84 thoughts on “FWOTW: sound-doctrine.net”

      1. My computer is being perverse again this morning, and the hovertext only flickers across the screen, not giving me time enough to read it. What does it say? Please?

        1. Dear That Other Jean:

          “It’s interesting that a site about ‘sound doctrine’ actually contains very little information about the actual core doctrines of Christianity”

          Christian Socialist

          PS: On behalf of Rev. Bunion [explained in mind below], your humble gratitude is recognized and accepted.

        2. I foolishly thought (for a fleeting moment) that the Foundations of our Freedom referred to our freedom in Christ. Duh! I forgot the the USA is Gid’s chosen country.

  1. Even for IFB, this group seem to have the “I’m right, you’re scum,” attitude in spades. I don’t think they would be able to have a quiet dialogue with someone.

  2. Dear E.L. Bynum:

    We have a Biblical mandate for calling names. So can we address you as E.L. Bunion?

    Christian Socialist

    PS: You do understand, of course, that we have as much right to question the integrity of YOUR faith commitments, as you have to question ours…

  3. At first I thought his page on the Jews was going in a preterist direction and then it turned into something else. I’m not exactly sure what point of all that was.

    1. Lol. I was like, Ok, he’s covenant theo – nope, scratch that. Huh sounds prete – nope, wrong again. Wait, neo-nazi skinhead? All I know for sure is that anyone who thinks a google search of random Jewish sites counts as being informed on the religion is, well, ignorant.

  4. Personally, I have never seen anything wrong with naming the names of people who would actually lead my congregation astray (Not people I disagree with, legitimate false prophets, some of which I heard about on this sight). I thought he meant calling them names like “jerk” or “psycho” and I would find that passage where Jesus called the Pharisees “vipers” out of context. . .which would be ironic since it would be a Pharisee quoting Jesus calling out Pharisees.
    As far as “judging”, Jesus condoned calling out people in love, not just holler at them to make yourself feel powerful.

        1. Bullet points. Alliterated, awkward, and illogical.

          Some have points elsewhere, but being a lady, I won’t mention that.

  5. So I finally got to the end of the Christ and Israel essay and was feeling well informed. Then I saw the word “learnt” twice in one paragraph. Everything I just learnt went down the drain. Even if you think learnt is a word, doesn’t everyone have spellcheck?

      1. Thanks for the clarification. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see either British or archaic English being used by the out of touch (no doubt, American) purveyors of this nonsense.

  6. God doesn’t change (Malachi 3:6); so SIN IS STILL SIN. Sex is for married people (Heb. 13:4), long hair is for women (I Cor. 11:14-15), wine is for sick people (I Tim. 5:23), smoking is for people in Hell (Rev. 14:11), and rock music is for pagan idolaters (Dan. 3:5; Exodus 32)

    Just for the fun of it, I looked up some of these passages. Sure, long hair is for women… And for those who took a Nazarite vow, such as Sampson and John the Baptizer. Wine is for sick people… And for Jesus and his disciples celebrating Passover, and believers celebrating the last supper. The smoking reference is idiotic; I didn’t even bother. Rock music… Well, I didn’t find any other reference to the flute, the dulcimer, or the sackbut in the AKJV except at Nebuchadnezzar’s idol. So it’s safe to say that if we avoid these 3 instruments, we won’t accidentally produce rock music.

  7. “The thesis of this seminal work is that the Authorized Version is no more archaic than daily newspapers, current magazines, and modern Bible versions.”

    How can you possibly be serious?

    Hast thou readest any newspapers lately?

    “And it came to pass in Missouri that a tumult was made regarding a certain young man.” ~quote from the New York Times story on the riots in Ferguson

    “And certain men of Belial dealt subtly with the United States, and hired them aeroplanes with the which they might smite the towers of the great city. And they smote them with great might, and a tumult was made. And the wrath of the king of that city was kindled against the men of the east.” ~quote from the Washington Post story on the September 11 attacks.

    “And a certain lone man sat in a high place, and beheld the king of that nation as he passed by. And he drew his weapon at a venture, and smote the king that he died. And the place thereof is called Dealey Plaza unto this day.” ~quote from the USA Today article on the assassination of JFK

        1. There’s even a blog that predates the KJV, but it hasn’t been updated since March. “Geoffrey Chaucer hath a Blog” is written, and replied to by many readers, in the English of Chaucer’s time–Early Modern, maybe? It’s fun, but goes a long time between posts.

    1. Surely the OT equivalent to a President is ‘shofet’, not ‘malek’? So this should be ‘judge’, not ‘king’.

      (“That’s exactly the sort of deliberately perverse mistranslation you’d expect from someone in the Alexandrian-Vatican system! Oh, and the NWO – because this is used of the Antichrist to prepare people for tyranny!”)

