What is the difference between fundamentalist christians and Conservatives?

DeaconDean stated:

"And you still have not shown where th scriptures where God said He would preserve His word in the KJV bible."

It is obvious that God did not say, "I will preserve my word in the KJV Bible." What He did say is:

Psalm 12 (KJV- Translated from the TR)
6 The words of the LORD arepure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 12 (ASV- Translated from the WH by textual critics, published in 1901)
6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.

7 Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I am aware that you are a product of 'modern biblical scholarship' and will simply reject the above as 'bad translations'; that is what you have been 'taught' to do. The simple truth however is that God said He would preserve His "words". You might not like that, you may even reject it; but you are still left with the FACT that these verses have been in the Bible for HUNDREDS of years. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, feel good about it or not, there is evidence (that you ignore and/or call faulty) that supports the fact that God, has in fact preserved His "words", and His "Word", though out the generations since David.

This is the difference between Fundamentalism, and Conservatives; while those of us at the far right end of the spectrum believe the words of Psalm 12:6&7 to be literally true about the Bible we hold in our hands; while those at points farther to the left on the spectrum either hold beliefs taught by modern scholarship (people like you), or are actually ignorant (they simply don't know) of the actual teachings of modern scholarship.

Dr. Wesley l. Clark (a Pastor of mine years ago) was a graduate of the seminary at Louisville, Kentucky back in the 50's, and later received his D.D. in the 80's would often tell us that when he went through seminary they were trying to tell him that God did not preserve His word. It was his opinion that seminary has ruined the faith of more young men going into the ministry than it has helped. I hold the same opinion.

I have a very simple belief, the same belief of Dr. Clark, the same belief of "Dr's" too many to mention; the belief that God preserved His words, and Word, since He made that promise to David!



Jack

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Ironically, the 1878 Niagara Creed you quote, is itself a secondary source of authority...no?

Click to expand...

No.

To quote Dr. Jimmy Draper:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.​

Click to expand...

If one lokks, in the first S.o. F. for the SBC, in the preamble, there is a clause that states that one can disagree with the Confession, and still be a member of the SBC.

The SBC existed for 80 years--more than half its current life--without adopting any confession of faith. If you read the preamble to the (1925) Baptist Faith & Message, it basically says you can disagree with all this and it is OK. The preamble is the safety valve for Southern Baptists."

Click to expand...

"Baptists have debated creeds & confessions for centuries", By: Mark Wingfield, Managing Editor, The Baptist Standard

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/...es/creeds.html


Ernest Risinger said:

DANGERS OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS​

One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.

The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).

Click to expand...

God Bless

Till all are one.

Jack Koons said:

DeaconDean stated:

"And you still have not shown where th scriptures where God said He would preserve His word in the KJV bible."

It is obvious that God did not say, "I will preserve my word in the KJV Bible." What He did say is:

Psalm 12 (KJV- Translated from the TR)
6 The words of the LORD arepure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 12 (ASV- Translated from the WH by textual critics, published in 1901)
6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.

7 Thou wilt keep them, O Jehovah, Thou wilt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I am aware that you are a product of 'modern biblical scholarship' and will simply reject the above as 'bad translations'; that is what you have been 'taught' to do. The simple truth however is that God said He would preserve His "words". You might not like that, you may even reject it; but you are still left with the FACT that these verses have been in the Bible for HUNDREDS of years. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, feel good about it or not, there is evidence (that you ignore and/or call faulty) that supports the fact that God, has in fact preserved His "words", and His "Word", though out the generations since David.

Click to expand...

You said:

Furthermore, whether you like it or not, feel good about it or not, there is evidence (that you ignore and/or call faulty) that supports the fact that God, has in fact preserved His "words", and His "Word", though out the generations since David.

Click to expand...

That, I have neever denied. And you'll find no posts here where I said that.

What I have said and maintained is you have not shown any scripture that states God will preserve His word "perfectly" in the KJV (or any version for that matter).

You call me: "a product of 'modern biblical scholarship', and fault me for looking to the original language of the New Testament rather than blindly acepting what is written in the KJV.

And you still will not accept the fact that the writters of the NT, the Apostles, were the only ones who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

You would have us believe the translators of the KJV were "inspired" the same as the Apostles who wrote the original autographs.

Fact: The translators of the KJV, used copies of copies of copies.

The message of the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelations, is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

That word, God has preserved.

Joseph Prince says:

"When you take "text" out of "context" all your left with is a "con".

When John Gill wrote his "Exposition of the Entire bible" he included this in the introduction to Psa. 12:

INTRODUCTION TO PSALM 12

[SIZE=+1]To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, a Psalm of David. The word "sheminith" is used in the title of Ps 6:1, and signifies "eighth"; and intends either the eighth note, to which the psalm was sung, or rather the harp of eight chords, to which it was set, as the Targum and Jarchi interpret it. Some Jewish writers {y} understand it of the times of the Messiah; and the Syriac version entitles the psalm,

"an accusation of the wicked, and a prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah:''

and the Arabic version says, it is concerning the end of the world, which shall be in the eighth day; and concerning the coming of the Messiah: but Arnobius interprets it of the Lord's day.

{y} Sepher Lekach Shechachah apud Caphtor, fol. 64. 1. & Ceseph Misnah in Maimon. Hilch. Teshuvah, c. 9.
[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

What are the three basics of sound biblical hermanutics?

