Maestroh

Unfortunately, those there will go vote Barack Obama back in come November and help undercut the very thing they say they're for.

In all sincerity, I hate this topic. There are good brothers on both sides of the issue.

I wonder if the Jesus he saw at his judgment was 900 feet tall like the last one he says he saw?

The problem with the 'Church of Christ' is that they are hard-wired to respond a certain way. There is - in fact - a cultic like repetition of mantras to questions. Their primary flaw is the assumption that the philosophy of common sense is a reliable grid through which to view the Bible. I think many of them are sincere believers.

Well being from Texas, Jessica doesn't surprise me all that much. James Earl Jones, though? Darth Helmet?

My appologies. The topic got so strayed from MacArthur that the references to him got left behind. You are correct, I was wrong with the "all" statement. However, even this claim of "ceasing" goes against what I know to be true. No, I don't consider myself better than anyone else. I'm just tired of the accusation thrown at us who practice the gift of tongues. EricH was the first and only non-tongue-talker (if you will) who has not spoken with disrespect towards the gift. And I am sure that mine is, too! Were they supposed to? Is there a Scripture that says speaking in tongues is supposed to make you a missionary? I disagree with your reasoning. Ever hear of re-digging a well that had been filled in? The water never left, but either neglect or purposeful destruction clogged the ability to draw the water. "Restoration" then is re-digging out the well to draw from the water that was never meant to run dry. There, see - no you are being judgmental. I do not speak in tongues because I have a preoccupation with the bizarre. I do so because, as Paul noted, it edifies my spirit - and my spirit needs all the edifying it can get! And if you had a debilitating chronic illness or injury, wouldn't you desire for it to be healed? I do agree, though, that this world would be a better place if Christians would mobalize themselves in giving and mercy. Dear Nebula, Please consider the ENTIRE CONTEXT of the bizarre remark. My point is that we only have 'movements' for things like healing or tongues; there's never a 'mercy movement' or 'liberality movement' - it was NOT directed at you personally. Also, I appreciate your acknowledgement - I don't desire to misrepresent anyone, and I don't believe that you do, either. Thank you for rectifying it - and God bless. Besides, I don't 'despise' the gift, either. But the burden of proof for human languages falls on you, ma'am - it is not anyone else's job to prove the negative. Maybe you do, I hope so. If the gifts ever 'died out,' there's no Scripture that tells us they are 'restored.' It is mere human reasoning to argue that if they died, God brought them back in the twentieth century. Personally, I hold the view that just because there is a long period of silence (or seeming silence) regarding gifts doesn't prove conclusively that they ceased. I believe they were here; I also believe that much of what is called miraculous today is - well, poppycock. And some is divine providence.

