366 thoughts on “Youth Conference Promotional Video”

    1. Aww shucks! Stupid slow connection, you think you’re second (or first as the case may be) and by the time this snail of a computer gets finished, there are three new posts! ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

  1. 1) Whoever it was that was obsessed with getting people to leave his “drinking water” alone, seemed both paranoid & like he wanted a stiffer drink

    2) What a bunch of self important grandstanding idiots!

        1. Well, since he’s a guy, we’ll have to make sure he’s talking about pissing … standing up. ๐Ÿ˜†

        2. I have downloaded the message, but haven’t listened to it (I’m trying to get up the nerve). I’ve never heard it preached in person, but I’ve heard people reference it, and I recognized the quote.

          So, I don’t know exactly what it is.

          I think he compares the Word to water (as in the verse about “the washing of water by the Word”; he says (I think) that the Scriptures satisfy his spiritual thirst, and people “messing with” the KJV are fouling his pure, clear water.

          Not that I’d take his word about purity or, really, about anything.

        1. I did too. I actually have her book. It was given to me to help me see the truth. It worked, and I still haven’t had my comments about her lack of proper research ans scholarship answered.

          After I saw “Dr. Strangelove”, I realized I might be mistaken.

  2. It’s easy to say you will fight when you know damn well no one will every ask you to.

    Also, who told them they could steal the Lord of the Rings footage?

    1. It appears the battle is one-sided for the most part. Most non-kj folks are busy with more important things, like being a Christian, not argueing about something that makes no real difference at the end of the day.
      I believe this takes the focus off the “real issues”. KJ folks will have conferences and drone on endlessly about anything that threatens their point of view but rarely tackle the “meat” of the message of the New Testament.
      This started with the “Ephesian” church that lost her first love. What happens to a second generation of folks that live in a church that has lost it’s first love? They have no love. This is where I see IFB nowadays. Somewhere deep in the past I would like to thing these folks loved God and have just lost thier way.
      When these angry speakers broadcast these messages some young folks will pick up the banner and carry it on one more generation farther away from thier first love, JESUS. It is more than sad. It is a wasted life….

      1. I beg to differ (not that I agree with the people who made the video)… but the foundation of Christianity is Jesus Christ Himself. What we know about Him, objectively, is what God has revealed in His word. It matters because the Bible gives us “all things that pertain to life and godliness”; it is our rule of practice. If I have two Bibles, and one has added extra verses that God has not given, and the other has not, I will not pay heed to the first one; it’s not true to what God gave.

        Anyway, I think the Bible does matter, but I don’t think the KJV was somehow given by inspiration or that we suddenly received God’s word in 1611; we’ve had it for about 1600 years before that.

        1. There are no Bible translations I know of that “add extra verses.” When you are editing and/or translating a book that has varying extant texts, as is always the case with books of the Bible (and is the case with most other books, even modern ones), you have to make some decisions about which texts to go with. And when a word or phrase has multiple possible translations into English, you have to make a decision about which meaning to go with. Most of these decisions can’t really be called “right” or “wrong,” and they don’t represent attempts to change or “pervert” the meaning of the text; they are just different credible interpretations (every translation is an interpretation, and every edition is to some extent an interpretation). Really good Bible editions make note of alternate texts and of different possible translations.

          Even if you read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek, there are still discrepancies between different source texts and multiple possible meanings for words and sentences. There are also some bits of text where nobody can make out the intended meaning (at least, not with any certainty).

          The people who think it is more cut and dried than this are simply showing their ignorance about texts.

        2. Having done translation work, I am somewhat familiar with the difficulties involved in carrying concepts over from one language/culture to another language/culture.

          My understanding is that the Greek text underlying the KJV has about 3,000 more words than the “critical text”; they cannot both be right; either one has added many words, or one has removed many words, or neither is right. But they cannot both be “fine”.

        3. Point taken. For me, I have been looking at this for some time now and I don’t see any foundations doctrines of Christianinty in jeopardy depending on Bible versions, that’s all. It has been a huge distraction/obstacle for me. I would dismiss anyone who didn’t use KJ no matter how biblical the teaching. I was very very wrong.

        4. Guilt ridden:
          It is incorrect to compare the “text underlying the KJV” against “the critical text”. The text underlying the KJV is a critical text. Erasmus left many notes in the margin defending why he chose certain readings – he just wasn’t as systematic about his choices (most of them involved accepting wording from the vulgate where the Greek text was silent). It should be noted here that the so-called “textus receptus” differs from the Byzantine Majority text in over 1,800 meaningful ways. Most conservative, evangelical scholars agree that the text underlying the KJV is not reliable. People who pretend otherwise either don’t understand how texts are evaluated and appraised, or have been sold a bill of goods. For a good introduction to text preservation and criticism, I recommend David Allen Black’s book. Dan Wallace and Larry Hurtado also have some excellent work, but they are more technical.

        5. “They cannot both be right,” that is they cannot both be 100% right, but they can both be wrong, or they can both be partly wrong and partly right. The other possibility, that one is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, is unlikely.

      2. I know what you mean, Fred. I don’t think he was saying that Scripture isn’t important — it is how we know of Christ and His teachings — but I’ve seen how KJV-O types get more passionate about arguing about a Bible version than in living what the Bible actually says. The focus of their Christianity seems in practicality to be focused more on attacking other people than in following Christ. I too agree that it seems as if many of them have lost their first love.

        It is possible to be KJV-O and be loving, humble, gracious, servant-minded, gentle, and peaceful, but I haven’t met too many of them!

        1. Much depends upon definition of KJVO; there are the (pardon me) wacko nut-jobs like Riplinger and Ruckman and then there are those believe the textual evidence supports only the KJV, but are decent people.

        2. Preferring the King James Version is a tenable position, and one I won’t argue with.
          Saying that only the King James Version is the Bible, and all other translations are wicked, displays either paranoia or gross ignorance, or both.

  3. So, they’ll worship God, but they’ll also worship the Marines, the US, and a specific translation of the Bible. “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Although they should.

  4. The only thing interesting about that video was trying to see how many different fonts they used in it. I lost count, but I did notice Papyrus toward the end. ๐Ÿ™„

  5. Why all the US Marines footage? The 1611 KJV they tout was way before any semblance of a “United States” so why are they painting this picture of USA=KJV? or what is it they are going for?

    I think they are equating using the KJV as your weapon to I’m-not-sure-what as parallel to our US Marines defending the USA. It’s a horrible metaphor for so many reasons.

    1. Marines = Kill people & blow stuff up! They are good at it. Trained and motivated.
      The preachers in this video = kill people in a different way & most certainly blow things up. Thats my conclusion. One we need & respect…the other??

      I am tired of the war. I want to be at peace with all men.

      1. Fred you have hit the nail on the head!
        The IFB pastors are killing people spiritually.
        But as a former Marine (the only ex-Marines are the ones who bring dishonor to the Corps, former Marines are those of us who are no longer active Marines) as a former Marine this disgusts me to no end. That my Corps would be used to promote such idolatry. ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

        1. Don, 20yrs active AF. I would have never cut it in the corp. I have been in a couple of places that I was glad the Marines had been there taking care of business so we could move in with our air conditioned tents. ๐Ÿ˜€

        2. Semper Fi Fred! We all signed up to go in harms way so harms way didn’t come to us. It’s about completing the mission (not photo-op politics but actually completing the mission) we are assigned and getting all our brothers and sisters in arms back home. Thank you for your service!

