Why does it seem that IFB are disliked by other Baptist groups

[toolman]

Like I have said over and over. The new versions of the Bible have taken out Scripture. I believe that is wrong. I stand strong on what has been around for years the (Foundation of the Christian Faith). I will not use a bible that has taken out Holy Scripture and changed meanings. To me that is when fundamental goes on the way side. The KJV is the Bible for the English speaking people (The closest to the original), it is a translation and does not stand over the original Greek and Hebrew, but for the English speaking people it Gods preserved word. Since the King James there have been KJV only people, that is all the English people had as far as the whole Word of God. I don't believe that it took another 400 years for the Lord to allow a better translation, especially when Scripture has been taken out of it. I have seen an NIV bible, and you can see where they have gone from (example) verse #8 to verse #10, skipping verse #9. I believe that is wrong. As a Fundamental Baptist I cannot use something that I think is incomplete. We IFB's have always stuck to the sound doctrine of the Word of God, and to me that is found in the WHOLE WORD OF GOD the KJV. Even the man that translated the NASB said he never intended it to be used as the Word of God; he intended it to be used as a study Bible. That’s why I fight so hard for the KJV. If you choose to use other versions that is your choice, I believe it is wrong, but I do not have to answer to God for you only for me. I will always use the KJV, nothing else! The IFB’s have always went against the grain. Other Baptist Churches have gone the way of the ecumenical movement. The emotional type religion. I believe God ordained the LOCAL New Testament Church, not an ORGANIZATION. That is why I am a member of an Independent Fundamental, Bible (KJV) Believing, Missions minded, tithe giving, local New Testament Church. DONE!

 

[ddavis]

OOOtayy! Translated Aman!

 

[toolman]

You need to use modern English, I can't understand that word??????????????

 

[Rockfort]

< The new versions of the Bible have taken out Scripture. >

Such as what? The phrase "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22, which is clearly not in the originals? The name of God in Romans 3:4, + 9 other places in Romans, and elsewhere in the NT, when the correct translation is "May it not be?"

< I will not use a bible that has taken out Holy Scripture and changed meanings. >

When I use a Bible which does so-- whether the Anglican (KJV) or other-- I will ignore the change in meaning.

< The KJV is the Bible for the English speaking people (The closest to the original), it is a translation and does not stand over the original Greek and Hebrew, but for the English speaking people it Gods preserved word. >

Why does it not say so? Why did those who translated it claim that a variety of translations are profitable in their introduction?

< I don't believe that it took another 400 years for the Lord to allow a better translation >

Do you believe it took 1500 years for Him to "allow" the "Bible for the English speaking people" (your quote)? Why did He keep Anglo-Saxons in the dark that long by not preserving His Word for them (us)? Nope, it took zero years for Him to allow what He chose to allow, and His preserved Word has always existed-- in which nothing is said about inspiring or preserving translations thereof.

< I cannot use something that I think is incomplete. >

That you are doing with your own reasoning.

< Even the man that translated the NASB said he never intended it to be used as the Word of God; he intended it to be used as a study Bible. >

THE man who translated the NASB? What one man is that? That's a fruitcake idea, no matter what translator said it or whether it was made up by a detractor. The Word of God and a Study Bible are different things? Then the Anglican Bible you use exclusively is not a Study Bible; so have you ever studied the Bible?

< If you choose to use other versions that is your choice >

Ain't it noble for you to say that?

< I believe it is wrong, but I do not have to answer to God for you only for me. >

Even more noble.

< I will always use the KJV, nothing else! >

And never a Study Bible?

< The IFB’s have always went against the grain. >

Never mind the moonshining issue here.

< have gone the way of the ecumenical movement. The emotional type religion. >

That is all KJVOnly is about-- an emotional connection to the poetic Elizabethan English and the idea *that's how God talks*. But no matter how many people think otherwise-- Gail Riplinger, Joseph Smith, yourself, Ellen White, et al-- God does know modern English and the purpose of His Word is to communicate to the understanding of the people who need it. They don't need to start trying to talk to souls in heaven, as Philippians 3:20 might lead to do ("our conversation is in heaven...").

