I was insulted that the people referred to in the last post on this site thought that my friend was a controlling wife and her husband unsaved simply because they saw her wearing pants outside her apartment, hence the reason why I am posting this. I wrote it a while ago but since I wrote it not long after I got saved I decided to wait on posting it for a while, but I believe that now is the time.
I do NOT believe that it can be Biblically proven that it is wrong for a woman to wear pants. Here is why:
I tend to believe that everything in Scripture is a black and white issue, not gray. The question on whether it is right for a woman to wear pants is a black and white issue. It is not Biblically wrong. It is just a case that for some women it may not be expedient to wear them and it does not edify. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." 1 Corinthians 10:23.
There are several commands and principles in the Bible on the area of modesty. I had always had Deuteronomy 22:5 quoted at me as to why it was wrong for a woman to wear pants. Lets look at that verse for a minute. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." One important thing I have learned in a Bible Believing Baptist Church as opposed to a Fundamental Baptist church is that the whole Bible is profitable for us and was written for our learning, but not all of it was written TO us. Basically, when I'm reading Deuteronomy 22:5, I'm reading something that can be beneficial to me, but it doesn't apply to me because the letter was not written to me...it's not my mail. It's Israel's mail.
By the way, what kind of clothes pertain, or belong to, men? I know in our culture today we have our ideas on what that is, but what about Biblically? Did you know that there are several mentions of the word "skirt" in the Bible, and that ALL of those references refer to a skirt as a man's garment? However, a man wearing that kind of clothing today for the most part grosses us out. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that pants are mens clothing. I know it mentions breeches. First off, breeches were for the priests only. Besides that, breeches were underwear.
In the church age, our only command in regards to clothing is that it be modest (1 Timothy 2:9). Some women do not believe that pants are modest. If they believe that, then they themselves ought not to wear them, but they have no right to try to enforce that belief on others. If it goes against their conscience in regards to modesty, it would be wrong for them to do. If a woman truly believes she is modest wearing pants, then she has the freedom to wear them and should not be judged in any way.
It's amazing what we can learn when we rightly divide (2 Timothy 2:15) the Scriptures (which we are commanded to do) and realize that not all things apply directly to us. Women have the liberty to wear only skirts, dresses, and culottes, and other women have the liberty to wear pants as well. It doesn't make any one of us more spiritual than the other. Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), which means that this issue is NOT a matter of Biblical interpretation, it's a matter of Biblical TRUTH. Not one place in the Bible tells us that women cannot and must not wear pants. The only interpretation of Scripture we should be worried about is God's interpretation.
I don't know HOW many times I have heard the old argument (one that ought to be retired) that Christian women shouldn't wear pants because it causes Christian men to lust. There is some kind of lie propagated in Christian circles that men are turned on by sight but women aren't. I know MANY women who are also turned on by sight, but if they tell people that, they are labeled as a pervert. Where in the Bible does it say that a man is turned on by sight and a woman isn't?
Newsflash: Men can choose whether to lust or not. They can choose to keep looking or to avert their gaze. The sight oriented women have to do this when a man is dressed in a way that "turns them on". The men can return the favour. I am not advocating or excusing immodesty. I see many young girls wearing beautiful clothes that they and their authorities believe is modest, just to be told by some perverted guy that her clothing "turns him on" and that therefore she ought not wear it.
I also want to know why it is always the woman that bears the blame..."oh she caused him to lust because of her clothes"...No, he chose to sin. Be a man and take responsibility for your own sin. As women if we are immodest we will answer for it, but don't deem our modest clothing as immodest just because you like what you see...some women really are just beautiful...and God made them that way.
If a woman truly believes that what she is wearing is modest and her authority (father or husband) has allowed it, then she is not sinning in any way unless she is wearing it with wrong motives. Just because a man lusts over a woman doesn't mean that that woman's heart was wrong when she put on that garment.
By the way, you want to know what else I think? I really think that Christian (and particularly Baptist) men would not have so much trouble in the area of lust if they stopped viewing porn... (and it certainly isn't our fault that they are viewing porn...)
The "men’s clothing" issue...