  6. Appalled, but not surprised.

    Why do Fundies think they can rip off other people’s work? When I taught @ Christian school, I specifically taught a unit on copyright laws. You find out that Fundies think nothing of renting a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix and making their own copy before returning it. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ TAKING SOMEONE’S WORK WITHOUT PAYMENT OR PERMISSION IS THEFT. TAKING SOMEONE’S WORK AND REBROADCASTING IT FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES IS THEFT.

    Even the leadership is not exempt. A former church we attended had its website info (layout, text, even font) basically cut & pasted to the site of another church with the same name. The guilty party was the (yep, Fundy) pastor of the second church, who, when contacted, basically said he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong and wasn’t going to change his church’s site. IIRC, he also pulled the, “I’m out soul-winning and trying to build my church, so I don’t have time to come up with my own material” card. And then asked if he could have permission to use our church’s work verbatim. (Ummmmm…NO.) After getting the 2nd site’s webmaster (who also happened to be law enforcement AND a member of the offending pastor’s church) involved, the site was finally taken down.

    SFL: ignoring copyright for “the good of the kingdom” ๐Ÿ˜ก

    1. Kreine, I’ve seen the same thing; just been appalled at what church leaders think is OK in regard to pirating software.

      A visitor was given a gift by the youth leader; she didn’t have a use for the gift, so (in my hearing) the youth leader advised her to go to the store, LIE to them that she had purchased the item, but lost the receipt, and they would give her money for it. I couldn’t believe my ears!

      I’ve heard other leaders calmly talk of pirating software for computers – and the excuses they use are pathetic and juvenile: “they are over-charging for the software” or “they will never find out”. And these are to be examples to the believers of holy living!?!!?!?!?!?

      Great post, Kreine!

    2. Sometimes they’ll use the excuse that it doesn’t matter since the material is put out by Christians who want it to be a blessing to someone so they don’t mind if you reproduce it. I bought tapes at a southern gospel concert and a friend asked me to make her copies on my double cassette recorder. I said no because the group makes their money through those cassettes and cd’s being sold. She said it didn’t matter because they were Christians who wanted their music to be a blessing. So because they’re Christians they don’t have to pay for food and housing and all the other bills we have to pay? They don’t mind if their music is reproduced? This friend didn’t even offer to reimburse me for the blank cassettes she expected me to use. Then when I refused to do it because it was stealing, she accused me of being selfish. ๐Ÿ˜ฅ ๐Ÿ™„

    3. That’s great, Macushla: “You won’t steal for me! How can you be so selfish?”

      Before the Internet, the most rampant church plagiarism I saw was photocopying copyrighted music (without permission, of course) and using it for choir performances. I don’t know what they thought the composers of the music were living on.

      1. What is so sad is that it is *still* done a lot in churches – – and then they wonder why the lack of newer music & higher costs of existing… I had to confront a church pastor about that once – went over like the proverbial “lead balloon”… ๐Ÿ™„

    4. its because these people are not genuine converted Christ followers, so they have no problem with real sin – only the laundry list of man created laws that they put up as a facade to hide the termite infested structure of reality.

      They profess a faith they do not possess – kinda like what they said about all those people who left and went to liberal churches that don’t use the KJV

  7. I think these people think anger and violence are fruit of the spirit. ๐Ÿ˜ณ It is wrong for a teenager in fundyland to do basically anything, but it is okay to appeal to them using this angry tirade.

  8. E-mail: Sent.

    I hate this stuff. While I understand the whole good soldier/spiritual warfare stuff using the marines to promote your youth conference is annoying at best. I guess they forgot simply choose to ignore the whole religious liberty for all aspect.

  9. There is more truth in advertising here than they realize. If the word of God is the sword, then going beyond the sword is exactly what they do with their KJVO, their hyper-patriotism, and extra-biblical rules and regulations.

    1. My former KJVO fundy pastor and his minions were all expert at slicing and dicing people with their so-called swords. I’m sure my former pastor still does a good job leaving people lying there bleeding and licking their wounds, as he saunters off the platform after ranting and calling them out by name at times. Thankfully, I’m not there to endure the pain any more.

  10. The rhetoric of violence really troubles me as does the allusion to drinking water. Is he one of these anti-fluridation types?

    The only thing I can see this video and program accomplishing is that they’re going to turn a bunch of teenagers into obnoxious brats who will be cramming their ideas down other people’s throats.

    I didn’t get a chance to comment on the other KJV video. It spookes me. It reminds me of the Chick comic called, I believe, **Sabotaged** where violence is also intimated. The only thing missing was Chick’s “Alexandrian Cult.”

    By the way, where is this church?

      1. I followed the link to the site. Good to know they have a nursery provided for the Teen Conference. Is this so the kids from large home school families have somewhere to leave their siblings?

        1. More likely it’s for tending the results of their “abstinence-only” approach to sex education.

        2. Big Gary, I’m just going with what the homosexual lobby tried to propagandize us with in the 70’s – 10%. Maybe they are touting different numbers now? In any event, the percentage of people in history who have engaged in homosexual activities has been well under 10%. Sure, certain cultures and geographic regions have been much higher than 10%. Been to prison lately? But taken as a whole of the entire human population worldwide from all cultures, homosexuals have always been much less than 10%.

        3. Sheila James, George moved your reply to the wrong place. It happens to all of us.

          The “10% are homosexual” figure is based on Alfred Kinsey’s interviews with thousands of American men in the 1940s. It’s not the number who said they ever had a homosexual experience, it’s the number who self-identified as homosexual. It’s hard to say whether or not he got a representative sampling of the population. The reason many people (though not I) still use this number is that no one has come up with a better one.

          My own view is that it’s impossible to say what percentage of the population is gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered. The U.S. Census does not ask questions about this, and it’s doubtful that most people would answer honestly if the Census did ask. I don’t know of any other study since Kinsey’s that tried to quantify the sexual orientations and practices of the U.S. population by percentages. Personally, I’ve met enough people who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual that I know the percentage is not tiny, but I have no idea what the true percentage would be. It could be much more than 10%, or much less.

          But I don’t see how it matters. People are not more or less deserving of equal rights according to how many of them there are.

          And (for the third time) it’s only some of the KJV-Onlyists who think that James I’s sexuality has something to do with the validity or invalidity of the KJV. The rest of us just bring it up to tease them.

        4. By the way, what’s YOUR source for the information that “the percentage of people in history who have engaged in homosexual activities has been well under 10%”? I’m not aware of any historical study that found that to be true, and moreover, I don’t see how anyone could possibly know. As biologists like to say, “behavior does not leave fossils.”

        5. Big Gary, I do agree with part of your statement that people should be given fair and just treatment, no matter how many or few of them there are. I would disagree with you that homosexuals deserve better treatment and more special treatment than the rest of us because they are gay.

