General Category > Introduce Yourself
Clinton Post
clinton_post:
Hello, I'm Clinton Post. I am a 1611 AV user. I use the reprint of the 1611 that was done in 1833 with the Apocrypha. I believe the KJV is the true word God preserved in the English Language for English speaking people. I do believe if other Bibles are done in English and is comprised of the same meaning and context of the KJV, then it is also the word of God. I don't believe there has been a pure bible done as such, yet.
My walk has been a mixed-up one. I have been finding that I don't feel comfortable in many of the churches I have tried attending in the San Diego area. I'm to the beliefe that the way we are doing church seems unbiblical for some reason. I also like to listen to Steven Anderson, but don't agree with some of his teachings. It seems like everyone today seems to be off on their beliefs and is very disturbing to me. I'm trying to figure it all out.
I started with the KJV in 2002/2003. I didn't see that Jesus was God in the flesh until November of 2005. I switched to the ESV in 2011, because the Church I attended used it and was anit-KJV. I did not know there was an issue with the Bible Translations until 2015. It shook my world and foundation. But God recentered me to the KJV and I have been studying this issue ever since then. God has showed me through answered prayers, dreams, and events that have happened that the KJV/1611 is His Word.
Jeanne:
Hi Clinton,
First of all, i need to apologise for looking at the title of your thread and assuming at first that this was going to be a political post rather than an introduction.
As I mentioned to two other new-comers to this forum a few days ago, I have not read anything in your introduction about coming to repentance (grief and godly sorrow for wrongdoing) in your introduction. I referred both of them to these teachings, as I would also ask you to read:
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/repent.php
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/whymillions.php
You should also check out the teaching that was done on the 1611 vs. 1769 versions of the KJV Bible. The only thing that was done in 1763 was to remove the Apocrypha (which was never part of the Hebrew Scriptures to begin with) and to fix over 400 printing press errors, including the omission of whole lines of text. Yes, the editors went back and compared the printed version to the actual written manuscripts that were submitted by the translators. Oh, and they also standardised the spelling, since the same word is spelled several different ways in the 1611.
At one time, I, too, thought the 1611 to be a superior version, though I still thought the 1769 to be easier to read.
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kj1769.php
You are correct that the way 'church' is done in this modern age bears little resemblance to what a New Testament church looked like in the first century and there are numerous articles on the website addressing the reasons why this is so. I may not agree 100% with everything Chris says and teaches, but his teachings are the closest to being aligned with the Bible as I have found. I do know that he spends many hours each day studying to make sure that what he teaches is as accurate as he can possibly make it and that he will readily correct himself if it can be shown that he is in error.
There's also a whole section of the website titled Wolves in Costume that goes into the various false doctrines taught by people claiming to be of Christ who are not and Steven Anderson is just the latest to be covered in that section. He is a scoffer and a railer (who falsely claims that repentance is NOT necessary for salvation) and the Bible tells us to steer clear of those people.
clinton_post:
One cannot trust Christ for salvation if they don't know why they need to be saved. So yes, I'm sorrowed from my past sins. But it is weird to think that I had to repent of every sin I ever committed, like a list. I can't remember everything I ever did, but God knows and knows my heart.
I am very aware of the printing errors in the 1611. I have updated my Bible to include the ones I know. I do find it interesting and love using it. The side notes from the translators are helpful. They actually connect verses in the Apocrypha and the OT/NT. Though I won't say that the Apoch... is inspired scripture. I do think it is beneficial to read and does have information that is worth knowing, in my opinion. For instance, it lets you know what Urim and Thummim is.
Another interesting note in the 1611, 2Cor4:4 has God in all caps instead of today's reading of god. I think it makes it really clear that the God of this world is God not satan. And that Romans 1 says that God gives people over to a reprobate mind for their wicked ways and not acknowledging God. Which is connected to 2Cor4:4. I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense.
I also love the spelling. For instance today there is a lie in our Bibles. John 3:16, the word beLIEve instead of the spelling beleeue. It is interesting that the spelling changed. Though there is evidence that the beLIEf was used in 2John heading. So they chose not use that spelling for the actual text. I find that interesting. Wiches cast spells, so spelling may have a ryhme and reason to it. Go-Spell. Anyways, that is some strange stuff, but I don't hold to it like I do the Bible itself.
Timothy:
--- Quote ---But it is weird to think that I had to repent of every sin I ever committed, like a list. I can't remember everything I ever did, but God knows and knows my heart.
--- End quote ---
Who said you had to remember every specific sin you ever did? When the prodigal son came back to his father in repentance saying he was not worthy to be called his son, he didn't list out everything he did and say "I repent of this thing and that thing and that other thing..." as if going through a list of specific sins he committed. But he came simply understanding that he was a sinner, so much so that he was not worthy to be called a son.
Typically when someone over complicates things like that, they do it to justify something or make an excuse for it. Very much like how the lawyer did to Jesus.
Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
The lawyer made it more complicated that it actually was as a way to justify himself from loving his neighbor as himself. I'm not saying that you are trying to justify yourself, but it does make me wonder why you said that you had to repent of every single sin because there is a specific philosophy on this matter that caused you to say it that way and I'm curious to know what you think about it. As far as I know, everyone in our church here has never had to say that they repented of every sin they've ever done, only that they have repented to God and do repent when they understand that they messed up.
I've heard preachers say, "Nobody has ever repented of ALL their sins to be saved." And their conclusion has always been that you don't have to repent to be saved. And I've seen it go so far that some will even say that when Jesus preached for men to "repent and believe the gospel" that Jesus preached an entirely different gospel than the apostles. And they say the gospel Jesus preached was only for the Jews.
But they don't understand that their own arguments conflict with God's nature. It's unlike God to be so unmerciful to tell anyone to repent of every single sin ever done when they don't even fully understand what all sins they have committed, then turn around and hold that against them when they don't do what they can't do! In order to repent of all sins ever done in a list, you first have to have full understanding of God's Word which is impossible without His Holy Spirit to teach it to us.
I can't imagine anyone sitting down and saying "God. I repent of that time I stole that pack of gum from the convenience store. I also repent of that time I took my brother's favorite toy. I also repent of last week when I stole that $20 from my co-worker's purse." But I can see someone saying, "God be merciful to me a thief."
It's hard to believe that someone ever sat down and said, "God. I'm sorry I lied to my mother that time, and I'm sorry I lied to my dad that one time, and then again a week later..." But it's perfectly conceivable to imagine someone saying, "God be merciful to me a liar."
All the publican had to do was say "God be merciful to me a sinner".
Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
He knew he was guilty of all the law, because he failed to keep one point of it and he, at least, understood that much. So he came to God in repentance and faith and left for home justified. To say that you "had to" repent of every sin "like a list" and then say that you didn't do it is strange. I can't make sense of it. Can you explain more?
Jeanne:
I don't know what kind of conspiracy theory type 'ministries' you've been listening to, but you're reading WAY too much into the common use of the English language. There are differences in spelling between British English and American English, but there's no difference in the meanings of the words so affected. The definitions of certain words have also changed in subtle ways over the centuries, which is why we mainly consult Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary when we want to clarify the meaning of these words. I think old Noah had already realised by that time that the language was changing and he based the definitions of the words on their usage in the King James Bible. He is by no means infallible, either, and the best way to determine the meaning of a particular word is still to use the context in which it is written, but the 1828 dictionary is definitely helpful if you happen to run across a word that you are completely unfamiliar with.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version