20 Questions to Ask before Joining a Church

Ok, but I don't agree with the wording of number one either. A "perfect copy" I'm assuming means a perfect written down copy of the Bible somewhere that is complete from Genesis to revelation. Now if you just mean that the Bible is perfect...then yes,

Well, to follow along with you closely it might help, but I use the ESV every week in church and my pastor uses the KJV. I sometimes bring out my Droid and pull up the KJV there. But as far as doctrinally, it's the same.
--------------------------------------------------
And although this is not my list, to me #16 is not about separation.
(I would not have included that last line in it.)

I see it as more of an understanding a pastor has, of how bad things have really become.
I would hate to hear my pastor get up, and talk about the great world wide revival, that is going on, when there is no such thing.[/QUOTE]Ok, I understand that this isn't your list but a list you copied. I gave a reply on the first page of a few changes that I would make. Otherwise I was in agreement with it.

 

The list isn't silly at all. If a Church does not cling to fundamentals, then their missions are nothing but good works.

 

Great post.

Too bad this isn't one of those boards where members can give reputation points to other members for good posts.

 

Kjvo and pride are not fundamentals.

 

Well thanks for bifurcating my post to make your point. Read on and you'll I have not said what you are attempting to put into my mouth.

Oh and for the list, it is has peripheral theological issues masquerading as foundational doctrinal matters. Not just the KJVO silliness but also the point about unnecessary separation (do we really believe that there are only .00000005% of the world's population are honest, practicing Christians? Maybe my view of God's mission is greater than that...but seriously)

Seems to me if we look pound for pound into the ministry of Jesus, He was just as concerned with mission as doctrine.

 

This is an interesting set of standards to base the authenticity of a "genuine" Christian church. While some are valid points, the agenda of KJV only without addressing the issues of modern textual criticism, neglects to inform the reader about how a majority of Greek scholars prefer earlier manuscripts and the intrinsic value of a text over simple numbers. In essence, the NT contained in the KJV was a translation of the Textus Receptus, but after this translation earlier Greek manuscripts were discovered that questioned the sufficiency of this particular text. While a majority of Greek text (many being hundreds of years removed from the original Greek) agreed with the TR, the earliest manuscripts did not. This in turn caused scholars to question the “infallibility” of the KJV. Why? Because, according to most textual critics, the closer a text is to the original the less time for copying errors or textual variations to creep in. This is not to say that these scholars are completely correct, but it does demonstrate how KJV only people fail to give all sides of the story.
Besides, last time I checked I failed to find one verse that said, "Thou shall only use the KJV!"

 

Still learning
Thank you for the swift reply & the information about the biblical translations being located in another thread. But as far as your response, I find it amusing how KJV only supporters assume that all evidence contrary to their belief system comes from Westcott/Hort (when this is clearly not the case). However, since this is not the thread for such a debate, I will simply reference D A Carson’s “The King James Version Debate” that covers all issues including the Westcott/Hort controversy, demonstrating how the issue itself reaches much further than two proposed “bad” theologians/historians. For instance, if the Byzantine texts were so popular how come they are not quoted by the ante-Nicene theologians? And why are there no Byzantine texts found before the 4th century? Let me guess—b/c they were so popular they got worn out & fell apart? If this is the case might I ask who was using them—certainly not the early church fathers. But before we get into to much of a discussion, might I ask if you yourself know Greek or have studied textual criticism? Just curious, b/c I have never personally met any true students of either who are advocates of KJV only (not to say they don’t exist—I just don’t personally ever talk to any—so I’d love for you to be the first.) As far as God being on His throne & His keeping the KJV “perfect”—how can it really be shown that the KJV is accurate based on the idea that God is on your side because you personally support a theory! Hey I think Jesus is an Auburn fan b/c I am—does this really make him one? I’d love to say more but got to run to work—hope to hear from you soon.

 

Well, I’ve taken two years of biblical Greek & two graduate classes on textual criticism, & just want to say—there’s a reason I’ve never personal met anyone whose trained in these areas who is KJV only. That being said—I really admire your Christian attitude when you debate & completely respect if you personally want to use the KJV. I’m glad I got to met you & hope to see you on here in the future. God bless & praise Jesus for salvation.:jesus:

 

That there's funny.

The whole point of your thread was to direct the discussion to versions (more precisely, one version. I think. Not sure which year, but that's yet another thread).

Just admit it and move on.

 

Nope.

For you, it comes back around to one translation of God's Word (one translation to the exclusion of all others); that is the foundation of your disagreements with almost all other English-speaking Christians.

 

You should add: What do you do for the poor & impoverished in & outside of your church? Then make them tell you about the later. Few can.

 

NO -
If the signs were needed to confirm the preached Word of God to Israel surely they are still needed now to do the same to this generation.

 

What fruit do we look for, and why, and for what do we judge them, and to determine what, and to what objective?

I don't get the logical flow from the apostles penning the words, to judging todays pastors.