Is the IFB a cult?
I often refer to the IFB as “cult like” or “cultish” and I receive great condemnation from IFBers as a result. This post is being written to set the record straight and to provide a little more detail about what I mean by “cult like” or “cultish”.
Let’s first look at the definition of “cult”. The Random House Dictionary defines a cult as: 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers 3. the object of such devotion 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 5. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. 7. the members of such a religion or sect. 8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
In case you didn’t notice, the definitions are pretty broad. The term “cult” can be a bit ambiguous and is often open to individual interpretation. As a result I will try to narrow down the definitions and streamline my focus. I would like to focus on definitions numbered 1, 2, 4 and 6.
We all know of the particular cults that have come and gone. One of the more famous cults was the Branch Davidian cult in Waco Texas lead by David Koresh. If you aren’t familiar with it I would encourage you to look them up. It’s pretty interesting. Basically, David Koresh lead a group of people to their deaths because of a false ideology and set of beliefs that was unorthodox, extremist AND with members living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader, (see definition 6).
The only reason I mention David Koresh in this context is to set apart what we typically think of as a cult. The Branch Davidians characterized ALL the stipulations of definition 6 above so this is an easy one to spot. Organizations like the IFB are not so easy to spot and often have subtle variations of definition 6 – the one we typically think of when we hear the word cult – or they are purposefully deceptive about their status in society in order to deceive people into joining their group (don’t get all defensive, I’m just using deception as an example of a subtle difference to distinguish what we think we know a cult to be and what a cult really is).
Yes, I know that the IFB doesn’t EXACTLY fit definition 6 so before you decide that you want to shoot me (or at least leave this webpage) read on because I’m going to tell you why I think that the IFB fits the definition of a cult.
In a way, ALL belief systems START out as a cult by the definition of 6 above. Just think about the way Jesus must have been portrayed in his society during the time of his ministry. Do you think unorthodox, unscientific, charismatic, extremist, etc. would be words the Pharisees and people of his day used to describe him? You bet they would. Today Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world, but I think that in its early stages people might have looked at Christians as members of a cult as defined by definition 6 above.
But as you can see, the definition of a cult is NOT limited to simply definition 6. Like I said, my focus will also be on definition numbers 1, 2 and 4. Let me repeat them in case you forgot. 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Upon HONEST inspection can you really read those definitions as say the IFB isn’t a cult according to those definitions? If not you are either delusional, extremely self deceptive or so enmeshed with the IFB that you simply can’t see it.
Yes, I know that I’m partially playing a semantics game here, but that’s why I use the term “cult like” or “cultish” instead of calling the IFB a cult outright. In the BROADIST sense we could certainly see how the IFB ACTS like a cult, in some ways, when looking at definition 6. We often see IFBers promoting the idea that we are to be “separate” (living outside conventional society), “independent” – not belonging to an over seeing body of leadership and following the leadership of the local church pastor (under the direction of a charismatic leader). We can see that the IFB promotes misinterpretations of scripture as fact – as evidenced on this site and many others (religion or sect considered to be false). We see that the IFB promotes the idea of fundamentalism (extremist) in many ways such as women wearing skirts, not going to movies or dances, etc (unorthodox) (these are simply to provide examples and are not by any means all inclusive). However, in the TRUEST sense of the word the IFB doesn’t ESACTLY fit the definition of a cult and if definition 6 above were the ONLY definition we had then I think I would have a harder time convincing people that the IFB is cultish or cult like.
However, understanding that the IFB does indeed fit SOME of what definition 6 refers to and understanding that definition 6 is NOT THE ONLY DEFINITION that’s given for a cult we must logically conclude that not all cults can be boiled down to just ones that fit definition 6. We still have seven other definitions, four of which mention the terms “religion” and/or “sect”. This is too significant to ignore.
Now, again, I play word games here, but for good reason (there are times when arguments of semantics are relevant). Since we can’t, in good conscience, call the IFB a cult, according to definition 6 – again which is what most people think of when the term cult is mentioned and according to what we as a society have come to understand a cult to be – and the IFB does display some cult like or cultish characteristics, then we need to consider the other definitions of a cult and come to a logical conclusion about this matter.
So let’s just take each definition and see if the IFB fits the description. First, definition 1: 1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. The IFB has distinct rites and ceremonies that set it apart from all other denominations. This is interesting because the IFB WANTS to be considered “set apart” yet they refuse to acknowledge the consequence of this line of thinking, which is the perception of cult like atmosphere. The IFB as a whole, has distinct features, traditions and beliefs that set it apart from other denominations (I know some of the IFBers reading this will object to the IFB being called a denomination, but that isn’t the focus of this article so please read the article on Independent Deception for more information about that topic). The simple fact that IFBers considers themselves as “Independent” and “Fundamental” (separated from all else in Christianity) lends credence to this definition.