So some people are telling me that pants are men’s clothing and that I ought not be wearing them, and then those same women will tell me they buy their t-shirts and polos etc in the MENS department because they are "more modest". Umm excuse me but with that glaring inconsistency you just lost my respect, especially when you excuse it by saying "well Deuteronomy 22:5 is only talking about pants, not other things". I personally know several lesbian women who buy their shirts in the men’s department...but the Baptists never take any notice of this.
T-shirts were first men’s clothing before they were women’s clothing...same goes for blouses, and tights, and pantyhose...that doesn't make them "men’s clothing" does it? So why do we pick on "pants" exclusively as if they are some kind of evil object that can be used to determine a woman's spirituality?
Men can (and should be able to) wear pink or purple shirts. Women wear them to. That does NOT make them a unisex item. Men’s shirts are cut for men and women’s shirts are cut for women.
I don't believe in "unisex" and I believe that that is the point God was trying to make in Deuteronomy 22:5.
We need to be careful of teachings that are built upon ONE verse of Scripture anyway...they aren't always wrong but we must be watchful that someone isn't just using it to push their own agenda.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Discord among the brethren
Like I do a lot of times, I'm going to start this with a DISCLAIMER: the following events are totally true, unadulterated (besides not including names) and rather shocking to a degree. I don't mean to cause problems, but I do want to bring attention to a trend that is very dangerous and sly.
A street preacher and his family that our church supported stayed at our church for some time. They were in between meetings, and my pastors allowed them to set their travel trailer up in the church parking lot. I helped the brother set up his materials for the service that Wednesday evening (that's when they had arrived) and assisted him however I could in setting up his trailer.
The next day, Thursday, my wife showed me some videos on YouTube that were rather out of line. Two videos can be found here. In one of the videos, the street preacher that was staying at our church was railing on a lost woman because she didn't like the sign that the preacher was holding. The sign read "HILLARY SHOULD BE HOME DOING THE DISHES." Now, while I don't take offense at the message of the sign at all-in fact I heartily agree-what business does a preacher of Jesus Christ have using something like that, which is geared only to cause a reaction and make people mad?
After watching the video, I left a comment on the video in question, stating that I felt the actions displayed were unbiblical, which was quickly responded to with antagonizing statements and self-righteous judgements. Eventually the preacher discovered who I was and called my pastor to set up a meeting. Pastor called me and asked me what had been going on, and I explained to him about the video and the attitude that had been displayed toward me after I had expressed my disagreement with the video. He assured me that they had been having issues with this man over the same kinds of things, and not to worry about it, but that we would be having a meeting with this preacher within the next couple days.
That Saturday, my pastors, the street preacher and myself sat down in my pastor's office to discuss this issue. At that point the street preacher was very calm and cordial to me, which was glaringly different from how he had acted on the YouTube comments. He had called me a sissified Christian, a liberal, a wimp, accused me of letting my wife run the house and he had questioned my salvation. In the meeting, however, he was calm and explained how he had preached on the street for so many years and had all this experience and yada yada. I apologized for a couple things: I had called him a jerk and told him to get his head out of his tail, and I had also not gone to him and addressed the issue to his face. However, he didn't apologize for a single thing, saying later that he hadn't done anything wrong, and continued to attack me and my wife.
What I didn't know at this point, was that a couple of the men in the church were heavily involved with this preacher, and his self-righteous attitude was beginning to infect them as well. Sadly, the next day, these two men accompanied the street preacher to a church in another town where this man was going to preach, but didn't notify my church at all. These men both held positions in the church, and had responsibilities that required their presence at the church. That afternoon, my pastors called these men in and addressed the problem, but they refused to apologize for what they had done. In addition, the street preacher got involved and accused my pastors of lording over the flock because they expected church members to fulful their duties.
Well, to sum it up, the two men left the church, and the street preacher was told to leave the premises. Unfortunately nothing has changed about the attitudes of the individuals involved, though I pray that they get right and come back to the church where they belong.
What has happened since then is more subtle and even more dangerous, I fear; the younger of the two men that left the church has been talking to a young lady on the internet, and the same spirit of self-righteousness and legalism that was his downfall has now threatened to infect others that aren't aware of the situation.
The street preacher and his family are very legalistic, claiming that they're more spiritual than others because of how they dress, what they watch, what they do, and so on. The man tried to guage my spirituality on whether or not my wife wears pants, what music I listen to, and whether I watch Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Last time I checked, spirituality was guagued by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not because of how you stack up to a self-righteous preacher.