          It’s hard (no pun intended) to ascertain how much of the population of the world is homosexual. But being that it’s an unnatural act and is usually a learned behavior, there’s no way it could ever be even remotely close to as high as 10%.

        6. It is so unnatural that virtually every motile animal species that has been studied for any length of time has been observed in some form of contra-gender behavior. There are a lotta farmers who’ll tell you about the bull that wouldn’t perform or the cows that hump each other. ๐Ÿ˜ณ

        7. “But being that itโ€™s an unnatural act and is usually a learned behavior, thereโ€™s no way it could ever be even remotely close to as high as 10%.”

          I’m not even going to touch the question of whether of not homosexuality is natural. But the reasoning here is faulty. Learned behaviors are not necessarily rare. Wearing clothes and cooking food are learned behaviors. And I feel safe in saying that over 90% of the world’s humans do both.

      2. I looked at the link, and it is truly frightening. The defense of King James I is pathetic. It’s interesting how the literature never menitons that James I persecuted the Puritans and that the Puritans rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva Bible, which had anti-monarchistic sentiments. This is also the first Baptist I have seen that defends the idea of a monarchy. Monarchies prefer a state church.

        The rest of the stuff was hard to sift through. My only warning is that someone should read this on an empty stomach and have some Pepcid or Pepto on hand.

        1. I’m not KJVO but I don’t understand why non-KJVO point out faults of King James. What does this have to do with the translators?

        2. Nathan,

          Actually, the translation has nothing to do with the King. The problem is that KJV-only types like this one here uses the fact that James had a biblical name and that he was a king–and God established monarchies–as a major proof. They must then defend James as a righteous man. To do so, they have to look the other way at an awful lot of evidence that indicates that James I was not a very nice person. The arguing points are very weak. Yes, nobody during James’ time pointed out that he was a homosexual. They didn’t understand the concept as we do, and the term didn’t really exist. They also couldn’t wrap their fingers around the idea that people could be atheists, but because a term didn’t exist, it doesn’t mean that the concept didn’t exist. Numerous contemporary accounts of court life under James point out that he had a member of the nobility that he liked, and that he would fawn and kiss the guy in public, and the guy sat at James’ feet when he was on the throne. The Queen was often conspicuously absent. I could drag out my British Renaissance research, but this issue isn’t worth the time.

          The defense that these people make of James is very shallow and superficial. Scholars would have a hayday picking it apart. The nice term for this is “selective research” where one showcases the stuff that agrees with their point of view, and they very nicely reject outright anything that doesn’t agree. Instead of arguing the points, they throw mud at the opposition. It’s called Argumentum Ad Hominem–the art of ruining one’s reputation rather than to discuss his/her ideas.

        3. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, James I’s faults and his virtues have nothing at all to do with the goodness or badness of the King James Version. But many KJV-Onlyists do argue that James was a very holy king and that all the translators who worked on the version were exceptionally pious, and (here’s the important part) that those facts mean that the KJV is the only uncorrupted translation. The underlying premise, that a work of literature or translation is as good or bad as the moral character of its writers, is a false one.
          But even taking the argument on its own terms, you have to ignore a whole lot of the evidence about James I to believe that he was better than other mortals. He was, like all of us, a mixed bag of goodness and wretchedness. The fact that he was probably gay or bisexual by our standards (although terms like “homosexual” and “bisexual” were unknown in the 1600s) is especially interesting, not because it has any real bearing on the value of the KJV, but because many of the same people who claim that James’ holiness sanctifies the KJV are also absolutely mortified by any kind of sexuality other than a very narrowly defined style of heterosexuality.

        4. A very narrowly defined version of heterosexuality? Ummmm, you mean just being like 97% of the world has always been? In Big Gary’s world, if you’re not a sexual minority and engage in abnormal, unnatural sexual practices does that make you “narrowly defined?”

        5. Big Gary, from your uptightness, you would appear to be a homosexual. That is fine. I still like you. I just have a problem with the homosexual lobby’s lying agenda that “we are all bisexual” and that it is a “mainstream” practice when they and we both know that it is a minority practice that much, much less than 10% of the population has ever engaged in.

        6. Anyway, the percentage of the population that “has ever engaged in” homosexuality says absolutely nothing about James I’s sexual orientation, and his sexual orientation (as I just said) has absolutely nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the King James Version as a Bible translation. It’s the KJV-Onlyists who think that it matters.

    1. Once I realized who it was, I had the same thought. I assume it was closely related to the John Birch Society nonsense. Get people paranoid and they’ll follow you no matter how ridiculous you are.

    2. Bob, it’s interesting that you mention fluoridation. That is some pretty bad stuff that has the potential to destroy your mind. It’s a concern that I’m glad to see mentioned. Too few people ignore it or actually think it’s harmless.

  11. they even had a scene from full metal in there. wow is there anything original in the fundy kingdom. kjv is a translation but it is hardly original. mr holier than thou all concerned about the purity of his drinking water should probably talk to someone in the Greek orthodox church. They point out that the kjv was translated from other English versions instead of Hebrew for the old testament or Greek for the new testament. What do they know? Their faith has only been around for 1500 years compared to almost 130 years for fundamentalist Baptist. Also I take great offence at their arrogance at comparing themselves to warriors ready to die. They would probably run the other direction when the first shot whizzed past their ears or deposit excrement in their trousers when the jump master says go and they are supposed to jump out of the plane at 1500′ into complete darkness.

    1. Bradley, you must not be Greek Orthodox. Any Orthodox person would tell you that their church is the original church and has been around for 2000 years.

  12. Some people really don’t know anything about picking and choosing battles. And I guess it was just too bad for those who didn’t have a sword to fight with prior to 1611.

  13. The part where the man is screaming “You need a sword and in 1611 God forged that sword.” What did all those people do before 1611 without a Bible? Funds history=lies.

    1. That phrase caught my attention as well. When you stop to think about it, the arrogance is just astounding. I just can’t get my head wrapped around the reasoning. Scary to think that another generation is being brought up to make this a major issue.

    2. That’s always the issue to me as well.
      Or people in non-English speaking countries.
      Or people for whom orality (non-written) communication is the only form of language they have; which I’m told represents the majority of people on earth to this day.

    3. Heck, the earliest Christians didn’t even have a Bible in our sense of the word. They had the OT Scriptures, but the NT Scriptures were in the process of being written and had not yet been incorporated into the Canon. The Canon of Scripture was not finalized until the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in (IIRC) the 4th century.

      It always amazes me when people assume that the KJV fell out of the sky on the day of Pentecost, so that Peter and all those other English-speaking Jews could preach from it. ๐Ÿ˜†

  14. How is this “teen” related when the only “people” shown are men? I was expecting it to be about a mens’ group. Also, did anyone else catch the Lord of the Rings’ clip at the start? Surely Peter Jackson would balk?

    1. I gather from the fact someone said that was Jack Hyles it probably was a play for Birchers were paranoid about the flouridization of drinking water, and presumably easy targets to suck into paranoid IFB cults like Hyles.

      1. The Birchers pushed their “fluoridation is a Communist plot” theory in the 1950s and 60s, when fluoridation was relatively new in many communities. It seems that now they would be hard-pressed to explain why most people are still alive, after many decades of drinking fluoridated water, though.
        But I guess no crackpot theory ever really dies.