Second, definition 2: 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers. Many will read this definition and conveniently ignore the “OR” in it. The veneration doesn’t necessarily have to be a person, although one could easily argue the IFB’s veneration of the local church’s pastor. The main reverence and focus of the IFB is their unique way of doing church which, according to them, is the right way and everyone else is wrong. The IFB way of doing church has become the idol around which life revolves. The IFB will deny this of course, but those of us who have come out of the IFB can understand why. The IFB has become so good at defending their way of doing church that people can no longer see past the deception. IFBers have come to venerate the ideals of the IFB which has lead to those outside of the IFB seeing them as a cult.
Finally, definition 4: 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. Again we see here that the IFB is a group or sect that has very strong bonds to a particular way of doing church. The IFB fits the definition of a cult by its regard for and reverence towards particular traditions, beliefs and teachings that are currently considered by most in Christianity to be unorthodox and extreme.
So it is with this in mind that we see the IFB could certainly fit the description of a cult, however, I have chosen to use the term “cultish” or “cult like” in order to show some respect to the system and the individuals that make up the IFB. When I use the terms “cultish” or “cult like” I’m referring to the characteristics of the IFB that make is closely resemble a cult.
Update:
After writing this article and getting a few comments and some rather nasty emails, I realized that a little more clarification would be needed to help avert misunderstandings. As I’ve said multiple times throughout this site, I’m not trying to paint all Independent Fundamental Baptists with the same brush nor am I making sweeping generalizations (by the way, comments that accuse me of sweeping generalizations will not be responded to by this author since I’ve clearly answered this accusation here and elsewhere on the site. Please read thoroughly before you make such an accusatory comment). It is up to the reader to determine if their church has such characteristics. I simply urge you to read with an open mind and consider the possibility.
Now, having said that, it’s important that you know that I realize that the term cult is somewhat ambiguous, but cults are often defined by how much CONTROL the group and/or group leader tries to have over it’s members.
According to the International Cultic Studies Association and cult expert Steve Hassan, areas of the cult member’s life such as thoughts, behaviors, emotions and information are controlled so that the member is kept in strict conformity. Based on this, I’ve devised a little summary of how the IFB acts in such ways to control the congregation.
Please consider the following aspects of a cult as I try to help you understand their fit among the IFB.
Control over Emotions:
In a cult, a normal range of emotions is discouraged and often not allowed. In my IFB experience, if you aren’t happy then there is something wrong in your relationship with God. If you are depressed, for example, then there is sin in your life.
Use of guilt tactics is another example of the IFB’s control over emotions. This is often seen by excessive use of what I call “sin language” (not SIGN language, but SIN language). According to the IFB, you are sinning if you don’t do church the way the IFB has determined that a Christian should. This is especially true when it comes to paying tithes. For example, “If you aren’t tithing then you are robbing God. How can a good Christian rob God?!?!?!” How many times have you heard that one? I heard it almost every week and sometimes three or four times a week when the pastor did a sermon series on tithing.
Another popular tactic of the IFB in this category is pressuring its members to perform soul winning activities. A high focus on bringing in new members is a classis cult emphasis and was very prevalent in the IFB.
Control over Thought:
Rigid, inflexible and all or nothing thinking (more commonly known as black and white thinking) where issues are either right or wrong and no room is given for a middle ground or grey areas is a sure sign of a cult. This is very strong among the IFB.
The IFB effectively discourages critical thinking, negative thoughts and thinking that originates independent of the group. The IFB encourages the use of ONLY positive thinking and speaking. Hassan shares that this is often done by infusing “thought-terminating clichés”…which “constrict rather than expand understanding”…and “function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous ‘buzz words’”.*
“Pray about it” is an example that sticks in my mind. When I would have a dilemma or life issue the advice was simply “pray about it”. This might not be the best example, but if simply praying about it was helpful I wouldn’t have been having trouble in the first place since I’d been praying about it for years.
We all know the typical Christian clichés that are used among the Christian community, but the IFB takes this to a cultish level, by restricting other forms of thought and communication.
Control over Information:
In a cult, attending another church or group is often discouraged. The message that only the IFB has the truth and if you attend another type of church you can’t get saved or you are further from God then if you attended an IFB is evidence of this characteristic.
