Trouble in the Church

The Bible says, to leaders >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

To me, this means a leader needs to lead by example, not trying to control and lord himself over the people. But . . . also . . . this is our example, of how all of us need to do things by good example . . . not trying to use anyone, not having an attitude that someone has to listen to us and do what we say. Ones can use "democracy" as their method of dictating. Democracy can have us feeling "entitled" to getting what we want > so, this can be a way of lording it over, too.

But I see how the early church handled business > before the Holy Spirit came, they all prayed together until they were ready . . . and God knew they were ready; Peter handled the business of choosing a replacement for Judas > Acts 1:12 - 2:4. Later, when they had the issue of if people must follow the law of Moses, they met and were all in agreement . . . not only a majority vote . . . when they finally wrote the letter. And God used Peter His approved leader to make real progress . . . after unapproved ones argued for maybe quite a while (Acts 15:1-29).

So, if I join a church, first I need to pray about who God trusts to be my pastor and others who help me. If He does not have me trust someone, why am I with that person?

So . . . it looks like may be you and others do not really trust your pastor. Why, ever, then, have you been there for as long as you have been there??

Hebrews 13:17 says >

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

So, are you capable of being submissive to a leader whom God trusts to watch out for your souls?

My experience is that when I have had a problem with my leadership, I first needed to pray and get with God in His peace, then discover how He has me seeing things. And, "usually", I have discovered how I needed to be more positive and able to perceive and appreciate how my leaders are and do things > I was the one who needed to learn something. And this "works" very well with my lady friend, t She can be very compassionate and sensitive, while I may be too administrative and practical, just judging her by how she does things, instead of feeding on her compassion.

By the way . . . "perhaps" you did really experience the presence of the LORD before the Bible change. But the Bible change "might" not be why the presence of the LORD seemed to you to stop. He could have stopped because of the attitude and reactions of the people who were getting in a huff about the change of Bibles . . . instead of giving their attention to where they belong. Huffing about not having "democracy" can be a disguised way of worshiping my own ego's attitude of "entitlement".

So, may be you need to really get to know your pastor and his example. Possibly you need to be there, but in a different way of evaluating and seeing things. Just because you do not trust him, this does not necessarily mean you should not be there. So, trust God to make you clear and honest and humble, and not only reacting.

In Jesus, we need to do things as family, not only by majority, I offer from the example of how the Holy Spirit did things with the church as recorded in the book of Acts. Possibly, the pastor knows he does not have unity in your church; and so he did not aggravate this problem by having a vote on this. It seems possible to me, that ones in your church were ready-to-go to criticize, instead of pray first. So, if they are so, they are not ready to vote prayerfully and with family communication before making a decision.

It doesn't not seem you have been relating as family in Jesus with your pastor; so please feed on how the Bible says for us to share and relate as God's family > a few scriptures for this include >

Ephesians 5:21, Ephesians 4:31 - 5:2, James 1:19-20, and James 5:16.

If you all are obeying how our Father rules us with His own peace in our hearts (Colossians 3:15), He will rule you in unity. So, I think some people need to repent and start fresh about this, and then evaluate. Having a parallel Bible sounds even better; so why get stuck with two choices which are not as good as you could do? ? ? God is able to bring you to better than what either "side" might decide.

So, God bless you Bill

Since this is a baptist church you might want to ask the mods to take this thread to the baptist forum to see what other baptists have to say. Just a suggestion.

Albion said:

Wait a minute. Where does anyone get the idea that "they did pretty much take a KJV only stance?" That's not been said.

And, BTW, my own Anglican church and parish use the KJV exclusively because we prefer it, but we are certainly not adherents of the "KJV Only" POV concerning the Scriptures.

We translated it; it's the most familiar and famous and widely-used of all translations; it's the most beautiful and inspirational of all translations; our prayerbook is based upon its wording; and we like it.

That sounds very much like what we were told in the OP about this other congregation and about the poster's feelings concerning the various translations that are available for use.

Click to expand...

Most beautiful and inspirational? That's just your opinion.
The OP did say the ESV was not a proper translation. Something about soaking in water and rolling it around in sugar. Other statements such as the majority is not always right when talking about arguments people make. It all indicates they do not accept it as a translation. People rely too much on feelings. God meets people where they are at. If one thinks God is not present anymore that is their responsibility. A change in use of bible translation has nothing to do with that. It is the OP being upset about not being asked and thinking of changing church over such a petty matter that would likely have them feeling that way.

TheDag said:

Most beautiful and inspirational? That's just your opinion.

Click to expand...

...and the opinion of millions of other people throughout history. The KVJ has been called the most beautiful book in the world. By comparison, what I said on its behalf was quite restrained.

The OP did say the ESV was not a proper translation. Something about soaking in water and rolling it around in sugar.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't mean he is a 'KJV Only' guy. That's the point you are resisting for some unknown reason. BTW, there are plenty of other people who don't care for the ESV and yet don't choose the KJV for their personal favorite.