    2. Wow.

      I think the KJVers are something of an equivalent to the Wahhabi movement in Islam (Bin Laden’s sect).

      The Wahhabi movement essentially says that civilization reached its apex at the time Mohammed was alive, and that civilization should return to that time. The goal is to promote a pure Islam that does not deviate from Sharia law.

      In large measure, the same arguments made by proponents for KJV-onlyism are the same made for strict Islamism. There is no room for growth. There is no room for change. Things must be stagnant.

      A couple of definitions of Wahhabism: “a misguided creed that fosters intolerance, promotes simplistic theology, and restricts Islam’s capacity for adaption to diverse and shifting circumstances.” (David Commins). ‘A blanket term used inaccurately to refer to “any Islamic movement that has an apparent tendency toward misogyny, militantism, extremism, or strict and literal interpretation of the Quran and hadith”‘(Natana J. DeLong-Bas)

      DeLong-Bas notes correctly that there are other rather nasty movements in Islam. Wahhabism is particularly dominant in Saudi Arabia. But it certainly is as described above.

      And don’t these definitions seem to characterize the militant KJV-only segment of Fundamentalism? I tend to think so.

      1. I’ve long thought so. After spending 3 years in the Middle East in the Navy and being exposed to different “flavors” of Islam, I believe that Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism are very, very similar. I consider Wahhabi Islam to be fundamentalist. I remember the Saudis who would come to Bahrain. They would behave very, very differently there where they were freed from following all the rules and laws they had to follow in Saudi.

        1. The similarities become even clearer when you compare fundamentalism with Orthodoxy or Catholicism. The latter two primarily focus on the incarnation (the Word of God became flesh), whereas fundamentalism and Islam emphasize a specific holy text which is viewed as authoritative in its own right (the word of God became book). Orthodoxy and Catholicism focus heavily on sacraments as a result, whereas in Islam and fundamentalism/Calvinism, only “inward faith” and believing certain things is of any real importance.

          It’s often said that Protestantism is Islamized Christianity, and the similarities aren’t even coincidental (the Reformers were heavily influenced by certain medieval scholastics and nominalists, who themselves were familiar with Islamic thought as a result of the cultural exchanges that occurred during the Crusades and the Reconquista).

  8. I only read the NASB vs KJV in bible version section – they quote the differences, but they never say which version is a more accurate translation – almost recommending KJV because it sounds better, or fits their philosophy.

    1. Yes–that whole exercise begs the question of which manuscripts are more reliable and what’s wrong with the last 400 years of advances in textual scholarship. I know there are books/web sites where they purport to explain in more detail why the KJV is a better translation, but I just can’t be bothered. Most of the differences they cite on that chart are pretty inconsequential to the big picture of the Christian message, anyway.

      1. I went to an institution that pretended to explain why “the text is the issue”. The problem being that it was sheer make-believe. As in not only a whole-cloth fabrication, but very easily and clearly contradicted by publicly accessible primary historical sources. As someone famous once said, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fundy’s raison d’etre.”

    1. You’re thinking too hard here. Moabites scare people, claim the link forcefully and get people scared about “Christian Rock” (which I don’t think technically exists anymore really, similar to the Moabites).

    2. I’m not a big fan of Christian Rock, but my reasoning is closer to that of the inimitable Hank Hill:

      “Can’t you see you’re not making Christianity better? You’re just making Rock ‘n’ Roll worse!”

    1. Interestingly enough, the “current and fresh” web design thing is rapidly becoming the number one branding faux pas in the marketing world. No one has done any formal psychological study, but for some reason outdated web design is considered the most damaging online brand factor.

  9. Looking at the”EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MODERN PERVERIONS OF THE BIBLE” [sic], I see the old question about which verses do the newer translations omit or delete. A friend sent me an interesting link to a monograph about the translation issue, (http://www.travisagnew.org/2014/08/14/9-reasons-dont-read-kjv/) in which Travis Agnew asks a couple of interesting questions.
    What verses does the KJV omit?
    What verses does the KJV add? (emphasis mine)

    I recommend the article, especially his first nine reasons.

  10. I have read KJVOnly articles that talked about how often the other versions took the name of Jesus out. Then a thought hit me one day:
    Jesus
    KJV — 942 times
    ESV — 1058 times
    NIV — 1310 times

    Who is taking Jesus out of the Bible?

  11. And if you bring that up with most KJVO advocates, you find out they are not after truth. Very few of them will even listen to, much less discuss, different ideas from their own.

    I find it interesting that no matter how obviously bad the alleged scholarship of the writings they agree with, anyone who disagrees is always just “somebody’s opinion” writings.