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

As to Psa. 12:6-7, we read:

Psalms 12:6

Ver. 6. The words of the Lord [are] pure words,.... This observation the psalmist makes in reference to what is just now said in Ps 12:5:, and in opposition to the words of wicked men in Ps 12:2; which are deceitful, sinful, and impure. The Scriptures are the words of God; and they are pure and holy, free from all human mixtures, and from all fraud and deceit; they are the Scriptures of truth. The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. The Gospel, and the doctrines of it, are the words of God; that is the sincere milk of the word, pure and incorrupt; as it is in itself, and as it is dispensed by the faithful ministers of it; and they are all according to godliness, and tend to encourage and promote purity and holiness of heart and life; See Pr 30:5;

[as] silver tried in a furnace of earth; they are as "silver" for worth and value; yea, they are more valuable than silver or gold,
Ps 19:10. The Bible is a mine of rich treasure, and to be searched into as for it; the promises in it are exceeding precious; they are like apples of gold in pictures of silver, and yield more joy than the finding a great spoil. The doctrines of the Gospel are comparable to gold and silver and precious stones, and to be bought at any rate, but to be sold at none: and they are as silver "tried", which is pure, and free from dross. The words of men, of false teachers, are as dross and reprobate silver; but the words of the Lord are tried, and are pure, and free from all the dross of error and falsehood, Ps 18:30. And they are as silver tried "in a furnace of earth", which some {o} render "by the Lord of the earth"; but the word rather signifies a furnace, or an refinery, in which metal is melted and purified; and may be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ in human nature, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and who came full fraught with the doctrines of the Gospel; and in whom they have been "tried", by his sufferings and death, and are found to be pure, solid, and substantial: or to the ministers of the Gospel, who have this treasure in earthen vessels, whose works and words and ministry are tried by many fiery trials, and abide: or to all the people of God in general, who dwelt in earthly tabernacles; and who, in the midst of various afflictions, have a comfortable and confirming evidence of the purity and truth of the words of God, of the promises of his covenant, and the doctrines of the Gospel;

purified seven times; that is, many times, Pr 24:16; and so completely and perfectly pure, and clear of all dross whatsoever, as silver so many times tried must needs be: and so the words of God are not only pure, but very pure, exceeding pure, Ps 119:140.

{o} Vid. Jarchi, Kimchi, & Ben Melech in loc. so some in David de Pomis, Lexic. fol. 11. 1. taking b in lyleb to be radical, and l doubled as if it was leb.


Psalms 12:7

Ver. 7. Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" {p}; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. {q}; and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

{p} wnrut "custodies eum", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Ainsworth. {q} "Custodi eum", Tigurine version, Vatablus, "custodito eorum quemque", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.

Click to expand...

John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Psa. 12:6-7

Source

Fault me as you wish. Make fun of me as you wish. It only means your not doing it to somebody else.

God Bless

Till all are one.

There are many who are KJV Only. We have one such here.

Argument #1: The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible necessitates not only that the original manuscripts were without error but also that there must be extant copies without error to preserve this inerrancy. Otherwise, even liberals can believe in the inerrancy of the originals but deny the inerrancy of the Bible we have today if all extant copies have textual errors. In the Greek, the inerrant manuscripts are those of the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine family, which underlie the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

This argument was presented at the Fourth Annual Fundamental Bible Conference of North America in 1976 by Thomas Baker of the Bible Truth Institute, Sunbury, PA, in his talk "The Latest in Bible Versions." People who generally believe in this view have sometimes quoted verses like Matthew 5:18 ("For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.") or Luke 21:33 ("Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.") to show that not one letter or word from the original manuscripts will ever be lost or altered. Some state that a Bible containing textual errors leads men to question what God has said because it does not allow anyone to claim he has the pure Word of God or use the phrase "Thus saith the LORD" without fear of someone pointing out possible textual errors.

Any fundamentalist would like to have a perfect copy of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. Unfortunately, no two extant manuscripts are identical. Furthermore, no original manuscripts and no perfect copies are known to exist. Thus, God has not chosen to preserve the text of the Bible perfectly. Some of these textual errors should be readily apparent to all Bible readers. Thus, Matthew 5:18 and Luke 21:33 cannot refer to the perfect preservation of the text of the Bible.

In the Old Testament (OT), there are many well-known cases where the numbers do not fit the context or where the numbers disagree in parallel passages. For example, the Hebrew Masoretic text of II Samuel 15:7 says that Absalom stood in the gate of Jerusalem for 40 years before rebelling against David. However, since David is said to have ruled over Judah and Israel for a total of only 40 years (I Ki. 2:11) and since Absalom was born while David was reigning in Hebron as king of Judah (II Sam. 2:1, 3:2-3), there is an error in at least one of the numbers. Textual problems between many of the numbers in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles also occur (e.g., II Ki. 8:26 - II Ch. 22:2; II Sam. 8:4 - I Ch. 18:4).

Furthermore, in the Masoretic Hebrew text, there are marginal notes to correct obvious textual errors. The incorrect word, called the kethibh, was still retained in the text while the correct word, called the qere, was printed in the margin.

Differences between certain OT verses and the NT quotations of these verses are quite apparent in some places of the Bible. The text of Hebrews sometimes follows the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT where it differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text (e.g., Heb. 10:5 quoting Ps. 40:6 and Heb. 1:6 quoting Deut. 32:43). Thus, there are textual errors either in the Masoretic Hebrew or the Greek TR on which the KJV is based. Otherwise, one might be forced to say that the NT author of Hebrews quoted from Septuagint verses which contained textual errors! In Matthew 27:9-10, both the KJV and modern versions ascribe the prophecy concerning thirty pieces of silver to Jeremiah. A careful search of the OT, however, reveals that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah but rather in Zechariah 11:12-13. This is a textual problem which has no generally agreed upon solution. What seems amazing, though, is that some pro-KJV people have said the NASB has a "serious difficulty" for having a similar textual problem in Mark 1:2. In the NASB, prophecies in Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 are ascribed to "Isaiah the prophet" instead of to "the prophets" as the KJV does (see A Critical Examination of the New American Standard Bible, by D. K. Madden, 1976, p. 9). Surely, if we are to be consistent, can we not assume that if the textual problem in Matthew can be solved, the problem in Mark may be solved in a similar manner?