    2. No, that was a sermon from JH and it was comparing the Bible to water. So he is preaching this whole thing talking about “water” but meaning, don’t water down the Bible. (If I recall correctly)

    1. Not only did I thumbs down the video, I also reported it as innapropriate because it promotes hatred or violence in regards to religion. In the additional information box, I wrote this: “They say only the KJV translation is the good translation, and all the others are evil. Not only is that ignorant, it is also psychologically abusive to those who read other versions of the Bible. This video is aimed towards teenagers, and in my opninion, it promotes violence based on religious differences.”

      1. I’m not usually one for reporting videos for copyright infringement (I know people love to make their little tribute video and such, and have no harmful intent), but I am absolutely considering it with this video. Ridiculous.

    2. Hi! I saw your comment and added my own, only to check back later and see that they have erased all the comments! Hmmm, makes you wonder why they feel the need to silence the naysayers….

  15. I wouldn’t want a dirty NIV either. Or ESV, NKJV, NASB, or KJV. I have too much respect for God’s Word to let any of my Bibles stay dirty. Except one. It was tossed out of a car during a rollover. It has dirt and bloodstains on it. I cleaned it as best I could.

  16. There is a very good book of essays out about the history of Bible translations. It is called From The Mind Of God To The Mind Of Man. Some of the authors would be considered Fundy by a lot of us, but they are not KJV only. One thing I found interesting when I read it was how many of the arguments I hear from the KJV only crowd were used by the Geneva Bible adherents 400 years ago. Solomon was right, there really isn’t anything new.

    WARNING: This book is disliked by PCC and the Dean Burgon Society.

        1. @Paul in Canada, I just saw your post. Please forgive me for giving Fearless Leader the credit you have claimed.

  17. I guess I should feel grateful that I no longer have the slightest bit of understanding of these kinds of perspectives. Ten years out from fundamentalism, I’m completely stumped by the bizareness.

  18. It reminds me. Ma Ferguson, first woman governor of Texas was asked about English as the official language in Texas. She replied that the king James version bible was English. And if the kings English was good enough for Jesus. It was good enough for Texas. Guess Jesus was white and English speaking in addition to being an American patriot. Sorry for the Texas history lesson but you know how Texans can be.

    1. The story I heard was that this was Gov. Ferguson’s argument against teaching foreign languages in Texas schools.

      However, at least one historian who has looked into this can find no contemporaneous evidence of her having said it. The saying has also been attributed to various other people, going back at least to 1881, when Miriam A. Ferguson was only six years old. Of course, that doesn’t prove that Ferguson never said it; only that she wasn’t the first to say it.

      Here’s a look at the famous anecdote:
      http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003084.html

  19. Wow…..copyright infringement anyone?? I thought they believed the whole “thou shall not steal” part of the Bible…oh wait, I forgot that they just can make up any part of what the Bible is suppose to mean.

  20. So first, holy wow on the copyright infringement. And it’s not like a “tribute to the Marines” video or something. This is awful. Second, what is up with the drinking water rant in the middle? Fine, play to the Birchers since your obviously birds of a feather and all, but this is about the KJV Bible. Last time I checked, Jesus Christ is the Living Water, not the scripture in any of its versions. Finally, he’s willing to die…for a version of the Bible…. What the what. Not die for Christ or His worship. They’ll have to pry the King James Bible from his cold, dead fingers? I’m pretty sure this entire video is just a catalog of psychopathic symptoms. Seriously. It’s quite frightening how those who say they follow the Prince of Peace, who promised a kingdom in which swords would be turned into plowshares, who advocated personal deference over vengeance are so very ready to imply a willingness to murder (yes, I said murder, and no, I am not a pacifist) to defend a translation of the Bible. I’m sorry, that’s psychotic. It really is.

    1. I too could echo those same words. Here’s a quote from Pastor Scotty Smith from last night’s Liberate conference, “Don’t waste the glory of your justification on demonizing legalists. Just out love them. At some point, that was you.”

  21. The level of ignorance on this Stufffundieslike.com is incredible. If you had the brains of a flea, you wouldn’t be so flippant or dangerous.

    What this conference is all about is to give the young people and those who attend . . . the “rest of the story”; the otherside of the story, so to speak. It is a part of history [Bible history]to which they are not likely be exposed.

    Why do we need over 230 versions in English when the Lord has obviously put His imprimatur on the King James Bible (translated with/or at the height of the English language). One would think that after over 230 attempts by “scholars” to get it right, they would have gotten it right!!! But no . . . they will come out with almsot 2 on average this year as they have over the last 140 years!! And they still come out with errors in their copywrited [see: $$$$$$$$$$$$] versions.

    I feel sorry for your lack of an education. . . . not that you aren’t educated, but you certainly haven’t been exposed to all the information out there. Most of “the rest of the story” has been delibrately withheld from you.

    By the way, I attended and graduated from Bob Jones University and though they don’t believe the King James Bible is the Word of God [they hold to the Westcott & Hort – Nestle’s Greek Text – edition 27 – or so]. Yet, somehow, I still believe the King James Bible is the Word of God for English speaking people…even to this day!

    To those who claim – well, what about the French and what about the Japanese etc. who don’t have a the Scriptures. I say, who about the Egyptians, and what about the Hittites, etc. [[the Hebrew language of the Old Testament was only spoken by the Jews (who became the nation of Israel]]. The Oracles of God were given to the Jews!!

    Where the King James Bible differs from other English versions; they obviously cannot both be right! The Book says, every word of God is pure. I believe God can translate and He has – but that statement is so far beyond your thinking that you will not believe it. I’ll make another statement. In the King James Bible you a superior text than the originals – which don’t exist now on earth!

    We will not have this Book to reign over us. You are your own “final authority!” And . . . you accuse “us” of being “lunatics” when you use the same tactics and rhetoric of some of those who claim to be on our side.

    Remember, Jesus chose Judas to be one of the original 12!! And Jesus declared that he (Judas) was a devil from the beginning!

    What was the first thing recorded in the Bible that Satan said? Genesis 3:1 and following – “Yea, hath God said!” He caused Eve to doubt whether God said what He had said, before he caused her to doubt what God meant by what He said!!! Eve added to . . . Satan subtracted from . . . he twisted and pervert the words of God.

    Back to Judas: Judas was one of those “ministers of righteousness” the Lord – through the Apostle Paul spoke about in II Corinthians 11!

    Well, you can go on and use your counterfeit, contradictory bibles if you like and I will not lose a moment of sleep. In case you have forgotten, God promise to perserve his words in Psalm 12! I guess you don’t believe He is able to do that, even though God places His Word above His Name. [see: Psalm 138:2]

    Have a nice day!

    1. Most of us used to be Independent Fundamental Baptists. The vast majority of us used to be KJVO.

      We know all these talking points even better than you do. Many of us have even taught them or preached them from the pulpit.

      We’re not ignorant of your position, we just think it’s wrong.

    2. I find it ironic when Christians insult other believers instead of following 2 Timothy 2:25: “in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.”

      Saying people who disagree with you don’t have the brains of a flea doesn’t seem very meek to me.

