasmus simply use the sources of St. Jerome for the received text? Well, Erasmus cannot find Jerome’s sources – simple as that – that’s why he has to use Jerome’s translation to fill in the blanks. So now I guess you know where the KJV got its sources? You have to agree with me Kristen that English as a language was already existing even before 1611 right? So I throw you a question – What is the Bible for the English speaking people before 1611?

4. And on top of all that, what about the fact that your precious NIV, along with every other version, takes out so much of the important parts of the Bible? – Are you sure that the NIV translators deleted them? Or the KJV translators ADDED THEM? You got to prove this with historical research. The reason you think the NIV translators deleted them is because some older, much much older versions of the texts simply does not have those verses. And just in case you accuse the NIV translators of a crime, those missing verses you are referring to are in the footnotes. I don’t think God will send those translators to hell just because they are not in the MAIN texts of the NIV. Now about those much much older manuscripts I mentioned above, these texts were sadly criticized by a lot of IFBs at the time to be tools of Satan to start confusion and therefore compel scholars to write a modern translation of the Bible. It is a subliminal message – saying “our KJV will now be threatened because of these scrolls found in the dead sea” In fact a lot of Ultra conservative Protestants diss the dead sea scrolls altogether! Another thing to think about Kristen: if the KJV is perfect, can you say with boldness that your KJV was NEVER REVISED AT ALL? Meaning whatever is written and finished in 1611 stays the same until today?

I have met a lot of people who are Messianic Jews and some of them studied in the synagogue to be a Jewish Rabbi. Which means that they are SO WELL VERSED in the Tanakh (the Old Testament in Jewish in case you did not know – so many Christians say the Hebrew Old Testament is called Torah which is dead wrong!) you cannot argue with them if you have a different claim than them with regards to the interpretation of the Tanakh. As they received Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord, since them being Jewish, they were able to bridge the OT with the NT. As they study the scripture in English, guess what, their main version is not the KJV but NIV and NASB! They too found it difficult to understand. No different from the translators of 1611. Those guys still have no complete grasp of the Hebrew Language, the Koine Greek as used by Jews and the Aramaic Language. Most developments in the understanding of those language came to the Western World much much later. Looking through history, do you think Europe – having just recently been in the dark ages – will already be experts in a language they did not use for more than 500 years (Greek) or never spoke at all (Hebrew and Aramaic)?
Then therefore Kristen, will you accuse those Messianic Jews not saved in the eyes of God because they do not use KJV? But used the Tanakh in Hebrew plus the NIV and NASB instead?

All of us here who have the same sentiments as I have will NOT IN A LONG SHOT say that the KJV is a bad version. I will be stepping up with whole assertion to tell you that the KJV is a masterpiece of English literature. One of the best if not the best. BUT the problem is we cannot understand it! There are many words that are not in usage anymore. And the sentence and grammatical structures are obsolete! But that is in no way a point against the KJV, it is just that it is dated. Try wearing the clothes of those guys living in 1611 the next time you go to a mall or go to work. You definitely might get bizarre reactions from the people.

Finally Kristen, I am a Filipino. I have never been in the US, Australia, UK and other countries where English is the mother tongue. English is only my second language. I learned English primarily through Sesame Street. Our schools NEVER studied Shakespeare and Elizabethan English – NEVER! Reading the KJV is extremely difficult for the average Filipino. Even the Filipino IFB in our country will have to admit they do not understand the KJV but were being forced to because they will be accused of apostate if they ever hold another version. Will you now say with whole honesty to your self that I am not saved because all these time, my point of reference is the NIV. In fact when I received Christ as my Saviour and Lord, I was using the Catholic Bible!

God bless you Kristen and Happy New Year!

1 Corinthians 1:10-17

1. Most definitely God is Perfect and He gave us the Perfect Bible – without the shadow of a doubt. But there was never any perfect translation of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. Even the KJV has its own errors. Just one practical argument and I would not go to other lengths – if you think the KJV is perfect right of the 1611 original publishing, why would they need revisions? In fact, I doubt it if you have the original 1611 version. MAJORITY of the KJVs in circulation are not from 1611 but from the 1760s!

2. God does not misrepresent Himself, and never will He! But as I reiterate you can never perfectly translate a language to another especially if it is unrelated (I mean translating French to Spanish may be easy but Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to English?). You must understand that there will always be shortcomings with ALL bible translations.

3. God will never inspire ANY version of the Bible. The original is the ONLY inspired Bible AFAIK. The others – though carefully translated which much prayers and study – are still subject to errors.

4. This is an old old old old old argument by the onlyist that says the NIV removed portions of the Bible in the Gospels. NOT TRUE. Read your history Kristen. Due to the still developing study in understanding Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic at that time, the translators who made the KJV ADDED verses not in the ancient sources they have. In fact the KJV translators have insufficient ancient texts. Even the Received texts (compiled by Desiderius Erasmus – a ROMAN CATHOLIC monk – not meant to diss our Catholic cousins) have insufficient ancient manuscripts and needed the Latin Vulgate also compiled by a Catholic Monk St. Jerome to fill in the blanks. The translators who made the NIV have more ancient sources and one of them is access to the Dead Sea Scrolls (who some baptists say that this was the manuscripts of Satan in order to bring about modern translations to confused believers! – a shame in Christian history as they imply!).

Everyone in this forum who have said something against the onlyists NEVER DID ONCE dissed the KJV. We truly respect one of the greatest English literary work of ALL TIME. What we just don’t like is that these IFBs tells us that we are lost because we are using another Bible (NIV in particular – the IFBs hated this version like it was Satan himself), or worse we are going to hell because we cannot understand 1611 English.

Kristen, I am a Filipino, never went to the US and Europe and was trained by Sesame Street to speak and read and write English. We never studied Shakespeare that is why we are not exposed to that kind of English. If we cannot understand 1611 English at all, does this mean we are all apostates in your eyes?

