I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
Are independent churches Biblical?
- Thread starter flaja
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(flaja;56057)
I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
There is nothing wrong with going to church to fellowship. And all I have to say is who in the world has a right to tell people that they aren't saved at all if they don't know a person so well at all? Does men knows people heart? Or do they look at the outward appearance (I Samuel 16:7) and start judging? (John 8:15)A Church is 2 or more people gather in His name. So we study scriptures.
I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
There is nothing wrong with going to church to fellowship. And all I have to say is who in the world has a right to tell people that they aren't saved at all if they don't know a person so well at all? Does men knows people heart? Or do they look at the outward appearance (I Samuel 16:7) and start judging? (John 8:15)A Church is 2 or more people gather in His name. So we study scriptures.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
Traditionally, and notice I said traditionally, each denomination focused on different facets of spiritual truth. I think in this regard denominations are like different clubs---- you have a fishing club, bowling club, sports and fitness club, etc, etc and all are composed of people with probably the same basic beliefs about sports and health, but different interests. The problem lies when the fishermen say that everyone must be one. (C.f. 1 Corinthians 12:17) and in that sense different denominations are merely expressing different gifts of understanding and ministry. The basics of the faith are still there. It's just a matter of attending a denomination that you fit into based on your gifts.That being said, I also agree that more and more denominations are getting corrupt. They did not start that way, but that is just worldliness creeping in during this crooked and perverse generation and has nothing to do with the original diversity. In turn, it makes them fight against each other all the more.
(thesuperjag;56059)
There is nothing wrong with going to church to fellowship. And all I have to say is who in the world has a right to tell people that they aren't saved at all if they don't know a person so well at all? Does men knows people heart? Or do they look at the outward appearance (I Samuel 16:7) and start judging? (John 8:15)A Church is 2 or more people gather in His name. So we study scriptures.
I don’t have any qualms about telling someone that they are not saved if they follow a false doctrine. But, like I said before, all denominations are more or less corrupt, and I think this goes for non-denominational churches as well. They all have doctrines that either includes something that is not found in the Bible or excludes something that is found in the Bible. Either way the denomination or the individual non-denominational churches will invariably say that you cannot be saved if you don’t follow their pet doctrines. This is something that they have no right to do, and the IFBs and Baptists in general tend to be among the worst offenders.
There is nothing wrong with going to church to fellowship. And all I have to say is who in the world has a right to tell people that they aren't saved at all if they don't know a person so well at all? Does men knows people heart? Or do they look at the outward appearance (I Samuel 16:7) and start judging? (John 8:15)A Church is 2 or more people gather in His name. So we study scriptures.
I don’t have any qualms about telling someone that they are not saved if they follow a false doctrine. But, like I said before, all denominations are more or less corrupt, and I think this goes for non-denominational churches as well. They all have doctrines that either includes something that is not found in the Bible or excludes something that is found in the Bible. Either way the denomination or the individual non-denominational churches will invariably say that you cannot be saved if you don’t follow their pet doctrines. This is something that they have no right to do, and the IFBs and Baptists in general tend to be among the worst offenders.
(tim_from_pa;56060)
Traditionally, and notice I said traditionally, each denomination focused on different facets of spiritual truth. I think in this regard denominations are like different clubs---- you have a fishing club, bowling club, sports and fitness club, etc, etc and all are composed of people with probably the same basic beliefs about sports and health, but different interests. The problem lies when the fishermen say that everyone must be one. (C.f. 1 Corinthians 12:17) and in that sense different denominations are merely expressing different gifts of understanding and ministry. The basics of the faith are still there. It's just a matter of attending a denomination that you fit into based on your gifts.That being said, I also agree that more and more denominations are getting corrupt. They did not start that way, but that is just worldliness creeping in during this crooked and perverse generation and has nothing to do with the original diversity. In turn, it makes them fight against each other all the more.
I don’t think that denominations have any Biblical foundation. As Jesus told us in Matthew 12:25, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.We cannot divide the Kingdom of Christ into denominations.
Traditionally, and notice I said traditionally, each denomination focused on different facets of spiritual truth. I think in this regard denominations are like different clubs---- you have a fishing club, bowling club, sports and fitness club, etc, etc and all are composed of people with probably the same basic beliefs about sports and health, but different interests. The problem lies when the fishermen say that everyone must be one. (C.f. 1 Corinthians 12:17) and in that sense different denominations are merely expressing different gifts of understanding and ministry. The basics of the faith are still there. It's just a matter of attending a denomination that you fit into based on your gifts.That being said, I also agree that more and more denominations are getting corrupt. They did not start that way, but that is just worldliness creeping in during this crooked and perverse generation and has nothing to do with the original diversity. In turn, it makes them fight against each other all the more.