Nebula, I hope you don't mind me jumping in. I'm here on occasion, so feel free to reply but it may take a few days for me to get back with you. However, I won't ignore you or pull an "Internet hit and run." There are, however, elements of your post that disturb me. For starters, you seem to be unwilling to admit - despite correction by a number of people - that MacArthur has NOT taught that ALL of the gifts have ceased. What he has taught has been very clear. As I have been blessed by his ministry lo these seventeen years, allow me to demonstrate. On his 1972 tape, "Miracles, Healings, and Tongues," MacArthur claims that four gifts - tongues, interpretation, healings, and working of miracles have ceased as a NOMRAL means of ministry. He does NOT, however, deny that those things can happen - he just puts them under the gift of 'faith' also listed there. In his 1977 tape series, "Speaking In Tongues," he preaches seven messages exegetically against the revival of tongues. He also makes clear that other gifts like prophecy and knowledge have NOT ceased. One is free to disagree with is intepretation - but don't state incorrect things, either. In 1978, the book "The Charismatics" came out and Mac again argued 'against' tongues. In 1983, his book, "Spiritual Gifts," spelled out his acknowledgment of the baptism of the Holy Spirit - but not tongues. He did it again in his 1990 radio broadcast, "Perfect Love," regarding I Corinthians 13:1 and the 'tongues of men and angels.' In the fall of 1991, again he reiterated his support for 'permanent ediying gifts' and 'temporary sign gifts.' In the spring of 1992, those fall 1991 messages were released as "Charismatic Chaos." For a period of over twenty years, then, MacArthur has consistently maintained some gifts today and some not. He even dealt with the question you ask in the "Speaking In Tongues" message series on the first tape - listing three potential gift positions: all for today, none for today, and some for today. What MAY have happened - and I'm trying to be gracious and give you the benefit of the doubt here - is that the editing that goes on to fit his tapes into a 24-minute message may have been irresponsible and may have put words in his mouth that were incorrect. But it is obvious from any perusal of Mac's ministry that he has consistently maintained the same position since at least 1972. RE: TONGUES I also find a touch of spiritual elitism in your, "You have to experience it." I have some major problems with this on numerous levels. The first is that this is the old, "Unless you agree with me, you can't be critical." Another way to state it is, "Non-tongue speakers cannot judge." To which I always reply, "Who sits on the jury for a murderer? Is it murder victims or murderers themselves?" The answer, of course, is neither one - our society realizes that people can make a judgment based on EVIDENTIAL reasons. Secondly, I've been down that path. In fact, millions of people have been down that path and recanted just as I did. So you can't use the "You haven't had the experience, you can't judge" on many of us. Fact is that biblical tongues were HUMAN lanugages - a fact even the original Pentecostals (Parham and the Bethel Bible church) realized, which is why they floated that tale of 30 languages 'verified' at their school; never mind that NOT ONE of those people went to a foreign land and became a successful missionary based on the new use of the gift. I would add this; if the so-called 'restoration' position is true, it actually proves the cessational position true. Personally, I think all gifts operate today, but not in the way many (sincere) Christians believe. Ever notice how we only have tongues and healing movements? Never a giving or mercy movement!! I'm guessing the preoccupation with the bizarre is a big reason.

HR, What you're talking about is one of my major problems with the entire issue. Until I was 18 and got saved - and even a little while after then - I didn't really know that there was more than one version of the Bible because the only thing we had was the KJV. Fine. But I got confused and completely lost trying to read it, too. In the summer of 1988, I bought a Living Bible at a yard sale. Now that was an education!! I just figured it updated the KJV language and made it easier to understand. In fact, I gained more insight in the year or so I used it than I did from several years of the KJV. Be that as it may, I think newly saved folks who don't qualify as literary intellectucals ought to read either the NIV or NASV. Personally, I like the NKJV, but even that gets confusing - esp. the first time I read 'NU omits' or NU, M omit. Maestroh

For starters, I am not heated, and I don't think that anyone can say that I have been. I don't think anyone has been at least since my intial post - so I take the casual discussion approach. Butero, nobody is criticizing you (from what I see) for your use of the KJV. I don't think I've seen you criticize anyone for using something beside the KJV. Yet the problem I have with your position is NOT the position - it is the perceived illogic of how you arrived at the conclusion that I find to be rather troubling. You state earlier that you are not concerned with the TR - fair enough. You take the KJV - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong - by 'faith.' Fair enough. Which KJV? You seemed to be fine with the unbiblical Apocrypha in an earlier post. So you accept the KJV with it? Or without it? And why? And if the answer is yes (as it seems to me), didn't every KJV after 1639 'take out God's Word' by removing the Apocrypha? I'm not trying to be provocative; but enlightening, yes. I concur with Ronald - Jesus didn't die for a Bible version. I'd say the fact that the Lord and his disciples quoted from more than one OT translation pretty much ends the notion that there is only one 'right' Bible version. But that's just me, I might be wrong.

