Wiki: Word of Faith forum [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : Wiki: Word of Faith forum

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

DavidPresently

21st July 2007, 03:04 AM

I have to vote no on the paragraph God_Owned has been working on. I believe it is errant and does not well represent truth.

1. The Word of God is who John 1 says he is. He is a divine person, not a book.
2. The Scripture is the statement of belief, and the Scripture is the instruction given to us in writing from the Word of God, who still speaks to his sheep.
3. The Word of God did not speak to the prophets and apostles to write in KJV old English.
4. The KJV is a translation into English, and a good one, it is not the sole "Word of God" as the statement is falsely implying.

I understand that those of you here longer than me, may know about trouble makers and how they have operated to cause strife in this forum. I understand that there are certain loopholes you may have in mind. However, we cannot tell untruths in order to close a loophole. God will not bless falsehood, especially if it is blatant yet we participate in it anyway.

Below is my adjustment of the statement to reflect what I believe would be better serving the belief statement for this forum, which sticks to the truth, and still protects against the loophole it seems you want to avoid having. Once again, you cannot say the Scripture is your authority over all else, period, because the Father is your authority over all else, or you aren't believing the Scripture you are proclaiming. The person of the Father, and the person of the Word, and the person of the Holy Spirit, are all greater than the foundational instructions they gave called the Scripture or Scriptures. But, concerning the establishment of doctrine, for faith and practice, we have no greater authority.

If you are concerned with a loophole allowing personal experience or prophesying to then allow someone to say "The Holy Spirit is greater than the Scripture, being a divine person of the Godhead, and he told me such and such," then simply add a brief statement somewhere in the wiki that states that people prophesying is tested by the Scripture, and will never be accepted as outranking or overruling the Scripture.

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the Scripture.

Further, we do not accept personal experience, or prophesies given outside of the Scripture, to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Scripture, but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture.

J4Jesus

21st July 2007, 03:06 AM

Did you all see the edit I proposed? Some may understand my reasoning more than others ;)

J4Jesus

21st July 2007, 03:34 AM

I have to vote no on the paragraph God_Owned has been working on. I believe it is errant and does not well represent truth.

1. The Word of God is who John 1 says he is. He is a divine person, not a book.

Of course we KNOW Jesus is the WORD of GOD and HE came in the flesh, BUT HIS WORD IS who he is. Its not a book. Its what HE speaks to us. So that is the same thing.
HE is our authorty, His WORD is our authority becuase he IS the WORD

---
[4. The KJV is a translation into English, and a good one, it is not the sole "Word of God" as the statement is falsely implying.]
--

We are not saying its the SOLE Word of God. I thinkthe last rvision hsw shtatn. Its comparing, evaluating. There are so many new version today that some are just like a paraphrase, or a commentary and not a translation at all. So its good to compare along with the GK and HEB.

I understand that those of you here longer than me, may know about trouble makers and how they have operated to cause strife in this forum. I understand that there are certain loopholes you may have in mind. However, we cannot tell untruths in order to close a loophole. God will not bless falsehood, especially if it is blatant yet we participate in it anyway.

Below is my adjustment of the statement to reflect what I believe would be better serving the belief statement for this forum, which sticks to the truth, and still protects against the loophole it seems you want to avoid having. Once again, you cannot say the Scripture is your authority over all else, period, because the Father is your authority over all else, or you aren't believing the Scripture you are proclaiming. The person of the Father, and the person of the Word, and the person of the Holy Spirit, are all greater than the foundational instructions they gave called the Scripture or Scriptures. But, concerning the establishment of doctrine, for faith and practice, we have no greater authority.

If you are concerned with a loophole allowing personal experience or prophesying to then allow someone to say "The Holy Spirit is greater than the Scripture, being a divine person of the Godhead, and he told me such and such," then simply add a brief statement somewhere in the wiki that states that people prophesying is tested by the Scripture, and will never be accepted as outranking or overruling the Scripture.

'All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the Scripture.

Further, we do not accept personal experience, or prophesies given outside of the Scripture, to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Scripture, but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture.'

====

I could maybe go with that , its not so much different. Except the part about

"for determining faith and practice"
we have already been mentioned. Some say they have faith but its not even a part of their life and separate it from some parts of life. In fact you seemed to like what I said about it so much , why not instead say
faith and every part of our life .

DavidPresently

21st July 2007, 03:58 AM

And what are you using to translate what ever text you are looking at?

I am a student of ancient (paleo) Hebrew and quite familiar with the alef-bet and the letter meanings along with word meanings from ancient scriptural Hebrew. I also use BDB Hebrew dictionary, a well accepted Hebrew dictionary, considered highly accurate for Hebrew. I also use Strong's exhaustive concordance, both for Hebrew and Greek.

For Greek, I'm less familiar as I've primarily studied Hebrew. I use Thayer's Greek dictionary and Strong's usually, to check Greek word meanings. These are well accepted tools for Greek Bible word meanings.

I use a Hebrew and Greek interlinear at times also, and the Concordant Literal Version in English for both Hebrew and Greek. It is choppy to read in English, because it really means LITERAL when it says Concordant Literal Version. But, it helps see both the original flow of words and what EXACTLY was being stated.

That said, I've still cross references different sources and found that none are perfect. It could be a spelling error, or punctuation, or the actual translating or word definition could be biased still by tradition.

Which is why I clearly stated the Holy Spirit must be our Teacher, and help us discern what is of the Word and what is not.

The original manuscripts don't exist. You can look up the definition of words all day long and still never understand the context of nuance they are used in. I look up stuff in the concordance all the time and have to le God like it up with the KJV or that the concordance itself contains an error.

You don't need God to "like it up with the KJV." You can't use one source with errors to reprove another source with errors - alone. However, what I do, and most avid students who use many tools for studying like I do, we cross references many sources, as with many witnesses you can normally narrow down where the error is. Even the KJV scholars did this when cross referencing different manuscripts, to find which ones were most accurate, that they had available to them at that time. It is obvious you believe the KJV is a divine translation inspired by God, and I'm not telling you not to - but you shouldn't expect the rest of us to have to agree to that, if we are persuaded otherwise. You also would not be right in saying that if we don't agree, we just don't have the Holy Spirit leading us like you do.

It is apparent, and I don't mean this negative about you, that I am more into studying in a scholarly fashion, to meticulously look for any human errors. I am a very detail oriented and thorough personality. We all have different personalities. My wife is great and has many strengths I don't posses, but she's not nearly as detail oriented and an avid research as I am - and she doesn't quite get me - why I like doing such. Part of it is the gift of Teaching - the scriptural appointment - which causes some of us to be diggers - we dig dig dig, research research research, to unearth all the knowledge of the truth we can - we test it, try it, and make sure it is sound.

This means, I don't rely on an English translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, or any other) alone. I also don't rely on the other resources I've mentioned alone either - as I believe strongly in all my study being bathed heavily in prayer and long hours in praise, worship, and prayer, immersed in the manifest Presence of God, so that I am sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit as I study.