      1. Pasor’s Wife, you bring up an interesting point about Christians insulting other Christians and having respect, et al. But I think that your point in this forum is moot and serves no purpose. Most people here at the very least dislike Christianity and Christians, if not outright hate it and them altogether. You make a good point, but in this forum it’s not a bunch of “nice Christians” debating in a friendly manner with fellow “nice Christians.”

        1. That seems to be a rather amazing statement to make that “Most people here at the very least dislike Christianity and Christians, if not outright hate it and them altogether.” Granted I haven’t seen you post here before so maybe your new and your first impressions are off, but the truth is that most of those who post here are quite fervent in their love of Christianity and of other Christians. Granted there are some who have become atheists and others who have walked away from the church completely, yet even they hardly seem to hate Christianity as they come and converse here quite civilly on a regular basis with those of us who continue to believe. If they hated Christianity and us, they would be leaving “love-bombs” for us regularly rather than engaging in pleasant conversation.

        2. Eric, ummm, “love bombs?” Thanks, but I think the 60’s are over. If you or anyone wants to tune in, turn on, and drop out, be my guest, although that’s not quite the scene it once was. I’m not sure how long YOU’VE been here Eric, but your comment made me laugh. I’d hardly call this place a bastion of Christianity! There are a few Christians around here, but most posters seem to think Christianity is quite absurd. Maybe that’s a better way to categorize the constituency. Many viewers get as much fun from observing Christianity as they do viewing Mad Magazine.

        3. Boymom, MOST people equate fundamentalism with Christianity. That’s why they are called the fundamentals of the faith; they are the most basic, simple, fundamental doctrines that anyone who agrees with Christianity would agree with. I don’t think that most people on this blog would even begin to remotely agree with even the most simple tenets of Christianity. You probably are correct though. I am often confused on the purpose and/or direction of this site. Sometimes I see it as a way to poke fun at Christianity in general and to make fun of it overall. At other times it seems to poke fun and make fun of Independent Fundamental Baptists specifically, which is just one branch of Christianity. I’m not sure what people here find funnier and more absurd: Christianity in general, or the IFB branch of Christianity. Perhaps it depends upon the day and what the specific topic is at hand.

        4. You are mistaken; MOST people do not equate ‘fundamentalism’ as it is used here with Christianity. Most people equate IFB with crazy. Much like yourself.

        5. Sheila, when we talk about fundies on this site we’re referring to the more crazy portion of Christianity who equate their man-made standards and rules with the fundamentals of the faith and declare that they all come from God. Since this is very common in IFB (though not exclusive to them, I realize), that is what SFL pokes fun at and calls out (that being the point of the site). Many of us still do hold to the fundamentals of the faith, though we no longer call ourselves “fundamentalists” because doing so associates us with people we really don’t want to be associated with (like Larry). So, no, this is not an anti-Christian site.

        6. Sheila, first off “love-bombing” is hardly from the 60’s. It is believed to have started with the Moonies in the late 70’s, but the term has taken on new meaning. Basically being a form of affection or feined interest that is only manipulative or self-seeking or only concerned with their own interests (somewhat like Larry in that his idea of love is to berate others into believing his narrow viewpoint). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing

          Secondly, while maybe not the most authoritative person on the condition of regular poster’s hearts, after all God alone knows that, I have been here since almost the very beginning. Sometimes I’ve commented, other times not, but I was here when there would be no more than five comments on Darrell’s posts. I’ve interacted with many of those who are here for a long time. Do we all agree? Hardly. Yet there are many, as Boymom and Mandy stated, who hold to the original fundamentals as outlined in early 20th century, yet who refuse to use the term because of who it associates us with and how it is now defined. I’ve been here long enough to miss some of our regular posters who don’t make it here as much as they used to like, Shoes, Natalie, PresbyterianGirl, and I Am His Beloved. And I’ve been here with many of the others who have had to put up with the John’s, Johnathan’s, and Larry’s who have felt they needed to correct us by berating and condemning. All that to say that I believe I know what I’m talking about. Blessings.

    3. You should let your rage subside a little before typing a screed like this. Could avoid all the glaring grammatical errors even with George haunting the comments. I’d like to see that “Lord’s imprimatur” you seem to think exists, Mr. Scholar man.

      1. “” “” “” — “” “” ; “”

        Just throwing in some excessive punctuation & scare quotes. Feel free to distribute them throughout my reply if it’ll help you read/understand it.

    4. Larry, your use of phrases like “the Lord obviously..” and “I’m sorry for your lack of education” or completely generalizing everything everyone has said about this because you don’t agree really shows your lack of spiritual maturity. Does it matter that we don’t agree? Aren’t there other things that are more important than what version of the Bible we use? No one here is saying that the KJV is bad, only that it’s not the only version they prefer to use. If people were denying things like the Gospel, then you’d have a good reason to disagree. But you’re disagreeing over something that can’t really be backed up by the Bible (unless you twist broad verse to mean whatever you want them to mean or take them out of context), so you would be wise to just treat people who don’t think that the KJV is only book with love, like Jesus would. I have a hard time imagining that Jesus would talk down to people he didn’t agree with, like you are, over an extra-Biblical assumption. And your last paragraph: “Well, you can go on and use your counterfeit, contradictory bibles if you like and I will not lose a moment of sleep.” should really show that you are not interesting in correcting us in love, only to get your spiteful attitude and opinion across without really caring for anyone you’re disagreeing with. Philippians 2:3 says “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” You clearly do not have this kind of attitude when addressing other people on this site.

      And yes, God does promise to preserve His Word, but there is nothing in that text that says it’s going to be through the KJV version. If I remember correctly, John 1 says that Jesus is the Word. I might be off in that comparison, but maybe God is saying that He will preserve His Word (Jesus) instead of text on a page. But this is just an idea to fit my own theory, much like you are doing with these verse.

      I hope that God convicts you of your attitude with your spiteful message to the people on this site and you learn ways to disagree with others without putting them down or insulting him.

    5. Wow, a translation is elevated to the fourth person of the quadrinity.
      Larry, our beef isn’t with the scripture it is with the way men have elevated one translation in the english to being the “Inspired, inerrent, Living Word of God.” The word of God found in the written word is NOT the WORD of God spoken of in Scripture. One is visible representation of words on a page the other is Jesus, God the Son, spoken of in John 1. Yet over and over the KJVO position elevates this version to the fourth member of the Godhood.

      In particularly, it is offensive when so called m-o-g take a militant approach to defending such an untenable position, especially when the original translators said, :that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. *emphasis mine

      More and more the IFB KJVO looks more and more like Islam’s approach to the Quran. It does not bring brothers and sisters in Christ together in love but is a dividing issue of contention. There are men out there calling for the burning of all other english translations, is that Christian?

      So when we expose a conference such as this, for the indoctrination camp it is, it shouldn’t suprise anyone.