    1. I can understand why some people want to hang on to the KJV. It’s a great translation for its day and one of the monumental achievements of English literature. But, as others have pointed out, it’s been surpassed in terms of accuracy to the original text by 400 years of scholarship. The “thous and thees” were getting archaic even in 1611, though.

      1. I will say this for the KJV. Beyond its historical significance, it is, IMO the best translation, still to this day, for maintaining the aesthetic value in the Bible. The Psalms, in particular, tend to suffer at the hands of modern translations, who may translate the words more accurately, but sacrifice much of the poetry. The KJV Psalms still feel poetic.

  12. When one is insecure in one’s faith and position, motivated by fear and living in fear, name calling is acceptable and a tool. A tool to distract those who disagree with them–now they have to defend themselves instead of their idea.
    And retroactively, any name calling done against them is being judgmental, ungodly, and heretical. Questioning their faith, motivation or methods is to question the almighty himself.

  13. The people behind this website seem confused about sound doctrine. Paul tells Timothy that some will stray from sound doctrine but he doesn’t necessarily define what it is. He does tell Titus that sound doctrine is stuff like being levelheaded, respectable, sensible, love, goodness, purity, reverent, not slanderous, etc. But these don ‘t seem to fit with our goods friend’s understanding here.

  14. I just saw the image of the website and I knew something was amiss other than the normal fundie nutcasery.
    Uhm, they get the gospel wrong and define repentance as a turning from sins instead of a change of mind.
    And they deny eternal security by overfocusing on the passages that “seem” to contradict eternal security.
    That and the whole semi-KJVOnlyist shtick they seem to have.
    What a self-contradictory website as well.

    1. I forgot to mention that Kurt Boulter wrote the following book about supposed visions/prophecies/voices/etc. he received from God: http://sound-doctrine.net/A-Prophecy-Now-Ebook.pdf

      I reject extra-biblical visions, prophecies, voices from God, etc. because they leave the one who receives them in a position of power over those that accept the message being brought and as far as I know always contradict the bible itself, thus making them false.

      Some excerpts from the beginning of the booklet:

      [My voice became as thunder and I uttered, “This is the power of God and I shall do His bidding, for I am of God and He protects me. I give my life to God and Jesus Christ my LORD and Saviour, with all my heart, I am yours and I shall serve only you!” The glass shook and the very walls vibrated as I spoke as thunder. ]

      Looks like the guy is power-tripping and being special in his vision.

      [I threw the Bible to the ground saying, “This book is worthless the way it is today, for it is only a book!” I could not believe the book I had known most of my life could not comfort me! I then picked up the book again to see and still I felt no promise or direction for me. I moved over to the bed, where Deborah, whom I had called Jezebel, lay asleep. I commanded, with this book in hand saying, “In the name of God, be gone Jezebel, leave this place, for you are not welcome in this house!” She turned with closed eyes and grinned as to mock me. I struck her body with the Bible saying, “Begone in the name of God, begone
      Jezebel!” with no result. I then struck her around the head with the Bible hoping to see the power of God from this book take place. There was no result except the grins of Jezebel. I threw the book at her and said, “This book is worthless and has no meaning the way it is today. It is as useless as garlic to a vampire.”]

      Again power-tripping and calling the bible worthless, quite similar to the Finalcall07 cult on Youtube, which deem the bible as nearly worthless as well.
      And why attack your own wife with the bible and calling her Jezebel, as if she’s not human?
      How unloving.

      [After driving out of town and onto the highway, I then took a different route to what I had previously taken many times before. I drove praising the LORD God and I began to sing. The voice that I heard was not my own, it was the voice of Elvis Presley. It was so crisp and clear, as though he was in the car with me. Then the voice of Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, it was as if they were singing through me. I knew this to be of God for He has known all men and knows men still not born to this earth.]

      Again power-tripping and feeling special.
      And what’s with him effectively channeling Elvis, Frank and Dean, three worldly singers, in that vision?
      That’s more sign of demonic possession than God working through him, what a vision of God…

      YECH!
      No wonder that site holds to weird doctrines, the people running it have heeded to doctrines and visions from devils.

  15. I have been reading their “The Scientific Case For Creationism.”

    Creationist it is. Science it is not.

    Sooo many errors! So many worthless assumptions. Bad arguments, irrationality, failure to understand the basics. All wrapped up in grandiose language. What science tidbits the author does have right science knew about long before creationists did, and they are taught in the classrooms in context.

    The article is written by a scientific illiterate for scientifically illiterate people, spewing nonsense with the intent of keeping people scientifically illiterate.

    The worst thing, though, is that at one point I would have agreed with most of it. I was ignorant and foolish. I thank God I learned something so I could escape this rot and nonsense.

Leave a Reply

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