Snake handling

I agree 100%, very good book. :thumbs:

 

If you want to call me KJVO feel free.

 

Jerry Clower and Clovis Ledbetter walked into a church service in the backwoods of Tennessee----where one of the deacons had a burlap sack full of Rattlers he let loose on the floor!!!

Says Jerry to Clovis---"Clovis!!! They ain't no back door in this joint!!"

Says Clovis back to Jerry---"JAAAAAREEEEE!!! RECKON WHERE THEY WANT ONE????"

Sorry, Salty----couldn't resist that one!!!

 

......heheh, I couldn't resist post #19.....

 

I think this is bogus. FBC Baton Rouge is not that kind of church, in the least. Never heard of this Wittner guy, either.

Methinks we've got us an urban legend.

 

Double post

 

Yes, it's a spoof, satire. I was actually doing a search to see IF there were any Baptist snake handlers and ran across this. The hillarity of it overcome me at the moment and I immediately posted it, and thought better of it later not wanting to sound sacreligious. Perhaps I should have included some smilewinkgrins instead of the smileys at the bottom. My apologies if I caused any confusion; I have a sick sense of humor sometimes.

 

Reads like something from larknews.com. Parody can be made to look very real.

 

I understand and appreciate that type of humor. However, I never came accross baptist snake handlers. I have however ran accross pentecostal ones. A split off from the church of god of prophesy while I was in Tennessee. Very disturbing these folk. They also drank arsnic. It was in essence how they challenged their faith.

 

Yea, we have some of the same folks in E. KY, Pentacostal & Holiness mostly. KY has outlawed religious snake handling.

I had some when they find out that I'm PRIMITIVE Baptist ask me if we handle snakes.

 

I've never understood why people hold the "oldest" manuscripts in such high regard. On one hand you have a few copies that are physically older. On the other hand you have thousands of copies that agree fairly well with one another. The oldest copies weren't used by Christians for centuries. The more numerous ones were, which is why there are so many of them. All it takes is common sense to figure out which ones are trustworthy.

Also, the argument for the so-called "older and better" are actually saying that God left His people without the most reliable texts for centuries. Too bad all those Christians were believing the end of Mark falsely, and were practicing believer's baptism based off a text that shouldn't be in the bible. If only they had the older and better back then, eh. It's pretty easy to see the ridiculous position that so many modern critics have taken.

 

It's sad to me that Christians refuse to believe that God has preserved His word. Jesus said man would live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Too bad we can't tell which words actually proceeded out of His mouth and which were added by a reviser. What a sad view of scripture so many Christians today have.

 

Diatribe. So I take it you have a problem with textual criticism?

 

I have a problem with people arguing that the bible Christians used for centuries has whole sections that shouldn't be in there. I have a problem with scholars telling Christians that they can't trust particular passages in their bible.

 

In essence isn't that the argument against using a latin vulgate english translation? And note the Byzantine text was used to support Eastern churches liturgies and added a fluidity not originally there? And if verses were added by a scribe isn't that problematic?

 

More bad news for you: http://www.theopedia.com/Johannine_Comma

 

Yep, gotta love the old 1 John 5:7 argument. Clearest teaching of the Trinity in the scriptures so let's take it out. Textual criticism is the greatest example of the dangers of walking by sight and not by faith. It also shows the dangers of trusting in one's natural intelligence verses trusting in God by faith to preserve His word.

 

You know what a great example of walking faith and not by sight. Wako, Heaven's Gate, and Jim Jones to name a few. I think there is a place for both faith and textual Criticism.

 

Not when textual criticism throws doubt on scripture. Either one believes God has preserved His word and He promised, or one doesn't.