      1. While I agree with everything that Don said, I would argue that they don’t make the KJV the fourth member of the Trinity, but rather the third. I’ve never been charismatic and I’m not pushing that at all, but any fundy church I’ve ever been a part of virtually ignores the Holy Spirit by being afraid to mention him (outside of the moment of baptism), teach on him, or worship him. Rather they elevate the KJV to the level of God, the point Don has made over and over again here on SFL, and diminish the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Thereby they make the Trinity God the Father, God the Son, and God the KJV. If you listen to how often the issue of KJV-onlyism is preached in these type of churches versus how often the Holy Spirit is mentioned, this can’t be denied.

        1. Holy Spirit = charismatic, pentecostal, holy rollers, and speaking in tongues. Since the IFB separates itself from these, then the IFB is honor bound to separate itself from their perecived source of such heresy… the Holy Spirit. ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

    6. “In the King James Bible you a superior text than the originals โ€“ which donโ€™t exist now on earth!”
      ๐Ÿ˜ฅ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ ๐Ÿ˜ฎ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ ๐Ÿ˜ฎ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

      1. And this from the guy throwing around the term “flea brain”! Those originals (autographs to use the correct term he doesn’t seem to know) were basically worthless.

    7. BINGO!
      Or is it Poe? Oh, great Dar-El, do you just make these posters up? A merry hear doeth good like medicine, and I got a good belly-laugh out of that rant.

      By they way, fleas don’t have brains; they have a bundle of reflexive nerves that act as a central nervous system. They just sort of react to their environment without thinking…kind of like fundies.

    8. The really sad part, Larry, is that I left fundamentalism because of people like you. It really has very little to do with doctrine because I still believe in the “fundamentals” of the faith, and I even use the KJV (I’m a TR person by conviction). I left because of self-righteous, unloving, prideful Christians like you.

      The kind that always assumes that if someone dares to disagree with you, it must be because they are uneducated or at least less educated them you (the totally foreign concept of a just as well thought out and well researched opposing opinion *gasp*). The kind who so easily tosses around insults and condescension to everyone else, then condemns anyone who dares return the favor.

      You have just as much right as anyone else to have your own convictions about which Bible translation/version you use. In the end, its your attitude that is driving people away from Christ, not your translation. What makes it even worst is that you are teaching young people to have the same attitude.

    9. Are you implying that only English-speakers have been given “the oracles of God?” I didn’t see any imprimatur either. I’ll grant the poetic power of the translation, and its historic impact, but I won’t have it be King. The Lamb is worthy.

  22. I’ve learned that you will NEVER win an argument with IFB KJOs. Anyone who even questions is of the devil. ๐Ÿ‘ฟ I recently read “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman. He’s an expert in textual criticism (the science of researching text to determine the truth of its origin – NOT criticism like ‘he’s critical of the Bible’). It’s an excellent book because it explores the TRUTH about how the bible as we know it today came into being. Ehrman went to Moody, then Wheaton, then Princeton, in other words, he’s well-educated, and this has been his passion. Well, all I had to do was tell an IFB KJV family member about it. All she heard was the word CRITICISM and she cried, and defended her belief and blabbered on and on about her conversion to Christ and how in love with His word she is, and then to me – how I’ve been far from the Lord, and the people I’m around and the bad influences I’ve allowed into my life, and what’s wrong with this Ehrman, what made him have to do all this research? So there you go. Knowledge is WRONG. Blind faith is the only way. BTW the above video is disgusting. I have the utmost respect for the Marines, and to use them to perpetuate this moronic ignorance makes my blood boil.

    1. With all due respect, Kat, the scholars at Princeton et al snicker up their sleeve at Ehrman. His writings are not considered scholarship by scholars – even the ones who agree with him. Historians especially resent his disrespect to their work and methods (cf. John Dominic Crossan’s scathing rebuke and general putdown in “The Birth of Christianity”). So, be careful who you go around recommending him to. Most scholars will not take him or you seriously.

      1. OTOH, some of us don’t take John Dominic Crossan seriously. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Isn’t he the dude who claims Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs? Such “scholarship” will be laughable in 50 years; it is already becoming outdated. And BTW, I am not familiar with this Ehrman guy, so I am not necessarily defending him. Just saying that corrosively skeptical Biblical scholarship, predicated on an a priori rejection of the supernatural, should be taken with a king-size grain of salt.

        1. I’ve seen videos of a few of Crossan’s lectures and read an article or two by him. He strikes me as a bit of a flake. He sort of embodies what I think was wrong with The Jesus Seminar’s work. He is likely right on some points, but he mixes it with so much wild speculation and wishful thinking that he loses all credibility. The flip side of the Biblical literalists, if you will.

        2. Yes and yes! That’s rather my point. Crossan may or may not be a kook, but he is certainly a post-modern, and agrees with Ehrman’s conclusions at many points – and yet he blasts Ehrman’s “scholarship” for a reason.

      2. Well, I enjoyed the book regardless. If the only authors I should recommend are scholars who have no critics, would there be any left? Besides, I wasn’t recommending the book to my IFB family member, I was just telling her about it – that I thought it was very interesting. I knew there’d be no way in hell she’d ever read something that would tackle the question of how our modern Bible came into being! Also, it was directed toward laymen and did not get very technical. So I’m assuming some of his serious research must be critiqued by hardcore scholars?

        1. Ehrman is not generally seen as a “real” scholar by his contemporaries, even those who agree with his conclusions. This is not to say that Ehrman is necessarily wrong on any one thing, it is only to say that his work is not considered very highly among academics. But if it got you thinking, that’s a good thing! Crossan’s book was one of the most helpful I’ve ever read, and I didn’t agree with a word of it ๐Ÿ˜›

        2. I love how Ehrman says he was warned at Moody that there were not too many Christians ant Wheaton, then was warned at Wheaton that there were not too many Christians at Princeton DIVINITY SCHOOL.

          Been there, done that. (Or had that done to me.)

  23. “I wonder how the Marine Corps would feel about having their advertising ripped off to promote Hylesian drivel?”

    Well, you “ripped off” Crown College’s ad to promote Darrellisian “drivel.” You have to be willing to take your own medicine. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    1. It’s not quite the same question since I wasn’t the one who made the Marine Corps video.

      If they wanted to rip off something I produced then it would be a fair point and I wouldn’t have much place to object. (Nor would I) But I wasn’t asking about something I did. I was asking how the Marine Corps felt about having their advertising ripped off.

      It’s an apples to oranges comparison. ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. “I was asking how the Marine Corps felt about having their advertising ripped off.”

        And I’m asking how Crown College feels about having their advertising ripped off.

        1. I have no of knowing that. You’ll have to ask them.

          ETA: I also have no way of knowing how the Marine Corps feels. Hence my use of the words “I wonder.”

    2. I don’t understand. Darrell is not using promotional clips produced by someone else to advertise his own programs. He is simply sharing something that’s been put out there publically in a forum where we can evaluate it and critique it. Movie critics and book reviewers do this sort of thing all the time. It’s part of being in a free society and part of being a Christian, evaluating and discerning.

    3. Also, you are allowed to rip things off for the purpose of satire. That isn’t copyright infringement. I’m pretty sure the video in this post is not meant to be satire. Plus, ripping Crown College is a little bit different than ripping off Marines. I would not rip off Marines. I like my current state of physical existence just the way it is. ๐Ÿ˜€

      1. Yes, I was promoting my anti-fundy camp where you can all come and hear me scream at you for the low, low price of $149.50. (food, lodging, and travel not included).