Finally, even the TR is not free of textual errors. There are many editions of the TR, not one authoritative text. Each edition differs slightly from the others with respect to spellings, words, and even verses. The first two editions of the TR edited by Erasmus did not contain I John 5:7 as we have it in the KJV. Even the edition of the TR used by the Bible Truth Institute in 1976 is missing Luke 17:36 (see p. 178 of the same) when compared with the KJV or with Beza's 1598 edition of the TR published by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976 (see p. 150 of the latter).

Every version of the Bible contains these types of textual problems which have been known for years. Matthew 5:18 and Luke 21:33 cannot mean that God will preserve every letter and word of the original manuscripts because, as we have just seen, He has not. Fundamentalists in the past have usually insisted that only the original manuscripts were inerrant and that the copies preserve all of the fundamental doctrines by means of their being frequently stated in various passages, many of which contain no variant readings. Today, the battle over inerrancy with liberalism is not over doctrines in which textual problems play a significant role. Rather, the dispute concerns points of doctrine in which textual problems are irrelevant, such as the bodily resurrection of Christ.

One of the most often quoted passages in the TR-KJV controversy is II Timothy 3:16-17,

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.

The term "scripture" in this passage must refer not only to the original manuscripts, which Timothy did not have, but also to at least some copies of the originals, which Timothy did have. Since God has not providentially allowed for two extant Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek copies of the Scriptures to be identical (i.e., the same letter for letter), we should conclude that a man can still be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" with manuscripts containing some textual errors. Obviously, those who have used the KJV in the past as well as today have thought this goal was possible even considering the textual errors in the KJV. Thus, this first argument used by some promoters of the TR-KJV is contradicted by both the TR and KJV themselves.​

Click to expand...

Source

Lets go one step further.

The Baptist Banner in Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993, printed an article entitled: "Inerrancy, The Real Issue", By: T. C. Pinckney and Eldridge Miller.

In it, they point out many Baptists and Reformers who back the stance on inerrancy of the scriptures.

I cite:

The very core of Christian history is an unequivocal belief in the absolute truthfulness of the Bible. Irenaeus wrote, "We must believe God, who has given us the right understanding, since the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

Augustine testified, "I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error." Jerome averred, "When you ... have realized that its laws and testimonies (the Divine Scriptures) are the bonds of truth, then you can contend with adversaries..."

Martin Luther said, "He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive." Elsewhere he wrote, "Scripture cannot err," and "The Scriptures have never erred." Calvin gave the following appraisals of the Bible: "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles."

Augustine, in discussing alleged inconsistencies, declared, "I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it." Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites."

Many Baptist leaders in our history have testified to the Bible's inerrancy. According to Roger Williams, Scripture was written "and penned by chosen Pen-men as Pens in the hand of the Holy Spirit ... every word, Syllable and Tittle in that Scripture or writing is the Word, or immediate will of God." J. L. Dagg wrote, "the whole of revelation (the Bible) has perfection, that it exactly fulfills the design of Him who designed it." He wrote that the Bible "is in truth the word of God ... Positively it is divine truth; negatively it is not human error."

James Petigru Boyce wrote that he "believes in the perfect inspiration and absolute authority of the divine revelation." He believed "in the verbal inspiration of its writers ... (that they) were guided in their very language by Him to whom are ‘known all His works from the beginning of the world'. He wrote that the Bible "must be secured from all possibility of error, so that its teaching may be relied on."

Basil Manley said, "The Bible is truly the Word of God, having both infallible truth and divine authority in all that it affirms or enjoins... The whole Bible is truly God's Word written by men." He wrote that "it is not incredible that God would inspire the record ‘that is, control, protect from error, authorize its utterance. "'

John Broadus wrote, "The inspired writers ... were preserved by the Holy Spirit from error ... there is no proof that the inspired writers made any mistake of any kind."

F.Y. Mullins, in defining his position quoted from James Orr, wrote "It remains the fact that the Bible, impartially interpreted and judged, is free from demonstrable error in its statements, and harmonious in its teachings...." He wrote that the dynamic inspiration theory was consistent with the view "that men were enabled to declare truth unmixed with error."

John Sampey wrote, "As to the inspiration of the Bible, conservatives hold that the writers were preserved from all error by the inbreathed Spirit guiding them ... Some liberals believe in a sort of inspiration which ... did not preserve them from error." Sampey counted himself among the conservatives.

The list could go on and on, including John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Francis Wayland, B. H. Carroll, R. G. Lee, and present leaders W.A. Criswell, James Draper, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Charles Stanley, Morris Chapman, Joel Gregory, John Bisagno, Ed Young, Nelson Price, and many others!

Click to expand...

Source

Continued...

Why is the above article important?

If you'll look, one of the supporters of inerrancy was: "B. H. Carroll".

Yet, B. H. Carrol admits that the translators of the KJV were in error in translating part of the scriptures.

Here I cite:

The last chapter was devoted to the great principles which interpret Acts 2:38, and I would have you bear in mind everything that was said in that chapter. The object of the present discussion is to give a brief exegesis of the circle of scriptures cited. I showed that four classes of scriptures were generally cited in favor of the Campbellite position, i.e., that Acts 2:38 should be interpreted to mean that baptism is "in order to" remission of sins; that these cases are where the verb, baptizo, or its noun, is followed by the preposition, eis, and the accusative case, of which the most notable is Acts 2:38. There we have the verb, baptistheto, let him be baptized, and the preposition, eis, with the accusative case, aphesin halation, the remission of sins.


Words in all languages may have, and do have: (1) the common, ordinary meaning; (2) a frequent meaning, different from the ordinary; (3) a rare meaning, different from both the others. Just so this Greek preposition, eis, in the New Testament with the accusative case, commonly means, in order to; frequently it means with reference to, or in token of, or concerning and it rarely means because of.

There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things. You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning.

