'Old'? Don't string me along.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by BrianT, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he means like 50 years ago. You know, old. I mean, that's almost immediately after Jesus ascended, right?

    These KJV-onlyists have no sense of time-scale. :rolleyes: They keep talking about the "old" religion and "old" paths (i.e. trying to argue "older is better", I guess), but don't realize that their old ways ain't so old.

    To KJV-onlies: Measure out 20 feet of string. Go out in your back yard and stretch it out, nailing each end of the string into the ground. This string represents church history, each foot represents a century. Mark off the following points:

    - start = the birth of Christ
    - 0 feet, 4 inches (1/3 of a century) = crucifixion
    - 0 feet, 11 inches (near end of first century) = last NT book written
    - 9 feet, 0 inches (roughly) = Masoretic O.T. completed
    - 13 feet, 10 inches = first English NT (Wycliffe, 1382)
    - 15 feet, 2 inches = first edition of the Textus Receptus (1516), also start of Reformation (1517)
    - 15 feet, 7 inches = first edition of the Geneva Bible (1560)
    - 16 feet, 1 inch = first edition of the KJV
    - 16 feet, 2 inches = Pilgrims leave behind persecution, land at Plymouth Rock
    - 17 feet, 9 inches = U.S.A (1776)
    - 18 feet, 9 inches = historical "fundamental" Baptist movement, in response to "modernism"
    - 18 feet, 10 inches = Westcott/Hort's critical NT, Spurgeon's preaching, etc.
    - 19 feet, 0 inches = RV and ASV, the first well-used "modern versions"
    - 19 feet, 4 inches = first KJV-only book written (1930)
    - 19 feet, 5 inches (roughly) = "old time religion"
    - 19 feet, 7 inches (roughly) = common modern versions (NASB, NIV)
    - end = today

    Now stand back and look at the whole thing to get some perspective. Until you do this, I can only roll my eyes when you talk of the "old" ways.
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't know any of them that drive a horse and buggy around. Know of any that prefer to have an out house instead of a flush toilet? Their old time religion still has to deal with reality of nmodern day troubles. Trying to go back in time is what the Amish do. There is only one problem they keep the same time distance from modern America.

    To believe in KJVO would have at one time been classified as heresy. People were burned at the stake for doing a translation.
     
  3. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Amish do not go back in time. They just don't advance as quickly in the future as we do.

    Go into their work shops - they have equipment as modern and as usable as the English (Amish term for anyone who is not Amish). The only difference - they do not have their equipment hooked up to the electric lines - they use diesel or gasoline engines with line shafts, belts and pulleys.

    They object to anything that would connect them to the world - electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines.

    Dan
     
  4. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    BroDan~I saw some Amish once on the way to a campmeeting in Indiana. I reckon I need to do a "search" on the 'net to learn more about these folks...

    BTW, the OldPaths Bapt.Ch. Campmeeting uses outhouses, as does the pastor & his family. I like outhouses. I like wood stoves & kerosene lanterns. I like the simple life. Take away the juice that runs this 'puter & I'd be on a creekbank with my canepole. [​IMG]
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The Amish do not go back in time. They just don't advance as quickly in the future as we do.

    Go into their work shops - they have equipment as modern and as usable as the English (Amish term for anyone who is not Amish). The only difference - they do not have their equipment hooked up to the electric lines - they use diesel or gasoline engines with line shafts, belts and pulleys.

    They object to anything that would connect them to the world - electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines.

    Dan
    </font>[/QUOTE]The funny thing is that they are still dependent on gasoline to run their machines. I have often thought if they choose to live that way then why don't they use a generator instead.

    Often they came to buy lumber from the business where I worked and were driven there in a vehicle by a non-Amish person.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Speaking of "old time religion"-Jerry Falwell has the "Old Time Gospel Hour". To me, the Gospel was first given in "olden times", but it's still as modern as today!

    Would the "Mystery, Babylon" religion of Nimrod, Semiramis, and the Chaldeans be "old time religion"? After all, it was already old when Christianity was new.
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those who don't have string, or just don't want to go to the trouble:

    http://www.tegarttech.com/temp/timeline.html


    [image deleted because it offset the page. Click on above link to view the timeline]

    Notice how the KJV doesn't come onto the scene until over 80% of church history has already passed. The TR at 75%. "Old time religion" hovers around the 97% mark.