As our brother pointed out, the common person is not meticulous like this - and isn't wired to be - it is not a bad thing - they have other callings and strengths. I cannot expect everyone to be so thorough and study so much and dig so deep to find truth verses error, which is why I've agreed to include the KVJ but worded as I revised your statement in my other recent post.

I always find it interesting how so many want to discredit the KJV while giving the numerous errors in the concordance a free pass. I wonder why that is.

You haven't seen me write about the fact that Strong's and other tools also are errant, they do contain a certain margin of error. Like the KJV, they are accurate to about 95% or more usually - so they are reliable. But they are not perfect. No one here stated they are. We are not discussing those things though, we are discussing the KJV, which is why such hasn't been mentioned until you brought it up.

No one that I've seen is trying to discredit KJV, to say it is an invalid translation. What a few of us have agreed on, which you apparently don't like, is that it does contain some margin of error LIKE ALL TRANSLATIONS. Since you aren't a scholar, and don't go towards the scholarly researching so much, and you aren't a linguist, you may not understand just how complicated a task it is to translate biblical Greek into English (old or modern).

Or Hebrew into English. These languages don't actually match up. They don't even have the same number of letters in their alphabets. There are letters in Hebrew that there are no English equivalents for, and likewise in Greek. So, when we admit the truth, that the KJV has about a 5% margin of error (usually due to technicalities - not major meanings being altered), we are NOT trying to discredit it. Even the OC Rick clearly said the same thing about other English translations as the KJV that they ALL have a slight margin of error.

I think the real issue is not that we are trying to discredit the KJV, and you know it, but that we will not agree that KJV is superior to all other translations period - and that bothers you - and so you are trying to shadow box over it.

All even after I've clearly stated that the KJV is my favorite English translation, the one in HC I use the most - and the other translations I have don't have any wear on them, while my black leather KJV is going to need replaced soon.

I'm pretty sure you indicated it was partially inaccurate, which means it is inaccurate. Actually the context of how the words use an do this, but it doesn't make it inaccurate.. If you are looking up rhema and logos so you can affirm which type of love is being addressed, that it great. All you have done is bring greater resolution to the word, but you not changed it.

Brother, I'm speaking in more of a research/scholarly/meticulous fashion and you are speaking in generalities. When I say there are things that the KJV is inaccurate in, like translating a few Greek words into one English word (love, or word, or hell for examples), I do not mean the KJV as a whole translation is inaccurate - I clearly said it is accurate, as accurate as an English translation is expected to be - but that when it comes to technicalities, there are inaccuracies. You are wanting accurate to mean perfect - but sorry, it doesn't. Every large human work is going to contain a certain margin of error. Until we are perfect.

When I state such, I'm not putting KJV down, I'm recognizing the facts, and the fact is that all English translations come short of complete perfection. However, the KJV is accurate over all - it scores an A - so that it can be trusted for the important meanings of passages for establishing doctrine. The small inaccuracies of words here and there does not change doctrine or the overall meaning of a context.

When we read "love," however, and it could be one of a few different Greek words, the KJV is leaving out detail that could be helpful - but that will not effect the overall doctrine. So it isn't a big deal - but the inaccuracy in that instance is a fact - and there is no reason to feel the need to defend it or think someone pointing it out is trying to discredit the translation as a whole.

Do you consider the KJV the word of God or not? ...and please answer yes or no.
.

Then you a lacking in the understanding a very important WOF concept.

No, rather you are missing some understanding of what the Scripture says. The Scripture calls itself the Scripture or Scriptures. It does not call itself the Word of God. It calls the Messiah, the begotten Son of God, the Word of God.

The Word of God is a divine person. Tradition has called the Scripture the Word of God, because technically it can be given the same name, considering it is God-breathed, and the Word of God gave it from heaven to the prophets and apostles who penned it. So, it is the Word of God in writing, which is what Scripture then comes to mean.

That is, all Scripture is the Word of God, but all of the Word of God is not Scripture. He is much more than what has been written down. The Rhema teaching which I learned from understands this whether you do or not.

The argument you are raising is silly, considering that if you had your way and we changed the statement of belief about the SCRIPTURE to state "Word of God," then we'd contradict the statement about the Trinity. We'd be saying the Word is a divine person in one place and in another saying after all its just the Scripture, a book in writing, not a person. I know people who believe that in the Sacred Name Movement - and strongly disagree with them. They don't believe Jesus is the divine person called the Word, they believe the Scripture alone is the Word and many of them just believe Jesus (Yahshua) never existed until born in flesh. I couldn't disagree with them more. But, your statement agrees with them - that the Scripture is the Word of God, not the divine person.

Then what good is it if it is flawed and unreliable. ...ans since none of you guys can agree on which mistakes are really mistakes, I guess that the rest of us are supposed to wait in Cryofreeze until you all can agree what God relly said so we can know how to obey Him.I'm sorry the perfection issue bothers you - but we don't need it perfect. We have the foundation which is what the Scripture is for. The rest is up to our personal relationship with our Shepherd, who's sheep know his Voice. He perfects us. The Scripture is for a foundation of faith and practice - so we can at least submit to him and his perfecting work, because faith comes by hearing. And he had to hear the foundational things found in the Scripture first, before we could exercise our faith and grow in the great personal relationship we have with God.

Well I guess that I have more faith in my God's power to succeed than you do.

Seriously, what are you talking about? Where are you coming up with this from? You don't have any clue of how God's power is manifest in my life and ministry off this forum and how much I trust in his power.

Just as I suggested before, I suggest checking yourself to see where all of this is coming from - be it carnality or the Holy Spirit.

It is absolutely a generally held WOF belief that The KJV is the Word of God.No, it is a generally verbalized statement. I also at times refer to the Scripture as the "Word of God," in verbal statement. And as I stated before, this is technically true, because all Scripture is God-breathed. However, the Word of God is much more than the Scripture. Even the works he did in his ministry on earth were not all recorded, as John says at the end of his Gospel account.

There are no primary WoF ministries like Rhema (which I respect greatly and have learned much from) that have a statement of beliefs stating the KJV is the Word of God. If I'm wrong, prove it.

Which is final authority to you, what you believe the Holy Ghost is teaching you or the Word of God (The Bible)?
What the Holy Ghost teaches me from the Scripture.

Is that acceptable to you, or am I due 40 minus 1 lashes for that?

You believe the same thing, with the difference that you consider the KJV the best all time translation of the Bible.

And, all of us are either interpreting the KJV or any other version the way we (our natural understanding) wants to, or being taught by the Spirit as we read and study it. That is subjective. Whether it is me, or you.

The fact is, every one of us only knows in part right now. We do not know in full, or have all 100% correct knowledge. Our faith doesn't require it though, because we have grace, and God is perfecting us in Messiah, and one day we know we will know in full as we are fully known.