Just because you received unsatisfactory answers from the church you grew up in for your questions, doesn’t mean there aren’t real answers. Although it might take a little research on your part, and clearly, since you can’t be bothered to research that so-very-hard-to-understand KJV, you can’t be bothered to research that either.

I’ve grown up using the KJV and I understand it fine. Why? Because I was taught to understand it. And when I didn’t, I asked people who have studied it more than I have. That’s why we have pastors and church leaders and fellow believers. To help us.

I was never taught, as you apparently were, to believe something simply because someone told me so. I was taught to see for myself.

The answer to understanding God’s word isn’t to dumb it down, but to study it. You know, like it says “Study to shew thyself approved”, or is that just too difficult and time consuming?

You compared having a pastor explain the KJV as being the same thing as accepting another version as correct. Really?

Explaining what the words mean and presenting that explanation as being ‘the Bible’, are totally and completely different. Pastors, in my experience never consider their explanations to be inspired of God as they do of the book they are explaining. When men do that, that’s called heresy and indicates a cult. Or the ‘believe it because I said so’ mentality.

I’m not going to address all the rest of the nonsense you wrote about, but ask yourself this, Why would God, being perfect, give us a Bible that is not perfect?

Doesn’t that misrepresent God? And in so doing, make him a liar to present the words as His own?

Why would God inspire more than one version of the Bible at all, considering the fact that He’s not the “author of confusion”? He’s a God of order and even 2 versions of the Bible tells non-Christians that we can’t agree. That we are in “confusion”.

And on top of all that, what about the fact that your precious NIV, along with every other version, takes out so much of the important parts of the Bible?

They don’t just ‘make it easier to read’, they leave things out. You know, like, the Gospel.

http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

I must admit I was surprised at my brother’s response, he attends a very large Church of Christ, which is not KJVonly, and the few times I’ve attended there, it doesn’t appear to be very legalistic. He does use the KJV and has for years, but he himself is not legalistic, so I’m still scratching my head over his response. He may have felt attacked when I said I was going to administer a KJV test, I was just having fun, he may have just taken it the wrong way. Anyway he’s a great guy and I’m sure we’ll get over this too.

I wish you well in your new school and church. I don’t know awhole lot about the Episcopal church, but I’m sure there are some wonderful folks there. The one caution I would give is to allow God to speak to you through the scriptures, that is the most critical. This site and others consistently speak about folks that follow and uplift man, in my faith I want only to lift up the God-man!!

I still attend a tiny (20-30 on Sunday) Baptist Church, and yes it is IFB. The pastor is a self-taught, good man. I met him about 25 years ago and our “spirits bore witness” that we are the sons of God. He is not nearly as fundy as where I left from, and is learning. I hope I’m helping him in his faith journey. But I don’t self-identify as a Baptist any longer, I simply say that I’m a christian. I’ve become weary of those labels, and the Baptist one carries alot of baggage now.

So wonderful to hear you are making progress in “your” spiritual journey.

Well I ain’t no hillbilly, I ain’t no American either. I am a 100% who only was taught 20th Century American English. Although I have heard and know of the word succour (it means help – as far as my knowledge can get), we never used it in our writings and conversation in English. Although in our language – Filipino or Tagalog – the translation is “saklolo” which is also from the root word succour.

Still, there are so many words in KJV that unless I have a dictionary that is thrice bigger than an average bible (I don’t think words like that appear in a pocket dictionary – but I could be wrong), I can never fully understand KJV. Even the usage of thee, thy, thine, thou already throws me off. The mere fact that it is of very extreme usage takes enormous amount of energy to process it in my brain before coming up with a comprehended sentence. I guess you guys in which English is the mother language, it is loads easier compared to us.

Happy New Year Greg!

So folks, do you guys use “succour” on a regular basis, or are you a bunch of uneducated hillibillies like me?

Please succour me in understanding this issue more clearly!………….smiles!

You are right about being careful judging. I submit that there are some decent IFB churches around, even if they are far and few between. It boils down to the pastor in these churches. With no governing body overseeing the activities of these pastors, it then falls to the deacons, who are mostly yes-men, handpicked by the MOG (man of God) So if you have a good and decent MOG, then the church will usually follow, but most men are not able to handle that kind of authority, and probably should not be entrusted with that type of power. Remember “Power tends to corrupt and abslolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Your story reminds me somewhat of my story regarding my failed marriage, which I have told on here some time ago. My wife of 16 years decided to leave me, I tried everything I could to reconcile but she would have none of it. We had attended this church the entire time we were married, had worked in the church, teaching classes etc..raised our two children in this church. We split up and the pastor, nor anyone else called or stopped by my house, my life fell completely apart and not one person offered anything!! and the Pastor “lived” on my street!!!! Wow, with christian friends like this, who needs enemies!!

This has made me very sensitive to the needs of others going through similar circumstances, which makes me especially sorry to hear stories like yours.

Let me encourage you to keep on in the Lord, for He is good, and has suffered as we have. So He knows how to comfort us. And by all means continue sharing, most of us here have similar experiences with the IFB.

May God bless and give you a better 2012!!

However, it seems that the different churches, while being very different from each other, all seem to have some fundamental problems. I was NOT in a controlling church. In fact, my church was considered liberal by other Independent Baptist churches. However, the pastor did not deal with issues of sexual abuse appropriately, even telling victims that they didn’t need to go to the police. The pastor was considered to be a ‘man of god’ and as such, couldn’t be questioned or held accountable for his wrong judgements. He allowed a man who had a criminal past (who had not been held legally accountable for his actions) to come and run the counselling ministry of the church – and refused to remove him from that position when there were major problems as a result.

Different Independent Baptist churches have different problems. But they all tend to refuse to deal with them. They also seem to completely misunderstand Acts 15; tithing isn’t even biblical for the christian church! Some people who go to Independent Baptist churches also report that the sermons are rarely about Jesus and often about the personal experiences of the pastor, and that few bible verses are used, and those that are are often taken completely out of context. Control is one major issue in some Independent Baptist churches, but it’s by no means the only one.