Beware the leaven of the Pharissees.
A street preacher and his family that our church supported stayed at our church for some time. They were in between meetings, and my pastors allowed them to set their travel trailer up in the church parking lot. I helped the brother set up his materials for the service that Wednesday evening (that's when they had arrived) and assisted him however I could in setting up his trailer.
The next day, Thursday, my wife showed me some videos on YouTube that were rather out of line. Two videos can be found here. In one of the videos, the street preacher that was staying at our church was railing on a lost woman because she didn't like the sign that the preacher was holding. The sign read "HILLARY SHOULD BE HOME DOING THE DISHES." Now, while I don't take offense at the message of the sign at all-in fact I heartily agree-what business does a preacher of Jesus Christ have using something like that, which is geared only to cause a reaction and make people mad?
After watching the video, I left a comment on the video in question, stating that I felt the actions displayed were unbiblical, which was quickly responded to with antagonizing statements and self-righteous judgements. Eventually the preacher discovered who I was and called my pastor to set up a meeting. Pastor called me and asked me what had been going on, and I explained to him about the video and the attitude that had been displayed toward me after I had expressed my disagreement with the video. He assured me that they had been having issues with this man over the same kinds of things, and not to worry about it, but that we would be having a meeting with this preacher within the next couple days.
That Saturday, my pastors, the street preacher and myself sat down in my pastor's office to discuss this issue. At that point the street preacher was very calm and cordial to me, which was glaringly different from how he had acted on the YouTube comments. He had called me a sissified Christian, a liberal, a wimp, accused me of letting my wife run the house and he had questioned my salvation. In the meeting, however, he was calm and explained how he had preached on the street for so many years and had all this experience and yada yada. I apologized for a couple things: I had called him a jerk and told him to get his head out of his tail, and I had also not gone to him and addressed the issue to his face. However, he didn't apologize for a single thing, saying later that he hadn't done anything wrong, and continued to attack me and my wife.
What I didn't know at this point, was that a couple of the men in the church were heavily involved with this preacher, and his self-righteous attitude was beginning to infect them as well. Sadly, the next day, these two men accompanied the street preacher to a church in another town where this man was going to preach, but didn't notify my church at all. These men both held positions in the church, and had responsibilities that required their presence at the church. That afternoon, my pastors called these men in and addressed the problem, but they refused to apologize for what they had done. In addition, the street preacher got involved and accused my pastors of lording over the flock because they expected church members to fulful their duties.
Well, to sum it up, the two men left the church, and the street preacher was told to leave the premises. Unfortunately nothing has changed about the attitudes of the individuals involved, though I pray that they get right and come back to the church where they belong.
What has happened since then is more subtle and even more dangerous, I fear; the younger of the two men that left the church has been talking to a young lady on the internet, and the same spirit of self-righteousness and legalism that was his downfall has now threatened to infect others that aren't aware of the situation.
The street preacher and his family are very legalistic, claiming that they're more spiritual than others because of how they dress, what they watch, what they do, and so on. The man tried to guage my spirituality on whether or not my wife wears pants, what music I listen to, and whether I watch Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Last time I checked, spirituality was guagued by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not because of how you stack up to a self-righteous preacher.
Beware the leaven of the Pharissees.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
King James Bible Only or Textus Receptus Only? There Is a Difference
King James Bible Only or Textus Receptus Only? There Is a Difference
In the Old Testament book of Judges, we have the Ephraimites escaping from the Gileadites in chapter 12. When the Ephraimites passed by the Gileadites, the Gileadites had a password, and that password was the word Shibboleth. They used this word because the Ephraimites could not pronounce it properly, and when asked for the password, they would prounounce it Sibboleth.
And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibbolet: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. Judges 12:5-6.
Under the “King James Only” label, we have the true King James Only people (the Gileadites) and the Textus Receptus fakers (the Ephraimites). Before they are put under close scrutiny, they may appear to believe the same thing. Remember that the Ephraimites appeared to be Gileadites until they could not pronounce the word Shibboleth. We have many claiming to stand on the King James Bible that cannot pronounce Shibboleth, and when asked to, we see their real position.