    "old" ways? Not when you look at the bigger picture.

    [ February 11, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]
     
  8. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    But BrianT~you're not lis'nin..."Whatever the KJBible came from is the same bloodline as the KJBible.

    Just like I came from the bloodline of my great-greats; am I the only one who understands what I'm tryin' to say? :rolleyes:
     
  9. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    If by bloodline you mean the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, then the NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and so on are brothers and sisters of the KJV. All of them come from the same bloodline.
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Granny, I *am* "lis'nin". The "bloodline" as you call it goes back to where? The TR? A whopping 5% earlier on the timeline? And even then nothing on this "bloodline" perfectly matches the KJV, and thus all prior Bibles on the "bloodline" are imperfect? And then "like begets like" - "imperfect begets perfect"??? Come on, you're not making sense.
     
  11. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, BrianT! Your chart makes my screen look funny, haha. But about the bloodline...

    I KNEW there HAD to be some reason as to why I've NEVER had a desire to believe there is any other Bible than the one I trust. So, because of you, I have been doing some looking on the 'net...W O W!!! :eek: too much!

    But I did come across something that "explains" what I mean by bloodline. It's called "Antioch vs. Alexandria": the good comes from Antioch & the bad from Alexandria.

    But I knew there was "something" before I ever saw this. hey~is this why there is one called 'anti-alexandrian' on here? He must know something!
     
  12. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tell us more about what you found. Was it on a reputable website? I can find information that shows that white people are the only people who can become Christians on the internet, but that doesn't make it true. There is information out there on the internet that says the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. There is a lot of wrong stuff out there.
     
  13. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    And Antiochian texts and Alexandrian texts and Syrian texts, etc., all come from the same place - the originals.

    Good comes from Antioch and bad comes from Alexandria? Acts 18:24 says Apollos (from Alexandria), was an "eloquent man, mighty in the scriptures". When Jesus was a baby, where did the Lord send him to preserve the "Word" from Herod? Egypt. Come on, cut the games.

    "like begets like" - you said it yourself.

    And don't think I haven't noticed you completely avoiding my point about the "old paths". ;)
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    We reject the false doctrine that the church could have permission to hand over the form
    of its message and of its order to whatever it itself might wish or to the vicissitudes of the
    prevailing ideological and political convictions of the day.

    So live with it, or get over it, either way is suitable to your own decision.

    You call yourselves Baptist, yet try to demoralize we that hold to the autonomy of the local indiginous Baptist Church and according to the Creed set forth by our Church fathers, including Christ as the Head, first and foremost.

    Uh, get the politics out of the Church and live for Christ.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Since KJVO-ism does what you say you reject, then you have no choice but to be against the false doctrine of version-onlyism.
    The Distinctive of Local Autonomy does not, by any stretch, allow unbiblical doctrine to be added to biblical interpretation. That is not to say a local church can't decide to use only one translation for its congregants. That's perfectly appropriate. However, you assert that the KJV is to be the only acceptible English translation for all English speaking peoples. That is unscriptural. Plus, if you assert that, then it is YOU who trods on the Local Autonomy of non-KJVO churches.
     
  16. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yo' momma!
    Jesus did tell us we would have power to tread on serpents and no deadly poison could harm us

    Man, the catholic diosys and the kool-aid crowd of Jim Jones all claim autonomy.

    How is it my stand on the KJB so offends yall?


    KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB!KJB! AV 1611 KJB! [​IMG]
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because KJVO-ism is undoctrinal, unbiblical, idolatrous, and heretical, to name a few.
     
  18. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    So because a few of us are staunch KJBible folks, we offend y'all??? Yet, you're NOT offended about all the things that offend ME on the BB??? :confused:
     
  19. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because KJVO-ism is undoctrinal, unbiblical, idolatrous, and heretical, to name a few. </font>[/QUOTE]Yall said I am KJVO, I said I stand on the KJB. Semantics: Johnvism is undoctrinal,unbiblical,idolatrous, and heretical, to name it right out loud.
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would be nice if we could return to discussing the relative newness of "old". [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...