<I believe God ordained the LOCAL New Testament Church, not an ORGANIZATION. That is why I am a member of an Independent Fundamental, Bible (KJV) Believing, Missions minded, tithe giving, local New Testament Church. >

That's OK, other than non-NT requirements of KJV and tithe.

< DONE! >

DONE!!

 

[toolman]

WHAT EVER???????????????????????

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
WHAT EVER??????????????????????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Another well reasoned response ...

This makes as much sense and is as truthful as your last one. You continue to repeat lies, make false charges, and misrepresent truth. No matter how many times you do it, it will not change the facts.

You say that the KJV is closest to the originals ... How do you know that? Did you find the originals that no one else had? Or are you saying something that you cannot possibly know is true?

You say that the NIV skips from v. 8 to v. 10. Surely you know that the verses numbers are modern ingenuities not in the original or early copies of the manuscripts. The verse numbers are for convenience of the reader ... perhaps yet another capitulation to the lazy modern reader. (Of course, I speak in jest).

You talk about the man who translated the NASB. A man did not translate the NASB. A group of men did -- yet another misstatement of very clear truth.

How long must we wait until you make an argument in favor or your position instead of demagoguing about unprovable and unproven "truths" which in fact are not truths.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
WHAT EVER??????????????????????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another well-reasoned response ...

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Like I have said over and over...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and never once substantiated with anything approaching a factual proof.

Ellis, Without going into a great deal of detail, there are a number of Baptist organizations which unite various congregations with varying levels of control. These groups usually unite around a set of common beliefs and maintain much of their local autonomy.

When we speak of IFB's, we are actually talking about at least two distinctive groups.

The primary and proper IFB's are those who believe that the NT church is to be local and autonomous. They are typically hold conservative standards on music, modesty, social issues, etc. and are very orthodox in doctrine. This group can be traced back through a tradition of independent congregations, primarily in the north, that were never part of a larger organization.

The second group is primarily made up of reactionaries who are rebelling against what they broadly consider liberal or modern. In this group, you will find most KJVO's and folks who are legalistic about dress, music, etc. These individuals, and sometimes whole cnogregations, usually be traced back to a point of "coming out" of one of the large organized groups. Most of the "IFB's" in my area came out of the SBC.

 

[toolman]

Do you have the originals?
I am so sorry that I do not have the same reasoning as you. I guess I must to get in on this discussion. A man did originate the translation of the NASB just as King James did. He used many, that was ignorant of anyone to think that one man translated it. I am sorry that I was not clear, (Maybe I used old English that was not understood or something). At one time I had an article about how the NASB was translated, I am going to search for it. I guess all that I was taught in Bible College was a lie, because all that I state I have been taught and I believe. I had many professors that studied the Greek and Hebrew (TR) and they believe that the KJV is the closest to the original for the English Speaking People. Why must I believe anything else. The KJV has been around for years and used by many, why fix something that is not broken?????

I understand the numbering, again I must have used old English or something. The fact is that Scripture is in one Bible and taken out of another; if there were not numbers, the paragraph would have been ripped out. You either believe that it is Scripture or you do not. I believe it is Scripture and I do not agree with it being ripped out. I don't understand why that is hard to understand. Like I said I will answer to God for the things I believe, and you for what you believe. I have enjoyed the discussion, but I do not like and will not be called a liar!

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; The KJV has been around for years and used by many, why fix something that is not broken????? &gt;

My dinner is not broken either, but I am going to *fix* it because I will eat it and digest it. When we *fix* food-- physical or spiritual-- we prepare it especially for the ones who partake of it. And we don't keep old spices and utensils around indefinitely, but we 'upgrade' these things for efficiency.

 

[toolman]

I know Joseph Smith supposedly updated . I guess Islam is correct too? Where does it stop. The JW's updated their Bible. I guess anything is right.