It’s very possible to be a christian and go to a different church

I have mixed feelings about group counseling on these situations. In some ways, it can help. But there may be people who are not yet ready for this who can’t be objective either cause they are so supportive or their situation or are so hostile to it. Many people who are recovering need a supportive environment that’s neutral. That’s not always easy to find. People want to help but may not know how to help. Sometimes it is necessary to relocate to get the help. We didn’t have the internet back then so we couldn’t network with one another. College application fees vary so even if there are colleges who may work with students from a particular IFB school, it wasn’t easy to find out which ones did and apply to them. The IFB groups would cut off their members entirely once they left. Then in some parts of the country that were very hostile, they would enter environments where they were basically treated in a way that ignored or tried to destroy that faith altogether. Some may feel this way. However, I think there are many who still want to have faith. When the school was constantly in the news in addition to having radio stations cut off their programs at least temporarily, which happened in the 1980s, one became very isolated. There are some who fared better than others if they had a supportive environment. It wasn’t easy to find that supportive environment even when people wanted to provide it. Counselors had to have experience dealing with these issues. Also people feel uncomfortable talking about this. In some environments, counselors could get into trouble for even discussing religious issues too. I think it’s important to put the entire situation in perspective with good as well as bad. Some may say there is no good. Some may say there is no bad. Most experiences in one’s lifetime have both. I’m sure I’ll hear criticism for this comment from those who find no bood or no bad. Sometimes something can seem psychological that actually has a physical origin. Things are not always what they seem to be, and it take s a professional counselor with medical surpervision and a medical background to be able to know when other referrals may be necessary as well as a definite thorough physical exam. There can also be referred pain issues or even technology that differs in one region from another. In some of the mainline denominations, state licensure is necessary for ordained ministers. Some mainline denominations also have their own medical staff. In others, there may be situations which are separate. It’s really important to have a professional team approach which respects the individual’s confidentiality within professional boundaries. Iti also takes counselors in some cases that are trained to detect learning disabilities. Some schools are better than others in working with students with learning disabilities. Some are more subtle than others as well. Many community colleges are quipped to detect and assist students with learning disabilities who may have compensated and made it through the system in elementary or high school. Many community colleges can be good bargains financially also and may be ideal for students who need to live near home and or may not know what they want to do. This goes for private junior colleges too. Some schools may offer small classes with low student teacher ratios. Many parents want to send their children to larger schools or whatever school somebody recommends but that’s not always the school that’s best for a teenagers. Sometimes a year or two working prior to going to school can help somebody appreciate the value of money or get a taste of working in different environments. I’m very skeptical of this one solution for all mentality I see.

It is important to remember that people most likely to post on these sites have experienced only those churches with control and separation issues. They post here because they are trying to heal and learn the truth about the Baptist church, Christianity, and how that compares with their own experiences at whatever church they fled! I know that is why I came to this site! So remember not to judge everyone the same!

I spent a few years as a divorced single in this church…as a single women I was not to talk to the men (even the married friends I had had before any of us joined the church), the married couples were not really open to much socialization since I was single. By the way, I had no say in my divorce, that was between my ex and his mistress, I never even had to sign anything! I was discouraged from having friends outside of the church, or attending any single socials at other churches. The church doesn’t believe in dating, just courting for marriage with preferably someone in your church but our church didn’t really have any singles! I became horribly depressed and since I didn’t have a smile ear to ear when I went to church, that was the excuse for not socializing more with me! We as Christians were to not talk about our troubles as they are depressing for other Church members and not a good testimony to convert non-believers. When I talked about how lonely I was (this is a rural area), I was told more than once that it was my fault! If I just would except Gods’ Grace than I wouldn’t be lonely even if I never saw anyone!

When I had my first surgery, I was supposed to have someone stay with me but as I was going into surgery, my ministers wife cancelled. Someones marriage issues were more important than me possibly bleeding to death and I was left alone! The second minor surgical proceedure she cancelled again. Then I had an injury that laid me up for months and caused blood clots and later major surgery! When I was injured, I was told by my minister that he didn’t believe I was injured! Each time I spent weeks to months at home but my minister never called, or stopped by! Nobody came by for the most part, or called to check on me! At the end, I finally at least got some rides from a couple of women and confided with them my intentions to leave the church. They wanted to know why and I told them that I didn’t feel wanted and couldn’t understand how my minister was not there for me either times I had serious health issues and a life threatening injury! I was confused how he could have reports of my ER visits from the women giving me rides, know the meds I was on, and see the severity of my crippling injury when I went to church but still say I was not really injured! I was hurt and lonely! The only time my minister came to visit me was at the end to tell me that several men had accused me of causing dissention in the church and that I must apologize in front of the church or be shunned! Then his wife started telling me how I always take and never give…I don’t tithe and I never cook for the required weekly pot luck. I always cooked something and then usually bought a desert. It cost me 40-60 a week to buy food but I work and commute 50+ hrs a wk and didn’t cook everything from scratch so I guess it didn’t count to her! They also pressure women to be stay at home wife and mothers who home school…Your greatest value is as an obidient wife. I only made about 20,000 a yr and I was going into debt just trying to pay my bill and buy church food. Then they questioned my salvation!!! Never once did anyone ever answer my question about where was my pastor in my time of need? I apologized and then I moved 45 min away and went to another independant baptist church. Knowing I was facing surgery, Not one person has ever called to check on me!

Family in other states were urging me to leave for a longtime and expressed concerns that this was a cult. I stayed because I was raised in the Christian faith and I was afraid that my friends who had found Christ through this church would have no voice of reason when it came to learning to decern those areas where the scripture were being minipulated to support certain teachings of the church…funny but they preach the law but forget to practice forgiveness and compassion which are things Christ instructs us to put to use as examples of his love on earth!
They left deep wounds that I am still struggling to heal and it would be nice to talk to someone who has gone through simular…maybe is familar with this church and its’ teachings.