I hope we can get back to just focusing on the statement of belief. I have explained myself to you in detail as a courtesy so we can continue in fellowship as brethren. However, if you are going to strive with me and continue with personal judgments against me, then to stay out of strife we'll need to disengage each other for now - which is not my desire. It would be foolish and spiritually immature to let the issue of an English translation get between us as men of faith in the Word.

In Messiah,

David

J4Jesus

21st July 2007, 04:00 AM

I like this part-
"but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture."

I am not saying I am voting for this yet til I hear some other views. But stated this way I can better understand the part I was having trouble with which was preventing me from voting.. This way I possibly COULD vote yes, because the first part DOES specify ---

"The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible.Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.
"

J4Jesus

21st July 2007, 04:13 AM

God_Owned
Mike says he uses the KJV, and studis GK and HEB

DavidP says he uses the KJV, and studies GK and HEB.

So whats the problem? Let's not make this a personal issue.

Can you explain to me what part of this last proposal you object to?

DavidPresently

21st July 2007, 04:17 AM

I could maybe go with that , its not so much different. Except the part about

"for determining faith and practice"
we have already been mentioned. Some say they have faith but its not even a part of their life and separate it from some parts of life. In fact you seemed to like what I said about it so much , why not instead say
faith and every part of our life .

I think that the part I put about PRACTICE covers every part of our life. Our practice is what we say and do. So it is anything outwardly worked out. Thought isn't tangible in the earth, so such has no bearing on the statement of belief to govern by.

That is why I didn't just suggest faith alone. I believe faith without works (corresponding practice - word and action) is dead. Someone can say they believe something all they want, but their words and other actions will prove what they really believe in their heart. We in WoF especially realize this. And we seek to guard our words and actions to align with the Word of God.

pdudgeon

21st July 2007, 08:14 AM

:idea:
So am I right in saying, you mean we are not trying to "re-write" anything about WOF but that we need to do this FOR MODERATING PURPOSES on this site so the MOD will have a basis on which to work with ?
yup, that's it!:D

God_Owned

21st July 2007, 08:37 AM

Now wait a mintue

I said I would go for adding that part about the KJV
And before that a few tweeks.

I DO like the changes you made.:thumbsup:
But as far as a YES, I am only 97 % sure LOL.^_^ Its getting closer and better tho so please dont get upset we will work it out so I can vote on it :)

Quote:
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV of the Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is the Word of God.

----

What would you think of this small addition and rewording at the end in the green?? It is to specify the WORD of God is above any man's word. And then we are refering to specifically THIS KJV we mentioned in detail, not just "the" KJV. Thought???

" -----Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV..................."

.

OK, I can go with this.

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV of the Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV

pdudgeon

21st July 2007, 08:56 AM

to sumarize: after further discussion, here are the curent two versions up for vote:
#1:

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV of the Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is the Word of God.

and #2:
'All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the Scripture.

Further, we do not accept personal experience, or prophesies given outside of the Scripture, to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Scripture, but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture.'

there are a few differences between the two;
1. the word 'scripture' is substituted for 'the KJV' at the end of the third paragraph.
2. the last sentence of the third paragraph "We believe that the KJV is the Word of God." has been dropped.
3. a fourth paragraph is added dealing with prophesies and experiences outside of scripture.
4. a few minor typos have been corrected.:blush:

version #1 has two votes; God_Owned and Preacher Mike.
version #2 has one vote; DavidPresently

pdudgeon

21st July 2007, 09:05 AM

i will re-cast my vote for the earlier edition of #1, dropping the last sentence,'We believe that the KJV is the Word of God', because i believe it is redundant.

we have already established in the first paragraph that 'All Scripture is God-breathed', and thus that would establish in my mind that the KJV, (which we also establish as the baseline for WOF useage) is God breathed as well, without adding the confusion between the written word and the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

ps. adding that the only reason that there would be any confusion between the two (Word and Jesus Christ) is because we think in human terms, so our words are only one aspect of our being. but in the Godhead the Word and the Being are One.

pdudgeon

21st July 2007, 10:03 AM

I vote neither of the two...

that's fine, we'll record your vote as opposed. at least you are consistant.

Trish1947

21st July 2007, 10:08 AM

I vote for version #1

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV of the Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is the Word of God.

God_Owned

21st July 2007, 10:22 AM

The Bible Is The Word Of GodbyDean Wall
The Bible is a Divine Revelation. In the Bible we find out what God wants mankind to know about Himself and His plan.

The Bible is the only written revelation of God to man.
No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

History records many who set out to disprove the Bible, who instead became believers.

One Mind Behind The Bible
Our Bible is composed of 66 books, by about 40 different writers of various backgrounds, living during a period of about 1,600 years -- yet they present one message. Such a miracle can only be explained by there being one divine Author, who was in control of all these human writers.

The Bible writers came from many walks of life, including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, herdsmen, poets, statesmen, scholars, soldiers, priests, prophets, a tax collector, a tentmaking rabbi, and a Gentile doctor.

The Bible was written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The writings contained in the Bible belong to a great variety of literary types including history, law, poetry, educational discourses, parables, biography, personal correspondence, and prophecy.

Books written by men have no unity of thought on even one subject. Some of them invariably disagree with others. But there is perfect unity between the books of the Bible -- which speak of hundreds of subjects in many fields. There is no contradiction among them.
Who but God could produce such a book?

Supernatural Origin
Some of the Bible writers recorded their own sins which brought them into disgrace. Many times their lives and worldly interests were imperiled because of what they wrote. Human nature causes people to do the opposite.
The writers claim a supernatural origin for their writings. Nearly 4,000 times expressions like "Thus says the Lord," "The word of the Lord came unto me," etc., are recorded in the Bible.

If the Bible is not God's Word, then the Bible is full of lies. Could a book so filled with lies cause millions of people to turn from their sins -- including lying?

Witness Of Fulfilled Prophecies
Hundreds of prophecies of future events were recorded in the Bible -- some of them centuries before fulfillment -- and not one detail of any of them has ever failed!
No other "religious book" foretells the future.
No one can refute the Bible's accurate prediction of future events with facts. All they can do is try to get you to ignore these marvelous facts.

Could man -- especially dozens of men, writing in different countries and different times -- foretell the future so accurately? Never! Only God could do such a tremendous thing.

No one but God could reveal the future in such detail, often hundreds of years before the events occurred. Not only the future of cities, nations, and the world, but also concerning the future birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Prophecies Concerning Christ
The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains several hundred references to the coming Messiah -- all of which were fulfilled exactly in Jesus Christ.

The chance that all these predictions could come true exactly as written is beyond most human's comprehension, giving to any honest enquirer undeniable proof that God inspired the writing of the prophecies in the Bible.
1 PETER 1:11 NKJ

11 . . . He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
LUKE 24:44 NKJ

44 . . . all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

JOHN 5:39,46 NKJ
39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

The story of Jesus Christ is also woven into the Old Testament through types, symbols, and ceremonies. All the Bible points to Jesus Christ.