To illustrate the power of the local context in determining the meaning of the Greek preposition, eis (here we have the preposition with the accusative case after it), we now cite most pertinent New Testament examples: Matthew 12:41: "They repented eis the preaching of Jonah." Because eis ordinarily means in order to, must we so render it here? It is a fact, according to chapter 3 of Jonah, and did our Lord so mean it? If so, they failed in the object of their repentance, because Jonah never preached to them after they repented -- not a word. The only preaching he did preceded the repentance, and was the cause of the repentance. Therefore, Dr. Broadus teaches in his Commentary on Matthew that eis here must have its rare meaning - because of. They repented because of, eis, the preaching of Jonah. But they say we must make the ordinary meaning the meaning in every case.

Click to expand...

The Theory of Baptismal Regeneration, By B. H. Carroll

Why is this important?

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 Authorized King James Version

If the God has indeed preserved His word in the KJV as is supported by a certain person, then you absolutely cannot have remission of sins without being baptized as recorded in the AKJV.

Yet, in 1915, it is recorded in "The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth", the theology handbook for Fundamentalsts, it states:

The lexicographers, the grammarians and evangelical theologians are all pronounced against the interpretation put upon the words of Jesus when He said: “Except a man (anyone) be born of water kai spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The lexicographers tell us that the Greek conjunction kai may have an epexegetical meaning and may be (as it frequently is) used to amplify what has gone before; that it may have the sense of “even,” or “namely.” And thus they justify the reading: “Except a man be born of water, even (or namely) spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The grammarians tell us the same thing, and innumerable instances of such usage can be cited from both classic and New Testament Greek. The theologians are explicit in their denial that regeneration can be effected by baptism. They hold to a purely spiritual experience, either before baptism, or after it, and deny that the spiritual birth is effected by the water, no matter how applied. And yet some who take this position in discussions of the “new birth” fall away to the ritualistic idea when they come to treat of baptism, its significance and place in the Christian system. (It would be easy to justify all these statements by reference to authors and books, but space forbids the quotations here. So patent are they that we can hardly doubt the acceptance of the assertion by the intelligent reader, without citations in proof).”

Click to expand...

The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Chapter 10, Regeneration, Conversion, Reformation, George W. Lasher, D. D., L.L. D.

And:

Faith is a vital principle. "If it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17,18). Two things are required of the believer, immediately upon his profession of faith in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, namely, verbal confession and water baptism. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10. See also Psalm 107:2; Matthew 10:32,33; Romans 10:9; 1 John 4:15, etc.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The believer is not saved because he is baptized; but, baptized because he is saved. We are saved through faith alone, but not the faith that is alone, because "Faith without works is dead, being alone." Water baptism is a divinely ordained ordinance whereby the believer witnesses to the world that he died with Christ, and is risen together with Him," an habitation of God through the Spirit. (See Matthew 28:19,20; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36,38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15,33; 19:5; 22:15,16; Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 2:3; 3:22).”

Click to expand...

The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, Book III, Theology, Chapter 12, The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, By Evangelist L.W. Munhall, M.A., D.D

Also, according to Titus 1:3-5, in the Greek, washing, regeneration, and renewal are in the Genetive case. Genetives show "possessioin". And these words are either Genetive attributive, or Genetive Possessive. This proves also the renewal, washing, and regeneration are possessed of and that these things are done in us by the Holy Spirit and not of baptism.

It seems, as far as Fundamentalists were concerned, in regards to Acts 2:38 in the Authorized King James Verioin, there was an error in translation. And B. H. Carroll, a staunch supporter of biblical inerrancy showed/proved the KJV translators got it wrong.

Judge for yourselves.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Let me also say that if the Authorized King James Version is correct in Acts 2:38:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Then this song, sung in every Fundamentalist and Baptist church:

"What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus."

Robert Lowery, Nothing But The Blood

Should never ever be sung in any church for it is incorrect, in error.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean stated:

"And you still will not accept the fact that the writters of the NT, the Apostles, were the only ones who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

You would have us believe the translators of the KJV were "inspired" the same as the Apostles who wrote the original autographs."

I am fully aware that you read Greek, however your understanding of θεόπνευστος (inspiration of God) is flawed. You keep saying it was the "writers" that were "inspired", but that is not correct. What "is" (present tense) θεόπνευστος (God breathed = inspired) is the γράφω (scripture). What is "scripture"? The holy writ, the "words". It is the "words" that are inspired; not the writers that were inspired. I have never said the translators were inspired. I have only said what the Bible says, that the γράφω (holy words of scripture) are θεόπνευστος (God breathed = inspired.

Why is this so important? Because it takes the focal point of the "words" being 'authored' by man (giving little to no authority to the "words"); to being authored by God (giving the "words" absolute authority).

Hence, these "words" are 'living' words. Words that "are" profitable. Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. God didn't preserve a "storyline" in the Bible as a whole to be profitable; He preserved His "words" because it is the "words" that "are" profitable.

These are the words written by John Gill that YOU posted, made bold and underlined:

"The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. The Gospel, and the doctrines of it, are the words of God; that is the sincere milk of the word, pure and incorrupt; as it is in itself, and as it is dispensed by the faithful ministers of it; and they are all according to godliness, and tend to encourage and promote purity and holiness of heart and life; See Pr 30:5;

Look at the "words" of the first sentence above. "The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. "

"The promises are the words of God" How can anyone have a promise, if you don't have "words" to base that promise on? That is what makes a promise a promise! KEEPING YOUR WORDS! I couldn't have said it better myself!

In Post #45 DeaconDean states:

"Lets go one step further.

The Baptist Banner in Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993, printed an article entitled: "Inerrancy, The Real Issue", By: T. C. Pinckney and Eldridge Miller.

In it, they point out many Baptists and Reformers who back the stance on inerrancy of the scriptures.