The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus. There are those that believe the King James Bible is perfect because it came from the Textus Receptus, not because it is the King James Bible, yet they claim to be “King James Only”. What they really mean but won’t tell you is that they are “Textus Receptus Only”. There is a difference, and it’s a big difference. In the time of the Judges, there was a difference between Shibboleth and Sibboleth, and it was an important difference.
When asked what the difference is between a King James Bible only man and a Textus Receptus only man, Dr Samuel C. Gipp answers:
A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt. (“The Answer’s Book” Samuel C. Gipp, Daystar Publishing).
Dr Gipp continues by explaining the two different origins of the texts, the Alexandrian and the Antiochan texts. Along with those texts come certain philosophies also.
We are going to explore both the Textus Receptus only and the King James only people to see what the difference is.
One of these groups is indeed King James only, and we believe that the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved and inspired Word of God. The true Bible believers have their manuscripts and their ideology right. We believe that the King James Bible is perfect because it is the King James Bible, not just because of the texts it was translated from. We believe there was inspiration in the translation of the KJB. We believe that every word of the KJB is perfect, and that to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to try to get "deeper meaning" is in fact wrong as it is implying that our Bible is not perfect and we must get deeper meaning from somewhere else.
Then the other group are really Textus Receptus only, and are really Bible correctors under a King James only guise. These are the ones that Dr Gipp describes as having their manuscripts from Antioch but their philosophy from Alexandria. They are right about one thing…the right text. They have compromised with the Alexandrian ideology though that teaches that we do not have a perfect Bible. These are the ones that will say “Sibboleth” because they cannot pronounce “Shibboleth”. They believe that the KJB is perfect, or almost perfect, but only because it was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, which they like to call "the originals" even though they are NOT the originals. They are copies of originals, and furthermore, there are many different varieties of the Textus Receptus, and those copies disagree with each other, so knowing which one is the right one would be difficult. The Textus Receptus-only people believe that we need to go to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts to get "extra meaning" or "deeper meaning" from "the original text" when the Textus Receptus is NOT the original.
It’s also interesting to note that the version of the Textus Receptus that people use to study now was translated by Scrivener in 1894. If we know anything at all about math, we know that 1894 is well over 200 years after 1611, which is when the King James Bible was translated. That means that the King James Bible was around over 200 years before the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. Remember, Srivener’s is the copy of the Textus Receptus that is used today for study. It is also interesting to note that the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus was backtranslated from the King James Bible. Yet there are people that think that the King James Bible is preserved because of a manuscript that came out after it. That doesn’t make any sense.
Will Kinney says: They then defend what they call the “traditional text” and what they mean by this is the particular variety of Textus Receptus that CAME FROM the King James Bible. Their 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR was a back-translation from the KJB into a Greek N.T. text. The Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza are about 99.9 % the same, but there definitely are some textual differences. Usually the KJB translators went with Beza, but sometimes with either Erasmus or Stephanus. What Mr. Scrivener did was to find the particular Greek readings from these various Greek texts that the King James Bible followed, and he then made up his copy of what is now the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek Textus Receptus. Their TR did not give rise to the KJB but it was the KJB that gave rise to their printed copies of their Textus Receptus! (Will Kinney “Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?”).
I hope this has helped define the two main groups that fall under the "King James Only" category, because sometimes a person will tell you that they are King James only, only to find out later that they are really Textus Receptus only. This is a deceptive cloak for a Bible corrector to use so that people don’t know he is a Bible corrector. Most fundamental Baptist churches, Bible colleges and ministries will claim King James only when they are really Textus Receptus only. It’s important to find out before you get involved. Chances are, if they “go back to the original languages” that they are Textus Receptus only. Listen carefully…are they saying Shibboleth or Sibboleth?
In the Old Testament book of Judges, we have the Ephraimites escaping from the Gileadites in chapter 12. When the Ephraimites passed by the Gileadites, the Gileadites had a password, and that password was the word Shibboleth. They used this word because the Ephraimites could not pronounce it properly, and when asked for the password, they would prounounce it Sibboleth.
And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibbolet: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. Judges 12:5-6.