The KJV only issue is a perfect example of this among the IFB. If one doesn’t understand the KJV then they are to rely on the Pastor or a “more mature” Christian in the IFB to interpret it for them.
Individual interpretation of scripture is discouraged. Questioning or disagreeing with what the IFB teaches is discouraged. One should accept what the pastor or Sunday school teacher says with unwavering, unquestioning acceptance is the prevailing message among the IFB.
In the IFB, pastors are trained by IFB educators and seminaries. Information is tightly controlled among the leader instruction. The church I grew up in had a “Baptist Bible Institute” which trained all the pastors and Sunday school teachers. One couldn’t serve unless he/she went through that unique training program. This is plain and simple mind control.
Another evident issue in this category is limited access to alternate information. Member access to non-IFB literature is discouraged and/or prevented.
The three mentioned above are often more subtle. The more obvious one is Control over Behaviors:
Control over what to do, where to go and who to associate with is common among cults and we see this among the IFB in the obvious “standards” that the IFB has set regarding dress, hair style, music, movies, food/beverage consumption and associated friends (among many others).
An example from my experience is vacation time. We were taught to never miss church even for vacation. I always remember my parents scheduling family vacations to end on Saturday so that we could be in church on Sunday. What confused me, though, was that the pastor always took a vacation that lasted through Sunday.
Being pressured to make sacrifices is another form of controlling behaviors. We see this among the IFB as well in the form of monetary and time commitments.
Well, I hope this information has been helpful. For more information on cults visit: www.icsahome.com and www.freedomofmind.com/bite/
* Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves
Loading ...
Lol the site has a hard time with Koine Greek so for the Greek sentence go to http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B50C002.htm#V14 and the second word in that sentence is the word “Do”
JD – Which of the following verses, from different translations, seems to make more sense to you……………Philippians 4:6
“Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication let your requests be made known unto God.”
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.”
Do you think God wants us to “be careful for nothing” or do you think He wants us “not to be anxious?”
@John Doe
You are being condescending and its offensive to me (the very definition of patronizing) so yes, you are patronizing me.
You’re teaching me something eh? What qualifies you to teach me or even evaluate that I need teaching?
Parsing scripture is only ONE part of textual criticism and exegesis. You also have to consider the cultural, situational and textual context. Word for word interpretation is rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture. The Greek word for do is “tithénai” and it means “to set, put”. That doesn’t fit with the context of the passage. The word “do” in Phil 2:14 is probably from the German “tun“, akin to the Latin “facere” which means “to make” (Latin Vulgate “omnia autem facite sine murmurationibus et haesitationibus” – this is on the page you referenced, by the way – how convenient that you would miss it). This fits better with the context.
In other words, Phil 2:14 could be translated “make this happen”. Paul was saying, “make this happen” or “this need to happen” or “be aware of this”, but he wasn’t saying you must do this. There is a difference. In other words Paul was highly recommending this course of action. He wasn’t telling us that God is commanding us to do this. This is evidence by the context of the entire passage. Paul is teaching his audience about how to have a Christ like attitude. He isn’t giving a set of commands to follow.
The Weymouth New Testament is a more accurate translation: “Be ever on your guard against a grudging and contentious spirit” (this is also on the page you referenced – there seems to be a theme happening here – Hmmmm). “Be on your guard” is a warning or a recommendation and is vastly different from the command “do this”.
Imperatives aren’t exclusively used as nouns to give a command. They can also be used as adjectives for requests, recommendations and to accentuate something urgent and/or important. So just because you see an imperative doesn’t automatically mean it’s a command. Given the context, we can easily deduce that Paul wasn’t using this as a noun (as you say), but as an adjective.
Your argument sounds distinctly IFBish to me. So what was that you said about a copy and paste belief system? It really sounds like you are simply copying and pasting the IFB methods of scriptural interpretation.
@Charles
lol haha i think you should look at that greek word you have…..You got the wrong one. The greek word for do may be whatever you said, but here the Greek word located in this specific passage is Poieo (you can check the page I referenced) and it means: a do, b perform, c cause to be, d work, e make, f behave toward, g assign to a task, h make profit: . Also Please explain how a Word for word interpretation is rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture. Is it really rarely sufficent. Do you look more into the culture and situation more and rarely at the words of God? Shouldnt they all be equal in order to get the meaning of the passage?
Also Why do you go to the Latin? Thats just weird haha =)….I mean ive never heard of anybody even athiests ever going to the Latin to prove the Bible. Maybe a Catholic would….Are you Catholic?(I honestly dont know)
Also Do you believe its Pauls words or Gods Words?
One last thing what makes Weymouth NT a more accurate translation? lol
@greg
what do you mean make more sense?
@John Doe
How old are you 10? What’s with the “lols” and “hahas”???
Also, I’m still waiting for you to answer my other questions…
Actually they both mean essentially the same thing “to make”.
Poieo has no less than 20 possible translations depending on the context…:
…which is why it’s important to consider the context so you know which meaning to attribute to the verse. Paul isn’t giving a set of commands. He is encouraging his audience to have a Christ like attitude. You have to consider the context of the passage in order to determine the correct meaning of a particular word.
So the debate isn’t really which word to was used – poieo or tithénai – but what the meaning is. Even if the words “to do” is correct, it still doesn’t necessarily mean a command. See the above explanation of imperatives.
We tell people all the time to do things. That doesn’t mean we are commanding them to do it. For example, I just told my son the other day that he wants to get a scholarship to college then he needs to do good in school. It’s a recommendation not a command. I didn’t command him to do good in school I said ‘that if you are to get this, then do that’. This is the flavor of the passage and what Paul is communicating.
Likewise, Paul is communicating… If you want to have a Christ like attitude then this is what you should do…
I think I already explained that. I’m starting to see why you are having problems understanding this.
Textual criticism looks at all aspects of interpretation equally. Word for word translations don’t work for all situations so it’s rarely sufficient to capture the meaning of scripture – I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that. Maybe an example? If I asked you to translate the phrase “break a leg” into another cultural language, you could certainly translate it word for word, but it would have no meaning (or a very different meaning) in a culture that never heard that idiom before. You’d have to translate the meaning of that phrase such as: “good luck” or “I hope you do well in your endeavor”. This is called dynamic equivalent translation and is often better than literal translation. The Biblical manuscripts are full of language style that is distinct to cultures of the Biblical era so it’s important to consider the context.
No I don’t “look more into the culture and situation more and rarely at the words of God”.
Yes, they should be equal. I never said they shouldn’t be. You are the one using exclusive word for word translation not me.
I’m not trying “to prove the Bible”. I’m using proper biblical exegesis to object to your assertion that Philippians 2:14 is a command. This involves considering the context and looking at all the possibilities not just the literal interpretation of the Greek manuscripts.
I’ve already told you why I consider the Latin Vulgate. It offers a better translation of what the essence of the verse is communicating. It’s a better fit considering the context. Try to follow the discussion please.
Both
Because of the context of the passage. I’ve already explained that multiple times. Paul isn’t giving a set of commands. He is encouraging his audience to have a Christ like attitude. The Weymouth translations is more accurate because it better captures the message of the passage. Why do I feel like I keep repeating myself…
Are you going to answer my questions now?
@Charles
im pretty sure lols and haha are fine for any age. Lol
Ok….If i give you a command to Do this you have a choice. You can either do it or not. God commands us to neither to complain nor to murmur, but its up to you. You can choose to listen to his command or not. Chose to obey him or not. I dont think Paul is saying come on you guys dont murmur and complain…..its not good. I think he was a little more stern and bolder than that.
Concerning the Latin………weird 8/
Concerning the translation part. You gave a completely different word to explain the word do. So I gotta question your interpretation of the Bible. Its as simple as looking into the texus receptus and getting the correct word and interpreting it. lol
Concerning the Weymouth NT………..weird 8/
Please explain your question entirely so i can answer it the best?
I probably shouldn’t butt in, but which Textus Receptus should he look into?
@John Doe
lols and hahas may be fine for any age but they are quite annoying when you’re trying to have a mature, adult, philosophical discussion about biblical interpretation. It makes it sound like you aren’t really taking it seriously.
Yes, I agree. The issues is about a choice. You can choose to believe the proof I’ve provided that Phil 2:14 isn’t a command, or you can choose to continue to believe your delusion and IFB brainwashing. It’s up to you. I don’t really care what you believe… I’ll stick with the truth.
No one looks into the textus receptus anymore (except deluded IFBers). We have older, more accurate manuscripts now. If you are looking into the textus receptus for your interpretation then it’s no wonder that you are misinterpreting the Bible. You should start living in the current century rather than the 17th.
I asked you multiple questions. I’ve already asked them “entirely”. I don’t know how to ask them more “entirely” then I’ve already asked. They aren’t difficult questions.
Greg, you’re not butting in. Glad to have your interjections.
@Charles
If you questions are that important i think you should retype them. If not then i guess they are unimportant.
and Lol im glad were having a “serious” conversation. It really isnt a serious converstaion because the fact is you think im dumb for being an IFB and you think your not dumb because your not an IFB. If you really broke down our conversation that really what it is. It seems that every point you make……your right. No matter what I say you are always going to end up the right one. haha I guess truth is relative right? Sounds like what your saying.
Anyways lol in one paragraph you said we look back at the”older” more “accurate” <—– (Funny) manuscripts and then you go on saying I should start living in the current century. So should I look back to those old and "accurate" manuscripts or should i start living in the current century?
By the way please can you prove why the "older" and I would assume "more accurate" manuscripts are better? Is there facts behind an older manuscript is a better and more accurate manuscript or is this just your opinion. And i will let you copy and paste if you think that will help you out.
And once again to remind you……If you want your question or questions answered……type it out. Its that simple…….and if you dont then its not worth both our time i guess.
@John Doe
No, I’m not going to let you shift blame onto me for your refusal to answer my questions. You are being manipulative. My questions are just as important as yours. The only difference is that I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions while you rudely ignore mine. I’m not re-typing them just because you are too lazy to scroll back up and find them. If you want to answer them then go back up, find them and answer them. If not then continue to be rude and ignore my questions, I don’t really give a shit at this point.
PS – you never answered Greg’s questions either… should he repost his questions so you can continue to ignore him too??? I guess only your questions are important eh???
If it isn’t a serious conversation then I’m not going to continue. Sorry, but I can’t take the manipulation and ad hominems adn rabbit trails anymore.
If you think that I think you’re dumb then that’s your problem not mine because I haven’t communicated that. You’re making yourself look dumb by the way you are handling this conversation. Maybe if you actually provided something of substance we could sink our teeth into it and have a good discussion, but all you do is ignore my questions and expect me to cater to yours all the time. A discussion works best when both parties are willing to explore and digest the issues together.
I’ll be glad to admit I’m wrong, but only when you prove that I’m wrong. If you’d spend half as much time on the actual discussion as you did on attacking me personally then we might be able to have half way decent conversation.
Both… those who do textual criticism currently (in this century) have much more reliable information and manuscripts then people who’ve lived in say the 17th century. Join us in the current century so that you can look at the older and more reliable/accurate manuscripts that have been discovered recently rather than remain in the 17th century where all they had was the TR.
It’s really not that difficult to figure out.
Uh, more accurate manuscripts are better because they are, hmmm, how should I say it… more accurate. Duh. What part of “more accurate” is confusing to you? See, you make yourself look dumb. I don’t even have to do it.
And, once again, I remind YOU… I’ve already typed out my questions. I’m not typing them again just because you’re too lazy to go back up and read them. You should have answered them when I first asked instead of ignore them (just like you are ignoring Greg’s questions).
So I guess it’s only worth our time if I answer your questions right??? and not worth our time if you answer mine (and Greg’s)???
So here I am again answering all your questions while you continue to ignore mine and attack me. I’m not answering anymore of your questions until you answer mine. This is beyond annoying now.
OKKKKKKK, surfing and came across this sight and discussion. I spent most of my early life in Fundamental churches whether they called themselves Baptist or not. Here is the deal, BTW I left them. There IS a number of Organized FELLOWSHIPS but they still act as a denomination. They require dues to keep credentials by ministers (Some) or at least churches to finacially give to be a member. Have offices, literature meetings etc etc. DOESN’T THAT SOUND LIKE A DENOMINATION ?? Eventhouth they claim they are not. All believe essentially the saame thing. ONE THING I FOUND ABOUT FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCHES…..THEY LOVE TO THROW STONES AND ARGUE AND FIGHT.. Do you know why we have so many of them ??? Once they get tired of fighting others they fight then among themsleves then split into more organized local fellowships !!!!!!
Who are they ??? First there are numerous local fellowships not with a National Body.
but here is the National Bodies of Fundamentalist Churches. Some do NOT use Baptist name but have churches that do.
1). Baptist Bible Fellowship, Springfiled Missouri
2). Independent Fundamental Churches Of America, Illinois
3). IBF (Of Course)
4). International Baptist Fellowship
5). National Associataion of Free Will Baptist’s
6). General Association of Baptist Churches, Schaumburge, Ill.
7). General Baptist Association
8). Coonservative Baptist Association, New England Area
9). Missionary baptist Association, Arkansas
10). American Baptist Association, Alabama (I believe). Notr the ABC of America
11). Independent Baptist Churches of America
I’ll stop here !!!!
why would anyone call themselves rev? That name belongs to God alone!
@billy osment
Seriously??? All of the abuse, exploitation, manipulation and misinterpretation of scripture exposed here on this site and you’re worried about someone using the title Rev.??? You’ve got to be kidding me!!! Talk about majoring on the minors.
So tell us please. Where is that found in the Bible, that the term Rev. belongs to God alone??
He’s probably referring to Psalms 111:9 The KJV reads “He sent redemption: He has commanded His covenant forever: Holy and Reverend is His name.” The NIV says “Holy and Awesome.”
I hope once again I didn’t butt in, but from my years of “brainwashing” in the IFB, I knew immediately what our friend was getting at, having heard my very own IFB MOG (man of God) pontificate on that very point.
I don’t know your background, but I use to be right where Billy is, the good news is that if he keeps hanging around here, he could actually learn something. Man God’s grace is sooooo good. I’m so glad that whom Jesus set free is free indeed, I am no longer a slave to simple men who try to keep me in their little legalism boxes.
@Charles
Lol ok your questions are not important. Lol your funny. “Im not going to type it again” haha…..Then its not important also known as a stupid question right……or was it really important?
@Charles
This is a stupid conversation……VERY unimportant.
@greg
What is legalism?
@Charles
I love how you made fun of me and called me dumb by saying,”Uh, more accurate manuscripts are better because they are, hmmm, how should I say it… more accurate. Duh. What part of “more accurate” is confusing to you? See, you make yourself look dumb. I don’t even have to do it.” lol super funny because in your attempt to make me look dumb you actually make yourself look foolish. I asked “By the way please can you prove why the “older” and I would assume “more accurate” manuscripts are better? ” Did you notice that part that says O-L-D-E-R? Do you see it? I think you might. Make sure you read this three times before you reply. I shouldnt mention the word accurate because that seems to be the only word you look at so ill put it this way. By the way please can you prove why the “O-L-D-E-R” and I would assume “more ——–” manuscripts are better?
Do you like how i made you feel stupid…….huh? I dont appreciate that either. So like you said lets keep this an adult conversation. =)
By the way, ill keep asking my question until you ask your question. In a real conversation, if you told me your question and we talked a little bit and then i say hey what was your question again…..you wouldnt say “Nope not telling you I already said it.” The average person would simply say it again. I mean all you gotta do is copy and paste if its super long….right? lol You did that with what you believe remember?
Also why are you so mean? (And knowing you, you will probably throw this back at me probably about the comment about your important questions and say Im mean, but remember I am the big bad IFB guy. Im suppose to be like that. Why is the anti IFB (or whatever you are) guy bad too?) Shouldn’t you be a nice guy? Didnt Christ say love thy neighbor? Would you treat a sinner like this?
@John Doe
You’re not worth wasting anymore time on. Have a nice life. Enjoy the chains of legalism and brainwashing.
Legalism – It is a term that Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth. Legalists beleive in and demand a strict literal adherence to rules and regulations. Doctrinally, it is a position essentially opposed to grace. Those who hold a legalistic position often fail to see the real purpose for law, especially the purpose of the Old Testament law of Moses, which is to be our “schoolmaster” or “tutor” to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24)
Even true believers can be legalistic. We are instructed, rather, to be gracious to one another. “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Romans 14:1) Sadly, there are those who feel so strongly about non-essential doctrines that they will run others out of their fellowship, not even allowing the expression of another viewpoint. That, too, is legalism. Many legalistic believers today make the error of demanding unqualified adherhence to their own biblical interpretations and even to their own traditions. For example, there are those who feel that to be spiritual one must simply avoid tobacco, alcolohic beverages, dancing, movies, etc. The truth is that avoiding these things is no guarantee of spirituality. 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.
The apostle Paul warns us of legalism in Colossians 2-20-23 “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false sense of humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God’s purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward relationship.
To avoid falling into the trap of legalism, we can start by holding to the words of the apostle John “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17) and please let us remember to be gracious, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ. “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:5) “You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? for we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Romans 14:10)
John Doe,
I’m not sure whether or not your enjoying the chains of brainwashing but I’m confident your blood washed (Revelation 1:5)
blessings,
Child of God
@John 10:10
………..?……..weird 8/
@greg
maybe a paragraph would suffice. You also could have just said Acts 15:1
Comment deleted by moderator for quality management reasons.
@John Doe
So not only do you refuse to engage in discussion by refusing to answer questions, but you also have decided to ask us questions and then when we answer your questions you tell us how we should have answered your questions. Now that’s a LOL!!!
@John Doe
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.