I cite:

"The very core of Christian history is an unequivocal belief in the absolute truthfulness of the Bible. Irenaeus wrote, "We must believe God, who has given us the right understanding, since the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

Notice the words of Irenaeus (115 - 200 A.D.) when describing the Scriptures: "the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

Again, from the same source you cite:

"Martin Luther said, "He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive." Elsewhere he wrote, "Scripture cannot err," and "The Scriptures have never erred." Calvin gave the following appraisals of the Bible: "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles.""

Notice Calvin's (1509 -1564) "appraisals of the Bible". Would you mind explaining to me hoe the "Bible" can be, "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles."; if the "text" of the "Bible" has "errors"?

You also cite:

"Augustine, in discussing alleged inconsistencies, declared, "I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it." Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""

Notice the words you cited from Luther (1483 - 1546): "Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""

There is no way Luther could have been speaking of the "originals״, because he didn't have them. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can have concerning his meaning of "scripture", is the "copies" of MSS he could hold in his hands, or that had been preserved by the power of God, even to his generation, and were available to mankind in his generation. According to what YOU CITED, the above was said by Luther regarding, " those who find errors in Scripture". (Again, not the "originals", because he said, "those who find errors ..." .) One can't "find" something that is not "available" to look at. Luther had to believe in the preservation of the inerrant words of God, by faith that God, not man, kept it pure!

In Post #46 DeaconDean stated:

"If you'll look, one of the supporters of inerrancy was: "B. H. Carroll".

Yet, B. H. Carrol admits that the translators of the KJV were in error in translating part of the scriptures."

Right about now I'm saying, "Hmmm"?

Since I do my best not to throw the baby out with the 'bath water', allow me to say that while B. H. Carroll (1843 - 1914) was a good man, I must point out that to say one believes in the inerrancy of scripture, and then say the translators of KJV were in error when translating part of the scriptures" is to place himself in a higher level of qualification to do the job of translating the scriptures, than those whom I (and many others with me) believe were actually called of God for that purpose. Knowledge of the Greek does not constitute a qualification to translate scripture. A 'call' from God does.

By the way, Acts 2:38 was translated properly; with the meaning of 'because of', not 'in order to'.

As you cited:

"There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things. You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning."

Notice point (2) " the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith)".

Nowhere in the 'canon' of scripture is there a means of salvation other than the "blood" of the slain Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

By the way, you never directly answered what MSS were available to Erasmus? And, are you telling me (and everyone else reading this) that your education 'qualifies' you to sit in judgement of Erasmus and his work?

Jack

Jack Koons said:

DeaconDean stated:

"And you still will not accept the fact that the writters of the NT, the Apostles, were the only ones who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

You would have us believe the translators of the KJV were "inspired" the same as the Apostles who wrote the original autographs."

I am fully aware that you read Greek, however your understanding of ??????????? (inspiration of God) is flawed. You keep saying it was the "writers" that were "inspired", but that is not correct. What "is" (present tense) ??????????? (God breathed = inspired) is the ????? (scripture). What is "scripture"? The holy writ, the "words". It is the "words" that are inspired; not the writers that were inspired. I have never said the translators were inspired. I have only said what the Bible says, that the ????? (holy words of scripture) are ??????????? (God breathed = inspired.

Why is this so important? Because it takes the focal point of the "words" being 'authored' by man (giving little to no authority to the "words"); to being authored by God (giving the "words" absolute authority).

Hence, these "words" are 'living' words. Words that "are" profitable. Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. God didn't preserve a "storyline" in the Bible as a whole to be profitable; He preserved His "words" because it is the "words" that "are" profitable.

These are the words written by John Gill that YOU posted, made bold and underlined:

"The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. The Gospel, and the doctrines of it, are the words of God; that is the sincere milk of the word, pure and incorrupt; as it is in itself, and as it is dispensed by the faithful ministers of it; and they are all according to godliness, and tend to encourage and promote purity and holiness of heart and life; See Pr 30:5;

Look at the "words" of the first sentence above. "The promises are the words of God, and they are firm and stable, and always to be depended on, and are ever fulfilled, being yea and amen in Christ Jesus. "

"The promises are the words of God" How can anyone have a promise, if you don't have "words" to base that promise on? That is what makes a promise a promise! KEEPING YOUR WORDS! I couldn't have said it better myself!

In Post #45 DeaconDean states:

"Lets go one step further.

The Baptist Banner in Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993, printed an article entitled: "Inerrancy, The Real Issue", By: T. C. Pinckney and Eldridge Miller.

In it, they point out many Baptists and Reformers who back the stance on inerrancy of the scriptures.

I cite:

"The very core of Christian history is an unequivocal belief in the absolute truthfulness of the Bible. Irenaeus wrote, "We must believe God, who has given us the right understanding, since the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

Notice the words of Irenaeus (115 - 200 A.D.) when describing the Scriptures: "the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."

Again, from the same source you cite:

"Martin Luther said, "He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive." Elsewhere he wrote, "Scripture cannot err," and "The Scriptures have never erred." Calvin gave the following appraisals of the Bible: "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles.""

Notice Calvin's (1509 -1564) "appraisals of the Bible". Would you mind explaining to me hoe the "Bible" can be, "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles."; if the "text" of the "Bible" has "errors"?

You also cite:

"Augustine, in discussing alleged inconsistencies, declared, "I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it." Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""

Notice the words you cited from Luther (1483 - 1546): "Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""

There is no way Luther could have been speaking of the "originals?, because he didn't have them. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can have concerning his meaning of "scripture", is the "copies" of MSS he could hold in his hands, or that had been preserved by the power of God, even to his generation, and were available to mankind in his generation. According to what YOU CITED, the above was said by Luther regarding, " those who find errors in Scripture". (Again, not the "originals", because he said, "those who find errors ..." .) One can't "find" something that is not "available" to look at. Luther had to believe in the preservation of the inerrant words of God, by faith that God, not man, kept it pure!