Dear Brother Butero, Actually, it is very easy to 'prove' the argument regarding Erasmus' manuscripts. He had the following manuscripts for certain: Edward F. Hills is the ONLY textual critic (he graduated with a Ph.D. from Harvard Divinity School) who toes the KJV Only line; there are others who argue for the Majority Text that is contained among the KJV manuscripts, but Hills argues for the TR itself. Here is what he writes regarding the manuscripts Erasmus used: 1 (an 11th-century manuscript of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles), 2 (a 15th-century manuscript of the Gospels), 2ap (a 12th-14th-century manuscript of Acts and the Epistles), 4ap (a 15th-century manuscript of Acts and the Epistles), and 1r (a 12th-century manuscript of Revelation). Of these manuscripts Erasmus used 1 and 4ap only occasionally. In the Gospels Acts, and Epistles his main reliance was on 2 and 2ap. This is found at this link: http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter8.htm It is under 2d on that link. But the point in your favor merely takes the discussion back one step and settles nothing, sir. It really makes no difference whether it was three (I've never heard it that low before; the lowest I've ever heard was five) or eleven. Fact is that it was NOWHERE close to the 5,400 total manuscripts that many of the KJVOs want to claim for themselves. But here's another one: WHICH TEXTUS RECEPTUS is the inspired and inerrant one? Erasmus made five editions; the first two DID NOT have I John 5:7 while the last three did. Or is it Stephanus' texts? Or Beza? Or the Elzvir's? Finally, how do you reconcile the following: This is on the same page I cited earlier by Dr. Hills: The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. So again, which TR is the infallible one? One of the major problems the modern KJVO movement has is that they lose their bearings over the passage in Luke about 'her' or 'their purification.' Modern versions render it 'their,' and some of the KJVOs (particularly D.A. Waite) argue that this makes Jesus a sinner or is bad theology because Joseph didn't need to be purified. Yet the reading in the KJV is in a MINORITY of manuscripts and EVEN THE TR has THEIR purification in its early editions. So what do you do with that? I'm not trying to sound hostile and God (and you) forgive me if I do. But it seems to follow 'the TR' simply steps back to the question of WHICH TR.

Dear Brother Butero, There is much you said with which I find myself in complete agreement. I once attended a church where the the preacher quoted from seven different translations in the message in order to make what I thought was a stretched point to put it charitably. That said, I still point out that the comparison you make is misguided at its initial step - not in "I'm right, you're wrong," but simply making the comparison fair. I cannot personally abide Gail Riplinger - her out-of-context quotations, misleading charts, and inability to face cross examination on the issue are well documented. Yet I take it as an article of faith that you have researched the issue fairly and we come to diametrically opposite conclusions. Nor am I trying to talk you out of use of the KJV, either!!! I like the minister who said that the WORST Bible was the 'unread one.' True, the NIV translators are saying that their manuscripts are more reliable - but they also chose from a much larger pool of manuscripts. Again, what makes the TR 'the' reliable ones? It seems to me that with such an abundance of textual evidence, why would we limit ourselves either to the two oldest (Aleph and B) or the five to ten used to make the TR? And which TR is an even better question? Since no TR follows the KJV all the way throughout - there is variation - WHICH TR is the right one, Brother Butero? I don't say that as if I know - I'm just wondering how you would answer such a query. God bless you for your interaction, Butero. M

Maestroh, I do not know what site your sparring partner was banned from, no do I care to know. I am troubled that you would bring a debate from another discussion board on Worthy, especially with a person who got banned from another site. As Butero has already stated, this subject has been repeated ad nauseum, over and over, and there are no winners! I respect Butero's position on what he believes and I applaud him for standing by what he believes in. We should leave the KJVO debate alone quite frankly; it is not going to lead to anything but arguing and hurt feelings at worst and will have to be closed down. If you are sincerely wanting to debate ONE PERSON, why not take it up with them via e-mail or IM? It's just not good business to bring a debate from another board AND annouce that the debating person was banned from another board, no matter the reason for the banning. I assure you, this is nothing personal; I do not side on the KJVO argument, but as someone who has been here for a while, and as a member of the Ministry, I see no good coming from this. God bless. Dear Brother Ronald, I find myself in agreement with much of what you write. So let's take it one by one. For starters, I made attempts to contact this person via email and AM MORE THAN WILLING to do what you described; he wanted a public debate. What I then desired - basically - was one on one interaction on the debate board. I made an effort to contact someone named George (I'm not trying to be informal, I do not know him personally, however). This desire stemmed from what is common on this topic - frequent interruption of whomever - and the hope to avoid it. There is not exactly a 'debate' board at said site. Make no mistake, sir, I do not have attitude about it. I humbly submit to the authority of the board. I also think that over time, I will demonstrate a charitable tone and diplomacy without sacrficing truth. Again, both of us had had accounts here before is why I chose this particular board - along with the fact that verbal abuse is not tolerated here, something that cannot be said (unfortunately) for most boards. I also made an effort to contact said person via email on this site as well as personal message. Perhaps I am inept, but I was unable to use the functions. I disagree slightly with one point on the end regarding 'no good.' I have found that hearty and ISSUE-ORIENTED debate can sharpen my own mind and spirit and those of others - provided it is done with proper attitude and Christian service. Thus, I agree with part of that point and disagree slightly with part of it. I have not gone after Butero or anyone else on here, and I shall not do so. But can we not at the least focus this particular discussion on the issue and not 'Why come here?' I have accepted and heartily and humbly submit to the desire of board members to not open it up as an inflammatory discussion, which was never my intent in the first place. No, I'm not taking what you said personal; quite frankly, I do not offend easily, and I appreciate your tone more than you can imagine. Yet I hope you do not mind honest interaction here on this particular issue from me. It will not be my only subject, but it is one that I have spent quite a deal of time on for years. I hope I said nothing offensive to you in this unfortunately wordy reply. God bless, Maestroh