The biography of the patriarchs, the construction of the tabernacle and the temple, the services, the sacrifices, and the ceremonies, as well as other types and shadows -- all foreshadow Jesus Christ.

Witness Of Jesus
Any honest person who studies the historical evidence will conclude that Jesus Christ rose from death -- giving Him unique status. Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament, which was all of the Bible written at that time, as the Word of God.
MATTHEW 5:18 NKJ

18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The Bible bears the seal of Jesus' authority. He quoted the Old Testament dozens of times and referred to it as the Word of God.

For example, in Matthew 22:32, Jesus quotes from Exodus 3:6 and 15.

MATTHEW 22:29,31-32 NKJ
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
31 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,
32 `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Witness Of Bible Working For People
Millions have acted on the Bible's commands and have testified to receiving its promises. Probably someone living near you has such a testimony.
That the Bible message works for people -- in all places and all times -- is a proof that the same One who created us, and all things, is the Author of the Bible. Only the manufacturer knows what to write in the product handbook to make his product function properly.

Witness Of Changed Lives
Millions of individuals, as well as nations, have been changed for the better when they have accepted the Bible as the Word of God.

More people on Earth today believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible as the Word of God than any other creed or philosophy.

These millions of people have proved the claims of the Bible when its conditions were met.

Wherever the Bible is accepted people are lifted up to a higher plane of life.

The Bible message has changed the vilest sinners into the most loving saints. No other message ever has done that.

Individuals, and even whole societies, have been transformed wherever the Bible has been believed and obeyed. The Bible's fruits have always been good and wholesome. Neglect of the Bible has always meant sin, suffering, and sorrow.

Witness of Archeology
The Bible is historically correct. No one has ever proved otherwise.

The more we learn of history, the more the Bible is validated.

Hundreds of statements in the Bible, which in times past have been held untrue by enemies of the Bible, have recently been proven true by archaeologists. The more that archaeologists find from the past, the more the Bible is proven accurate historically.

No archaeological discovery has ever disproved a biblical reference. The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable.
Bible Is Scientifically Correct
Some scientists would not agree that the Bible is correct -- but none can prove the Bible wrong. And there are many, many scientists who acknowledge that the Bible is scientifically correct.

Man has taken many centuries to discover many things the Bible stated thousands of years ago. Where did the writers of the Bible get their information -- if not from God?
Never Out-Of-Date
Although written hundreds of years ago, the Bible remains the most up-to-date book available today.
Books on every subject have to be replaced because they become out-of-date so quickly. But the Bible has never had to be revised.

(Only translations of the Bible from the original languages have been revised to reflect current language usage.)

PSALM 89:34 NKJ
34 My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.

PSALM 119:89 NKJ
89 Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.
The Bible has been the best-selling book because it universally speaks to the heart of people, and gives them the message of God.

HEBREWS 4:12 NKJ
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Bible is relevant to every person, in every culture, in every age, because the Bible is a living message -- which could only be authored by God.

Contrary To Human Thinking
The Bible is completely unlike a book which humans would write. The Bible condemns all mankind -- including the writers -- and teaches there is no way they can be saved except by accepting a gift -- the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible teaches salvation through grace and not works, self-exaltation through self-abasement, finding your life by losing your life, the way to become great is by being a servant of all -- and other things opposite to human thought. People would not have written such things contrary to their nature, on their own.

The Bible deals frankly with the sins of its characters. People making things up try to make themselves look good. The Bible tells their stories realistically, with all their shortcomings.

Highest Moral Standards
The moral standards of the Bible are the highest known to man. They are impossible for man to achieve without divine help. Man would never set such unreachable standards for himself.

MATTHEW 5:44,48 NKJ
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
MATTHEW 18:21-22 NKJ
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

Divinely Inspired
The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.

By the inspiration of the Scriptures we mean that "special divine influence on the minds of the writers of the Bible, in virtue of which their production, apart from errors in transcription, and when rightly interpreted, together constitute an infallible rule of faith and practice."

2 TIMOTHY 3:16 NKJ
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

The above phrase, given by inspiration of God, translates a single Greek word. Literally the word means God-breathed. The words divinely inspired have probably the nearest English equivalent meaning.

God breathed into man what man breathed out.

2 PETER 1:20-21 NIV
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 PETER 1:21 NEB
21 For it was not through any human whim that men prophesied of old; men they were, but, impelled by the Holy Spirit, they spoke the words of God.

HEBREWS 1:1 NKJ
1 God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets.

1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 NKJ
13 . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

Truly Recorded
Although everything in the Bible is truly recorded, everything said in the Bible is not the truth.
For example, the Bible contains statements made by the devil and those who were against God. The statements they made are not necessarily true, but they truly said the statements as recorded.

So, we can trust the Bible -- all of it -- as God's message to us.

Purpose Of Bible
The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to mankind, and get us to come to God through Jesus Christ, so we can know Him.

JOHN 1:1,14 NKJ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father . . . .

LUKE 24:27 NKJ
27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

JOHN 20:31 NKJ
31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
Read the Bible yourself, and ask God to reveal Himself and His will to you.

pdudgeon

21st July 2007, 10:29 AM

thank you Trish1947. and i will also vote choice #1.

the vote now stands at:
choice #1: 4 votes; God_Owned, Preacher Mike, Trish1947, pdudgeon

choice #2: 1 vote; DavidPresently

opposed: Father Rick

we are still awaiting the votes of probinson and J4Jesus
and any other qualified WOF who may wish to cast a vote.

Father Rick

21st July 2007, 10:30 AM

God_Owned...

Apparently you missed the fact that the KJV is a TRANSLATION of the Bible, not the original Bible.

I don't think any is questioning that the Bible is the Word of God.

But, the KJV, like every TRANSLATION, is just that a TRANSLATION.

Even the very article you just copy/pasted here states:
(Only translations of the Bible from the original languages have been revised to reflect current language usage.)
Your own source material disagrees with you.

The same English words that are used have changed in meaning over the past 400 years. Just look at how the definition of "gay" has changed, even in the past 20 years.

Not to mention that much of the world doesn't even speak English... and therefore don't now, and never have, used the KJV.

God_Owned

21st July 2007, 10:50 AM

God_Owned

21st July 2007, 11:01 AM

Please see what you think of this and vote accordingly.

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV translation of the Bible, consisting of 66 books, and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is God's writen Word, meaning it is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV tranlation.

God_Owned

21st July 2007, 11:46 AM

Now, if we can get back on track here. How about some affirmitive votes on this for inclusion into our ToF.

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV translation of the Bible, consisting of 66 books, and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is God's writen Word, meaning it is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV tranlation.

PreacherMike

21st July 2007, 11:57 AM

Now, if we can get back on track here. How about some affirmitive votes on this for inclusion into our ToF.

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV translation of the Bible, consisting of 66 books, and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is God's writen Word, meaning it is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV tranlation.

I agree with this, it works for me...

God_Owned

21st July 2007, 12:31 PM

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV translation of the Bible, consisting of 66 books, and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is God's writen Word, meaning it is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV tranlation.

