Help me understand something...

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by BornBaptist, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. BornBaptist

    BornBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/9147.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    What excatly is a fundamental baptist? I'm just wondering, would I qualify as one? I have *SOME* fundamental beliefs.

    I'm just wondering what the difference is here.

    Now, I don't believe Catholics are Christians, does that make me a Fundamental?

    Just wonderin'

    :confused:
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Historic fundamentalism grew in the 1890's as a movement against evolution, modernism and liberal theology that was attacking Scripture (saying it wasn't inspired) and denying key doctrines (like saying the blood of Christ DOESN'T save).

    In that climate, men from many denominations, including many Baptists, joined on the "Fundamentals of the Faith".

    Bible (original autographs) is inspired Word of God
    Virgin Birth of Jesus
    Vicarious Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus for our sins
    Bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead
    Second Coming of Jesus

    These were the fundamentals being ATTACKED then and still are under attack by liberals today.

    So IF you have them same mindset against liberalism and hold to these fundamentals, you ARE a "fundamentalist".
     
  3. BornBaptist

    BornBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/9147.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Dr. Bob. I'm in agreement with all those things. So, A fundamentalist I am.

    I must ask, who in their right mind would attack such things?

    BornBaptist
     
  4. BornBaptist

    BornBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/9147.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, another question. Is this in reference to the King James Version of the Bible or the original Greek and Hebrew scrolls? Like the "recieved text"?

    Thanks,

    BornBaptist
     
  5. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob put that (original autographs) in there for a reason.

    Yes, the King James Version would fall under the umbrella of the statement, but it is not the only translation that does so.

    the KJVO position is not a fundamental of the faith since it is not a doctrine with Scriptural foundation. The Scripture indicates and affirms, in II Tim for example that God's Word is inspired, it does not however identify any particular family of manuscripts or any particular translation as the only one that can be relied upon as the very words of God. That belief system goes beyond an accurate literal historical interpretation of the text.

    By the historical definition, it would be difficult to be both KJVO and fundamental

    today fundamentalism has connotative definitions among some groups that might include such beliefs. as well as several others. However, these groups are not historic IFB in their doctrine or practice necessarily. Or perhaps it would be more accomodating to say these groups are not the only ones who should be considered historic IFB, the actual variation in belief and practice would be broader in many ways.

    *superdave neatly tiptoed through that answer, huh!* :D ;)
     
  6. BornBaptist

    BornBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/9147.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, you did. and thanks for the direct answer.
     
  7. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stuperdave, I would have to say you are wrong, KJV is the text used in most, if not all Fundimental churches that I have ever steped foot into, the KJV may not be the actual Greek text, or Hebrew text, but the most acurate translation into English, of the Greek. The Hebrew text has major diffrences between the Greek, but thats another subject altogether. All the other versions are copyied from the King James Version, the rest are watered down versions of the King James Version, why settle for a copy when you could have the original?
     
  8. danrusdad

    danrusdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did you get this from?!?!

    This is totally false!

    Why settle for the KJV when you can have a translation from older manuscripts than the KJV uses?
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,185
    Likes Received:
    327
    Here is a little know fact:

    The KJV NT (Anglo-Catholic) and the Douay-Rheims NT (Roman Catholic) have about an 80-90% exact word for word agreement, many verses EXACTLY the same. Far too much to be a coincidence:

    A random passage:

    King James John 14
    1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
    2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
    4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
    5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
    6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    Duoay-Rheims John 14
    1 Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God: believe also in me.
    2 In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.
    3 And if I shall go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself: that where I am, you also may be.
    4 And whither I go you know: and the way you know.
    5 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way?
    6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

    Problem: The KJV was published in 1611, the Douay-Rheims (New Testament) was published in 1582.

    Better go buy yourself a Douay-Rheims if you want THE original.

    HankD
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Rooster - you have an opinion (wrong about the kjvonly nonsense) and everyone is entitled to one. If you are going to discuss this with "the big dogs", you have to have something more than opinion.

    Youth won't cut you slack around here.
     
  11. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    While these facts may be true, they do not change the facts regarding the "fundamental" nature of the KJVO position. I may or may not agree that the KJV is the most accurate English version, but my experience with fundamental churches does not mirror yours. I have attended several churches that were KJVO that called themselves fundamental Baptist but were not. The experiential anecdotes do not mean anything. My church is an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, and we do not hold the KJVO position, although it is used more often than not, and our K-12 school uses the KJV.

    I stand by my earlier post as the KJVO position is not a part of the historical fundamentals, nor is it a necessary position for a church to hold to be considered IFB.

    -Stuperdave ;)
     
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,655
    Likes Received:
    313
    Brethren and Sisters, there is a Versions and Translations Forum for this kind of argumentation to take place. This is not the proper forum. As it has been pointed out a certain position on a given version has not been considered a fundamental one.

    What is fundamental is God did speak and such information (good, bad and ugly) He desires us to have is recorded in the Bible.
     
  13. BornBaptist

    BornBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/9147.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being I'm the originator of this thread. I am gonna tell you right out.

    First off, this was never really intended as a debate. but simple was a question asked, I asked it HERE because this was the only spot that the fundamental baptist's had thier spot.

    second of all, you using SuperDave's User name in a slanderous manner is very unchristianlike, and I personally find it quite offensive. and I'd like it if you'd cut it out. This is a Christian Board and a Baptist one at that, and I'd think you'd Baptist's would conduct yourself a bit more becoming of a Christian and not a thug. I think you owe superdave and the moderators an apology for your actions.

    I hate to say it, But I'm quite disappointed in your actions, young man, I figure as a 29 year old Born Again Christian, you'd have a little more self control. I speak this way, as I am around your age, I'm 32.

    For my comments about your rant about the KJV. It was written by Men. Period. It's got errors, Deal with it. God would never allow his word to become that perverted as to obscure Bibical truths.

    To the Moderators. I apologize if I over stepped my bounds. But this sort of stuff is wrong. and being I started this, I thought I'd end it.

    BornBaptist

    P.S. Thanks to Dr Bob and SUPERDAVE for answering my questions.
     
  14. BornBaptist

    BornBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/9147.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being I'm the originator of this thread. I am gonna tell you right out.

    First off, this was never really intended as a debate.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you didn't realize this is a debate forum.
     
  16. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe you didn't realize this wasn't the versions forum
     
  17. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being I'm the originator of this thread. I am gonna tell you right out.

    second of all, you using SuperDave's User name in a slanderous manner is very unchristianlike, and I personally find it quite offensive.
    </font>[/QUOTE]in a debate forum, poeple will get offended, calm down brother
     
  18. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a Christian Board and a Baptist one at that, and I'd think you'd Baptist's would conduct yourself a bit more becoming of a Christian and not a thug. I think you owe superdave and the moderators an apology for your actions.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Well, then Superdave, if I ruined your day, and caused you any anger, for my sillyness , then I apoligize. Will you please forgive me?
     
  19. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    For my comments about your rant about the KJV. It was written by Men. Period. It's got errors, Deal with it. God would never allow his word to become that perverted as to obscure Bibical truths.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Gos word is not have errors, it may have been written by the hands of men, but inspired by God, every word in the Bible is God's word period, deal with it, God does not pervert his word, Satan does.
     
  20. Rooster

    Rooster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    386
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a little know fact:

    The KJV NT (Anglo-Catholic) and the Douay-Rheims NT (Roman Catholic) have about an 80-90% exact word for word agreement, many verses EXACTLY the same. Far too much to be a coincidence:

    A random passage:

    King James John 14
    1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
    2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
    4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
    5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
    6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    Duoay-Rheims John 14
    1 Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God: believe also in me.
    2 In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.
    3 And if I shall go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself: that where I am, you also may be.
    4 And whither I go you know: and the way you know.
    5 Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way?
    6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

    Problem: The KJV was published in 1611, the Douay-Rheims (New Testament) was published in 1582.

    Better go buy yourself a Douay-Rheims if you want THE original.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]That is false, the information you have is untrue, and a lie, this is exactly how Satan tries confusing the Church, and divides it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...