In Post #46 DeaconDean stated:

"If you'll look, one of the supporters of inerrancy was: "B. H. Carroll".

Yet, B. H. Carrol admits that the translators of the KJV were in error in translating part of the scriptures."

Right about now I'm saying, "Hmmm"?

Since I do my best not to throw the baby out with the 'bath water', allow me to say that while B. H. Carroll (1843 - 1914) was a good man, I must point out that to say one believes in the inerrancy of scripture, and then say the translators of KJV were in error when translating part of the scriptures" is to place himself in a higher level of qualification to do the job of translating the scriptures, than those whom I (and many others with me) believe were actually called of God for that purpose. Knowledge of the Greek does not constitute a qualification to translate scripture. A 'call' from God does.

By the way, Acts 2:38 was translated properly; with the meaning of 'because of', not 'in order to'.

As you cited:

"There are three principles of interpretation which enable us to safely determine when to depart from the ordinary meaning and render this word according to the frequenter rare meaning. These principles are (1) the bearing of the local context; (2) the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith); (3) the nature or congruity of things. You do not need any more than those three principles when you come to study that Greek preposition in the New Testament to enable you to know whether to give in its ordinary, its frequent or its rare meaning."

Notice point (2) " the bearing of the general context (by general context I mean the trend of the whole Bible teaching, or what is called the "canon," or rule of faith)".

Nowhere in the 'canon' of scripture is there a means of salvation other than the "blood" of the slain Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

By the way, you never directly answered what MSS were available to Erasmus? And, are you telling me (and everyone else reading this) that your education 'qualifies' you to sit in judgement of Erasmus and his work?

Jack

Click to expand...

Hey Jack, please do us a favor and utilize the "Quote" button in the corner. It will make it much easier for us to follow your posts, and respond accordingly. Thanks!

Jack Koons said:

I am fully aware that you read Greek, however your understanding of θεόπνευστος (inspiration of God) is flawed. You keep saying it was the "writers" that were "inspired", but that is not correct. What "is" (present tense) θεόπνευστος (God breathed = inspired) is the γράφω (scripture). What is "scripture"? The holy writ, the "words". It is the "words" that are inspired; not the writers that were inspired. I have never said the translators were inspired. I have only said what the Bible says, that the γράφω (holy words of scripture) are θεόπνευστος (God breathed = inspired.

Click to expand...

So...the writers were not inspired, just the scripture?

Moses did not want to go to Pharoah because as he said:

"O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." -Ex. 4:10 (KJV)

And what was the Lord's reponse?

"Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." -Ex. 4:11-12 (KJV)

I guess Moses wasn't "inspired" huh?

WHo told Moses about everything that happened prior to his birth? Did it come to him by word of mouth?

Why is this so important? Because it takes the focal point of the "words" being 'authored' by man (giving little to no authority to the "words"); to being authored by God (giving the "words" absolute authority).

Click to expand...

When God told Moses He would teach him what to say, did the authority depend on God or Moses who said it?

The authority of the scriptures has been, and always will be God.

Its just that the words penned by the authors was of inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The authors were not typewriters. They did not take dictation. It was Godthe Spirit using them so that the very words they used are the words of God.

I have never argued against that. The words are authored (written) by man, but under divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The very definition of "plenary inspiration" says this:

...the doctrine in Christian theology that the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God.

Click to expand...

Another source says:

When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

Click to expand...

It is recorded in "The Fundamentals, A Testimony to the Truth":

Let this, then, be our attitude, to tell it out to the wide world that the blessed Bible, the "Holy Scriptures" of both Testaments, are the product of the "Breath of God," who made heaven and earth, and "breathed" into man His soul; the product of that Divine "Breath" that regenerates, that illuminates and sanctifies the soul; a "God-breathed Scriptures", whose "words" are the "words of God." Tell it to the Church in her seminaries, universities and colleges, from her pulpits, Sunday Schools and Bible classes, and sound it in every convention, conference and assembly that her conception and estimate of the Scriptures must be no lower and no less than were the high conception and estimate of the "Volume of the Book" by our Lord and His Apostles; that what they regarded as the "Breath of God", she must so regard in opposition to every breath of man that dares to breathe otherwise.

Click to expand...

In Post #45 DeaconDean states:

Click to expand...

"Lets go one step further.​

The Baptist Banner in Vol. VI, No. 2, March 1993, printed an article entitled: "Inerrancy, The Real Issue", By: T. C. Pinckney and Eldridge Miller.​

In it, they point out many Baptists and Reformers who back the stance on inerrancy of the scriptures.​

I cite:​

"The very core of Christian history is an unequivocal belief in the absolute truthfulness of the Bible. Irenaeus wrote, "We must believe God, who has given us the right understanding, since the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."​

Notice the words of Irenaeus (115 - 200 A.D.) when describing the Scriptures: "the Holy Scriptures are perfect, because they are spoken by the Word of God and the Spirit of God."​

Again, from the same source you cite:​

"Martin Luther said, "He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive." Elsewhere he wrote, "Scripture cannot err," and "The Scriptures have never erred." Calvin gave the following appraisals of the Bible: "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles.""​

Notice Calvin's (1509 -1564) "appraisals of the Bible". Would you mind explaining to me hoe the "Bible" can be, "The sure and infallible record ... the inerring standard ... the pure Word of God ... free from every stain and defect ... the inerring certainty ... unerring light ... infallible Word of God ... (and) infallible oracles."; if the "text" of the "Bible" has "errors"?​

You also cite:​

"Augustine, in discussing alleged inconsistencies, declared, "I decide that either the text is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it." Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""​

Notice the words you cited from Luther (1483 - 1546): "Luther, with less patience with those who find errors in Scripture, said, "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.""​

There is no way Luther could have been speaking of the "originals״, because he didn't have them. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can have concerning his meaning of "scripture", is the "copies" of MSS he could hold in his hands, or that had been preserved by the power of God, even to his generation, and were available to mankind in his generation. According to what YOU CITED, the above was said by Luther regarding, " those who find errors in Scripture". (Again, not the "originals", because he said, "those who find errors ..." .) One can't "find" something that is not "available" to look at. Luther had to believe in the preservation of the inerrant words of God, by faith that God, not man, kept it pure!​

Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about Martin Luther and the original autographs, furthermore, where does the article say anything about the original autographs?