Now I am really convinced that this is the way to go.

So can I get some of you WOPFers to vote for this now.:wave:

LeadWorship

24th July 2007, 02:43 PM

If it counts, I'm down for Option #2. I would quote it, but I can't find it now! Can someone repost the options. I read it and went to post the same time Pete locked the thread to cleanup lol.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 02:49 PM

If it counts, I'm down for Option #2. I would quote it, but I can't find it now! Can someone repost the options. I read it and went to post the same time Pete locked the thread to cleanup lol.

This is it below - I suggested it - but I only included the KJV parts to make peace over the matter - to be able to come to a consensus we can all agree on. It could be, according to the forum convo about the KJV going on, that some or even many of the WoFers here object to the baseline statement about the KJV.

'All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. 2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the Scripture.

Further, we do not accept personal experience, or prophesies given outside of the Scripture, to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Scripture, but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture.'

pdudgeon

24th July 2007, 03:45 PM

Before we continue on, it is only fair to note that three previous members will not be continuing in the rest of the wiki, should we go longer than two weeks; God_Owned, paster Rick, and Preacher Mike.

ok, these votes are getting confusing.
we were voting on an original #1 and an original #2. at the time the wiki was closed the vote stood thus:
Originally Posted by pdudgeon
thank you Trish1947. and i will also vote choice #1.

the vote now stands at:
choice #1: 4 votes; God_Owned, Preacher Mike, Trish1947, pdudgeon

choice #2: 1 vote; DavidPresently

opposed: Father Rick

we are still awaiting the votes of probinson and J4Jesus
and any other qualified WOF who may wish to cast a vote.

since that time both proposals have been modified, so we will need another vote. I will put both the modifications up here for the vote.

just so that we are clear about what we are voting for, these were the two original proposals:
to sumarize: after further discussion, here are the curent two versions up for vote:
#1:

Quote:
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV of the Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is the Word of God.

and #2:

Quote:
'All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the Scripture.

Further, we do not accept personal experience, or prophesies given outside of the Scripture, to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Scripture, but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture.'

there are a few differences between the two;
1. the word 'scripture' is substituted for 'the KJV' at the end of the third paragraph.
2. the last sentence of the third paragraph "We believe that the KJV is the Word of God." has been dropped.
3. a fourth paragraph is added dealing with prophesies and experiences outside of scripture.
4. a few minor typos have been corrected.

and these are the curent proposals:

#1:
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV translation of the Bible, consisting of 66 books, and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is God's writen Word, meaning it is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV tranlation.

and #2:
Quote:
'All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice.

2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

Quote:
The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines. creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the Scripture.

Further, we do not accept personal experience, or prophesies given outside of the Scripture, to be equal to or greater than the authority of the Scripture, but test every such thing by the standard of the Scripture.'

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 03:59 PM

Yes this is confusing . Before I can proceed , I need to talk to Pete. And I dont beleive he is on now. It can make a difference in HOW we proceed -if we go for here with this, or revise or start over. So I think its best not to change anything or vote on it yet. But you cold discuss it. I'll get back with you.

pdudgeon

24th July 2007, 04:58 PM

technically speaking, the first proposal is still on the floor awaiting the votes of Probinson and J4Jesus and any other qualified WOF.

when those votes are in and the voting is closed, we can then entertain the second proposal to modify whichever of the original proposals was chosen.

after that vote is taken we will be curent on the wiki, and then we can decide how to proceed from that point.

so the long and short of it is.....if you haven't already posted your vote on the original proposal in post #523, please do so now.:thumbsup:

Trish1947

24th July 2007, 04:58 PM

I am still o.k. to the revised version of #1

[edit:]
oops! did I jump the gun here? I noticed were not
doing the revisions yet. Sorry, please disregard this post.

Balance

24th July 2007, 05:14 PM

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 05:58 PM

I don't believe there any need of this quote whatsoever:

Quote:
The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

I agree, and stated such way back - but was over-ridden by the majority in the discussion at that time which was only a few people. I'm okay with dropping it, but the second version was my suggestion if we had to mention the KJV, verses the first proposal by God_Owned.

spiritfilledwoman

24th July 2007, 06:03 PM

I don't believe there any need of this quote whatsoever:

Quote:
The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

I agree, Balance. Therefore, I cannot make a full-faith vote on either option at this point.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 06:10 PM

I agree, Balance. Therefore, I cannot make a full-faith vote on either option at this point.

Pete, there are two more no's now to version 1 - and you could later chalk them up as no to version 2 also. If both get voted down, we'll just revise the more favorable version until it is agreed on.

My version (#2) only has the KJV parts added because the majority in the discussion at the time were making such a fuss over including KJV stuff, that I (for peace sake) went along but chose what I thought a better wording if we had to do such. I personally am fine with the KJV parts being dropped from my version.

I think the first paragraph of version #2 is really all we need in our SoF on the matter. It even states "over all else for determining faith and practice," which then covers personal prophesies, church documents, etc, from being of equal or higher authority. I thought the added details the others wanted redundant and not necessary, but they insisted, and insisted, and insisted.

Now that more are participating, we can get a better idea of what the majority of WoFers here want the SoF to be like.

Thank you for the participation!!

lyonguard

24th July 2007, 06:13 PM

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 06:19 PM

probinson

24th July 2007, 06:24 PM

Add me to the list of "no's" for the KJV "baseline" comment. I didn't feel comfortable with that statement from the get go, and the more we've discussed it, the more I DON'T want to see that statement put in our Statement of Faith.

And might I just say, I'm THRILLED to see more people participating now!

As to how to proceed, I propose we pick up right where we left off.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 06:34 PM

Eila

24th July 2007, 06:35 PM

I don't believe there any need of this quote whatsoever:

Quote:
The KJV Bible, consisting of 66 books and without the apocrypha, is our baseline from which we evaluate all subsequent English translations of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for use, but we will not accept any translation of those books or any part of them that changes doctrine for faith and practice.

I agree.

I agree, Balance. Therefore, I cannot make a full-faith vote on either option at this point.

I don't see a viable option for me to cast my vote either.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 06:39 PM

I agree.

I don't see a viable option for me to cast my vote either.

God_Owned's version #1 is all that is up for voting right now - and I put you down as a "no."

That puts us at 7 voting no and 4 voting yes so far. While we are finishing voting on that, anyone can make any suggestions for the SoF regarding the Scripture that they desire, so we can all be considering such suggestions and are then ready when voting time comes.

Trish1947

24th July 2007, 06:54 PM

Can I pull my vote on #1 and not select any so far and will vote and comment on the revisions that will be coming up? After discussion in another thread, I can see points that are valid.

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 07:04 PM

I think we are going too fast voting on what just seems ok or not on the surface. The statement is nessary about the 66 books.Or it can cause the problems we have always had. There are many kinds of Bibles with more or others books and other doctrines would be entering in what we do not beleive. Those who hold to their denomational teachings but add on only a few of our teachings, those of spirit filled and/or Charismatic churches.. If you have not been here before this time or one some of the other threads about it you would not understand .We need it.