@greg
Well first, I certainly have been enjoying observing from the outside some of the exchanges. It is interesting to watch all the opposing views. Please forgive my interjection without request.
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.
Hi Richard – You aren’t interrupting at all, glad to hear from you.
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
Greg,
I actually figured you were trying to say something like what you finally said in this recent post.
I agree that there are times that the oddness of the older English can be confusing and would not take issue with a new REVISION to the KJV. The problem is that revising the old does not grant a person a right to royalties & certainly the love of money is an issue. You and I both realize that the “th” endings are not necessary, even though they aren’t confusing after you get used to them.
What does confuse me is the use of the word “offal” in place of “dung.” Until reading one of the so-called newer & easier translations, I had never heard this word. “Dung” is not so common as some words used to describe waste, but I have heard it a whole lot more than “offal.” Also, a two syllable word is harder to read than a single. I might have known the word if my degree was in waste management.
@Richard
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.
OK, well not knowing if we’d hear back from Richard again I decided to do my own research. I found the term “offal” in the NIV. It looks like the term is mentioned 6 times in the OT and none in the NT.
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.
I don’t have any real problems with the KJV. What I do detest, however, is judging other Christians based on the fact they do not use the KJV. This type of thing is most unscriptural.
There are actually places in the world where people are not allowed to own Bibles. People are actually risking their lives to get a copy of the Bible. If these people are caught with a copy of the Scriptures, they risk imprisonment, separated families, and even death. Would you judge them for not using the right translation?
The KJ-onlys strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Instead of fighting and arguing about a particular word or manuscript, they should be demonstrating by their love and good works the difference the KJV has made in their lives. Actually, their example is hurting their own cause.
They end up separating from everyone who doesn’t share their particular viewpoint on an issue that is not settled by Scripture, and in the process violate God’s clear command to preserve the unity of the faith. My guess is that as time goes on, the KJ-only community will get louder and more divisive and thankfully, smaller.
@Katie
Dear Katie,
Three things I have learned from you in the last few days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
@bob
Bob,
I know the crowd you speak of. I never had much time for them. I just happen to be a man who trusts the KJV.
If you notice, the anti-KJV only crowd nomally spend their time trying to degrade the Bible when they should be saying just what you said.
I learned a long time ago, my job is not to defend the Word but to Preach the Word. Some have a problem because I preach & teach from the KJV only. (I use none other). I do not try to correct it, or improve upon it. I preach it with the authority that it has as the Word of God.
The only time I discuss the issue of other English translations is when asked, or when the issue has been brought to my attention because someone says “that is not the best translation.” I, myself, am not as intelligent as the scholars who translated the Bible. I have not spent my life studying greek & Hebrew. (I studied English).
The problem with most of the debaters on the KJV issue (both sides) is that they argue based upon facts that they are not sure of. They read it, it fits my argument and so that settles it.
For example I will give scenario used by some idiots on the KJV side. (There are examples from both sides). In a discussion on the KJV, a man said that the KJV was even better than the originals. His basis was that translations are better than the orignal. Don’t quit me yet. Enoch was translated and he was better after translation. So you see the KJV is better because it is a translation from the perfect inerrant verbally inspired originals.
See, no argument if you think like this man. I asked him where he learned this brilliant observation. He told me, and I laughed because he had learned it from one of the KJV men who did not believe in some clear teachings for the New Testament churches.
I, personally, plan on staying with the same partner I came to the dance with. Some of the most arrogant people I know use the KJV (most cults, crackpots & even IFBers), but most of the great revivals of the past century were inspired by this same book. Most of our modernistic churches don’t use the KJV and we cannot argue the spiritual shape of America and other English speaking countries. Is the answer that we are too intelligent to believe the Bible, so we must update it and argue about it? I do not know, but I do know this, “to obey is better than sacrifice.” & we ought to be doers of the Word, not hearers only.
No offense folks but the following is for Richard, sorry for talking over your head but this is for KJV’s only:
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?
while lapwing he(L)ve the hindmost
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!!
@Richard
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.
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???
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.
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.
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 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”.
@Katie
Dear Katie,
You ere not knowing why I left our last correspondences, but this does not surprise me.
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.
In case someone wants to take my statement , “One last thought before I go,” and run with it saying I still had two more paragraphs after saying I was on my last thought. I apologize for this. Somehow the paragraph got out of order.
@Richard
I don’t really care why you left our last discussion.
It says “all scripture…” NOT “all translations of Scripture…” You are taking liberties with biblical exegesis to fit your argument.
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.
I saw it as a typo.
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
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?