I don’t think that denominations have any Biblical foundation. As Jesus told us in Matthew 12:25, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.We cannot divide the Kingdom of Christ into denominations.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(flaja;56063)
I don’t think that denominations have any Biblical foundation. As Jesus told us in Matthew 12:25, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.We cannot divide the Kingdom of Christ into denominations.
I agree, and I am not endorsing it, but then again do you know of a church that supplies every kind of ministry? Most are not that big.I guess it depends on what the issue of separation is about. Sometimes it's the way scripture is interpreted and everyone and their brother feels that they have the right interpretation and use the same bible to prove it.I have a healthy respect for differing opinions as long as that is supported by scripture. However, sometimes we have a case where someone makes the statement that we should all be one in doctrine and creed. Then when everyone agrees, then the initiator of the comment basically then says to the effect "That means see it my way and believe what I do or you're going to hell". I've been around long enough to avoid such traps.
I don’t think that denominations have any Biblical foundation. As Jesus told us in Matthew 12:25, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.We cannot divide the Kingdom of Christ into denominations.
I agree, and I am not endorsing it, but then again do you know of a church that supplies every kind of ministry? Most are not that big.I guess it depends on what the issue of separation is about. Sometimes it's the way scripture is interpreted and everyone and their brother feels that they have the right interpretation and use the same bible to prove it.I have a healthy respect for differing opinions as long as that is supported by scripture. However, sometimes we have a case where someone makes the statement that we should all be one in doctrine and creed. Then when everyone agrees, then the initiator of the comment basically then says to the effect "That means see it my way and believe what I do or you're going to hell". I've been around long enough to avoid such traps.
(tim_from_pa;56068)
I agree, and I am not endorsing it, but then again do you know of a church that supplies every kind of ministry? Most are not that big.
How big does a single church congregation need to be? Where I live we have a Baptist church that claims a membership of something like 20,000, but apart from the traffic jams it causes downtown on Sundays, you would hardly know it even exists. I cannot tell you about so much as one single social welfare activity that this church sponsors and the closest they come to evangelism is an occasional phone call. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses show up at my door far more often than this Baptist church ever calls me.And why would it take a denomination to do everything that a church should be doing? Couldn’t individual congregations, that have legitimate doctrine and Biblical behavior, join together to do the work of the church without carrying a denominational label?
I guess it depends on what the issue of separation is about. Sometimes it's the way scripture is interpreted and everyone and their brother feels that they have the right interpretation and use the same bible to prove it.
True, which is why I think NT churches submitted to the authority of Paul and the Apostles to define doctrine. It was only after their authority was corrupted or eliminated that every individual was free to make up the Bible as they go along.
I have a healthy respect for differing opinions as long as that is supported by scripture. However, sometimes we have a case where someone makes the statement that we should all be one in doctrine and creed. Then when everyone agrees, then the initiator of the comment basically then says to the effect "That means see it my way and believe what I do or you're going to hell". I've been around long enough to avoid such traps.
Again, NT churches all saw it Paul and the Apostles’ way. Paul and the Apostles exercised a supervisory role over local congregations and they received this authority from God. If you are not a Roman Catholic or Anglican (or something else that claims apostolic succession), then who or what do you recognize as exercising Paul and the Apostles’ supervisory role?
I agree, and I am not endorsing it, but then again do you know of a church that supplies every kind of ministry? Most are not that big.
How big does a single church congregation need to be? Where I live we have a Baptist church that claims a membership of something like 20,000, but apart from the traffic jams it causes downtown on Sundays, you would hardly know it even exists. I cannot tell you about so much as one single social welfare activity that this church sponsors and the closest they come to evangelism is an occasional phone call. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses show up at my door far more often than this Baptist church ever calls me.And why would it take a denomination to do everything that a church should be doing? Couldn’t individual congregations, that have legitimate doctrine and Biblical behavior, join together to do the work of the church without carrying a denominational label?
I guess it depends on what the issue of separation is about. Sometimes it's the way scripture is interpreted and everyone and their brother feels that they have the right interpretation and use the same bible to prove it.
True, which is why I think NT churches submitted to the authority of Paul and the Apostles to define doctrine. It was only after their authority was corrupted or eliminated that every individual was free to make up the Bible as they go along.
I have a healthy respect for differing opinions as long as that is supported by scripture. However, sometimes we have a case where someone makes the statement that we should all be one in doctrine and creed. Then when everyone agrees, then the initiator of the comment basically then says to the effect "That means see it my way and believe what I do or you're going to hell". I've been around long enough to avoid such traps.
Again, NT churches all saw it Paul and the Apostles’ way. Paul and the Apostles exercised a supervisory role over local congregations and they received this authority from God. If you are not a Roman Catholic or Anglican (or something else that claims apostolic succession), then who or what do you recognize as exercising Paul and the Apostles’ supervisory role?
verzanumi24
Advanced Member
(flaja;56057)
I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.