Also
If you don't like the word "baseline" why not say Authoritative source?

I dont understand. Are we going all the way back to the originals to vote for?

Eila

24th July 2007, 07:04 PM

While we are finishing voting on that, anyone can make any suggestions for the SoF regarding the Scripture that they desire, so we can all be considering such suggestions and are then ready when voting time comes.

Here are some suggestions:

"We believe the Bible is inspired and empowered by God, infallible and authoritative."

"We believe in the unique divine inspiration, entire trustworthiness and authority of the Bible with the New Testament properly interpreting the Old Testament for Christians."

"We believe that the Bible is God’s Word. It is inspired and accurate. It is our perfect guide in all matters of life."

Trish1947

24th July 2007, 07:22 PM

The basic statement is o.k. But if we are going to give reference to the KJV as a baseline, or the authoritive source, then this causes confusion to those that do, (and I do too) use other versions to compare. If we can't because of time and it's not feasable to give all the reasons, concerning every single translation of why some feel certain versions do not measure up, and do alot of conviencing that this is true, is it really needed to make a statement about any particular version? Can't we just say the written word, is the Word of God? Let the Holy Spirit convience about what is and what isn't.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 07:30 PM

Voting on Version # 1

Yes: God_Owned, Preacher Mike, Pdudgeon (4)

No: DavidPresently, Probinson, Iyonguard, LeadWorship, Balance, and spiritfilledwoman, Eila, Trish1947 (8)

Votes not in for some others who regularly post in the forum.

probinson

24th July 2007, 07:32 PM

Not a single WoF ministry makes ANY reference to the KJV Bible being their "baseline" or an "authoritative source".

It is not necessary to add this verbiage to the statement of faith, and beyond that, it is entirely inaccurate.

The KJV is not (or should not be) our "authoritative source". As Trish said, the Holy Spirit is (or should be) our "authoritative source". The KJV is not "better" than the NIV or vice versa. In fact, in the chart I posted in the WoF forum, the NIV is one of the more accurate "word-for-word" translations of scripture available.

Thank God we have all these tools available to us! Translations, interpretations, paraphrases, concordances, study Bibles.... all of these things have helped me in some way or another in my walk with God, and the Holy Spirit can and will use all of those things to teach us.

That is why the Holy Spirit needs to be our source. The Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all the truth, not the KJV Bible.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 07:35 PM

Here are some suggestions:

"We believe the Bible is inspired and empowered by God, infallible and authoritative."

"We believe in the unique divine inspiration, entire trustworthiness and authority of the Bible with the New Testament properly interpreting the Old Testament for Christians."

"We believe that the Bible is God’s Word. It is inspired and accurate. It is our perfect guide in all matters of life."

A couple problems. First, the first portion of versions 1 and 2 was already voted on and should be fine with everyone - we can all agree on it. We at the time of that voting agreed to word the statement just as Paul made it to Timothy (who can disagree with that??). The last couple of lines in it though, that expound on what Paul said about Scripture, have not been voted in yet.

So, it is anything beyond what Paul said that is up for changing. The first portion is already good to go.

Some feel it necessary to add in something about the 66 books being Scripture, so that those using apocrypha and other books can't say they are Scripture, on the same authority level.

This is because of forum specific problems that may arise with defining WoF beliefs down the road. In a normal SoF it wouldn't be necessary - but on the forum it may be.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 07:36 PM

spiritfilledwoman

24th July 2007, 07:49 PM

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 07:53 PM

Voting on Version # 1

Yes: God_Owned, Preacher Mike, Pdudgeon (4)

No: DavidPresently, Probinson, Iyonguard, LeadWorship, Balance, and spiritfilledwoman, Eila, Trish1947, J4Jesus (9)

Votes not in for some others who regularly post in the forum.

*J4Jesus, I put you as no only on version #1. We are discussing the SoF and can include the necessary thing about the 66 books, as in my suggestion - which can be up for voting next after version #1.
David

I did not say no to anything or yes to anything. Can we just slow it down a bit and talk about this? and not vote yet?

probinson

24th July 2007, 07:57 PM

I don't have a problem with stating what you've mentioned about the 66 books of the protestant Bible being our source. The only issue I have is saying the KJV is our "baseline" or "authoritative" source. I'd like to hear from others on this, too.
I think we can address the underlying concern if we state clearly at the beginning of our wiki, that WoF is a Protestant movement.

Something like;The position of the Word Of Faith movement is Protestant. We do not believe or adhere to Catholic (RCC or OC) doctrines.
This should satisfactorily address the conflicts of the past, without the need to introduce any statement pertaining to the KJV or the scriptures.

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 08:18 PM

I don't have a problem with stating what you've mentioned about the 66 books of the protestant Bible being our source. The only issue I have is saying the KJV is our "baseline" or "authoritative" source. I'd like to hear from others on this, too.

There were several posts about that this week. Perhaps go back a ways and read them.

spiritfilledwoman

24th July 2007, 08:23 PM

There were several posts about that this week. Perhaps go back a ways and read them.

I know, I've already read through them. Since there are new people in this discussion now (including me) I wanted to hear from everyone if they so choose. :wave:

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 08:33 PM

I think we can address the underlying concern if we state clearly at the beginning of our wiki, that WoF is a Protestant movement.

Something like;The position of the Word Of Faith movement is Protestant. We do not believe or adhere to Catholic (RCC or OC) doctrines.This should satisfactorily address the conflicts of the past, without the need to introduce any statement pertaining to the KJV or the scriptures.
I didn't think we could do that.

Well thats not the only churches tho.You can see where that would go ;) ^_^

If we can say that or Protestant that may be start in revising some of this before voting if a few dont feel comfortable with the choices we have.

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 08:38 PM

I think we can address the underlying concern if we state clearly at the beginning of our wiki, that WoF is a Protestant movement.

Something like;The position of the Word Of Faith movement is Protestant. We do not believe or adhere to Catholic (RCC or OC) doctrines.This should satisfactorily address the conflicts of the past, without the need to introduce any statement pertaining to the KJV or the scriptures.

Since some may argue about having that statement may I suggest:

"The position of this Word Of Faith Forum is Protestant."

Pete
what do you think ??
:confused: :)

probinson

24th July 2007, 08:39 PM

I didn't think we could do that.

Well thats not the only churches tho.You can see where that would go ;) ^_^

If we can say that or Protestant that may be start in revising some of this before voting if a few dont feel comfortable with the choices we have.
We can do whatever the membership agrees to, as long as it doesn't go against CF's rules.

We are permitted to restrict post content. We are not permitted to restrict access to the forum.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 08:41 PM

David

I did not say no to anything or yes to anything. Can we just slow it down a bit and talk about this? and not vote yet?

I can remove your vote.

It is simple though - either you do fully agree with version #1 or you do not. If you do not, then you simply say "no." And that is your vote.