"If you'll look, one of the supporters of inerrancy was: "B. H. Carroll".​

Yet, B. H. Carrol admits that the translators of the KJV were in error in translating part of the scriptures."​

Click to expand...

By the way, Acts 2:38 was translated properly; with the meaning of 'because of', not 'in order to'.​

Click to expand...

Nowhere in the 'canon' of scripture is there a means of salvation other than the "blood" of the slain Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.​

Click to expand...

Jack​

Click to expand...

The difference between what I believe and what 'a modern thinking' fundamentalist believes is very simple: I believe that God, through His own provision, has preserved His words perfectly. He has preserved the OT in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and the NT in the Majority Text. Furthermore, God called godly scholars together at Hampton Court in 1604 for the purpose of translating His words from the original languages into English. God then gave them "wisdom from above" to perform this great task. When this task was complete in 1611, the translators did in fact produce a perfectly translated, handwritten English translation of the words of God.

When the printers of the 1611 KJV put this English Bible in print, there were printing errors. These errors were NOT translation errors, as modern scholarship teaches, rather, they were simply the common errors that take place in printing, even to this very day. By 1769 there were four major Editions of the KJV (in addition to the original 1611), by which time the text was perfect. The KJV Bible that is held in people's hands in this present day is the 1769 Edition.

Without God's provision, and His giving the 'called' scholars, "wisdom from above"; this task could not have been done correctly. Many people call "believing" God, "blind" faith. I call it, just trusting in my God!

The scholars of today have a different belief. They contend that the "original" autographs (the actual handwritten works of the Bible by its writers) have been lost. It is therefore the job of scholars to "reconstruct" the Bible from MSS in the original languages, and them properly translate them into English.

While this may sound noble, it lacks truth. There are several reasons this lacks truth, I will name two: 1) Although there is no argument that the "original" autographs have been 'lost', there is no credible reason to believe that the majority of copies did not remain pure to what was written in the "originals"; and 2) There is no reason to believe that God would give us His "inspired" words, and not give men the wisdom to translate those words into the languages of the world perfectly. That would be the equivalent of God washing away 'past' sins for salvation, and leaving it up to us to remain sinless in the power of our flesh, in order to retain our salvation.

I have been told on many occasions that I have been "blindly" following the work of men like Erasmus, and the translators of the KJV. While those who contend for Bibles such as the NIV say they trust the "scholarship" of the "textual critics" that continually 'edit' the Greek text (the NA/UBS 28 [the 28 represents the fact that the text has gone through 28 editions] the modern versions come from, as well as coming up with hundreds of different 'translations' of the same 'Bible', in the same language, and still say they're all the same. How can over 100 versions of the same story all be the same? If they would be the same, there wouldn't be over 100 versions would there?

If you search for "The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy" by Wayne Grudem and Vern S. Polythress, at Amazon, you will find this in the description:

"“The Bible is God’s own Word to us.” Translating the words of God has become an even more daunting task in recent years as the pressure of “political correctness” and various activist agendas have sought to influence the landscape. No issue has become more controversial than genderneutral Bible translations, especially with the release of the TNIV.


Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem examine the translation practice of replacing the generic “he” and the specific “father” with the gender-neutral “they” and “parent” with special attention focused on the TNIV. While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changing meanings of the original texts."

Notice the last sentence above: "While translators may be well intentioned in seeking not to offend, Poythress and Grudem contend that the results are subtly changing meanings of the original texts."

That has been my argument throughout this thread. With each "edition" of either the Greek Text, or the English, by the "scholars", there is, at the very least, a subtle change in the meaning of the original texts.

People can say that because I refuse to let textual critics control how I believe, I am not a fundamentalist.

I believe:
1) In the inerrancy of the Scripture (that I hold in my hands);
2) In the normal, literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation of the Bible;
3) In major doctrines of the Bible, such as (but not limited to) salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and a final judgement for all; both saved, and condemned.

The last time I checked, that was the definition of a fundamentalist.

Jack

To quote the great Fats Domino:

You went away and left me long time ago
Now you come back knockin' on my do'

I hear you knockin' but you can't come in
I hear you knockin', go back where you been​

Click to expand...

Sad, very sad.

It has been argued that God preserved His word for all time. Even the translators were "guided" in their endevors.

2 Sam. 5:4 says David was thirty years old when he began his reign over Israel.

2 Sam. 15:7 says Absolom, (third son of David) after 40 years wanted to leave to pay tribute to the king. (David)

How can this be?

Is there an error in translation?

No way says one.

Judge for yourselves.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Oh well, what the (insert adjective) do I know.

I do know this, according to CF, the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives is Conservatives accept "tradition" as a valid "authority".

Since I am bound to be "branded" here, I'm unsubscribing.

God Bless

Till all are one.

It is said that Acts 2:38 is translated wrong in the KJV. This is based on how the Greek word used in Acts 2:38 is translated in other passages of the Bible. I believe that statement is incorrect. This is same logic is used in Acts 12:4 in the translation of the Greek word τηρέω, translated "Easter". The Greek word τηρέω is used (by my count) at least 27 times in the NT. 26 of those times it is translated "Passover". So why didn't the KJV translators translate τηρέω as "Passover" in Acts 12:4?

The answer lies in knowing, and understanding what was happening in the days of "The Acts of the Apostles". All that I am about to share is easily verifiable by doing just a little bit of research. (Isn't it wonderful to live in the 21st century?!

Lets look at the word Easter.

