SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Revival Idolatry

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
PosterThread
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re:

bro Krispy
boy did yu ever come across as thinking that bible versions were solely responsible for the lack of revival...lol

Quote:
Certainly riches is part of it. But this country has always been wealthy compared to other parts of the world. The apathetic attitude comes from many places... but I believe that most of it comes from an apathetic attitude toward the Word of God.



well i don't think America has always been wealthy compared to most places until recently in the last century. the British for example had and still have a lot of wealth. the empire stretched over 60-70% of Africa which gave (and still gives)them access to untold amounts of natural resources. for example the largest diamond company in the world and indeed one of the first, the de beers company was founded by a guy named cecil rhodes after which rhodesia, later zimbabwe (where i'm from) the rise of america as world power really began in the late 1800s. i must ask though if we are the wealthiest nation how come we have the most debt? that still doesn't make sense to me...but i digress.


Quote:
Any true supporter of modern versions is being intellectually dishonest if he/she says that they know with certainty that they have the preserved Word of God in their hands. If they say that, then they are a liar because modern version not only disagree with the Textus Receptus, they also disagree with each other.



well i'm not sure how many people are even aware of the different textforms i dare say a small number.people are aware however that things get lost in translation even from the perfect text. for example in my language, Shona there is no word for soul so in some places it's translated as spirit and other places life which can be problematic. i'm not sure what text this translation is based on but there are a host of other words in the greek or hebrew which have no equivelent in Shona but what is the same though is the Spirit of God through which His word is preserved. i'd been reading the n.i.v and good news version for some time before i learned of this textus receptus and all this other stuff and i still use those versions and they haveno hindered my walk with God at all. in fact they have proven to me that it is the Spirit of God who ministers to us and reveals His word to us...well you know how i feel about this issue bro.

but anyway even if we did have the perfect text and we said so people would still say "and so, what's your point." having the perfect text would no more convince anyone that the word of God is the word of God, only the Lord can convict one to believe thusly.

Quote:
And until believers in this country realize that what is in the KJV is God's preserved Word, I believe there will be no great revival in this country.



huh? you know how i feel about this KJV-O issue. i use it on occasion. i find it cumbersome but the Lord is showing me how to get around that by His Spirit. There will be no revival here until we are at a point of desperation such that we seek the Lord earnestly and not half-step this...and that desperation is fast-coming.

Quote:
And before someone accuses me of being "KJV-O", let me state very clearly that I am in favor of a version being made in modern English... but only if it is based on the Textus Receptus alone, with no footnotes alluding to the differences between it and the Alexandrian Text. So far no one has. I could care less what is in or not in the Alexandrian Text. It's corrupt, it's junk.



i think probably there are some believers who could care less what's in the textus receptus just as much as you're unconcerned for what's in the alexandrian texts. personally its of no consequence to me what's in them, i don't feel led of God to dig them up and study them so i'm not foolin with that. my concern is what is the Lord trying to minister to me by His Spirit through this n.i.v., g.n.b. and k.j.v. He has me using. by virtue of the fact that the Lord has me use these 3 texts and has not been hindered by them says to me His Spirit is the vehicle by which His word is preserved rather than the texts.

in short all this is a result of a lack of regard for the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. we acknowledge Him in word only rather than yield to Him who knows and does only the will of God.


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2006/3/16 9:46Profile









 Re:

IRONMAN,

You and I do differ on this issue, and thats ok. I know you're saved and serving God. I hear what you're saying and you do have good points.

But as for revival, I still hold my ground on what I said.

Did you know, for instance, that the KJV was not called the King James Version until 1929? Before that it was always referred to as The Authorized Version. However, with the influx of new versions such as the RSV, sales were slack because American publishers were competing with The [b]Authorized[/b] Version. They felt they couldnt compete with that, so they began to call it the King James Version.

This was in 1929. Do you remember from history what else happened in America in 1929?

The stock market crash.

Coincidence? I dont think so.

So I do believe in what I have said on this thread about there being a connection between corrupt Bible versions and revival in America.

Krispy

 2006/3/16 10:01
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Someone mentioned Azusa Street. I reject that as a revival because of the numerous false doctrines that it was based on and that have come out of it.



You reject the Azusa street revival as being from God? The Pentecostal movement has been the leading movement to spread Christianity across the globe this past century. It is the most dynamic movement in all church history. More people have been saved as a result of the pentecostal movement in the past 100 years than in the 1900 years prior to it.

Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater just because all the doctrines espoused by those in the movement have not been right. There has not been one revival in all of history that had perfect doctrine or practice. Luther, Calvin, Spener, Zwingly, Edwards, Zinzendorf, Whitefield, Wesley, etc., all had doctrine that wasn't correct, and often those that sat under them were a bit more off than these great leaders.

