If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

I, too, sometimes long for the days when we met in caves. To think that we got so uppity that we thought that we needed buildings, aisles, and pews (not to mention 'lectricity and music with notes on pieces of paper).



[edited to eliminate long quotation of the post directly above it. We are conscientious about band-width and space. LOVE the irony, brother!]

[ January 10, 2003, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

I just wish we could get back to the old times... when we used to read the original manuscripts of the Bible. You say, "We don't have them now." But, why then can't we get back to the days of the Septuagint. What was so wrong with that, that we needed a new translation.

 

Maybe that's a question for those evil KJV translators who had the audacity to change the Word of God.

I don't think you can even see the answer which is right there in your own question... It's GOD that never changes. People who read about what He had done DO change, like it or not. The words can either be put into a language and a level of perception that they understand, or they can be kept deliberately ignorant.

You overestimate the power of man if you think we can handicap an unchanging God.

 

nice post, bro. kevin! you certainly have a knack for putting words together...

 

Not, sure but did you come to put people down or what, just becasue they are different from you. One thing you will need to learn is that it's alright to be different from each other, just because someone isn't a carbon copy of you doesn't mean they or you are wrong.

 

Bro. Kevin well said... Then again which is priceless... Vintage or New Wine?... Brother Glen

 

Personally, I prefer Welch's grape juice or spark-
ling grape juice. Wine tastes nasty to me. 8o)

Kevin, I am sure you mean well, but these subjects
are repeated ad infinitum, even ad nauseam, here
and on all the Bible-based boards I have seen. I
am not sure but that it is merely brought up to in-
flame. Perhaps you could tell us why you brought
them up so that we can have an intelligent conver-
sation on your new thread without all the mud-
slinging. You could start a new thing!!

I am seriously interested, if we can do it that way;
otherwise, this thread will be another repeat of an-
other repeat of another repeat of another repeat
of ano . . . .

 

I understand your desire for the "good" of the good ol' days. Certainly, some of the things from back then were better. People were friendlier, they were less angry, less apt to jump down your throat for the least little thing. Church members were less ready to show there disagreement and more likely to trust the elders in the church who were respected men. You could sing familiar songs with real feeling because you knew the song and you knew the words and the words were good and made you feel closer to the type a person you thought a Christian should be. However, not all was "good" in the good ol' days. Disease claimed the lives of people at a much younger age. Travel was restricted to a few miles from home. Education was limited to grade school, maybe high school if you were lucky. I know a lot of the "new and improved" things now a days are only marketing ploys to get more shelf space at a store and isn't really new and very often worse (cheaper). New doesn't impress me but I will at least take a look and see if it is an improvement. Not trying to change the subject or start a new discussion but just as an example of taking a look at something and seeing if it is an improvement, I looked at the 1st Edition of the 1611 KJV and found it totally unacceptable. It was almost impossible to read and it contained the Apocrapha. So I settled on what I believe is the Fourth Edition of the KJV which is the one I grew up with and am familiar with, but if a newer translation can help make clearer what God is trying to say to me I will listen but if it just muddies the water by giving me "something different" then I have no use for it. Try the spirits whether they are of God.

[ January 10, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]

 

Just tweakin' you a bit for taking your own traditions a bit too seriously (and for bringing the Hyles' preachin' style into a discussion forum post.

I. I doubt you know anyone who uses a version other than the KJV1611 (and I don't anyone who uses that particular one - I got one myself and its simply not usable...not in language that I can speak and read) for the purpose of going for the "new and improved". I love the KJV but recognize that even it was a "new and improved" translation at one time. The "I don't need a new Bible" is a old saw that is designed to end discussion rather than engage an argument.

II. So you favor some music not favored by others. Big whoop! Other than that, what's your point? Is it that we should avoid new songs? I love "Power in the Blood" but it was a new song once...and was no more written by divine inspiration than was any other Scripture based hymn or worship song.

Give us a real argument and save the preaching to the choir for...ummm...the choir.

We are in agreement that the drive to go to the "new and improved" simply because of a label is not the best motivation. However, innovation can be a good thing in church. Sometimes tradition assists in growth. But sometimes growth is stunted due to an overemphasis on tradition. Dr. Bob's humor concerning the LV and G-chants is on the money.

[ January 10, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan ]

 

Hey Bro. Kevin, welcome aboard. I am kind of a middle of the roader on these issues. My church only used KJV in services but I am an NIV guy myself. As has been pointed out here noone is using the 1611 version and I perfer to have a version that is very clear in the originally meaning, but I don't have a problem with using the KJV. As far as music goes, my wife, who is much more musical than I, says "there is a reason why some songs are classics, they've stood the test of time." There were old songs there were the best, but there were some really bad ones too!

 

Surely you jest or overemphasize to make a point. It may be a little hard at first, but most English people of average intelligence should be able to read actual 1611 KJV. It may be archaic, but it is not a different language.

 

Bro Kevin,
I know what you mean about people seeming to need something new. There is a tendency for those new churches to look for what the people want instead of what would honor God. So there is a rise on please the people to get them to come to church. Many can be sarcastic, but we get used to it. It is obvious that you go to church to please the Lord, not the people.

 

Ditto, TheOliveBranch.

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a great philosophy to live by.

</font>

1. Christianity got by just fine without KJV-onlyism for its first 1900 years. We don't need it today.</font>
2. There was a healthy tradition of hymnody in the Church right up to the turn of the 20th century. No need to dispense with this tradition, ignoring the endeavours of contemporary hymnodists.</font>

Like you say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Nice Vent bro Kevin.

Balance People BALANCE!

Sure would'nt want to drive what I did 20 years ago!

[ January 10, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: jimslade ]