This is not a wise position to take since the King James Version is not the original language that the Bible was written in. There are flaws in the King James Version just as much as any other version. As for me, I believe that one should have several translations of the Bible, because it can be helpful in getting a better understanding of what's being said…..I would also suggest getting a concordance as well.(flaja;56057)
I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
This is the problem; we keep seeing organizations/denominations the Church, at least God's Church as an organization that is founded by men. We keep seeing God's Church as a physical entity, rather than a spiritual body comprised of individuals that have been called out of this world's system. One can attend a Church/denomination, even get baptized and attend regularly and still not be in the Church.As long as we keep viewing the Church in terms of denominations we will never understand what the Church is, and where it is. We need to have spiritual eyes in order to see and know God's Church; we need to see the Church from God's eyes, which is the only way to know the Church.We need to get outside of the box that Satan has deceived some of us into believing that our denomination or that denomination is the Church.
I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.
This is not a wise position to take since the King James Version is not the original language that the Bible was written in. There are flaws in the King James Version just as much as any other version. As for me, I believe that one should have several translations of the Bible, because it can be helpful in getting a better understanding of what's being said…..I would also suggest getting a concordance as well.(flaja;56057)
I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
This is the problem; we keep seeing organizations/denominations the Church, at least God's Church as an organization that is founded by men. We keep seeing God's Church as a physical entity, rather than a spiritual body comprised of individuals that have been called out of this world's system. One can attend a Church/denomination, even get baptized and attend regularly and still not be in the Church.As long as we keep viewing the Church in terms of denominations we will never understand what the Church is, and where it is. We need to have spiritual eyes in order to see and know God's Church; we need to see the Church from God's eyes, which is the only way to know the Church.We need to get outside of the box that Satan has deceived some of us into believing that our denomination or that denomination is the Church.
QUOTE (verzanumi;56073)
This is not a wise position to take since the King James Version is not the original language that the Bible was written in. There are flaws in the King James Version just as much as any other version. As for me, I believe that one should have several translations of the Bible, because it can be helpful in getting a better understanding of what's being said…..I would also suggest getting a concordance as well.
There are only a few minor "errors" in the KJV. As I am one of them who researched a comparsion. KJV is the best of all of them as it is using a Textus Receptus. It is received by everyone. While the modern translations are not. The modern translation attacked The Word of God on purpose.Try reading through my thread.Evil Spirits in Christianity!!!!!
This is not a wise position to take since the King James Version is not the original language that the Bible was written in. There are flaws in the King James Version just as much as any other version. As for me, I believe that one should have several translations of the Bible, because it can be helpful in getting a better understanding of what's being said…..I would also suggest getting a concordance as well.
There are only a few minor "errors" in the KJV. As I am one of them who researched a comparsion. KJV is the best of all of them as it is using a Textus Receptus. It is received by everyone. While the modern translations are not. The modern translation attacked The Word of God on purpose.Try reading through my thread.Evil Spirits in Christianity!!!!!
(flaja;56057)
I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
Who's authority was the Church at Jerusalem under. If God led someone to start a Church, would they say, "We can't, because we are not under anyone's authority".God, His word, Jesus and they Holy Ghost, is all the authority a Church needs.I know Church's who are under auority to their denominatioal headquarters, and they're teaching wrong doctrines.Stay with God, Stay on His word, and wether you're Independant or not, you wont go wrong.
I am King James only of a sort. I won’t say that the AKJ is perfect in all matters apart from doctrine, and I won’t say that it is the only worthwhile English translation since I haven’t examined all other translations from either before or after 1611. But I will say that it is the only English translation, that I have found, that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and infallible record of God’s revelation to man as far as doctrine is concerned.I an not an Evangelical or a Pentecostal, but I don’t necessarily accept everything that Fundamentalists believe either. I would likely be IFB if it weren’t for the fact that most IFBs that I have encountered on the net have been hostile towards me (I’ve even been told by some IFBs that I am not saved because I graduated from public schools rather than Christian schools/homescool and I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from an accredited private college, Emory).I am also concerned by the independent nature of IFB churches. I understand that all denominations are more or less corrupt, but I fear that any church that will not answer to any power on earth that can tell it that it wrong will eventually be wrong about something. I don’t think independent churches have any Biblical support. The churches in the New Testament submitted to the authority of Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem to define and enforce standards of Christian doctrine and behavior. These churches also allowed Paul, the Apostles and their designees to appoint elders over local congregations. How can any modern day church be legitimate if it is independent of earthly authority?
Who's authority was the Church at Jerusalem under. If God led someone to start a Church, would they say, "We can't, because we are not under anyone's authority".God, His word, Jesus and they Holy Ghost, is all the authority a Church needs.I know Church's who are under auority to their denominatioal headquarters, and they're teaching wrong doctrines.Stay with God, Stay on His word, and wether you're Independant or not, you wont go wrong.
verzanumi24
Advanced Member
(thesuperjag;56075)
There are only a few minor "errors" in the KJV. As I am one of them who researched a comparsion. KJV is the best of all of them as it is using a Textus Receptus. It is received by everyone. While the modern translations are not. The modern translation attacked The Word of God on purpose.Try reading through my thread.Evil Spirits in Christianity!!!!!