 

[Rockfort]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
[QB]I know Joseph Smith supposedly updated . I guess Islam is correct too? Where does it stop. The JW's updated their Bible. I guess anything is right. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Glad to hear you say that. The KJV WAS an *update*. It was a replacement largely for the Geneva Bible. Those who supported the king and his claim to "sit on the very throne of God" were in favor of *his* Bible. The anabaptists, Puritans, and others who wanted to progress toward true biblical practice still chose the Geneva Bible. You are of the former group; right?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Toolman,

You are the one who claimed that the KJV was the closest to the originals and I was wondering on what possible basis could you make such a statement. Unless you have the originals you do not know which English translation is closest. That is a simple fact. No one can know FOR SURE which is the closest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A man did originate the translation of the NASB just as King James did. He used many, that was ignorant of anyone to think that one man translated it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now you change your argument. You said one man translated the NASB and that is a false statement. King James did not translate the KJV or likely any part of it. To argue that one man originated or set the ball in motion is a completely different argument. (Words matter so choose the right ones).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I had many professors that studied the Greek and Hebrew (TR) and they believe that the KJV is the closest to the original for the English Speaking People. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how would they know? They don’t have the originals either. The TR has words and verses in it that have no support in the prior Greek manuscripts. That is undeniable. You can argue that the KJV is the best translation. I will disagree but that is a legitimate argument. To argue that the KJV is the “only word of God” or is the perfect translation is a far different issue. To argue that the TR is the best Greek text is tenuous at best. It simply cannot be substantiated from the evidence. What I am trying to illustrate is the difference between what we KNOW and what we DEDUCE. Our deductions must be kept at that level – not at the level of inspired truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The fact is that Scripture is in one Bible and taken out of another;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OR that Scripture was not in one Bible and was added into another. You cannot assume your conclusions. You must argue to your conclusion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> but I do not like and will not be called a liar! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor does anyone else here.

 

[toolman]

Never called anyone a liar. Someone called me one, do you remember who????
I guess there is no Word of God for anyone. I guess I can use any Bible that someone calls Scripture. Why have standards? I guess I need to go to a non-denominational church, since there is nothing to stand for. If a JW says he is one of the 144,000, then I guess he is and there is no argument against, since their Bible was updated to fit their religion. I guess it is true. Then again why even go to church. We have no basis, only speculation? This transcript is right no now we have another, no now another. Well did the virgin birth happen, or was it just a young woman???? Are we washed in the blood or not. New versions say we are freed; Praise the Lord I am WASHED IN THE BLOOD!!!

http://www.av1611.org/wash.html

But, maybe not I guess if a new manuscript is out that says we are freed from our sins, then we have to use the new manuscripts. The old ones are not useful to the Christian any more.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvlettr.html

More interesting reading. I guess this guy did not understand that anything called Scripture can be used. There is no authorized version. We have transcript after transcript, but no true Word of God. How scary to believe such. Like I have said I will not use anything other than the KJV.

and I'm sure this is not a reasoned resoponse either.

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: toolman ]

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Do you have the originals? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one does however that did not prevent you from writing, "All I know is that the verses (God Breathed Words) are in the King James and not in the modern versions."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess all that I was taught in Bible College was a lie, because all that I state I have been taught and I believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This seems to be characteristic of KJVO's- make unsubstantiated or sometimes offensive statements and then play the victim when someone contradicts you with the truth.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I had many professors that studied the Greek and Hebrew (TR) and they believe that the KJV is the closest to the original for the English Speaking People. Why must I believe anything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did these professors teach the following?
1- That the reason for MV's is an "easier Christian life"
2- That "The base of the KJV is the God-protected version for the English people."
3-That "If you have trouble understanding the KJV, maybe you should check to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit."
4- That a person who disagrees with KJVO views is "trying so hard to disprove the Word of God."
5- That if KJVO views are wrong then you should "throw" your "Bible away, since there is no Authorized Version."
6- That there were no English versions prior to the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The fact is that Scripture is in one Bible and taken out of another...taken out...ripped out...ripped out. I don't understand why that is hard to understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't hard to understand, it is just false. In another thread, you repeatedly cited Rev. 22:18,19 as a reason for your rejection of MV's based on the belief that scripture had been left out or changed in MV's. You did not know or failed to acknowledge that this passage in the KJV comes from a section of the TR that was translated into Greek by Erasmus directly from the RCC Latin Vulgate. He did not have a Greek manuscript for this portion of the Bible. There are words in the TR and thus the KJV in the last 7 verses of Revelation which have no Greek support. Words have been added, deleted, and changed....surely your Bible professors told you about this...?