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.
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.
@Katie
Katie, my friend, I would like to know when I defended the KJV only position. I do not know what the KJV only issue is. I have stated this over & over, but you seem to not understand.
All I have said is that the KJV is the word of God.
“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.”
Almost every comment of yours is a defense of the KJV only position by your assertions that the KJV is the best and most accurate translation.
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.”
@Katie
My dear friend Katie,
I say confidently and correctly, no rudeness nor sarcasm interjected, but based upon your implication of your statements concerning words being used incorrectly. You think you are smarter than the KJV translators, or at least you believe those who you read after to be. I am not.
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.
Hi Richard – I think I’m beginning to see where you are coming from. But I do have some questions/concerns, about your position. Let me add, you and I would probably agree on most issues, we would agree way more than we would disagree.
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.”
@greg
Greg,
As to the IFB exalting men, I believe it started with some of those 1st century Baptists saying I am of Paul while others said I am of Apollos. You know the super spiritual bragged because they were beyond such pettiness. (They were just a bunch of proud Baptists, who followed men, and were rebuked.) Most everybody has someone they have exalted too highly at some time in thier life.
As to the KJV translators, I have never said anything good or bad concerning them. I try to be careful about discussing particular men, especially when all I know of them is second or third hand gossip. I have heard that all men are liars, which would include the translators of other Bibles also.
As to Katie being smarter than the KJV translators, I do not know. She is probably, based upon that assumption, smarter than the translators of the other Bibles also. She is probably just another vile, wicked sinner who yielded to the Holy Ghost and trusted Christ. Is cookie a good term to call a lady?
As to your ability to understand the Bible, I believe you can understand as well as my children, and the people to whom I have ministered, and do minister. Over 12 years I spent in prisons a minimum of three days a week, dealing with some very under educated men. Very seldom was there one who could not grasp the KJV. (More often than not they were told that they could not understand it, an admission to the failure in our school system, and an unwillingness to give a few minutes to teach basic English. I read shakespearean type English in 7th or 8th grade as we learned English Literature, and again when I took English Literature courses in the following years.) My children learned to read from the KJV gospel of John. They were reading at four years old using phonetics (sounding out all of those single-syllable words). It took patience to teach them to read just like it take longsuffering (great patience) to teach the Bible.
Let me explain this in one clear, concise statement. You could understand the KJV if you wanted to.
For one last thought: “Older” is not synonymous with “better,” & “Majority” does not mean “correct.” In one of my lessons, called “Richard’s Rules for Bible Study”, I teach a rule “Words mean what words mean.” I try to apply that rule to life.
Greg,
As I read over my last post, I noticed that I forgot to thank you for realizing that I am just a person like you. I just happen to use, and believe the KJV.
Other than the KJV only issue and over exaltation of certain men, what else is so different between the IFB and say other Baptist groups? I’ve preached in many SBC, MBA, ABA, and GARB, as well as Independent churches in the past 16 years. I do not see much difference.
Richard – I was hoping that we could carry on a decent conversation, I enjoy debating, however I do not like being called a liar, as you have done in this latest post. “You could understand the KJV if you wanted to.”
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!
Richard – continuing. So you object to my referring to Katie as a “sharp cookie” well from where I come from, that would be considered a compliment. (Katie, I apologize if you were offended, I did mean it a compliment.)
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:
Richard – continuing. You said “older is not synonymous with better.” I looked back at my comment, because I didn’t think I had said that, and in fact I did not. It was becoming obvious that you didn’t seem to know much about translation issues, (you seem to admit as much) and I thought I might try to educate you alittle.
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:
Richard – continuing. You said “Majority does not mean correct” I never said anything at all about the “Majority Text.”
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.”
In my post #50 above, I didn’t finish my thought about the Holy Spirit, which was “does the Holy Spirit magically reveal these things to them. (making words that no longer mean what they use to mean clear to those who read the KJV.)
@greg
Greg,
Five things.
1. I was boasting on your ability, not attempting to call you a liar. I truly believe anyone with a sound mind,willing heart, and possibly a dictionary can understand any commonly used English translation.
2. Most 1st Century Christians were Baptistic by definition.
3. I did not say “cookie” was a bad word. I asked a question.
4. The Holy Spirit miraculously reveals all spiritual truth.
5. I have already in my posts stated that I have no problem with an up to date revision. I use an updated revision from the 1611, but there is a possibility that someone (smarter than me) could make a new update. (Revisions do not grant royalties. Maybe that’s why they continously come up with new versions instead of revisions to the old.)
@greg
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.