In the 1950s and 1960s, denominations did not mingle together. Now, there is a lot more mingling between denominations as well as cooperation that didn’t exist before that time.
The attacks on other denominations can be quite destructive at times. I think others though are beginning also to realize common areas of belief among the denominations and have learned to pull resources together for a common good in some cases. I come from an interdenimational and cross cultural setting so I’ve had to learn this over years. I do understand what you are saying though. I prefer to live closer to the church I attend, either walking distance and or within a direct bus route. Many will travel a long distance though, especially if they live in remote areas and/or their family has attended a particular church or sometimes if they have specific ministries that they believe their families need.

I believe that we have the ammendment that grants us freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe that we have people who have died and sacrificed to make this possible. I don’t want to lose either. However, I do want disclosure. I think disclosure would give us information we need to make the decision that’s best for our own families. I also want to know the background of those instructing me. People have mixed feelings about honorary doctorate degrees and it’s a common practice both in the religious and secular world. Also others take many years to earn these degrees the traditional way. I do wish they would at least use an abbreviation such as HD.Ed., HD.Div., etc… There are some institutions which have decided to ban the practice entirely. I want to know the qualifications of the person I call doctor. I also assume a doctor has a license. This isn’t always true. That can make a big difference in ethical practices and affiliations. In the political arena, one will probably find out once a person runs for public office or is connected to a national campaign. One doesn’t find out otherwise. I certainly didn’t know. I didn’t even know there was an honorary doctorate. My parents were college educated and were skeptical. If I had known I was dealing with an honorary doctorate, I probably would have responded differently, but maybe not. I didn’t know I was dealing with an association either until about three years after I joined the church. I learned that actually at college, not at church. A number os students from the same church learned that we were attending the wrong Sunday school and were told the following fall semester we needed to return to a different class, after our second year, maybe even longer.

In respect to laws and traditions, I love the traditions at Christmas. It’s one of my favorite times of the year. There is comfort and structure in laws. The problem though occurs when the practice of the law is so rigid that one can’t see any exception or waiver even when practically it might exist. This is why I used the sample of Jesus healing on the sabbath. He got in a lot of trouble for that too in the New Testament Days. The Pharisees and Saducees were always questioning Jesus and u sing the law to try to trick him.

I think human nature looks for the concrete and that includes things that are easy to understand from a human perspective. Also our laws make us feel safe. Competition is not always bad. Paul talks about competition in sports in Phillippians. It becomes a problem when it is not placed in balance with God’s intentions. I don’t know whether or not this makes sense to you, Don Komos.

In heaven we will be perfect. It is the faith in the cross and resurrection that leads to salvation and especially the acknowledgement and confession of sin. Ephesians 2:8-10
Romans 10:8-10, John 3:3-5 In the Old Testament, before our sins were atoned on the cross, there was an emphasis on the exact obedience of the law. I don’t believe the Christian walk is supposed to be a free-for-all. That’s also a misunderstanding of grace to the other extreme. We’re talking about a balance with both grace and justice.
I think people are competitive by human nature. People try to please and gain approval which is part of our human nature. Sometimes there is a viscous cycle. The focus is supposed to be on God and the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I think the balance goes off center in either direction and sometimes both at the same time. Think of a tightrope. When one walks a tightrope or even a balance beam, one has to keep one’s eyes focused. This is also true for performing pirhouettes in dance. In sports, we use objects for “spotting”. In our Christian life, we use the Bible, pray to God, and seek the dwelling of the Holy Spirit. Anyone can be deceived. Do people want to be deceived. Some do. Many probably don’t and some may not even realize it’s happening if it’s very subtle. We have to be always on watch too.

Power corrupts, and abslolute power corrupts absolutely.

You know, when you really dig into many “religions” you find much of man’s tradition. The IFB’s always point fingers at the Catholics, but the Baptist faith is loaded with the traditions of men, I guess it’s kind of hard to escape. I am personally done with “religion” If asked what “religion” I am, my standard answer is “christian” even though I am still attending a little Baptist Church.

God richly bless you and Merry Christmas!

So supporting and giving to good churches and causes is absolutely scriptural and necessary. Someone trying to twist your arm with OT verses about robbing God and placing curses on you and your family, pathetic.

“Let every man give according as he has purposed in his heart to give, not grudgingly or under compulsion, (why) because God loves a cheerful giver.” This is NT giving.

Greg,
As to the 1st Century Church being basically Baptistic, I only brought that up as a little humour (though it is true) in order to show that it is not only IFBers who exalt men beyond due measure. This was an issue I did not expect to cause controversy, but I have begun to realize that everything must be said in your words or be wrong. (That sounds like the IFB that you so oppose, or a political debate.) Please lighten up, I do not have a web-site attacking ex-IFBers, and do not know of any.

Baptists historically believed in Believer’s Baptism, Autonomy of the Church, Priesthood of every Believer, Individual Soul Liberty, & the Lordship of Jesus Christ (not just positionally, but practically in the life of the Believer). These are what makes Baptistic churches so diverse.
(There is no specific order of service, though most are similar. Some are more Calvanistic than others. Some seem to have extreme stances on issues. etc.) This is who Baptists were, and who we are.

The Problem comes, just as it did in the 1st century, when some church or individual would come into another church, and because they were different say they are wrong. (The case is not always so.)

My friends, you do not have to go to church every time the door is open to be right with God. You do not have to tithe (you should give him your only son, not just one out of ten). You do not have to dress to any standard. Matter of fact, it is only a strong recommendation to you (as a gentile believer) to abstain from fornication according to Acts 15. What you & I are expected to do is obey His voice, and not harden our heart. (I learned that from the KJV, and the sweet Holy Ghost of God.)