Easter (Old English Eastre or Eostre; Latin; Pascha; Greek Πάσχα Paskha, from Hebrew פֶּסַח Pesah)

Eostre is the pagan "goddess of fertility" that can easily be traced back to the days of Rome and beyond. (One of the common practices of paganism was the carrying in of 'gods', from one culture to the next. For example, when the Persians defeated the Babylonians, they adopted the Babylonian gods to quench rebellion among their captives. The same happened when the Greeks conquered the Persians; and the Romans conquered the Greeks.) Hence, Eostre or Eastre the pagan goddess of fertility can be traced back to Rome.

What about Acts 12:4?

There were three desperate celebrations taking place in Jerusalem (at that time under Roman [pagan] rule):
1) The pagan Easter; (a celebration of fertility)
2) The Passover, (a celebration of Jewish culture)
3) The Resurrection; (a Christian celebration).

Acts 12
1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

I have already stated the three celebrations, and who was celebrating what. The question of the hour is; Why would Herod be concerned with interrupting "Passover", (a Jewish holy day) to kill Peter; a man the Jews hated, and wanted dead immediately? He didn't care about the holy day of Passover; he was to busy looking at half naked women (celebrating fertility) to be concerned with (in his mind) a worthless Jew. The witness of the Holy Spirit as to the event in Rome recorded in Acts 1:4, was that Herod decided to wait until he was done celebrating his pagan holy day, before killing Peter. Hence, the translation of the Greek word τηρέω into the English Passover would have been a misrepresentation of what actually happened in Jerusalem at that time.

Today's modern "Ph. D's" may be "scholarly", but that doesn't always make them right. I have always said, "There are two kinds of scholars: those who use the Bible to correct their intellect; and those who use their intellect to correct the Bible".

I have never claimed to be a scholar, but I am of the belief that I must always let the Bible correct me. There are those however, who believe their intellect has reached such a level, that they are qualified to correct the words of God.

I hope this has shed light on this issue.

Jack

Jack Koons said:

The difference between what I believe and what 'a modern thinking' fundamentalist believes is very simple: I believe that God, through His own provision, has preserved His words perfectly. He has preserved the OT in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and the NT in the Majority Text. Furthermore, God called godly scholars together at Hampton Court in 1604 for the purpose of translating His words from the original languages into English. God then gave them "wisdom from above" to perform this great task. When this task was complete in 1611, the translators did in fact produce a perfectly translated, handwritten English translation of the words of God.

Click to expand...

I believe:
1) In the inerrancy of the Scripture (that I hold in my hands);
2) In the normal, literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation of the Bible;
3) In major doctrines of the Bible, such as (but not limited to) salvation by grace through faith, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and a final judgement for all; both saved, and condemned.

The last time I checked, that was the definition of a fundamentalist.

Jack

Click to expand...

There is an inconsistency between the first and last paragraphs of your post. I agree with your definition of fundamentalist in the last paragraph and so I am a fundamentalist but I completely disagree with the first paragraph. Even the people who translated the KJV would have disagreed with it.

The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?

DeaconDean said:

Oh well, what the (insert adjective) do I know.

I do know this, according to CF, the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives is Conservatives accept "tradition" as a valid "authority".

Click to expand...

Not so. SOME Conservatives do. This is the Conservative Christians forum's statement: "Some conservative Christians also hold church tradition to be a source of authority."

The 'Conservative Christians' forum accepts as members both Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics. Provision is made, therefore, for the Conservative Catholics, whose doctrines are based upon Tradition.

Conservatives are not, however, defined as people who believe in Tradition as a religious authority. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives is that Conservatives accept "tradition" as a valid authority.

Conservative Protestants, as we all know, almost always reject the authority of Tradition in favor of Sola Scriptura.

Albion said:

Not so. SOME Conservatives do. This is the Conservative Christians forum's statement: "Some conservative Christians also hold church tradition to be a source of authority."

The 'Conservative Christians' forum accepts as members both Conservative Protestants and Conservative Catholics. Provision is made, therefore, for the Conservative Catholics, whose doctrines are based upon Tradition.

Conservatives are not, however, defined as people who believe in Tradition as a religious authority. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the difference between Fundamentalists and Conservatives is that Conservatives accept "tradition" as a valid authority.

Conservative Protestants, as we all know, almost always reject the authority of Tradition in favor of Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

theophilus40 said:

There is an inconsistency between the first and last paragraphs of your post. I agree with your definition of fundamentalist in the last paragraph and so I am a fundamentalist but I completely disagree with the first paragraph. Even the people who translated the KJV would have disagreed with it.

The KJV Translators Said THAT?!?

Click to expand...

The following is an excerpt of the Preface of the 1611 King James Version Bible:

"There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your MAJESTIE: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, then the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie we present unto your MAJESTIE. For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

And now at last, by the Mercy of GOD, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hope that the Church of England shall reape good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAJESTIE, not onely as to our King and Soveraigne, but as to the principall moover and Author of the Worke. Humbly craving of your most Sacred Majestie, that since things of this quality have ever bene subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and Patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as your Highnesse is, whose allowance and acceptance of our Labours, shall more honour us and incourage us, then all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse: or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile; we may rest secure, supported within by the trueth and innocencie of a good conscience, having walked the wayes of simplicitie and integritie, as before the Lord; And sustained without, by the powerfull Protection of your Majesties grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endevours, against bitter censures, and uncharitable imputations."

Notice:

"... That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; ..."

And,

"... So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse ..."

Directly followed by,

"... or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile; ..."

Interesting words, at the least!

Jack

PraiseHisName9 said:

Just curious because I have read about them and they seem similar.

Click to expand...

Well, I tend to think they r the same. These r saints, God's people, who r trying to live rightously by His word. We live by the pattern in the N.T. church.

We r like salmon swimming upstream in this sinful world!! Praise the Lord most high!!