Michael Hranek wrote:
.
Hmmm? But to be more like the Muslims we would need to learn Greek and Hebrew FLUENTLY so we could read AND UNDERSTAND the Bible in the original languages. (Really not a bad idea for a child of God who has sufficient time to learn).

The one thing that has always stood in the back of my mind, is if the original languages are where the Truth resides then that would make my Bible less than adequate. Since most Christians do not have the acquired skills of reading Greek or Hebrew that would give them little or no access to Scripture that is 100% accurate. I don't buy that. I believe that we have an accurate English here and now, the KJV.

John UK wrote:
Don't you folks find it strange that so-called 'scholars' reckon they can tell you every one of the mistakes found in the Bible, yet are unable to produce ONE Bible with all those so-called mistakes rectified? Ha! Treacherous, highbrow Bible pervertors, corruptors, and doubt-builders. They'll get their comeuppance for causing God's real people so much aggro.
Say, if the AV1611 has language hard to understand, why don't publishers simply modernise all these so-called difficult words, and produce a Bible that folks can understand, even though it takes a revelation from the Spirit to understand even the simplest doctrine. Why not????
Because there's dollars in them there Christians, and if we get them needing five or six different versions every few years, that's more money in our filthy lucre POCKETS, THAT'S WHY!!!

As a KJV only person, I have tried to study both sides of the issue. I found that there are extremists on both sides of the issue that aren't contributing much to their arguments. After using the NIV for several years, I dropped it for the KJV. And there is no turning back for me.

John UK wrote:
Yes, Lundy Island, halfway between the English and Welsh coasts, is in England (Devon) and sovereignly 'ruled' by the Queen. I think it is now an 'English Heritage' site, and holidays can be taken there, in the very limited accommodation. There is one shop which doubles as a post office and not much more. One day, I might even go myself....ah...the isolation....

Biblicist wrote:
Supposedly part of Devon, if Google maps is to be believed.

John UK wrote:
Say, Hidemi, have you ever come across a church in USA called 'The Church of God in Christ - Mennonite'? For some years I used their free AV tracts and AV gospels of John (sent from Canada) and was very impressed with them, although I never knew anything about them until yesterday, when I found their website. But we have none churches here in the UK that I know of, and I wouldn't want to grow a beard anyway, as I'm a clean-shaven ol' turnip.

down and up wrote:
John 3: 23 the word 'Aenon' (137)
You quoted 'because there was much water there' so you imply immersion from your literal understaning of English.
All I ask is for you to think logically and scripturally-are you suprised that Strong says it means PLACE OF SPRINGS.
Greek expert Thayer says 'many springs or fountains'
Obviously you will tell me without any evidence that all were baptised by immersion here-but scripture doesn't prove such at all. Springs and fountains?

G137
Αἰνών
Ainōn
ahee-nohn'
Of Hebrew origin (a derivative of [H5869], place of springs); AEnon, a place in Palestine: - AEnon.
H5869
עין
‛ayin
ah'-yin
Probably a primitive word; an eye (literally or figuratively); by analogy a fountain (as the eye of the landscape).

Biblicist wrote:
John Gill (not only a theologian, but an expert in all matters relating to Judaism) wrote extensively on the question of the subject and mode of Baptism.
All his writings on this subject are worthy of careful study.
You will find them on:
[URL=http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm]]]John Gill Archive

John UK wrote:
FR, I know I've raised this point before, but it bears repeating. The Eunuch had a very long journey back, across desert wastes, with an entourage of folks and animals. It makes complete sense that, being wealthy, he would have had a huge amount of water on board for the trip.
So if the baptism that Philip preached to him was by pouring or sprinkling, why on earth did he wait until he spotted a muddy water-hole full of 'creatures' before mentioning baptism? Why not just get out one of his bottles? And why did Philip accede to his request, when he knew the eunuch had plenty of clean water on board more suited to baptismal sprinkling? A few drops would have been sufficient and hardly would have dented his supply.

John UK wrote:
Interesting, but sure to make lovers of the Bible feel rather nauseous, because no sooner has Kenyon praised the translation work of the 1611 as excellent, he then goes on to say that the texts used were NOT the word of God, thereby implying that the 1611 Bible is NOT the word of God. Can you see what I'm saying, Mike, about how the devil brings doubt into peoples' minds about the very word of God?
It wouldn't be quite so bad if these same men were to say that we now have the word of God in the original languages, inerrant and infallible, and we now have a perfectly accurate translation of this into English. But what have we? Over ONE HUNDRED versions since the 1611 AV and NOT ONE of them makes that claim, not even the 21st century Bibles.
It is because of this that I claim the Bible-producing marketplace is headed up by Satan and the love of filthy lucre. Youngsters reading these Bibles will NEVER have a definite faith, because these Bible do not claim it.
And so the modern preachers are doubtful and spread their deadly doubts.
AV1611

Mike wrote:
John, here's an interesting read from a fellow Brit, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon:
[URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv1.html]]]The Authorised Version (1611)[/URL]

down and up wrote:
John 5: 4 the Angel went down into the pool
Exodus 2: 5 the daughter of Pharoah came down to wash herself in the river
2 Kings 5: 14 'Then he went down, dipped himself seven times in Jordan'
By all means deal with the word Baptise as prrof of immersion but are you sure 'going down' and 'coming up' means immersion or simply entering and exiting the water?
Scriptural proof please and BTW what about the elderly frail sick convert-does he get Baptised even on a death bed or not?

Have you ever taken a dip in a swimming pool? Did you do that to sprinkle yourself with water or did you jump in and go swimming?

I think that if one goes "down into" the water, it is more than going down to the river. BTW, if you can drown in 18" of water, you can also be baptized in 18" of water.

βάπτω is the greek base for baptism and most definitions of this word means "to be wholly covered by water".

John UK wrote:
If Christian men, especially ministers, will stop fiddling around with the word of God, and begin to believe it THEMSELVES, in its entirety, then they will assist greatly in God's work, and there will be less doubters and more believers in the congregation.
If ever I'm in a church, and the preacher says something like, "of course, in the Greek...." OR "now this text is poorly translated...." OR "I'll read this now in a different version so we get it right..." then I just walk OUT!
If ALL preachers would get back to preaching from the KJV, and get that revelation from God that it can be trusted wholeheartedly AS HIS WORD, inerrant and infallible, then that FAITH will have a good effect, and his ministry will do some good. IMHO!!

Presbyfacts wrote:
Well we can agree in a few things. Thats good.
BTW FPC Scotland, not Ulster. Sorry I should have mentioned. We have a few differences with them too. But hey debate is good.

justmyopinion wrote:
I live in Canada. We do not presently have a church to go to but we are looking for one. Until then we worship at home.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Actually there are three heresies in the article, that repentance is not individual, support for queer marriages, and one that isn't mentioned at all, it is a heresy for a woman to be a leader in a church. Three strikes and this Episcopal Church is out! Note, [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L206.pdf]]]Marks of the True Believer[/URL]