I know many Baptists of today, especially some of the IFBers, do not believe in Repentance & Submission to the Lord Jesus Christ at salvation. That is because they do not believe the KJV Bible as it is written. (Please, before you start sounding like many of my foolish friends in the IFB, do not think for one second that I believe in a “works” salvation. I believe in a salvation that works). Salvation is not limited to Christ paying for our sins, but includes His purchasing us, purging us, and preparing us for glory. This is done, not without our will, but because we are willing. I say all this to let you understand that the fact of Christ’s Lordship over His believers was of the utmost importance, and still is, for any man, woman, boy, or girl to rightly understand and live the other Bible distinctives that were mentioned above.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas! (If you are anti-Christmas, do not try to correct me about things please. I am not as Christmassy as some, but want you to have a merry Christmas whether it is Jesus birthday or not. I can enjoy Him on everyday so it does not really matter to me.) Have a merry (joy-filled) everyday.

There are PLENTY of racist IFB churches – plenty. Whether or not this church is IFB does not diminish from the original point of posting the article which is to show how a power-drunk racist in a pulpit can teach some of the most sickening things and get away with it. Happens all the time, in all kinds of churches, ESPECIALLY those of the creepy patriarchal strains where the pastor answers to no one and his followers follow blindly.

Let’s just look at one verse: Hebrews 2:18

KJV – “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to (SUCCOUR) them that are tempted.”

NIV – “Because he Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to (HELP) those who are being tempted.”

NKJV – “For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted he is able to (AID) those who are tempted.”

I challenge you to go to the prison and read this verse to the prisoners, and then ask if any of them knows what this means. Then I want you to go to the elementary school and do the same. You could even go by the local university. You could probably not find one person that knows what this verse means! Do you really believe that our God, the one that made this Universe and everything in it, wants his Precious word, to be obscured like this to the objects of His love? THINK, please!

God wants us to be able to understand His word! He places an extremely high priority on His word. Jesus “is” the Word!! Oh my goodness, won’t you please see that!! The above verse will minister to precious, hurting folks if they could only understand it!!

I think I’m finished. There is something here for you Richard, if you will only grasp it. I sorta have a feeling you aren’t ready for it yet, but God is able!

Do not think or tell someone that I have attacked the KJV translation. I have not. It is a good translation in Elizabeathan English, however it is a “translation.” Many good translations came before it and many came after it. I think I’ll close with a quote from your favorite folks, the KJV translators.

“A variety of translations is necessary for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.”

Now to the funnest part!! I’m delighted you brought up “Richard’s Rules for Bible Study” You said you teach a rule “Words mean what words mean.” Well at least we agree about this! You further said “I try to apply that rule to life.” Good luck with that, because it doesn’t appear you are having much success with it.

So with the above in mind, let’s look at a few KJV words and phrases, shall we? (I could have provided dozens)

suffer, filthy lucre, lunatick, wax, charity, gay clothing, advertise, allege, conversation, communicate, take through, prevent, meat, anon, by and by.

Now according to you and your rule “Words Mean What Words Mean” you’ve got a small problem. Not one of these words mean today what they meant four centuries ago. Do your convicts have any problems with these words which no longer mean what they use to, or because they are studying the KJV, the Holy Spirit (not Ghost, ghosts are spirits of deceased people that scare folks…that was sarcasm)

The above is one of my major problems with KJVonly’s. They will not recognize that language changes, always, the dictionary publishers post new words every year, and many words change meaning. It’s a fact! You know this, but in that fundy mind of yours, you are attempting to explain all of this away, instead of simply recognizing, you are wrong and have been for years. Richard, it’s ok to admit you are wrong, God will richly bless you, if you go to him and admit what a fool you’ve been over this issue for so many years, God has many new things for you, if you will simply get over this hurdle, as it is, you will probably stay right where you are, not going fwd at all, when your ministry could reach vastly further than you can even imagine right now.

To be continued:

The anti-KJV crowd? Where are they? Where do they meet? I constantly hear and see poorly educated KJVonly’s espousing the magical properties of the KJV, but I never see anyone running around trying to tear down the KJV, as the KJVonly’s constantly do. My old fundy church had tracts that had titles such as “The NIV Perversion” “What’s wrong with the New King James Version” etc. I have found nothing from the vast “NIV Only Conspiracy Group” showing that there’s is the only true word of God, or anything similar to the KJVonly’s preoccupation with their favorite translation.

To be continued:

You are demonstrating all through this latest comment that you are fundy to the core, and appear to be as bad as they get!

You appear to be double-minded as the KJV phrase goes, about the KJV translators:

Dec 17, to Katie “You think you are smarter than the KJV translators”

Dec 14, to Bob “The anti-KJV crowd, “I, myself, am not as intelligent as the shcolars who translated the bible”

Dec 14, to Katie “You are more intelligent than the translators”

So, Richard which is it? Are you venerating these Anglican translators or not? Are they smarter than all of us, including the translators of newer versions? Or for that matter the translators which preceeded them? What is it that makes you think that these fellas are so special, more than other translators?

1st Century Baptists! You are hilarious! This is more fundy than the above! You need to study Sir. I’m not even going to crush this stupidity, it’s not worth wasting my time. Katie would actually do a much better job than I, but she saw through you more quickly than I, and is probably done with you. Let me say this and be done on the matter. Our Precious Saviour is coming back to planet Earth looking for blood-covered “Christians” not just “Baptists” The sooner you get that through your head, the better off you will be, and God will perhaps grant you more knowledge into His work and Kingdom. Seriously Richard, man to man, christian to christian, please for your sake and any you come into contact with, please humble yourself!

Going to close for now because sometimes it won’t take a long post, yea there’s more coming!

I know I used to feel this way, not necessarily due to justice, but because in a graded classroom, I felt performance anxiety and sometimes as I got older, at least into my teens and twenties, stage fright. Of course, when I combined the link to my faith, rather than becoming a source of consulation, it became one more subject I had to conquer rather than a relationship with God. This was how I felt about reading in general and wasn’t limited to religious materials. Now I can read and really enjoy it. Now, many years later, I can really enjoy the music too.