Under the “King James Only” label, we have the true King James Only people (the Gileadites) and the Textus Receptus fakers (the Ephraimites). Before they are put under close scrutiny, they may appear to believe the same thing. Remember that the Ephraimites appeared to be Gileadites until they could not pronounce the word Shibboleth. We have many claiming to stand on the King James Bible that cannot pronounce Shibboleth, and when asked to, we see their real position.
The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus. There are those that believe the King James Bible is perfect because it came from the Textus Receptus, not because it is the King James Bible, yet they claim to be “King James Only”. What they really mean but won’t tell you is that they are “Textus Receptus Only”. There is a difference, and it’s a big difference. In the time of the Judges, there was a difference between Shibboleth and Sibboleth, and it was an important difference.
When asked what the difference is between a King James Bible only man and a Textus Receptus only man, Dr Samuel C. Gipp answers:
A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt. (“The Answer’s Book” Samuel C. Gipp, Daystar Publishing).
Dr Gipp continues by explaining the two different origins of the texts, the Alexandrian and the Antiochan texts. Along with those texts come certain philosophies also.
We are going to explore both the Textus Receptus only and the King James only people to see what the difference is.
One of these groups is indeed King James only, and we believe that the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved and inspired Word of God. The true Bible believers have their manuscripts and their ideology right. We believe that the King James Bible is perfect because it is the King James Bible, not just because of the texts it was translated from. We believe there was inspiration in the translation of the KJB. We believe that every word of the KJB is perfect, and that to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to try to get "deeper meaning" is in fact wrong as it is implying that our Bible is not perfect and we must get deeper meaning from somewhere else.
Then the other group are really Textus Receptus only, and are really Bible correctors under a King James only guise. These are the ones that Dr Gipp describes as having their manuscripts from Antioch but their philosophy from Alexandria. They are right about one thing…the right text. They have compromised with the Alexandrian ideology though that teaches that we do not have a perfect Bible. These are the ones that will say “Sibboleth” because they cannot pronounce “Shibboleth”. They believe that the KJB is perfect, or almost perfect, but only because it was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, which they like to call "the originals" even though they are NOT the originals. They are copies of originals, and furthermore, there are many different varieties of the Textus Receptus, and those copies disagree with each other, so knowing which one is the right one would be difficult. The Textus Receptus-only people believe that we need to go to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts to get "extra meaning" or "deeper meaning" from "the original text" when the Textus Receptus is NOT the original.
It’s also interesting to note that the version of the Textus Receptus that people use to study now was translated by Scrivener in 1894. If we know anything at all about math, we know that 1894 is well over 200 years after 1611, which is when the King James Bible was translated. That means that the King James Bible was around over 200 years before the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. Remember, Srivener’s is the copy of the Textus Receptus that is used today for study. It is also interesting to note that the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus was backtranslated from the King James Bible. Yet there are people that think that the King James Bible is preserved because of a manuscript that came out after it. That doesn’t make any sense.
Will Kinney says: They then defend what they call the “traditional text” and what they mean by this is the particular variety of Textus Receptus that CAME FROM the King James Bible. Their 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR was a back-translation from the KJB into a Greek N.T. text. The Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza are about 99.9 % the same, but there definitely are some textual differences. Usually the KJB translators went with Beza, but sometimes with either Erasmus or Stephanus. What Mr. Scrivener did was to find the particular Greek readings from these various Greek texts that the King James Bible followed, and he then made up his copy of what is now the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek Textus Receptus. Their TR did not give rise to the KJB but it was the KJB that gave rise to their printed copies of their Textus Receptus! (Will Kinney “Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?”).
I hope this has helped define the two main groups that fall under the "King James Only" category, because sometimes a person will tell you that they are King James only, only to find out later that they are really Textus Receptus only. This is a deceptive cloak for a Bible corrector to use so that people don’t know he is a Bible corrector. Most fundamental Baptist churches, Bible colleges and ministries will claim King James only when they are really Textus Receptus only. It’s important to find out before you get involved. Chances are, if they “go back to the original languages” that they are Textus Receptus only. Listen carefully…are they saying Shibboleth or Sibboleth?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Advanced Revelation, Double Inspiration, and People who lie about the Bible
Like always, the last forum that banned me (*cough*OB*cough) is embroiled in the TR vs. KJB debate again. The site claims to be "King James Version Only," and while the Administrator doesn't post enough for me to know for sure how he stands, the vast majority of the members there are "fair-weather KJB-onlyists," or they only believe the King James Bible because nothing better has come along to replace it.
Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.
Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!
Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D
Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.
Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!
Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Ye do err...
Recently I have been hit by an onslaught of attacks (this blog not being included in that). I think the Lord is allowing Satan to touch my wife and I to a small degree; most likely in preparation for the ministry to which He has called us. I'd appreciate the prayers of anyone that calls themselves a born-again Christian; I'm simply doing (to the best of HIS ability: I can do nothing without Him) what He's called me to do.
On a slightly more enjoyable note, I'd like to address some of the more recent comments directed toward me through this blog.
I knew Daryn ("Big D") back when our families attended the same church in Missouri; in fact his father was the assistant pastor of the church. A huge falling out occurred in 2001 or so; several families left initially, and Daryn's family left a couple months after. Please bear in mind that in 2001 I was 12-13 years old.
We've attended several churches since then, my family and I, and the Lord has done some amazing things in my life. Since leaving that church, I learned the most vital part of Bible study: Rightly Dividing. This topic was anathema at the church that Daryn's and my family attended at the time, so understandably few if any people there would understand the Bible in the way that God intended.
Now back to the present, 2008. All of a sudden, Daryn, from whom I haven't heard a thing in years, shows up on my blog and claims to know me inside and out or some such nonsense; he said that he knows me better than a good friend of mine who I see occasionally and talk to online quite often. Basically, because of his attitude when he approached me, he got on my bad side really quick.
He began by questioning my attitude, of which he knows nothing, and saying that I was a fool for believing the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God. Now I don't know about anyone else that might perchance read my blog, but I believe that next to the doctrines of the Trinity, Salvation and Eternal Security, the King James Bible is the most important, mainly because nothing else has any degree of credence without the perfection of God's holy word. How do you show someone how to be saved if you don't have a perfect Bible to show them from??
Anyway, in the end, Daryn wound up attacking both me AND Jason (the friend he claimed didn't know me as well as Daryn) for showing him from the Scriptures and with plain logic that his position is wrong. Showing his arrogance, pride and haughtiness, Daryn continued, up until his last point, to make hypocritical and Pharisaical remarks about Jason and myself, though he knows absolutely nothing about Jason, and little more about me.
I gave him this simple challenge, which I will extend to any reader that disagrees with my simple premise (the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and is given by inspiration of God): take a King James Bible, and study the topics:
On a slightly more enjoyable note, I'd like to address some of the more recent comments directed toward me through this blog.
I knew Daryn ("Big D") back when our families attended the same church in Missouri; in fact his father was the assistant pastor of the church. A huge falling out occurred in 2001 or so; several families left initially, and Daryn's family left a couple months after. Please bear in mind that in 2001 I was 12-13 years old.
We've attended several churches since then, my family and I, and the Lord has done some amazing things in my life. Since leaving that church, I learned the most vital part of Bible study: Rightly Dividing. This topic was anathema at the church that Daryn's and my family attended at the time, so understandably few if any people there would understand the Bible in the way that God intended.
Now back to the present, 2008. All of a sudden, Daryn, from whom I haven't heard a thing in years, shows up on my blog and claims to know me inside and out or some such nonsense; he said that he knows me better than a good friend of mine who I see occasionally and talk to online quite often. Basically, because of his attitude when he approached me, he got on my bad side really quick.
He began by questioning my attitude, of which he knows nothing, and saying that I was a fool for believing the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God. Now I don't know about anyone else that might perchance read my blog, but I believe that next to the doctrines of the Trinity, Salvation and Eternal Security, the King James Bible is the most important, mainly because nothing else has any degree of credence without the perfection of God's holy word. How do you show someone how to be saved if you don't have a perfect Bible to show them from??
Anyway, in the end, Daryn wound up attacking both me AND Jason (the friend he claimed didn't know me as well as Daryn) for showing him from the Scriptures and with plain logic that his position is wrong. Showing his arrogance, pride and haughtiness, Daryn continued, up until his last point, to make hypocritical and Pharisaical remarks about Jason and myself, though he knows absolutely nothing about Jason, and little more about me.