Voting on version #1 doesn't mean you are making a final decision on the Scripture SoF. It is only for version #1 we are voting.

Do you want version #1 as is, or not?

If "no" and it gets voted down - we make another version from the suggestions given and vote again - until we have one.

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 08:58 PM

Pete since you say we could make that clear at the start, then maybe the beliefs we have already agreed on that were posted last year here. And this forum is for "those who believe and adhere to these beliefs", Others can post fellowship posts. Those would be who are a part here. We talked about those are who qualify to contribute and vote here. And have WOF mods. Most of this was already posted on the sticky. Some dont really read the forum rules, sticky and WOF wiki rules or know what we believe but assume.

charityagape

24th July 2007, 08:59 PM

*I'm pulling back version #2 that was being voted on - my new version for voting on after we finish on God_Owns version #1 has been posted (#532).

Voting on Version # 1

Yes: God_Owned, Preacher Mike, Trish1947, Pdudgeon (4)

No: DavidPresently, Probinson, Iyonguard, LeadWorship, Balance, and spiritfilledwoman, Eila (7)

Votes not in for J4Jesus yet, and, some others who regularly post in the forum.

I think that NO mention of any particular translation should be made.

The part about the bible being the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation is good though, I've neer seen it anywhere else, but I like it.

I don't think we should include anything about being against RCC or OC or Methodist or Baptist etc. I don't think we should be ANTI at all. And if we're going to include in our statement that we do not hold to RCC or OC doctrine (which really we don't but that should be pretty aparent from our belief statement without having to be anti-denomination) then we should also include in our statement that we're anti baptist, anti methodist, anti prysbeterian, etc.

And then we could be on the way to making WOF a denomination instead of a movement to bring truth to all christians.

I think we should come up with our statements of belief and if you believe that then you're can call yourself WOF as far as this forum is concerned.

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 08:59 PM

It is great to see more participating now!

Let me remind everyone that we are doing 2 things right now.

We are 1. voting "yes" or "no" to version #1 about our statement of faith in regard to the Scripture. The very first paragraph minus the last couple of sentences was already voted on and accepted and is exactly what Paul said to Timothy about all Scripture. Version #1 also includes suggestions from God_Owned, especially concerning the KJV translation. Most objections, rather the only we've seen, have been over the KJV portion.

Thus, while we are voting on version #1 we are also

2. discussing suggestions on what to add to the first portion of the SoF on Scripture (what Paul said to Timothy).

So far, there is no apparent consensus forming over what should be added to such, if anything. After voting on version #1 which is being voted down right now by majority - we can consider the suggestions being given for this portion of the SoF and write a version #2 to vote "yes" or "no" on.

It is highly unlikely that any version is going to get 100% agreement unless we just stick to exactly what Paul told Timothy with no additions. We can all agree on that because Scripture itself says it, word for word. The additions as we expound on such is what we are not likely to have 100% agreement on.

If the majority votes "yes" for an addition, however, then it will be ratified by that majority vote.

probinson

24th July 2007, 09:05 PM

...if we're going to include in our statement that we do not hold to RCC or OC doctrine (which really we don't but that should be pretty aparent from our belief statement without having to be anti-denomination) ...
You would think that would be the case, but I just spent almost 2 years on this exact issue, and so that is why I see the need to be more verbose.

How do we avoid the same conflict we just dealt with in the future?

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 09:10 PM

Voting on Version # 1

Yes: God_Owned, Preacher Mike, Pdudgeon (4)

No: DavidPresently, Probinson, Iyonguard, LeadWorship, Balance, and spiritfilledwoman, Eila, Trish1947, charityagape (9)

Votes not in for some others who regularly post in the forum.

AGAIN - IT IS SIMPLE - IF YOU DO ENTIRELY AGREE WITH VERSION #1 VOTE YES AND IF NOT, VOTE NO.

Most of the tally so far is me interpreting the statement of disagreement with version #1 as a "no," though the posters are not simply stating "yes" or "no." J4Jesus stated disagreement with #1 but then said not to put her down for a "no" vote.

Version #1 says:

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The KJV translation of the Bible, consisting of 66 books, and without the appocraoha, is our baseline from which we evaluate, validate and judge all susequent translatios of the Bible. Other versions, using the same books as the KJV, are acceptable for explanation, education, instruction, edification and illumination, but we do not accept any text from these versions which directly contradicts the KJV or substantially changes its meaning. Further, we do not accept denominational doctrines, creeds or any other document as equal in authority to the KJV. We believe that the KJV is God's writen Word, meaning it is the Word of God.

Further, we do not accept man's opinon, denominational doctrines, creeds, or any other document as equal in authority to this KJV tranlation.

In red are the controversial parts of this statement that most of us don't like and why we have voted no. The part in blue is in addition to what Paul said to Timothy and the part in black is exactly what the Scripture says about itself. We should all be able to agree with what is in black, which is why I suggested it - as who can disagree with what the Scripture says about itself and say they believe Scripture??

It is when we are expounding in our own terminologies that we are having disagreements rather than unity of faith.

charityagape

24th July 2007, 09:13 PM

You would think that would be the case, but I just spent almost 2 years on this exact issue, and so that is why I see the need to be more verbose.

How do we avoid the same conflict we just dealt with in the future?
I know you've spent two years on it and appreciate that, but its a road that I just don't feel you can walk down. I mean like with the KJV thing, does any other WOF site feel it necessary to say we're anti anything?

If you really think OC is completely uncompatible with WOF then take a look at the tenets of OC and pinpoint the areas that are not compatible and include those points in the Wiki.

For example the apocrapha (sp?) does OC use this as divinly inspired scripture? Then we should include the 66 books only of the bible being the inspired word of God, etc on other points.

But really we just can't say we're anti OC because of one person who considers themself both OC and WOF. That realization has to come from our statement of faith. I believe ANYONE who agrees in goodfaith to our (when completed) Wiki should be allowed to call themselves WOF regardless of what church they attend.

Just my 3 cents.

Eila

24th July 2007, 09:14 PM

Just a question.....what is wrong with the statement regarding the Word already listed on the Wiki?

DavidPresently

24th July 2007, 09:21 PM

You would think that would be the case, but I just spent almost 2 years on this exact issue, and so that is why I see the need to be more verbose.

How do we avoid the same conflict we just dealt with in the future?

By dealing with problem causing individuals who break CF flaming rules and such.

As much as you may want to try, you are not going to efficiently in a timely manner be able to make up a SoF and WoF definition that will keep all problems out. And even among us who agree on essential WoF things might disagree on other things though scriptural topics.

In it all, we are to stand and walk in faith, not fear. Fear and faith don't mix. What I saw go on in this wiki discussion that got out of hand was over people being afraid and not walking in faith but then all (though falling short themselves) wanting to point out how the other can't be WoF. Let me remind us all that the main tenet of WoF that sets us apart is our determination to walk by faith and not sight - to get our confession in line with the Word - and to live empowered, and not defeated.