Sometimes people don’t understand why a person looks for good even in a bad situation. Soem feel that finding good even in a bad situation removes the serious concerns. I don’t think it does though. I think it can help heal. It’s not something we can do on our own strength though. We have to ask God for divine intervention. In some cases, that divine intervention in itself is a miracle. There are times when I believe we feel justified anger and it doesn’t go away until we respond and recognize whether or not its legitimate and if it is legitimate, it doesn’t go away until we take action.

At the same time, while people are alive, they have the chances to change. I don’t know what will happen in the future. I can’t see that far ahead. I try to take one day at a time.
Sometimes when I get discouraged, I just look at the framed copy of “The Serrenity Prayer” and just pray and let God handle the situation from there.

Ok, so one of the things that IFB’s regularly do is to lift up and elevate men, in some instances to near-worship. I have noticed that in your responses you seem to elevate the KJV translators to positions they don’t deserve. They were vile, wicked sinners just as you and I. If you study their lives, you will quickly see, they stumbled in their lives as do we all. Btw Katie is a pretty sharp cookie, she may well be smarter than all the KJV translators! If I’m wrong about this, pls let me know, however that’s is how it appears to me.

I too have been called to spread the good news of Jesus Christ through the preaching of His word contained in the bible. And I am not ashamed of being faithful to the bible. It (the NIV) is God’s word in english that I can understand, as well as the folks that I’m ministering to. (Btw, from vastly older manuscripts) God also called me to declare “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction.”

There is not one statement you can find in all my writings that magnifies the KJV over the original texts or other proper translations. In as much as it is the word of God, (and it is), God magnifies it. “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (It magnifies the LORD, so I love it.) I read it, study it, respect it, yea and even cherish it. I certainly do love the word of God because it revealed Him to this poor vile sinner and was the instrument that showed me the way of life. I am not ashamed of being faithful to the Bible, (I wish I were moreso.), and I am willfully “dumb” about the KJV only issue because I am content not to debate what is settled. It, the KJV, is God’s word! God did not call me to debate, but to declare. “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”

“The LORD will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands.” I have precious fellowship with my Savior, and He is growing me through His word. I plan to keep using the KJV, and preaching it as truth. It works: souls are saved, lives are changed, people are helped. What else can we ask for? God still uses the “Old Black Book” and He will not forsake the works of His hands.

You know what the KJV only issue is – don’t play dumb. There’s an entire page on this very site dedicated to the KJV only issue. Just read that for more information.

As I explained above, the word “dung” is not accurate in every instance of the term. See my above comment for additional information and my evidence for this assertion.

Sentence flow does not overide accuracy. I agree, but I have no idea why you keep repeating that? My position would assert that the KJV would place a priority on sentence flow since the word “dung” is used incorrectly in many verses (as I already stated and gave evidence for above). The KJV is often promoted in IFB circles because of it’s “sentence flow” and poetic nature. So this idea would actually be helping my argument not your – unless I’m misunterstanding your position. If so further explanation would be appreciated.

The KJV was first written to further the political influence of King James not to be a “proper translation”. You’ve got your historical facts wrong. Further research on your part would be advised.

The verse you quoted states: “O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together” NOT “O magnify the KJV with me, and let us exalt it together.”

“Dung” is an accurate translation, “Dung” was the issue. Why they did not use a synonomous word in the KJV was the agreed upon option, possibly for sentence flow. (Sentence flow does not override accuracy, but is one of the reasons the KJV translators used words that some would say could have been translated differently).

Once again I will say, as stated above, (I am assuming you overlooked my statement.), sentence flow does not override accuracy. To “Synonymize” is “To express the same meaning in different words.”
As you know, the KJV was written 1st to be a proper translation, but then to be a poetic translation. With a proper translation we learn God’s meanings. With a poetic translation we are helped in meditation due to easy memorization resulting in motivation for the manifestation of God’s magnification. “O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together.”

You ere not knowing why I left our last correspondences, but this does not surprise me.

I don’t really care why you left our last discussion.

As to the “all Scripture” quote, I was just quoting God. This means every correct translation.

It says “all scripture…” NOT “all translations of Scripture…” You are taking liberties with biblical exegesis to fit your argument.

If you include the NIV and others, I have not stopped you. The KJV issue is not one to me. I am very content with the Bible I have, but it seems my being content with the KJV (1769 revision) really bothers you.

You say you’re content and you say that you agree with Bob when he writes that we should have freedom to use any version of the Bible we feel is right for us, yet you continue to come here to defend the KJV only position. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I don’t understand why.

No it doesn’t bother me. I couldn’t care less what translation you use. What I don’t like is your close minded assertions that the KJV is the most accurate and best translation because it’s not.

If you want to use it then go right ahead, again, I don’t care. Just keep it to yourself. It’s between you and God.

One last thought before I go. In my last post to you I used the word “thoroughly” in place of “throughly” the synonomous word by some peoples view, the updated word by others, and the correct or incorrect translation by even others. I prefer “throughly,” but have Bibles with each. I am surprised that you did not see that, and compliment me for coming out of the KJV only mentality.

I saw it as a typo.

“Dung” is an accurate translation,

For some verses it is yes, I think I already agreed to that, but as I’ve already explained not in every occurrence of the term. If you read the verses yourself and did a comparative word study you would see that the term dung is not an accurate translation in all circumstances

“Dung” was the issue. Why they did not use a synonomous word in the KJV was the agreed upon option, possibly for sentence flow. (Sentence flow does not override accuracy, but is one of the reasons the KJV translators used words that some would say could have been translated differently).

So it’s OK to bend things during translation for the sake of “sentence flow” in the KJV, but not in other versions? How can you not see that as biased?