Butero, For starters, I have been on the board for over a year, but I am extremely busy. I actually brought it here because the KJVO advocate who wanted to debate was banned from another site and ALREADY HAS AN ACCOUNT here. But since you introduced the subject, I'm rather interested: on what basis have you come to the decision that new versions are 'deceptions of the devil?' In the nest sentence, you state that those who do not use the KJV you DO NOT refer to as non-belivers (good for you, sir - sincerely) - yet how can they not be? Are you not then led to have to modify your position? If they're deceptions of the devil, how can somebody be saved reading one of them? Granted, it seems from reading your posts that you do not hold the exclusivist position on the KJV and such is good. Yet if they're deceptions of the devil (your phrase), I'd be very interested in why you think someone could possibly be saved by reading what you deem to be such a deception? I realize that this particular post deals with the NIV-KJV notion - a mistaken notion on its face. I find somewhat amusing your points regarding being misled by the NIV and questioning certain verses. But are these not fair discussions? If a verse was ADDED later, are we not just as obligated to point it out as we do when one is deleted? A KJV-NIV comparison fails at the base level. It is the wrong comparison on numerous points since: a) they do not use the same text b) they do not even use the same translation philosophy c) the KJV was translated by members of ONE denomination while the NIV had over 100 scholars of over 30 denominations represented The TRUE disagreement, debate, and discussion centers around whether or not the Textus Receptus is the better or worse of two texts. But I suspect, brother, that you have gotten the argument backward - I suspect that you lean toward the TR BECAUSE it supports the KJV, and not vice versa. Perhaps you have not - only you know, sir - but this is what I usually find when inquiring along these lines. If I am wrong (regarding how you came to your position), you have my sincerest apology in advance. I think what must be remembered is how truly misguided this is even on the level of the English language. I can understand a KJV person going after the RSV, NRSV, CEV, and other Bibles. I often wonder why much of their disgruntlement is held for conservative versions complied by inerrantists including the NIV, NASB, NET, and even NKJV. God bless you for your interaction, O sir. Maestroh

Which ones? For anyone who has not seen the following series and/or read the transcript, I wholeheartedly recommend doing so. http://www.johnankerberg.org/catalog/bible.html I got the above link by clicking on their Search feature and requested "which translation"[w/o the quote marks], then selected/copied/ and pasted it below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for Christians to Use Today? Guests: Dr. Kenneth Barker, Dr. Don Wilkins, Dr. Dan Wallace, Dr. James White, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. Thomas Strouse, Dr. Joseph Chambers Are today

Butero, Regarding your inquiry, I am aware of people who changed minds in both directions actually. Here has been my basic experience: people who get all troubled about CERTAINTY in apposition to TRUTH tend to go the KJVO route. Those who are persuaded by evidence MAY go one of a number of directions. For example, if majority rules in one's mind, the KJV tends to be the tradition they defend even if they are not truly KJVO. On ther other hand, if older is better, they run more towards the newer conservative standard versions such as NIV or NASV.