Could you give a few examples of some minor errors in the KJV?
There are only a few minor "errors" in the KJV. As I am one of them who researched a comparsion. KJV is the best of all of them as it is using a Textus Receptus. It is received by everyone. While the modern translations are not. The modern translation attacked The Word of God on purpose.Try reading through my thread.Evil Spirits in Christianity!!!!!
Could you give a few examples of some minor errors in the KJV?
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
As long as we keep viewing the Church in terms of denominations we will never understand what the Church is, and where it is. We need to have spiritual eyes in order to see and know God's Church; we need to see the Church from God's eyes, which is the only way to know the Church.
I used to pride myself (if I may have a tad) on being able to understand spiritual and abstract concepts when I was younger. But the point you bring up is the reason why I take more an interest in Israel and OT theology.Israel is the physical manifestation of God's people and family here on this earth, and the absolutes are the Law of Moses. It's concrete and in black-and-white for any dummy.Now, I am not saying that the Law of Moses saves anyone. Quite the contrary, Paul taught that it was schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and what the Law was powerless to do because we could not keep it, the blood of Jesus could cleanse instead.Likewise, the church, although a different entity as they are the spiritual seed of Abraham, are based on the actual people themselves. The only order that changed was the covenants---- the old covenant of the Law is superseded by the covenant of grace, and all the other OT covenants are in full force and in effect yet to the physical people of God.IF we get to the spiritual concepts, we must understand the earthly first (which I find many are actually lacking in). I like to refer to Jesus' question where he asked "If I told you earthly things and do not believe, how will you believe if I told you of heavenly things?"The doctrine about the earthly people Israel is straightforward IMO, and people cannot get that straight. Thus, this is why on this forum and others you have people asking even the basic questions such as "what does it mean to be born again?" That's the spiritual counterpart to the Law of Moses which is straightforward.And in case anyone did not notice, if I fellowshipped with believers that take interest in the slant I just presented, it could be a denomination in its own right. Another group may take interest in healing aspects of ministry. Another may focus on missions. Another on teaching. None are wrong. They just are emphasizing different facets of truth.
I used to pride myself (if I may have a tad) on being able to understand spiritual and abstract concepts when I was younger. But the point you bring up is the reason why I take more an interest in Israel and OT theology.Israel is the physical manifestation of God's people and family here on this earth, and the absolutes are the Law of Moses. It's concrete and in black-and-white for any dummy.Now, I am not saying that the Law of Moses saves anyone. Quite the contrary, Paul taught that it was schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and what the Law was powerless to do because we could not keep it, the blood of Jesus could cleanse instead.Likewise, the church, although a different entity as they are the spiritual seed of Abraham, are based on the actual people themselves. The only order that changed was the covenants---- the old covenant of the Law is superseded by the covenant of grace, and all the other OT covenants are in full force and in effect yet to the physical people of God.IF we get to the spiritual concepts, we must understand the earthly first (which I find many are actually lacking in). I like to refer to Jesus' question where he asked "If I told you earthly things and do not believe, how will you believe if I told you of heavenly things?"The doctrine about the earthly people Israel is straightforward IMO, and people cannot get that straight. Thus, this is why on this forum and others you have people asking even the basic questions such as "what does it mean to be born again?" That's the spiritual counterpart to the Law of Moses which is straightforward.And in case anyone did not notice, if I fellowshipped with believers that take interest in the slant I just presented, it could be a denomination in its own right. Another group may take interest in healing aspects of ministry. Another may focus on missions. Another on teaching. None are wrong. They just are emphasizing different facets of truth.
(verzanumi24;56073)
This is not a wise position to take since the King James Version is not the original language that the Bible was written in.
Since I am not fluent in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, what am I to do if I don’t have an English translation that I can have full confidence in?
There are flaws in the King James Version just as much as any other version.
Care to give some examples?
As for me, I believe that one should have several translations of the Bible, because it can be helpful in getting a better understanding of what's being said…..I would also suggest getting a concordance as well.
If all translations are faulty and you are not fluent in the original languages, how can you possibly know when one translation can correct another?
This is the problem; we keep seeing organizations/denominations the Church, at least God's Church as an organization that is founded by men.
Since when?
This is not a wise position to take since the King James Version is not the original language that the Bible was written in.
Since I am not fluent in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, what am I to do if I don’t have an English translation that I can have full confidence in?
There are flaws in the King James Version just as much as any other version.
Care to give some examples?
As for me, I believe that one should have several translations of the Bible, because it can be helpful in getting a better understanding of what's being said…..I would also suggest getting a concordance as well.
If all translations are faulty and you are not fluent in the original languages, how can you possibly know when one translation can correct another?