DukeJohn said:

Well, KJV Luke 9:55-56 "
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

ESV Luke 9:55-56
But he turned and rebuked them.
And they went on to another village.

KJV Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

ESV Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone."

The ESV does not say why he rebuked them, or what man should live by.
also the ESV removed 33 thousand words, in just the new testament.
That equals removing the complete books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Jude, combined. Personally, as a pastor, I would want to preach AS MUCH of the Word of God as possible.

Click to expand...

Wow, I know a pastor who uses the ESV and I doubt that he is aware of this difference. Do you know which MSS the translators used?

Eek.
If its the ESV did you point this out to him. It sounds even worse than the NIV which has heaps of scripture missing. The thing about ESV is it has that 'gender inclusive' language.
I know CEV and GNB have whole sections missing from revelation. Which is not a book that is allowed to have things added or taken away.
The only thing that bothers me about KJV is scofield bible interpetations. But thats added commentary, not the KJV itself.

The thing is theres no a lot you can do if this pastor has just chosen ESV out of personal preference. But I would say the issue is where is he getting his scripture education from? If you have a chat to him about your concerns and also take another person with you so its not just you but another member of the church then maybe he can see the light.

Im sorry. If its one thing then its always going to be another. For example, Message bible trying to be hip, others who are ignorant of the KJV saying its too oldfashioned and not even open to reading it. Pick your battles carefully.

This isn't a debate thread (yes I was guilty of getting into debate as well) and we should not be trying to tear down God's kingdom.

We should instead be trying to help the OP.

DukeJohn said:

Well, KJV Luke 9:55-56 "
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

ESV Luke 9:55-56
But he turned and rebuked them.
And they went on to another village.

Click to expand...

In the post you deleted, you earlier said you had heard all the arguments for using the ESV. Specifically for this verse, did you hear the reason the ESV left of the part you believe should be there is that the majority of the earliest manuscripts - something not as nearly available for the KJV translators - leave it out. (In fact, the notes included in an ESV mention this.)

The KJV is a great and beautifully written English translation. It is not the best translation if your primary desire is to have the Bible based on the majority and most accurate manuscripts available. It is also a difficult book for the unchurched person to read.

The group who translated the ESV - just like the group that translated the KJV in the early 1600s- did all within their power to write a Bible in the language of their day and be faithful to the original manuscripts. It's just that the ESV translators had more available manuscripts than the KJV translators.

Finally, regardless of who you argue with, if you are going to argue for a position, be fair to the other side. You do this by addressing their positions and not by cherry picking verses and making unwarranted inferences.

Again, is this something you are ready to hurt the Bride of Christ over?

Google textus receptus.
Just want to point out one thing.
Arguments for and against 'earliest manuscripts'
When the bible was copied sometimes there were errors and manuscripts were discarded because of these errors. It is only up to now that these discarded manuscripts were 'discovered' and of course, they had errors in them. They werent used because of them. But some foolish professed christian scholars used these discarded mansucripts to make a new version of the bible. Thinking they were authentic.

That is why 'newer' translations of the bible have loads of scriptures missing as they are based on the 'earlier' corrupted manuscripts.

I know. Confusing right?
Or common sense..read the Bible that has the fullest scripture. We only know stuff is missing because of translations like the KJV. Otherwise we would be using a bible like the ESV from the beginning. Or all those who translated the KJV were stupid fools who didnt know what they were doing and christians up to the time of the ESV were not real born again christians. And tyndale died and was persecuted for nothing.

It is a legitimate concern is all Im saying, but be careful. Some people have a vested interested in a certain translation, esp publishers and scholars. wishing to make a profit from it.

Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. Dont let this divide the body of christ, just let your approach edify people who are ignorant.

Goodbook said:

Google textus receptus.
Just want to point out one thing.
Arguments for and against 'earliest manuscripts'
When the bible was copied sometimes there were errors and manuscripts were discarded because of these errors. It is only up to now that these discarded manuscripts were 'discovered' and of course, they had errors in them. They werent used because of them. But some foolish professed christian scholars used these discarded mansucripts to make a new version of the bible. Thinking they were authentic.

That is why 'newer' translations of the bible have loads of scriptures missing as they are based on the 'earlier' corrupted manuscripts.

I know. Confusing right?
Or common sense..read the Bible that has the fullest scripture. We only know stuff is missing because of translations like the KJV. Otherwise we would be using a bible like the ESV from the beginning. Or all those who translated the KJV were stupid fools who didnt know what they were doing and christians up to the time of the ESV were not real born again christians. And tyndale died and was persecuted for nothing.

Click to expand...

With all due respect you can not prove that. It is an argument pointed out by people who have a interest in maintaining KJV as only legitimate translation. As you said be careful. Yes those arguments are out there. Essentially the argument is oldest isn't always best so therefore the older manuscripts may not be the best. However the fact remains that it is just as likely that it is better. There really is no way to know for sure. The argument relies on the assumption that the KJV was accurate and correct.