  24. As inane as this video is, I have to say, Darrell, that it’s the first time you have posted something that I have found a little bit frightening. The stridency, the militancy, the in-your-face triumphalism of the narrative is really unnerving. To me, it has clear overtones of fascism.

  25. Utterly creepy. May God have mercy on the poor kids whose parents are sending them to that or anything remotely resembling that. Yuck o rama. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

  26. What do you all do with II Cor. 2:17; Col. 1:14; I Tim. 3:16; John 1:18; Matt. 1:25; Acts 9:5-6; Isa. 7:14 etc. etc. etc.

    Nothing I suppose – as your perference is the final authority in all matters. The Book rubs you the wrong way. You are your own final authority.

    Some of you probably perfer same sex marriages; abortion; drinking alcohol beverages; sensual clothing; etc. You can’t stand the Book. Why do you think there are over 230 translations in English? Money, money, money . . .

    Oh well . . . to each his own. You have swallowed the bait of the god of this world, [if you even believe there is a Devil – 57% of those who have to call themselves Christians don’t!!] hook, line and sinker!

    Have a nice life . . . while it lasts.

    By the way . . . it is not me you should be afraid of . . .

    I wouldn’t hurt a “flea”!!

    1. This sounds familiar. How many of us here used to repeat these partylines? Not going to bother addressing the post, because it brings back bad memories of spiritual abuse, but it is definitely sad to read.

    2. “You! Did your parents have any children that lived? I bet they regret that! You’re so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!”

      Interesting, Sgt Hartmann Quotes from Full Metal Jacket actually are as well thought and supported by the text of scripture as Larry’s arguments on this thread – oh, and the one I chose shows about as much grace also.

      Sad.

    3. @Larry, I do not claim to speak for everyone on this forum, but I’ll answer the first three of your verse questions. Maybe more later, if you wish to contact me on the forum.

      2 Cor. 2:17 How do explain this in light of the extra-biblical burdens you place on people? (drink, clothing, etc.)

      Col. 1:14 Read the whole passage in another translation, and you will find the blood has not been left out. No doctrines have been harmed in the translating of Scripture into current language.

      1 Tim. 3:16 I don’t understand the question. If you are saying we are wrong to read other translations because of controversy, then you need to re-read the verse. Without controversy means that God’s mystery [the Gospel] is sure and undeniably certain.

      I could go on, but unless you are willing to converse, not condemn, then this has likely been a waste of my time, except that it involves study of Scripture, which is always useful for correction and instruction in righteousness. But only if one is willing to learn.

      Larry, quit reading Gipp, Oulette, Riplinger, Ruckman, Burgon, etc. Read the Bible. Whole passages. Compare translations by reading more than one verse. You’ve been lied to by fearful, power hungry people who do not edify each other, but divide the fellowship of Believers.

    4. Grammar time.

      You is both singular and plural, doesn’t need to be modified with “all” to be made plural.

      etc doesn’t require a period, and should only be used once in a sentence.

      2nd paragraph is supposed to be an answer to what looks like a rhetorical question (that didn’t have a question mark). Answering your own rhetorical question is a strange maneuver, but I guess to each his own.

      I’m going to blame “perfer” on George for now.

      The word book isn’t a proper noun unless it’s the actual title of a book, but you appear to be referencing the Bible with it, and shouldn’t capitalize the word book in that case.

      This isn’t grammar, but trying to simultaneously claim that a group of people both hate hate hate the Bible, and also are trying to secretly get rich publishing 230 versions in English is a rather odd logical choice to make.

      Trying to argue exclusive used of the KJV with the argument that it is “about the only” one to use a specific word is (1) an actual argument for the validity of other translations, (2) a huge misunderstanding of synonyms and how translating between languages works, and (3) completely missing the forest for a sliver of a leaf.

      I feel like at the end there, you tried to imply that denying the existence of the Devil sends a person to hell? You wanna rethink that one or come up with a KJV scripture to prove it?

      I’m sure I missed some spelling & grammar errors, and got distracted by the loony statements. Anyone else that would like to help Loony Larry out?

      1. Oh! And I feel like I got accused of personally either having or performing at least 1 abortion, drinking alcohol, and/or wearing sensual clothing. I’m curious if I prove I’m innocent on all 3 of those, that’d be enough to earn my way into heaven?

        With so much angry defense of the KJV, and the reality of the Devil, you’d think Larry would’ve made the time by now to include Jesus in his rants. Kind of a shame for someone so proud of his church, his college, his stances, and generally himself, to be so far removed from mentioning Jesus.

        Last criticism for now. The Final Authority is God himself (or herself for those who prefer), not you or the KJV. Please try to refrain from deifying your preferred translation.

    5. Larry I gather from “Our Beliefs-Doctrine” section on yo0ur website that you are Landmarkers.

      19. The perpetuity of missionary Baptist churches from Christ’s day on earth until His second coming – Matthew 16:18;

      21. The subject of all Scriptural association assemblies and committees to the will of the churches, so that they shall forever remain as servants of the churches originating them.

      23. The only valid baptism is that administered by the authority of a Scriptural missionary Baptist church. Any so-called Baptist church, which knowingly receives alien baptism habitually practices this or other evils as those listed in statement 20 cannot be a Scriptural Baptist church, nor can its ordinances remain valid.

      Re. 21. Funny I thought that Christ was the head of the Church and he is the sole authority. If you really believe the statements you have stated here then you are still in subjection to the church at Jerusalem, and Antioch and a thousand others along the way to America. Wait, that would be the universal Church, you know the catholic church. You do believe the Apolstle’s Creed don’t you?

      I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
      I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
      I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

      1. PS – I wish I could take credit for this. I’m afraid I don’t have enough crazy in me to come up with this drivel.

        Thanks for thinking of me though. ๐Ÿ˜†

    6. Larry,

      I assume you meant II Tim3:16, not I Tim3:16.

      I just checked the “Traduccion del Nuevo Mundo de las Sagradas Escrituras.” It has that same verse: “Toda Escritura es Inspirada.”

      So that must mean that the Jehovah’s Witness Bible is inspired, RIGHT? (Well, at least the Spanish version.)

      Oh wait a sec… The Catholic Jerusalem Bible has the same verse. And their original was in French…

  27. Interesting video. Just watched it. Did they consider that using ‘wordly’ movies like Full Metal Jacket (I wonder if the Alabama Black Snake scene is Hyles Approved) and Thin Red Line is ethical.

    Also, Papyrus font conveys Egyptian sanscript (or Sand Script, as someone recently put it), and isn’t that where Alexandria is, source of all wickedness.

    Next time, use Trajan, and make it white, not red.

      1. What’s interesting is that the scene they chose to show was of an abusive, psychopathic drill sergeant who drives an innocent, simple minded young man to suicide. He also shouts like a baptist preacher.

        If you haven’t seen Full Metal Jacket, I really recommend the movie. It is a masterful black comedy that is also very tragic and thought provoking regarding the atrocities of war. If you are easily offended by graphic violence, swearing and mild sexual content (no actual on screen stuff, but some crude discussion, alluded to in the scene mentioned above), then it probably isn’t the film for you.