“Offal” brought me to use a dictionary, something that you in our previous correspondence thought should be unnecessary while reading the Bible.

I don’t recall saying that or even thinking that. Not sure how you can know what my thoughts are. Can you read minds or something?

Congrats on using a dictionary.

As to being rude, you perceive me wrongly. I was sarcastic about your intelligence, but not at all rude.

So you are saying that being sarcastic isn’t being rude? I just find it interesting that you can’t have an intelligent conversation by providing logical evidence of your position and as a result you resort to ad hominem fallacies but making assumptions and attacking me. I’m having major deja vu here.

As to the “all Scripture” quote, I was just quoting God. This means every correct translation. If you include the NIV and others, I have not stopped you. The KJV issue is not one to me. I am very content with the Bible I have, but it seems my being content with the KJV (1769 revision) really bothers you.
One last thought before I go. In my last post to you I used the word “thoroughly” in place of “throughly” the synonomous word by some peoples view, the updated word by others, and the correct or incorrect translation by even others. I prefer “throughly,” but have Bibles with each. I am surprised that you did not see that, and compliment me for coming out of the KJV only mentality.

“Dung” is an accurate translation, “Dung” was the issue. Why they did not use a synonomous word in the KJV was the agreed upon option, possibly for sentence flow. (Sentence flow does not override accuracy, but is one of the reasons the KJV translators used words that some would say could have been translated differently).
“Offal” brought me to use a dictionary, something that you in our previous correspondence thought should be unnecessary while reading the Bible.

As to being rude, you perceive me wrongly. I was sarcastic about your intelligence, but not at all rude.

Now there’s the Richard we all know and love. I’m reminded why I was glad when you didn’t return to continue or first discussion.

1) You lack patience (late night the 12th til the morning of the 14th). You give a person less than two days to respond. I have alot more things to do than to discuss “dung” with you.

Ummmm, just how was I being impatient. I didn’t know if you’d be back, just like your previous leave of absence, so I just decided to do my own research and report my findings. You do like making assumptions don’t you???

2) You are more inteligent than the translators. I never said “offal” was a bad translation, nor that “dung” was the best translation. I stated that “dung” is a more common and easier word. Therefore, to say that a translation is newer and easier when using less common and more difficult words is not truthful. Notice that the new translations do not advertise as more correct, but easier to read and understand. “Waste,” “refuse,” “entrails,” or even “guts” are more common words.

Thanks for the compliment, although somehow I doubt it was a compliment. You’re very rude you know that – and to a lady. You should be ashamed!!!

I never accused you of saying “offal” was a bad translation and that “dung” was the best translation. I merely pointed out that the term “offal” is probably more accurate than “dung”.

What you did say was “What does confuse me is the use of the word “offal” in place of “dung.” First, You said you were confused so I was trying to clear it up. Second, I was trying to show that offal is used where the word dung is inaccurate. The term offal includes the dung. In other words, dung is too narrow a term to effectively communicate what the verse is trying to convey so it would appear that the translators substituted a more accurate term. What part of “more accurate” is giving you the most trouble?

I don’t know why the translators chose the word “offal”. You’d have to ask them. But probably because of why I already stated, because it’s a catch all term to include “waste, refuse, entrails, and guts” – all of it. It’s probably the best term that would capture the meaning of the original language.

They actually try to convey that the new translations are BOTH easier to understand and more accurate – which most of them are.

3) You do not believe the Old Testament is as Important as the New. Christ made much of the Scriptures for two reasons. #1 They testify of Him. #2 So that we can rightly understand the Christian Life.

I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth please. I agree that the OT is just as important as the NT. I was simply commenting on the ceremonial laws – which we aren’t required to follow anymore.

Why were they to get rid of the entrails? Because they were full of dung, defiled by dung. New Testament application: Christ had no defilement (dung) in Him as a sacrifice. (That is essential for salvation). We, as we present our bodies a living sacrifice, should separate ourselves from the “dung” in our lives.

I think you are trying to say that it was a ceremonial law to reflect that Christ was undefiled? If so I agree. However, I think you misunderstand. It was a symbolic ceremonial law, but you are mistaken about the application. The participants were to INCLUDE the offal in the sacrifice not “get rid of” it.

(By the way, the Exodus verse was included in my previous comment by mistake – sorry).

Please, never make less of the Scriptures than God does. He said, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Please, never make MORE of the Scriptures than God does. “All scripture…” simply means the whole Bible. It doesn’t mean every bible ever written in the history of mankind. Its not an all inclusive phrase to mean every conceivable translation past, present and future.

By the way, if you included the KJV in “all scripture” then you must also be prepared to include the NIV, NLT, ESV, etc. Remember that the KJV was once a “modern version”.

I’m sorry about that mistake, one wants to be clear whenever talking about the word of God. You know how very important communicating in clear and concise language is!!

Mingled people from the nethermost ate snuffdishes and palmerworm every quarternion. Their sheepcote were in shambles. Naught to worry. We outwent to bewray the breeches with putrifying sores (YUCK) on the sackbut.

Beeves armholes and emerods canker the bald locust before horseleach broilered the calves of our lips and cast the same in his teeth burning ague and chalkstones! (I couldn’t hardly believe it) Besom liers girt the hasty fruit while lapwing he ve the hindmost apothecary. the ambushment cauls chapiter from ambassage and his flesh pots freckled spot the mallows. Then nergal mufflers astonied the farthing flagons mincing mete, maw and assupim. Afterwards the college oil tree was neesings, plaiting pleasant plants and rereward ribband.

Moreover, the portray bloody flux botch his ossifrage (hate when that happens) while the pommels pygarg his victual. Waxed rich caused a tender eyed unicorn (ah, look at the pretty unicorn) to spikernard the sabaoth the same time a cankerworm cheek teeth the exactors. But that’s not all! (No Sir, wait to you hear this) The crisping pins fell out of the chamois fray engines and succour the malefactor into the lily work! (seriously)

For those who think this is but succothbenoth, vain janglings and superfluity of naughtiness, winefat and wist will unstopped. Trow the wreathen and gay clothing over the clift and churl the checker work down the firepans and on hungerbitten hoar frost. The latchet to the lowering has occurent and even munition. The mortar pavement is below the almug and pressfat the sheaf. Dear Richard, Understandeth what thou readeth?