I gave him this simple challenge, which I will extend to any reader that disagrees with my simple premise (the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and is given by inspiration of God): take a King James Bible, and study the topics:
- Inspiration
- Preservation
- Translation
Sunday, May 18, 2008
To Canonize or not to Canonize
We received a comment recently, asking about the early Church, and where they went wrong, especially in regards to the Canonization of the Scriptures. Bear with me; this could get a little lengthy.
There is a belief among many denominations that the Apostles' positions were handed down to others: the view is commonly known as Apostolic Succession. This is a fundamental and essential part of the Roman Catholic Church's position, as their Nicolaitanistic clergy would have no justification without it. Likewise, many of the Protestant groups that came out of Rome (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) or split off (Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican) teach a similar form of Apostolic Succession, though not as fiercely as the RCC.
To fully understand the quandary that modern "Christianity" is in requires a little digging into the history of the Body of Christ, or the Church. While the universal Body of Christ actually began at Pentecost, when the Disciples were empowered with the Holy Ghost, some groups teach that Christ founded His church on Peter, using Matthew 16:18;
Anyhow, that's how the Church started: Peter was the first spokesman, and later Paul was the main instrument to spread the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel began to spread when the Jews started persecuting the Christians, and they moved away, taking their relatively new-found faith with them. Eventually the Gospel reached Rome, where Paul wound up getting executed by Nero. When the number of Christians became a large problem for the Roman government, they were persecuted with all the fury of the Roman legions, yet they continued to grow even more.
By 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine realized that they would never be able to root the Christians out, and as the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them"; he did exactly that. He "Baptized" his troops by marching them through the river, after which he had his armies wear crosses on their armor. He cited a vision in the sky, where a cross stood bearing the inscription: "In Vince Hoc," or "With this conquor." Many church elders warmly welcomed the respite from persecution, though some feared the new union between the government and the body of Christ. Constantine's new religion began incorporating many of the trappings of the former pagan worship, including polytheism, ornate worship services, temple prostitution and other godless, profane things, under the guise of "Christianity."
There were many people, however, that fled this new abomination, and eventually were persecuted as the unholy union of church and state began to overshadow Europe and the entire Roman Empire. In an effort to stifle the resistance to their religion, the Roman church forbad the common people to own or possess any portion of the Scriptures, or writings of the apostles or the Hebrew Old Testament. In this they thought to control the people, and keep them in ignorance to the abominations they were perpetrating in the name of Christ.
Between 393 and 419 A.D., different councils and synods had declared the "Canon" of the Bible, or which books were and were not Scriptural. The Roman church, using the idea of Apostolic Succession, declared that since Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of God, that they still held those keys and also had the right to declare what was God's word.
By contrast, however, the Bible states that God's word is settled forever in Heaven, negating the necessity of a canon. Just because a group of men gets together and declares something to be so does not establish it, just as their refusal to accept something does not negate its existence. Therefore, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority on the written word of God, when God had already settled it in Heaven in eternity past, is preposterous to the highest degree. The Catholic church simply wanted to keep the people in darkness to the word of God (hence the "Dark Ages") so their "Indulgences" and "Penances" and "Priests," "Monks," "Nuns," "Friars," "Cardinals" and "Bishops" wouldn't be uncovered as fraudulent, unblibical, paganistic trash.
There is a belief among many denominations that the Apostles' positions were handed down to others: the view is commonly known as Apostolic Succession. This is a fundamental and essential part of the Roman Catholic Church's position, as their Nicolaitanistic clergy would have no justification without it. Likewise, many of the Protestant groups that came out of Rome (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) or split off (Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican) teach a similar form of Apostolic Succession, though not as fiercely as the RCC.
To fully understand the quandary that modern "Christianity" is in requires a little digging into the history of the Body of Christ, or the Church. While the universal Body of Christ actually began at Pentecost, when the Disciples were empowered with the Holy Ghost, some groups teach that Christ founded His church on Peter, using Matthew 16:18;
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."The only problem with that is that Jesus had just gotten done asking Peter who he thought Jesus was, to which question he responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now, Peter's name means little stone, but Jesus is the Rock of Ages and the Cornerstone, so Jesus building His church on Himself (a rock) makes much more sense than Him building it on Peter (a stone).
Anyhow, that's how the Church started: Peter was the first spokesman, and later Paul was the main instrument to spread the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel began to spread when the Jews started persecuting the Christians, and they moved away, taking their relatively new-found faith with them. Eventually the Gospel reached Rome, where Paul wound up getting executed by Nero. When the number of Christians became a large problem for the Roman government, they were persecuted with all the fury of the Roman legions, yet they continued to grow even more.
By 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine realized that they would never be able to root the Christians out, and as the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them"; he did exactly that. He "Baptized" his troops by marching them through the river, after which he had his armies wear crosses on their armor. He cited a vision in the sky, where a cross stood bearing the inscription: "In Vince Hoc," or "With this conquor." Many church elders warmly welcomed the respite from persecution, though some feared the new union between the government and the body of Christ. Constantine's new religion began incorporating many of the trappings of the former pagan worship, including polytheism, ornate worship services, temple prostitution and other godless, profane things, under the guise of "Christianity."
There were many people, however, that fled this new abomination, and eventually were persecuted as the unholy union of church and state began to overshadow Europe and the entire Roman Empire. In an effort to stifle the resistance to their religion, the Roman church forbad the common people to own or possess any portion of the Scriptures, or writings of the apostles or the Hebrew Old Testament. In this they thought to control the people, and keep them in ignorance to the abominations they were perpetrating in the name of Christ.
Between 393 and 419 A.D., different councils and synods had declared the "Canon" of the Bible, or which books were and were not Scriptural. The Roman church, using the idea of Apostolic Succession, declared that since Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of God, that they still held those keys and also had the right to declare what was God's word.
By contrast, however, the Bible states that God's word is settled forever in Heaven, negating the necessity of a canon. Just because a group of men gets together and declares something to be so does not establish it, just as their refusal to accept something does not negate its existence. Therefore, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority on the written word of God, when God had already settled it in Heaven in eternity past, is preposterous to the highest degree. The Catholic church simply wanted to keep the people in darkness to the word of God (hence the "Dark Ages") so their "Indulgences" and "Penances" and "Priests," "Monks," "Nuns," "Friars," "Cardinals" and "Bishops" wouldn't be uncovered as fraudulent, unblibical, paganistic trash.
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
(Isaiah 40:8)
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Who's causing division?
We've all heard it. "Those Ruckmanites, they just cause division among the brethren!!" It's a common accusation in churches across America, but is it true??
Maybe it happens in some cases, but not in what I've seen in a situation over the past few months to someone I know (and believe me, this is a very common thing to happen in churches when people become aware that a "Ruckmanite" is in the congregation).
So here you are... in a nice, friendly Fundamentalist church. When you come in as a new visitor, the people are all so friendly, the music is beautiful, and the preaching seems pretty dead-on (he's even preaching from a KJV! wow!). As you get to know people there, you get involved in fellowship activities and soulwinning and everything. Of course, since you happen to love Dr. Ruckman's preaching... you mention Dr. Ruckman's name to a few people (just to see how they react). Strangely, their faces turn grim and they start to avoid you. People who said that they just LOVED to talk to you are now shunning you. Pretty soon, the whole church is like one big clique and you're not a part of it. This "friendly" church is now cutting you out of the congregation just because you like the preaching of someone they don't like!
Now who's causing the division here? Is it the "Ruckmanite" or the members of the Fundamentalist church? I think the answer is quite clear.
Maybe it happens in some cases, but not in what I've seen in a situation over the past few months to someone I know (and believe me, this is a very common thing to happen in churches when people become aware that a "Ruckmanite" is in the congregation).
So here you are... in a nice, friendly Fundamentalist church. When you come in as a new visitor, the people are all so friendly, the music is beautiful, and the preaching seems pretty dead-on (he's even preaching from a KJV! wow!). As you get to know people there, you get involved in fellowship activities and soulwinning and everything. Of course, since you happen to love Dr. Ruckman's preaching... you mention Dr. Ruckman's name to a few people (just to see how they react). Strangely, their faces turn grim and they start to avoid you. People who said that they just LOVED to talk to you are now shunning you. Pretty soon, the whole church is like one big clique and you're not a part of it. This "friendly" church is now cutting you out of the congregation just because you like the preaching of someone they don't like!
Now who's causing the division here? Is it the "Ruckmanite" or the members of the Fundamentalist church? I think the answer is quite clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