This is the problem; we keep seeing organizations/denominations the Church, at least God's Church as an organization that is founded by men.
Since when?
(Alanforchrist;56081)
Who's authority was the Church at Jerusalem under. If God led someone to start a Church, would they say, "We can't, because we are not under anyone's authority".
If someone feels that God has told them to start a church, how is that person and (more importantly) any would-be members of the started church know that the person is getting his instructions from God and not Satan?
God, His word, Jesus and they Holy Ghost, is all the authority a Church needs.
Then why was this authority delegated to Paul and the Apostles in the Book of Acts?
I know Church's who are under auority to their denominatioal headquarters, and they're teaching wrong doctrines.
And IFB churches all claim to be under God’s authority and God’s authority alone, but they still teach wrong doctrines.
Who's authority was the Church at Jerusalem under. If God led someone to start a Church, would they say, "We can't, because we are not under anyone's authority".
If someone feels that God has told them to start a church, how is that person and (more importantly) any would-be members of the started church know that the person is getting his instructions from God and not Satan?
God, His word, Jesus and they Holy Ghost, is all the authority a Church needs.
Then why was this authority delegated to Paul and the Apostles in the Book of Acts?
I know Church's who are under auority to their denominatioal headquarters, and they're teaching wrong doctrines.
And IFB churches all claim to be under God’s authority and God’s authority alone, but they still teach wrong doctrines.
verzanumi24
Advanced Member
(flaja;56085)
Since I am not fluent in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, what am I to do if I don’t have an English translation that I can have full confidence in?
I was particulary talking about the KJV since you faver that translation over the others. Not all English translations are alike.(flaja;56085)
Care to give some examples?
I will give a few, comparing the KJV with some of the other translations.Genesis 1:1 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ASV) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (Darby) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ESV) 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (NASB77) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Notice that the KJV is the only translations that have the “s” missing from the word heaven. The KJV in this case would imply that God only created one heaven.Here is another minor errorMatthew 23:10 (KJV) 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. Matthew 23:10 (NASB77) 10 "And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:10 (NASB95) 10 "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:10 (NKJV) 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. Matthew 23:10 (WEY) 10 And do not accept the name of 'leader,' for your Leader is one alone—the Christ. Matthew 23:10 (YLT) 10 nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director--the Christ. Greek Word: καθηγητήςTransliteration: kathēgētēsMaster
honetic Pronunciation: kath-ayg-ay-tace'Root: from a compound of and Cross Referenceart of Speech: n mVine's Words: Master from a compound of (kata) and (hegeomai); a guide, i.e. (figurative) a teacher :- master.Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.The KJV is also the only translation here as well the used the word Master for Jesus, but the in the Greek the word kath-ayg-ay-tace' is used and means a Teacher, instructor or even a guide. Different things comes to mind when one thinks of someone as there master as oppose to be there teacher or a guide. It’s understandable why the KJV used the word master, since that translation was first written during the time of slavery, so therefore he simply had the slave masters in mind when he was translating the scriptures. If I have my history correct the slaves was not considered human beings, so it was fine for the slaves to call their white slave owners masters.Jesus does not see Himself as our master; He sees us for who were are. We are His brothers and sisters. But He is also our teacher/guide since He is older (infinitely) than we are and therefore knows more than we do. During His short time with the disciples He would teach/instruct the disciples by having them with Him when He was doing His ministry. He was teaching them because He expected them, and us as well to be able to do the things that He was doing.(flaja;56085)
If all translations are faulty and you are not fluent in the original languages, how can you possibly know when one translation can correct another?
The way I suggested before; having more than one or two translation and using a Greek and Hebrew concordance when studying the scriptures. Also, not all translations have the exact same errors in them. The error that one translation makes may not be the same error that another translation have....it is good to compare different translations with out saying that this one or that one is the next best thing to the original Greek or Hebrew.Of course all that I mentioned above does not automatically means that you will come to the truth more than those who don't, if you're mind is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. But I believe that if the tools are available to us and we can afford it, then we should use it....God will not do for us what we can do for our selves.(flaja;56085)
Since when?
As far back as I can remember.
Since I am not fluent in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, what am I to do if I don’t have an English translation that I can have full confidence in?
I was particulary talking about the KJV since you faver that translation over the others. Not all English translations are alike.(flaja;56085)
Care to give some examples?
I will give a few, comparing the KJV with some of the other translations.Genesis 1:1 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ASV) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (Darby) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ESV) 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (NASB77) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Notice that the KJV is the only translations that have the “s” missing from the word heaven. The KJV in this case would imply that God only created one heaven.Here is another minor errorMatthew 23:10 (KJV) 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. Matthew 23:10 (NASB77) 10 "And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:10 (NASB95) 10 "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. Matthew 23:10 (NKJV) 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. Matthew 23:10 (WEY) 10 And do not accept the name of 'leader,' for your Leader is one alone—the Christ. Matthew 23:10 (YLT) 10 nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director--the Christ. Greek Word: καθηγητήςTransliteration: kathēgētēsMaster
honetic Pronunciation: kath-ayg-ay-tace'Root: from a compound of and Cross Referenceart of Speech: n mVine's Words: Master from a compound of (kata) and (hegeomai); a guide, i.e. (figurative) a teacher :- master.Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.The KJV is also the only translation here as well the used the word Master for Jesus, but the in the Greek the word kath-ayg-ay-tace' is used and means a Teacher, instructor or even a guide. Different things comes to mind when one thinks of someone as there master as oppose to be there teacher or a guide. It’s understandable why the KJV used the word master, since that translation was first written during the time of slavery, so therefore he simply had the slave masters in mind when he was translating the scriptures. If I have my history correct the slaves was not considered human beings, so it was fine for the slaves to call their white slave owners masters.Jesus does not see Himself as our master; He sees us for who were are. We are His brothers and sisters. But He is also our teacher/guide since He is older (infinitely) than we are and therefore knows more than we do. During His short time with the disciples He would teach/instruct the disciples by having them with Him when He was doing His ministry. He was teaching them because He expected them, and us as well to be able to do the things that He was doing.(flaja;56085)If all translations are faulty and you are not fluent in the original languages, how can you possibly know when one translation can correct another?
The way I suggested before; having more than one or two translation and using a Greek and Hebrew concordance when studying the scriptures. Also, not all translations have the exact same errors in them. The error that one translation makes may not be the same error that another translation have....it is good to compare different translations with out saying that this one or that one is the next best thing to the original Greek or Hebrew.Of course all that I mentioned above does not automatically means that you will come to the truth more than those who don't, if you're mind is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. But I believe that if the tools are available to us and we can afford it, then we should use it....God will not do for us what we can do for our selves.(flaja;56085)
Since when?
As far back as I can remember.
QUOTE (verzanumi24;56082)
QUOTE (thesuperjag;56075)
There are only a few minor "errors" in the KJV. As I am one of them who researched a comparsion. KJV is the best of all of them as it is using a Textus Receptus. It is received by everyone. While the modern translations are not. The modern translation attacked The Word of God on purpose.Try reading through my thread.Evil Spirits in Christianity!!!!!
Could you give a few examples of some minor errors in the KJV?Post 134 in my topic is one example.Luke 17:21 is another. If we read the previous verse before Luke 17:21, we know the Kingdom of God is not within the Pharisees mind.As for the rest are only spelling errors.
QUOTE (thesuperjag;56075)
There are only a few minor "errors" in the KJV. As I am one of them who researched a comparsion. KJV is the best of all of them as it is using a Textus Receptus. It is received by everyone. While the modern translations are not. The modern translation attacked The Word of God on purpose.Try reading through my thread.Evil Spirits in Christianity!!!!!
Could you give a few examples of some minor errors in the KJV?Post 134 in my topic is one example.Luke 17:21 is another. If we read the previous verse before Luke 17:21, we know the Kingdom of God is not within the Pharisees mind.As for the rest are only spelling errors.
(verzanumi24;56093)
I was particulary talking about the KJV since you faver that translation over the others. Not all English translations are alike.
I have not said that all English translations are alike. But this doesn’t address my question. How am I to understand the Bible if I cannot understand the Bible’s original languages and do not have a translation that I can rely on?
I will give a few, comparing the KJV with some of the other translations.
What do the manuscripts say? Are all of the translations that you gave made from the same set of manuscripts? If not, then you cannot say one translation is in error just because the manuscripts used don’t all say the same thing.
The KJV is also the only translation here as well the used the word Master for Jesus, but the in the Greek the word kath-ayg-ay-tace' is used and means a Teacher, instructor or even a guide.
In British English a male teacher or head of a school is called a master.Master also means someone who is an expert in a trade or occupation and thus is qualified to teach apprentices.Master carries the same connotation as teacher, so your objection to the AKJ is without merit.Naïve objections to the AKJ like this from people like you are part of the reason why I became King James only. You go out of your way to denigrate the AKJ while upholding modern translations and this makes me think that your modern translations are not what you claim them to be. You do not have honest objections to the AKJ, so why should I trust your assessment of modern translations?
The way I suggested before; having more than one or two translation and using a Greek and Hebrew concordance when studying the scriptures.
If you don’t know Greek and Hebrew, how can you trust what a concordance tells you? If you have a single reliable translation, then there can be no doubt as to what the original Biblical documents actually said.
Also, not all translations have the exact same errors in them.
And still, if you do not know the original languages, you cannot verify what the original documents said, so you cannot determine where the errors lie in the translations.
I was particulary talking about the KJV since you faver that translation over the others. Not all English translations are alike.
I have not said that all English translations are alike. But this doesn’t address my question. How am I to understand the Bible if I cannot understand the Bible’s original languages and do not have a translation that I can rely on?
I will give a few, comparing the KJV with some of the other translations.
What do the manuscripts say? Are all of the translations that you gave made from the same set of manuscripts? If not, then you cannot say one translation is in error just because the manuscripts used don’t all say the same thing.
The KJV is also the only translation here as well the used the word Master for Jesus, but the in the Greek the word kath-ayg-ay-tace' is used and means a Teacher, instructor or even a guide.
In British English a male teacher or head of a school is called a master.Master also means someone who is an expert in a trade or occupation and thus is qualified to teach apprentices.Master carries the same connotation as teacher, so your objection to the AKJ is without merit.Naïve objections to the AKJ like this from people like you are part of the reason why I became King James only. You go out of your way to denigrate the AKJ while upholding modern translations and this makes me think that your modern translations are not what you claim them to be. You do not have honest objections to the AKJ, so why should I trust your assessment of modern translations?
The way I suggested before; having more than one or two translation and using a Greek and Hebrew concordance when studying the scriptures.
If you don’t know Greek and Hebrew, how can you trust what a concordance tells you? If you have a single reliable translation, then there can be no doubt as to what the original Biblical documents actually said.
Also, not all translations have the exact same errors in them.
And still, if you do not know the original languages, you cannot verify what the original documents said, so you cannot determine where the errors lie in the translations.
verzanumi24
Advanced Member
(flaja;56097)
I have not said that all English translations are alike. But this doesn’t address my question. How am I to understand the Bible if I cannot understand the Bible’s original languages and do not have a translation that I can rely on?
You trust God that He will open your mind to the truth; but understand this; the truth does not come in one whoop. It takes time; ones own personal Bible study in addition to group Bible study, humility and a desire to want to learn from God’s word.(flaja;56097)
What do the manuscripts say? Are all of the translations that you gave made from the same set of manuscripts? If not, then you cannot say one translation is in error just because the manuscripts used don’t all say the same thing.
All the translations that I am aware of comes from the same manuscript, the problem is in how one would translate some words.(flaja;56097)
In British English a male teacher or head of a school is called a master.
Believe me I am fully ware of this. Under the British system a teacher or a school master as they were called had the right as a slave master to punish their student that would land a teacher in this country in jail….I lived under the British system as a child, believe me it was not fun when you got your home work wrong, even if you did not intend it to be…..some teachers did not spare that rod or belt. The question one should ask is how a teacher would be viewed among the Jews in Jesus' day? Was their role like that of a parent or a slave master? Did Jesus act like a slave master?(flaja;56097)
Master also means someone who is an expert in a trade or occupation and thus is qualified to teach apprentices.Master carries the same connotation as teacher, so your objection to the AKJ is without merit..
Its one thing to be a master over something is another thing to be a master over someone. A master is one that has control over the free movement over another person, while he himself is restricted by no one. (flaja;56097)
Naïve objections to the AKJ like this from people like you are part of the reason why I became King James only. You go out of your way to denigrate the AKJ while upholding modern translations and this makes me think that your modern translations are not what you claim them to be. You do not have honest objections to the AKJ, so why should I trust your assessment of modern translations?.
You're over reacting.......I use the King James Version every time I study the Bible, but unlike you I don't overly rely on it. I compare it with some of the others from time to time to see how its translated; they might shine a little more light on what the writer wanted to get across. In other words, no translations are perfect translation from the Greek or Hebrew. And even if I spoke Greek and Hebrew fluently it still would not mean that these langue could bring across perfectly what God is telling us. Human langue is at best inadequate in expressing perfectly the reality of spiritual things. No mater how wonderful the truths of God’s promises to us that are in the pages of the Bible, it is nothing in comparison to the reality of what it will be when the truth has been manifested.....and even from the little that God has aloud me to see, it will be beyond all human imagination.(flaja;56097)
If you don’t know Greek and Hebrew, how can you trust what a concordance tells you? If you have a single reliable translation, then there can be no doubt as to what the original Biblical documents actually said.And still, if you do not know the original languages, you cannot verify what the original documents said, so you cannot determine where the errors lie in the translations.
I have more faith in God than in any langue and He is able to guide anyone to His truth even if the individual could not read.
I have not said that all English translations are alike. But this doesn’t address my question. How am I to understand the Bible if I cannot understand the Bible’s original languages and do not have a translation that I can rely on?
You trust God that He will open your mind to the truth; but understand this; the truth does not come in one whoop. It takes time; ones own personal Bible study in addition to group Bible study, humility and a desire to want to learn from God’s word.(flaja;56097)
What do the manuscripts say? Are all of the translations that you gave made from the same set of manuscripts? If not, then you cannot say one translation is in error just because the manuscripts used don’t all say the same thing.
All the translations that I am aware of comes from the same manuscript, the problem is in how one would translate some words.(flaja;56097)
In British English a male teacher or head of a school is called a master.
Believe me I am fully ware of this. Under the British system a teacher or a school master as they were called had the right as a slave master to punish their student that would land a teacher in this country in jail….I lived under the British system as a child, believe me it was not fun when you got your home work wrong, even if you did not intend it to be…..some teachers did not spare that rod or belt. The question one should ask is how a teacher would be viewed among the Jews in Jesus' day? Was their role like that of a parent or a slave master? Did Jesus act like a slave master?(flaja;56097)
Master also means someone who is an expert in a trade or occupation and thus is qualified to teach apprentices.Master carries the same connotation as teacher, so your objection to the AKJ is without merit..
Its one thing to be a master over something is another thing to be a master over someone. A master is one that has control over the free movement over another person, while he himself is restricted by no one. (flaja;56097)
Naïve objections to the AKJ like this from people like you are part of the reason why I became King James only. You go out of your way to denigrate the AKJ while upholding modern translations and this makes me think that your modern translations are not what you claim them to be. You do not have honest objections to the AKJ, so why should I trust your assessment of modern translations?.
You're over reacting.......I use the King James Version every time I study the Bible, but unlike you I don't overly rely on it. I compare it with some of the others from time to time to see how its translated; they might shine a little more light on what the writer wanted to get across. In other words, no translations are perfect translation from the Greek or Hebrew. And even if I spoke Greek and Hebrew fluently it still would not mean that these langue could bring across perfectly what God is telling us. Human langue is at best inadequate in expressing perfectly the reality of spiritual things. No mater how wonderful the truths of God’s promises to us that are in the pages of the Bible, it is nothing in comparison to the reality of what it will be when the truth has been manifested.....and even from the little that God has aloud me to see, it will be beyond all human imagination.(flaja;56097)
If you don’t know Greek and Hebrew, how can you trust what a concordance tells you? If you have a single reliable translation, then there can be no doubt as to what the original Biblical documents actually said.And still, if you do not know the original languages, you cannot verify what the original documents said, so you cannot determine where the errors lie in the translations.
I have more faith in God than in any langue and He is able to guide anyone to His truth even if the individual could not read.
(verzanumi24;56098)
(flaja;56097)
What do the manuscripts say? Are all of the translations that you gave made from the same set of manuscripts? If not, then you cannot say one translation is in error just because the manuscripts used don’t all say the same thing.
All the translations that I am aware of comes from the same manuscript, the problem is in how one would translate some words.Now this is ridiculous. Most bibles (technically ALL modern bibles) are directly at Alexandrian Text manuscripts. The KJV and some bibles older than the KJV uses Byzantine Text manuscripts. They are not the same thing. Those texts are enemies one to another.
(flaja;56097)
What do the manuscripts say? Are all of the translations that you gave made from the same set of manuscripts? If not, then you cannot say one translation is in error just because the manuscripts used don’t all say the same thing.
All the translations that I am aware of comes from the same manuscript, the problem is in how one would translate some words.Now this is ridiculous. Most bibles (technically ALL modern bibles) are directly at Alexandrian Text manuscripts. The KJV and some bibles older than the KJV uses Byzantine Text manuscripts. They are not the same thing. Those texts are enemies one to another.
How do you know?verzanumi24;56098]You trust God that He will open your mind to the truth; but understand this;[/quote]This is exactly what I have done and is why I am King James only. God has opened my mind to the truth that every post-1611 English translation of the Bible said:
Group Bible study can easily lead one astray if the group is ungodly.
The NT for the AKJ is based on a set of manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. A few modern translations also rely on the Textus Receptus (but the translators were not faithful to God so they still produced corrupted translations), but most modern translations rely on other manuscripts (namely Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). So what you see as a translation error in the AKJ is likely just a reflection of the different manuscripts used for the various translations.
So by your own admission a master can also be a teacher. You should have known that your objection to the AKJ use of the word master does not hold water.
You are worried about what an earthly teacher would do to a wayward pupil when Jesus plans to put His wayward pupils in Hell?
Christ isn’t master over you?
Typical claim of a modern Bible advocate. You damn the AKJ with praise.
And if the other translations are wrong, what do you end up with except false doctrine and doubt?
How so? Is your God such a weakling that He cannot tell you exactly what you need to know in a manner that you can readily understand without trouble?
Then by your standards no human can ever know enough about God to be saved because the limitations of human language make it impossible for God to fully and effectively communicate with us. You effectively claim that not even the Bible’s original autographs can be infallible, inerrant and inspired because the people that wrote the Bible may not have understood what God wanted them to convey with human language.
But yet, according to you, He cannot see to it that His Bible is adequately translated from one language to another. If you don’t have a complete, inspired, infallible and inerrant record of what God has revealed in the past in a form that you can understand and fully trust, how do you know that the faith you claim to have is faith in God and not faith in Satan?
Similar threads