As a Pentecostal, I don't even agree with all the things taught historically in classical pentecostalism, and some of the stuff is just embarrasingly bad. But I still recognize a clear move of God when I see one. The same goes with Luther, Calvin, and all those of the reformed faith. Some of them had some pretty wacky doctrine, e.g. limited atonement, but likewise, I recognize the clear move of God still. Same goes with Wesley. I love Wesley, but I find his doctrine of christian perfection to be way off in much of what he says, yet, if I could travel through history, I'd have stoped back in the mid 1700's to hear him preach open air.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/16 10:07Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Any true supporter of modern versions is being intellectually dishonest if he/she says that they know with certainty that they have the preserved Word of God in their hands. If they say that, then they are a liar because modern version not only disagree with the Textus Receptus, they also disagree with each other.



I know some Greek with almost a year's study of it under my belt, and have a couple "critical" additions of the Greek NT, that will tell you exactly where all the "differences" are, and will tell you which of the thousands of manuscripts differ from eachother. Yet, I am entirely confident we have the preserved word of God even in spite of the disagreements that some manuscripts have with eachother.

For that matter, not even all the manuscripts that compose the "received text" agree with eachother. So, the "modern texts" do disagree with eachother, but, so do the one's from the TR.

The fact of the matter is (not counting small fragments of course), there is not one greek manuscript that agrees exactly with any other greek manuscript. They all contain some sort of scribal error in them. To say otherwise is to be like an ostrich, with one's head in the sand.

Quote:


True... but God did not promise to preserve manuscripts. He promised to preserve His Words. There are numerous examples in the OT of God writing His Word down a second time. Moses for example. I think God has a pretty good memory of what He said.



And notice this example you cite. There was a time in which God passed on His word to Moses, yet that word was ENTIRELY destroyed. So, for a while, that word didn't exist in any manuscripts whatsoever. Granted, that was a short time, and the word of God was written again.

Quote:

We do have God's preserved Word today. We can know with certainty that we do. But I'm one of a dying breed.



How do you know with certainty that the TR is the only preserved word of God today? It's entirely absurd to assert such, for you won't find the Bible saying the TR is it. The same verses that promise the preserving of God's words found in the KJV are also found in my NASB.

Quote:

And before someone accuses me of being "KJV-O", let me state very clearly that I am in favor of a version being made in modern English... but only if it is based on the Textus Receptus alone, with no footnotes alluding to the differences between it and the Alexandrian Text.



What about if somebody published a new translation based on the TR saying where the TR manuscripts disagree with eachother? How would you feel about that?


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/16 10:23Profile









 Re:

Quote:
It is the most dynamic movement in all church history. More people have been saved as a result of the pentecostal movement in the past 100 years than in the 1900 years prior to it.



Thats a bit of a stretch, brother. We'll just have to disagree on this one. Mind you, I'm not calling Pentacostal beliefs a false religion. I dont believe it is, but I know quite a bit about Azusa Street since I was active in the AOG a number of years, and there was some truly unscriptural things going on there when it happened.

Krispy

 2006/3/16 10:23









 Re: Did you say no Bible, no revival?

You've got to be kidding Krispy, right?

No revival because of bible versions??

Forgive me while I laugh :-P.

Only the ultra religious will say that, namely Pharisees, I know your sane, but don't be insane.

Of course, uphold that which is true, but don't pull that one out of the hat, come on!

I am going to type somethings, but you've already made up your mind that your not going to listen, so we'll throw out meekness because that ain't going to work here.

[b][size=x-small][color=003300]YOU DON'T NEED THE BIBLE TO BE SAVED[/color][/size][/b]

Oh man, did I say that? Oh thats blasphemy, crucify me upside down somebody.

There are literally thousands of people in other lands that don't have the priviledge of having a bible, but they have HEARD someone preaching someplace, perhaps on the radio, and they have received the message and believed. They walk away from hearing that, changed.

God begins to lead them by speaking to them.

"Man shall not live by bread[letter]alone, but by every word[Spirit] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

If that man doesn't have the letter, he'll live by the Spirit of God that speaks to him, which is far better.

Luke 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

In fact that is the reason why there is no revival, too many bibles = too many opinions = divisions = denominations = seperations = hate.

In the early Church, they had to rely on the five fold ministry to be ministered to and the Spirit of God.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.

Highlighting, "The LORD working with them".

I like that don't you?

Judge Ye!

P.S. I will agree with you, there have been some crappy translations in the last few years, I wouldn't read them if you paid me. I know you don't agree with this, but there are good translations besides the KJV.

 2006/3/16 10:34
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Thats a bit of a stretch, brother.



It's a historically true comment that is pretty well documented. It is estimated there are roughly 300-500 MILLION people on the face of this earth that would fall under the Pentecostal/Charismatic umbrella (I personally lean more towards the lower number myself). Granted, there are perhaps a lot of wacko's in that statistic, but even then, it would still dwarf anything else falling under the Christian faith. The only one claiming a larger number of adherents is Rome.

And indeed, not everything that happened at Azusa Street was biblical by any stretch of reasoning. It was not one big happy revival by any means. Even those in the forefront of that movement in that city recognized this was the case. But by and large, I believe it still was of God (not one revival in history was without problems), as it continues today to even still spread throughout the globe, bringing the gospel to places its never been before with outstanding results.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/16 10:38Profile









 Re:

Loveslave... we can discuss this without you mocking me or talking down to me. I'm a reasonable enough guy.