I see it in Exodus 19:14, Leviticus 4:11, Leviticus 8:17, Leviticus 16:27, Numbers 19:5 and Malachi 2:3. As I suspected, all are references to ceremonial laws related to the butchering of a sacrificial animal and the internal organs. Butchers still use that term today. I challenge anyone to go into a high end butcher shop and see if the butcher knows what that term means. I’d bet that he would agree that the term “offal” is the proper term to use rather than “dung”.

So the term “dung” would actually be an inaccurate translation. “Offal” is actually the correct term to use.

The difference I see in this is two fold: 1. As we all already know (except those in KJV only denial), this is a reference to OT ceremonial law which is no longer applicable to us NT Christians, and 2. It has no bearing on the foundation of the gospel message and therefore does nothing to detract from the message of the Bible – in fact we can see by my explanation above that using the correct term “offal” actually enhances one’s understanding of the scriptures.

Contrast the problem of “offal” vs. “dung” in the NIV with the KJV’s terminology in I Timothy 5:11 “But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;”. Wax wanton??? eh??? What does “wax wonton” even mean and what the heck does it have to do with going against Christ or even marrying for that matter??? And this IS in the NT!!! (I’m being facetious of course – a quick peak at that verse the NIV or the NLT or the ESV or any other “modern” translation would aid in the understanding of this passage).

I don’t know how anyone could continue to defend KJV onlyism in the face of such information.

Good to have you back Richard. I was wondering where you went. “dung” and “offal” can actually have very different meanings depending on the context. “Dung” refers strictly to manure or animal waste and has no other meaning, but “offal” can refer to waste as well as the entrails and internal organs of an animal used as food. Where did you see the word “offal” and what was the context? It may be that “offal” is actually the correct translation.

It never ceases to amaze me how I try to be careful in explaining something and then someone like you comes along and shows me that I should have been much more careful in how I describe something. You are correct. Adhere to the bible you read, whether that be the KJV, NIV or any good translation, there are many, some not so good, I would add.

The point I was trying to make is that oftentimes in legalistic KJV circles, the MOG (man of God) will stand up hold his bible high and say “this is the only true word of God, the 1611 KJV) which is actually pretty funny because almost all of these promoters of the “1611 KJV” have never seen one, and couldn’t read it if they did, most are carrying the 1769 revised KJV, which begs the question, if the 1611 were perfect, why revise it? Btw I do have a 1611, however, mine doesn’t contain the apocrypha.

I consider the KJV to be a fine translation, especially considering that Erasmus worked from a manuscript base of about 6 manuscripts, and was using relatively youthful (not old) manuscripts. The main problem with the KJV as I see it, is not its accuracy, it is the old/odd language and many including myself have a difficult time understanding it. But if you are happy and can understand yours, praise God, study it, preach it, live it!! It contains the Wordsof Life!!

Greg, I really liked your short thesis on “legalism” and the damage it can do to God’s people. My only concern, and my basis for interrupting, is that I am always confused when people say that adherence to one particular Bible translation is wrong.

“I would add here, a strict adherence to one translation of scripture, i.e. the KJV, this is not only legalistic, but also extra-biblical. You are demanding strict adherence to a translation that the bible itself never speaks about, which is actually worse than the legalism that I have described thus far.”

If we are not to adhere to the Bible we read, what are we to adhere to? Are the other “Bibles” so different? If so, how do we know which one is correct?” I say to those who do not use the KJV (which I believe to be correct) that it is better to obey God as He reveals Himself in the translation you are reading than to spend your life debating the Word and not doing the Word. I found this idea from “James” chapter one verses 21 & 22. “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

Please let me know where the KJV differs in expectations to adherence from the other translations so that I can see that my adherence to this particular Bible over others is extra-biblical, legalistic, or worse.

Although I don’t know how he can tell that you’re “blood washed” – maybe he has special revelation to know if people are saved or not – I think John 10:10 was trying to support you. Yet you call him weird? That’s not very nice. I think you just like to argue and aren’t really interested in the truth.

I think the responsibility here is shared by the church in the sense that the church is supposed to be the shining light in the community and provide the example that Christ intended; however, we have a responsibility ourselves to go to the Bible, study, and pray.
We also have a responsibility in this computer age to do some research on our own, which by the way is much easier than it was in the past. We have so much more at our access than we did in the past and so quickly with just the touch of our fingertips. God rewarded the Christian who realized one needed help and just asked for wisdom and discernment whether it was the great king like David or Solomon or whether it was just the ordinary common folk just making a living in one’s daily routine. he provides the Bible and the Holy Spirit for our discernment as well as prayer. I’m not asking you to abandon convictions, just to go back to the Bible. Jesus is our focus. It’s easy to get a bracelet and read that question. I have a lot of questions about this “bumper sticker” Christianity or commercialism in the Christian walk myself, including the bracelets. It’s not so much that there isn’t a message, but that it’s displayed in a way that I think cheapens the message.
“Honk honk for Jesus” also could cause a car accident for those who get distracted by noise. The h orn in the Bible was used for specific purposes. It was used very by shepherds very carefully too as much as the staff. In Revelations, i think God is not only talking to the seven churches, but individuals as well. And he says repent and return. He says that in the Old Testament too, just looking toward Christ whereas in much of the New Testament, we are looking back except for the period in which Jesus walked with the apostles. Great leaders like David and King Solomon and Daniel were rewarded for asking God for guidance. The list of leaders that turned to God is long. Proverbs 3:5-6, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 7:7, and Matthew 11:28. The Psalms are among my favorite though.