 

[toolman]

No, I guess they didn't only your professors were right. According to you and the rest of your friends we have no authorized version. I guess I need to give up. You yelled the loudest no one else is right except you. YOU WIN. The Word of God (If there is one????) can defend itself. I'm done!

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: toolman ]

 

[ddavis]

Dr Bob, I feel that my topic has gone past it's time. Thank you ddavis

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; According to you and the rest of your friends we have no authorized version. &gt;

I do not recognize the English Crown or the Church of England. They are the 2 bodies in 1 which 'authorized' the "Authorized Version." If you recognize them as the legitimate church/state, that is your privilege.

&lt; I'm done! &gt;

Shurr-- shurr you are! You won't take this up with anyone anywhere again, will you?

[ September 18, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

 

[Mike McK]

I guess by most definitions, I would be considered a fundamentalist, although most fundies I know would be horrified at the thought of being lumped in with someone like me.

I think one of the reasons that fundamentalists and particularly IFB's have such a bad image is that, by and large, they're not very big on grace.

They don't show grace to others (just read some of the posts on BaptistBoard). They instantly condemn anyone who doesn't think, dress, walk, talk or listen to the same kind of music as they do.

Jesus interacted with all sorts of people and while He was clear to address their sin, He knew what was essential and what wasn't. He established realtionships with them and didn't nitpick about every aspect of their lives.

He also established relationships with them and was genuinely interested in them. He wanted them to share their hopes, their fears, the joys, their sorrows, everything that was important to them. He became a friend to sinners.

Fundamentalists all to often (and I've seen it dozens of times here on Baptist Board) come across as seeing non-Christians and weaker Christians as nothing more than a notch on their Bibles. Jesus would not do that. We have got to connect with hthem on an everyday level.

I also believe that when fundamentalists tell others that while they may be Christians by grace alone, they can't be REAL Christians until they dress a certain way or listen to a certain type of music, or do this or that, we undermine God's grace and keep non-believers and weaker brothers and sisters from really understanding it. This is how people get caught up in legalism. Legalism kills faith and poisons the relationship that God wants to have with His children.

 

[ellis]

Thanks, Scott, for the info.

I think I'll stay out of the KJV only argument.

However, I think I can answer the question that originally began this thread, if what has been posted here is any indication.

I've always known that Baptists were a diverse group, and have observed some of that diversity in my own community, though by and large the Baptist community here in my hometown is very similar in most ways. Though I have only been a member of one church in my whole life, I have worshipped in others and know people from other Baptist churches. I thought that represented Baptist diversity.

Then I discovered this board and, wow, what a surprise. The KJV only argument dominated the proceedings here, so I had to ask some people about what I was seeing here. I got a rather varied and unexpected reaction.

One of my college professors, a Greek language expert who mentors and trains Greek professors at other institutions of higher learning more or less helped me with the KJV issue. Suffice it to say, without any elaboration which might cause me to have to duck under the dest when this is posted, the overwhelming evidence he presented in his explanation settled the issue for me. I'm relieved that I won't have to go out and buy a new KJV Bible.

As to women wearing pants, and some of the other social issues that I've seen addressed, I also got a very reasonable explanation from a trusted friend and pastor. He managed to fill me in without a single word of condemnation for anyone with whom he might have disagreed.

So, while I feel happy, and led by the spirit to stay in my own church, I had some of my questions answered, and I can honestly say that I don't have a reason to dislike Independent Fundamental Baptists. I would hope that they would not find a reason to dislike me or my church either.