        Also, if you are a fundamental baptist, the first 45 minutes also double as an instruction manual for hard preachin’.

        1. meh, I just checked. The scene isn’t actually from full metal jacket. But the sword scene is from Eragon I’m pretty sure.

  28. Interesting – “same song, same verse, alittle bit louder and a whole lot worse” You are “parroting” the same lame arguements I’ve heard for 40 years. You have not tried to answer hardly any objections, but persist in your vomiting out old rehashed futile arguements from 40 years ago.

    You must be “blind” if you can’t see (or won’t see or refuse to see) many doctrines are changed in these so called NEW bibles. It is called gradualism. It is a major tactic of Satan. You mess up the words you mess up the cross-references.

    But why study – since the King James Bible is about the only version in English in existance that uses the word “STUDY” in II Timothy 2:15! By the way, the NIV says, “so the best you can”! I believe that implies “salvation by works.”!

    But, of course, some of you don’t believe in the Devil, or the Book’s recounting of the Creation of the worlds in six literal 24 hour days!

    Have a nice day – have it your own way!

    1. Larry – Below is a quote form the front page of your church website:

      “….you would come to sense that we are a friendly, loving people….”

      I haven’t sensed anything friendly or loving about your comment so far. Maybe you should add the term hypocrite to your attributes.

      Anyone else want to see Larry’s work:

      http://www.prayerbaptist.org/

      1. The upcoming “Couples Marriage Seminar” costs $10 per person/$15 per couple.
        Does that mean the church is expecting many singles (people who aren’t in couples) to attend? Or if you come as part of a trio, is it $15 for the first two of you, plus $10 for the third? Or would it be pro-rated to $22.50 for the three of you?
        Are there any bulk discounts for Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints marriages involving, say, 12 people? Cheaper by the dozen?

        1. Oooh! Group discounts. You thinking sfl field trip? Like $6 or $7 each for a 25 group of sfl’ers to help out by correcting all the bad theology, and doctrine, and clear unbiblical teachings and practices? This seems like a win/win to me! We got an invite, Larry?

    2. With all due respect Larry, your ranting will not have much effect here. Most of us have “been there, done that.”

      Speaking for myself only, I believe you will ultimately harm far more people spiritually than you will ever help. I hope you see the light and choose to worship God, rather than the teachings of men.

    3. Larry – If we are, as you claim, people who “donโ€™t believe in the Devil, or the Bookโ€™s recounting of the Creation of the worlds in six literal 24 hour days!” (and some here do, but many don’t) etc, etc, than how does the KJV command you to act towards us? In love? I Cor 13. Right now the only thing we read when reply is clang, clang, clang of your loud cymbals. As God would and does? Matt 22:37-40, Romans 2:4 “not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (from the KJV) God is just yet it is His goodness and love that leads us to repentance. If you desire to be like Him and were actually concerned about our spiritual souls you would act in love towards us and in “goodness” attempt to lead us to repentance. I would type more, but it’s time to go to church. Sincerely, blessings to you and I pray that God would open your eyes.

    4. You were given a chance to engage in dialogue, but instead persist in being obnoxious.

      Good day, Larry. I’m off to church for corporate worship. Something you wouldn’t understand in your pseudo-biblical jihad mindset. When you wish to engage in true debate or conversation, come see us.

        1. I thought the SAME thing. ๐Ÿ™„ I’ll bet his poor sheeple got an earful. Perhaps they will even show up here, and some may even be delivered from him. Then we would see that all things truly DO work together for good. I wish it would happen! ๐Ÿ˜

    5. Your website says your church is an, “old fashioned friendly church.” My former IFB church said the same thing. However, I never saw more backstabbing, strife, and conflict than I did at that place. The only time that church was “friendly” was when you did exactly what the pastors said. Heaven help you if you EVER had a dissenting opinion.

      It is because of people like you that I struggle with faith to this day.

    6. You must be โ€œblindโ€ if you canโ€™t see (or wonโ€™t see or refuse to see) many doctrines are changed in these so called NEW bibles. It is called gradualism. It is a major tactic of Satan. You mess up the words you mess up the cross-references.

      Ok, Larry you called the tune now pay the fiddler. Show us a specific doctrine that has been damaged. You make these generalizations and like most IFB folks just expect your assertions to be accepted as “truth.” That doesn’t make muster around here. What doctrine is harmed?

      Now in your original rant you stated:

      In the King James Bible you a superior text than the originals โ€“ which donโ€™t exist now on earth!

      Aside from a major theology faux pas in your obvious mishandling of 1 Peter 1:19-21 “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of oneโ€™s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” lets take a look at the Superior Text you have.

      So, you hold to a Bible that includes the Apocrypha right? If the KJV was superior text at that time, then it was all superior text correct? So you have quite a quandry on your hands don’t you? If the KJV was superior then with the Apocrypha then how can it now be so superior without it?
      Lastly are you claiming tripple inspiration? You do realize that the King James was revised don’t you?
      To wit:

      The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text โ€“ while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators’ work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note.[82] A more thoroughly corrected edition was proposed following the Restoration, in conjunction with the revised 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but Parliament then decided against it.

      *
      And of course the current KJV is based on the standardized 1769 Oxford revision.

      Now which of these passages were superior?

      The 1611 and 1760 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below.

      1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophesie, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I have all faith, so that I could remoove mountaines, and have no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I give my body to bee burned, and have not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

      1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

      In these three verses, there are eleven changes of spelling, nine changes of typesetting, three changes of punctuation, and one variant text โ€“ where “not charity” is substituted for “no charity” in verse two, in the erroneous belief that the original reading was a misprint.

      **

      *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
      ** Ibid

    7. Larry your church “Our Beliefs-Doctrine” section list this:

      The preservation of inspiration in the Authorized Version 1611, commonly known
      as the King James Version – Psalm 12:6-7;

      You do realize there are a multitued of differences between the 1611 edition and the revised 1769 edition you can find on the book shelves today don’t you???
      My previsous post above points out a vivid example of this.

      So do you actually use the 1611 version in your church??? http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjplate4.jpg

      If so I’m impressed.

    8. Because “study” is a bad translation, dude. At least in modern English. When the KJV was translated, study meant “give diligence”, which is a decent translation of the text (the actual word, ฯƒฯ€ฮฟฯฮดฮฑฯƒฮฟฮฝ, means “to make haste”, but it is an idiom that refers to being diligent or doing well).

    9. it actually says

      “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

      But salvation isn’t the context. If it was, then wouldn’t you have to study your king james in order to be saved? and wouldn’t that be works salvation? And how would you know if you have ever studied enough?

      The approving here is from man – do other approve of us, are we ashamed of our behaviour. We are never approved and accepted by God because of our behaviour, but because of Jesus, but others will judge us and accept our words based on what we say and do.

    10. I’d like to know how you know Satan’s major tactics. He only has about 10 spoken lines in all of scripture, and half of them are directed at God. The lines directed at humans, Adam and Eve, or actually, just Eve, are hardly “gradualism”. He just comes right out and tells a lie (about what God had spoken). The rest of his words are just him boasting about great he thinks he is, and how much he thinks humanity sucks.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.