Quote:
You've got to be kidding Krispy, right?



Nope.

Quote:
Only the ultra religious will say that, namely Pharisees



Thats pretty judgemental, not to mention an untrue statement.

Quote:
Of course, uphold that which is true, but don't pull that one out of the hat, come on!



Direct me then to the true Word of God. Which Bible?

Quote:
I am going to type somethings, but you've already made up your mind that your not going to listen



I made up my mind that I'm not going to listen? How do you know this? You know my mind and my heart? You're being judgemental again.

Quote:
we'll throw out meekness because that ain't going to work here.



What have I done to force you to be rude? Voice my opinion?

Quote:
YOU DON'T NEED THE BIBLE TO BE SAVED



I agree you dont have to have a Bible in your hands to be saved... I'll address that in a minute.

Quote:
Oh man, did I say that? Oh thats blasphemy, crucify me upside down somebody.



I dont see any humor in that. Peter executed that way, and what a horrible death that was. And legend says that he preached for 2 days before he finally died. And you think thats fodder for humor?

Quote:
There are literally thousands of people in other lands that don't have the priviledge of having a bible, but they have HEARD someone preaching someplace, perhaps on the radio, and they have received the message and believed. They walk away from hearing that, changed.



Finally... something we agree on.

[i][b]Rom 10:17[/b] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[/i]

Quote:
"Man shall not live by bread[letter]alone, but by every word[Spirit] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."



You have interpretted that verse wrong. You've spiritualized it, and that was the error of the ancient Gnostics. That verse should be interpretted literally. It says what it says.

Quote:
In fact that is the reason why there is no revival, too many bibles = too many opinions = divisions = denominations = seperations = hate.



Now you've judged me a hate-monger. If I was a seperatist I wouldnt be on this forum. I agree with you on the too many Bibles... versions, that is.

Quote:
In the early Church, they had to rely on the five fold ministry to be ministered to and the Spirit of God.



Yea, and they also had the New Testament. The 1st century church fathers who KNEW the Apostles quoted from the New Testament entirely with the exception of [b]11[/b] verses. Many passages missing from modern versions because they are not in the Alexandrian Text [b]ARE[/b] in the writings of these 1st century church fathers... prooving that they belong in the Bible. They ARE in the Authorized, but either omitted or drawn into question in all modern versions.

Quote:
Highlighting, "The LORD working with them".



Are you implying the Lord is not working with me? How do you know this? You dont even know my real first name.

So in conclusion... grow up. Your response was nothing more than a personal attack, and there is no place for that on this forum. Hopefully a moderator will confirm that.

This discussion has been friendly up until your response, and hopefully it can continue on that way.

Krispy

 2006/3/16 11:10









 Re: Eat dung and die

Quote:
and there was some truly unscriptural things going on there when it happened.


Lets say for a moment, that we have never read in Ezekiel that God told him to eat man's dung. And in this day, today, God tells you to take man's dung and put it in your bread machine and eat it, would you do it?

This is your reply to God;

"Not so LORD, nothing unclean has entered my mouth, and besides I can't do it anyway, it's not written in the word, so what your telling me to do is unscriptural."

God says, "Will you not obey the voice of the LORD your God. Just because I havn't commanded this to anyone in my word doesn't make it wrong?"

Your reply,

"LORD it's not in the bible, It's unscriptural"

The LORD replies,

"Ok, alright since you won't eat man's dung, go buy yourself a Big Mac, it's almost the same anyway" :-P

Your reply, "Sure LORD, now your talking scripture"

God is the biggest proponent on going against scripture. If anyone breaks His word it's Him.

Yep God has broken His word on several occassions, I know, I know, more blasphemy, right?

You know why?, Because the Law is for the lawless, God is not lawless. Thats why Jesus was hated by the Pharisees, Jesus would counter the law over and over.

The law stated one thing, but Jesus would say, "BUT, I say to you", who in the world does He think He is coming in here and changing the law around with His BUTS?

But because Jesus came with Grace and Truth, He was showing the righteousness that was in the law, which only those who heard it was like honey dropping from the trees and to those who couldn't stand hearing Him, were becoming more blind and deaf.

Just because it's not in the scriptures doesn't mean that its wrong. When you judge men according to the Bible, your being a lawyer using the letter to condemn.

 2006/3/16 11:17









 Re:

Quote:
Are you implying the Lord is not working with me? How do you know this? You dont even know my real first name.


Oh my your taking this way too personal brother. But I enjoyed your reply.

And I have no idea about what the gnostics did, but if they spiritualized the scriptures, than I must be gnostic, and I want to remain that. I spiritualize everything in that bible, as Jesus said it himself, "The words that I speak they are Spirit and they are life".

Thank God that Jesus too was gnostic, I am not alone.

I truly loved your reply, it was fun to read. And no I am not judging you, but if I do judge my judgement is just.

God Bless

 2006/3/16 11:23





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy