Joined: September 18th, 2005, 4:26 am

October 28th, 2005, 3:23 am #11

Dear Eddie,

I do not believe technology has a thing to do with changing how God instructed mankind to Worship Him, not one bit. In the Bible, in the very last book, in the very last chapter, God warns we are not to add or take away from His Word (Revelation 22:18,19) and this includes the mode of worship. Sunday sabbath worship is simply the gathering together with other saints who are likeminded (Hebrews 10:25) to:

1.) observe the LORD's supper, (1 Corinthians 11)
2.) to ask if anyone new desires to be baptized (Acts 2:38)
3.) to have older, mature, consistent members of the assemly teach the Word to the congregation and newer members (Acts 2:42; James 3:1)
4.) to address any benevolence requests of the brethren
5.) to pray (Matthew 18:20, Acts 1:14)
6.) perhaps sing a Psalm or a faithful hymn upon gathering and dismissing the assembly

Technology does not change the essential teachings one bit, the only difference maybe something like using lights instead of candles or a lampstand or having a baptismal instead of using a lake, but in either case I do not believe subtle changes such as these are adding to the commandments of the very simplistic assembly that God has commanded and outlined in His Word given to us.

JC

"How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!" - Daniel 12:12.
Quote
Like
Share

Eddie
Eddie

October 28th, 2005, 6:47 pm #12

Jc,

You have not answered the questions. You did do a good job of skirting around them.

Ed
Quote
Share

Joined: September 18th, 2005, 4:26 am

October 29th, 2005, 7:23 pm #13

Eddie:

It is apparent that you are one of those who has no desire to learn what the Bible itself says about how Christians are to assemble so I'll stop wasting my breath right now.

JC
Quote
Like
Share

Eddie
Eddie

October 30th, 2005, 1:51 am #14

JC,

You are still skirting!!!
Quote
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:58 pm

April 30th, 2006, 5:54 am #15

From the King James Bible:

Rom. 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

Rom. 16:18 "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

Gal. 1:6 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:"

Gal. 1:7 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."

Gal. 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Gal. 1:9 "As we said before, so say I now again, if any (man) preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Gal. 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

Gal. 1:11 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man."

Gal. 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught (it), but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Yes, there are disputable things in life, and even in the Church, like the hour of worship, order of worship, the number of songs sung, and even heating and cooling units, for example. These do not alter the basic doctrine of the New Testament. The doctrine of the New Testament is not disputable. When the Church alters the New Testament pattern of worship and Christian living and introduces worldly practices so that it becomes like the world, it violates Romans 12:2 and James 4:4. Christians must learn to live and worship according to the indisputable pattern as set forth in the New Testament. To consider the New Testament doctrine as "disputable" introduces discord and strife. It is a reflection of man's preferences over Christ's commands.
Dr. Bill Crump,

Thank you for your post. Your post has a wealth of information in it that I need I am not trying to be smart with you but do you mind if I ask you a honest question? Why do you use the King James Version? I might have some questions for you later on.

Thank you for your time.

Tom

Readers, do me favor and let me know if you think that I am being sarcastic. Knowledge without love is nothing.
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

April 30th, 2006, 7:40 pm #16

Tom, thanks for your question. I believe the KJV to be a reliable translation, a literal word-for-word translation and not a paraphrase, of the Greek manuscripts that have survived the ravages of time. I believe the KJV puts into very formal English as close a meaning as we can get to what the manuscripts intended to say, given the problems with languages, without altering the original meaning of the original authors.

Further reasons are too complex to outline here. That would be like asking me to tell you everything there is to know about medicine. But there are scholarly treatises on the KJV that compare that translation to the modern versions and paraphrases like the NIV, Living Bible, and The Message. A good place to start is the online study entitled SPIRITUAL DECEPTION IN THE HIGHEST: An In-Depth Study of the Authorized King James Bible vs. All Other "Modern Versions." The link is: http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm

One problem with the modern translations and paraphrases is that they are based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two fourth-century manuscripts which have been proven to be monstrously flawed. Yet modern scholars still "rely" on these texts, because they are supposedly the "oldest" extant manuscripts we have of the New Testament. But in this case, "older" is not always "better."

A valuable but difficult work which discredits these two codices is that by Dean John Burgon, a 19th-century English vicar, who wrote The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. This work proves the validity of Mark 16:9-20, a passage which many modern translations otherwise treat as spurious. Hence, modern translations either place such passages in brackets, banish them as footnotes, or delete them altogether. By dealing with Mark 16, Burgon also shows how flawed the two codices are. Burgon's works should be available in most public libraries.

Another source is the Trinitarian Bible Society, which publishes authoritative information about the KJV, its history, its translation, those who made the translation, and articles comparing the KJV with modern versions. You can order materials from them at:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org

I hope this steers you in the right direction, for it summarizes the sources I have used to convince me that the original KJV (not the New KJV) is a far superior translation (despite some archaic words) to any modern translation. The RSV and ASV would probably be as reliable, although I have less experience with them. I don't use the KJV because of tradition; I use it because of what I learned through study.
Quote
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:58 pm

May 1st, 2006, 6:27 am #17


Thank you for the great information.

As you can tell that I have not checked into this but I personally cannot stand the King James Version. I use the easy to read version because it's easy to read. I have both the easy to read and the niv paper versions and I also have more versions on e-sword.

Have a great day.

Tom


Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2006, 10:58 pm

May 1st, 2006, 6:34 am #18

Tom, thanks for your question. I believe the KJV to be a reliable translation, a literal word-for-word translation and not a paraphrase, of the Greek manuscripts that have survived the ravages of time. I believe the KJV puts into very formal English as close a meaning as we can get to what the manuscripts intended to say, given the problems with languages, without altering the original meaning of the original authors.

Further reasons are too complex to outline here. That would be like asking me to tell you everything there is to know about medicine. But there are scholarly treatises on the KJV that compare that translation to the modern versions and paraphrases like the NIV, Living Bible, and The Message. A good place to start is the online study entitled SPIRITUAL DECEPTION IN THE HIGHEST: An In-Depth Study of the Authorized King James Bible vs. All Other "Modern Versions." The link is: http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm

One problem with the modern translations and paraphrases is that they are based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two fourth-century manuscripts which have been proven to be monstrously flawed. Yet modern scholars still "rely" on these texts, because they are supposedly the "oldest" extant manuscripts we have of the New Testament. But in this case, "older" is not always "better."

A valuable but difficult work which discredits these two codices is that by Dean John Burgon, a 19th-century English vicar, who wrote The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. This work proves the validity of Mark 16:9-20, a passage which many modern translations otherwise treat as spurious. Hence, modern translations either place such passages in brackets, banish them as footnotes, or delete them altogether. By dealing with Mark 16, Burgon also shows how flawed the two codices are. Burgon's works should be available in most public libraries.

Another source is the Trinitarian Bible Society, which publishes authoritative information about the KJV, its history, its translation, those who made the translation, and articles comparing the KJV with modern versions. You can order materials from them at:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org

I hope this steers you in the right direction, for it summarizes the sources I have used to convince me that the original KJV (not the New KJV) is a far superior translation (despite some archaic words) to any modern translation. The RSV and ASV would probably be as reliable, although I have less experience with them. I don't use the KJV because of tradition; I use it because of what I learned through study.
Something tricky is going on. I put in www.concernedmembers.org and it took me to the Madison COC website. I might be telling you something that you already know.

 

Have a great day,

 Tom


Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 1st, 2006, 1:00 pm #19

Thank you for the great information.

As you can tell that I have not checked into this but I personally cannot stand the King James Version. I use the easy to read version because it's easy to read. I have both the easy to read and the niv paper versions and I also have more versions on e-sword.

Have a great day.

Tom


Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida
Tom, just like the two codices, in which older is not necessarily better, remember that just because a Bible version is easier to read does not necessarily make it a more accurate translation. Contrary to popular belief, all Bible versions are not the same.

You may also want to peruse the thread entitled "Are All Bibles the Same? Do All Bibles Contain the Inspired Word of God?" which is located in the Sunday School in Exile forum here on this site.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

May 1st, 2006, 1:09 pm #20

Something tricky is going on. I put in www.concernedmembers.org and it took me to the Madison COC website. I might be telling you something that you already know.

 

Have a great day,

 Tom


Palm Beach Lakes Church of Christ
West Palm Beach, Florida
Thank you. Yes, we're well aware of that. It's a ploy that the Madison Church uses to steer as many people away from the CM site as possible, for obvious reasons.
Quote
Share