Then why are we seeing signs of fear of being defeated? And feeling the need to bar against any future trouble? We are going to have future trouble - we even enter the Kingdom through tribulation. Trying to avoid it because of fear is not what we are to do. We are to overcome.

Though they seem very negative and the flesh would rather avoid it - confrontations and needing to solve a problem like here a few days ago are actually an OPPORTUNITY to exercise FAITH AND LOVE. If we do so, we will always triumph over those speaking and acting in doubt/fear and hate.

Romans 12:21 MKJV Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I know that when we go through major conflicts, we can then get tired of conflict and just want a long nice rest from it all - and guard against future conflict. But, that is futile. As long as people are still living in corruptible flesh and can sin, you're going to have conflicts. There is no way to actually have perfect peace like the world wants it. Only when all the enemies (of Messiah) are overcome and he reigns with an IRON ROD over the nations will there be peace. And even more so once the new heavens and earth are created and sin and darkness are banished forever. Hallelujah for that! I look forward to it - but for not I see the evil existing as an OPPORTUNITY to OVERCOME rather than something to fear.

After all, greater is HE who is in me, than he who is roaming around seeking to destroy in the world. Selah.

THAT SAID: we can learn from past issues and make specific statements in the wiki to HELP prevent the same problems from happening over and over. New ones are likely to arise over time, but we wouldn't have to deal with as many old ones. I'm new - so I'm not as familiar with "trouble" on CF as many of you.

David

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 09:26 PM

You would think that would be the case, but I just spent almost 2 years on this exact issue, and so that is why I see the need to be more verbose.

How do we avoid the same conflict we just dealt with in the future?

Ive seen this and others problems happen the last year and 9 month I have been here because we where not more specfic. We do have some statements already some genreal and some more specific ones but it was stopped. Now we are told we can continues the add more to that.

charityagape

24th July 2007, 09:36 PM

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 09:38 PM

I bumped this up from the sticky Pete posted last year. I just noticed all of it was not on there from the first post . I corrected it here it is.

From the first post of this thread posted by our Mod, probinson on

4th October 2006, 01:51 PM http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gif

These are the rules this Word Of Faith Forum has been going by since then and are used to help in the work of the mods and information to those who are considering joining this forum..

This is what we believe and agreed on before and this Word of Faith Forum is only for those who believe this and adhere to it.

We have NOT changed our mind about what we believe and these are still our rules even though we will be adding to them. Now that things have changed at CF some think there are no rules and can do anything. I was informed by a person in authority over our area that these RULES ON THIS FORUM STILL APPLY AND WILL BE ENFORCED. Each forum may make their own rules. So please read them carefully and stay in line with them. Those who do not adhering to the beliefs stated can only post fellowship posts and ask questions. If you do not believe this way, there are many other forums to chose from that will better represent your beliefs. Thank you!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by probinson
This thread will contain what the forum has agreed upon to be "generally held WoF beliefs". This will be used as the baseline for the staff to determine who may and may not debate, based upon their adherance to these beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by probinson

______________________________________________________

Concerning Salvation, WE BELIEVE:

That all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. (Romans 3:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=23&version=9&context=verse))
That salvation is a free gift that can not be earned by works. (Ephesians 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%202:8;&version=9;))
That Jesus is the only way to receive salvation. (John 14:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=14&verse=6&version=9&context=verse), Acts 4:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:12;&version=47;))
That unless we are born again, we will not see the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3;&version=9;))
That while we were yet sinners, God demonstrated His love for us by sending us Jesus. (Romans 5:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%205:8;&version=9;))
That when we repent of our sins, that God is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=1&verse=9&version=9&context=verse))
That when we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved. (Romans 10:9-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%2010:9-13;&version=9;))
That Jesus' sacrifice for us is full and sufficient for our redemption and full restoration into right relationship with the Father. (Hebrews 7:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%207:27;&version=9;), Romans 3:21-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%203:21-22;&version=9;))
That when you have received the free gift of salvation, you become a new creature in Christ, old things are passed away and all things become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=54&chapter=5&verse=17&version=9&context=verse))
That everyone will face judgment at death, and anyone who dies without receiving the free gift of salvation has no further opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent and will face eternal retribution for their sins in hell. (Hebrews 9:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:27;&version=9;), Revelation 19:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2019:20&version=9))

( Word Of Faith Forum continued...)

http://www.christianforums.com/t5672300 (http://www.christianforums.com/t5672300)

probinson

24th July 2007, 09:47 PM

I know you've spent two years on it and appreciate that, but its a road that I just don't feel you can walk down. I mean like with the KJV thing, does any other WOF site feel it necessary to say we're anti anything?

If you really think OC is completely uncompatible with WOF then take a look at the tenets of OC and pinpoint the areas that are not compatible and include those points in the Wiki.

For example the apocrapha (sp?) does OC use this as divinly inspired scripture? Then we should include the 66 books only of the bible being the inspired word of God, etc on other points.

But really we just can't say we're anti OC because of one person who considers themself both OC and WOF. That realization has to come from our statement of faith. I believe ANYONE who agrees in goodfaith to our (when completed) Wiki should be allowed to call themselves WOF regardless of what church they attend.

Just my 3 cents.
You make good points. But there are inevitably going to be points that we don't address in our SoF.

We should remember that the Wiki is not JUST a statement of faith, but a defining of who may or may not debate and/or teach in the WoF forum. I agree wholeheartedly that we should not include an "anti-OC" clause in the SoF, but that doesn't preclude us from stating it in the "rules", for lack of a better word.

FWIW, this suggestion of a statement preventing OC/RCC debate posting in the WoF forum came from higher up the chain of command here at CF.

probinson

24th July 2007, 10:00 PM

By dealing with problem causing individuals who break CF flaming rules and such.
And we did that. For 2 years. We warned, we infracted, we banned, we counseled, we stood on our head and recited the pledge of allegiance.... dude, it did not help.

As much as you may want to try, you are not going to efficiently in a timely manner be able to make up a SoF and WoF definition that will keep all problems out. And even among us who agree on essential WoF things might disagree on other things though scriptural topics.
Agreed. But perhaps hindsight should be 20/20? I mean, there's nothing wrong with learning from the past is there?

In it all, we are to stand and walk in faith, not fear. Fear and faith don't mix. What I saw go on in this wiki discussion that got out of hand was over people being afraid and not walking in faith but then all (though falling short themselves) wanting to point out how the other can't be WoF. Let me remind us all that the main tenet of WoF that sets us apart is our determination to walk by faith and not sight - to get our confession in line with the Word - and to live empowered, and not defeated.
Very good points. Let me also point out that there are many things that most WoF people would find objectionable in many denominations. At some point, there should be signs of change, and really, at some point, it needs to become clear that, I just don't fit in my denomination any more, as the tenets of Word of Faith begin to, as charity put it, invade your denominational mindset.

I'm not against denominational people posting in earnest. But when you come to teach me what the OC or RCC people believe, I just don't care. That's not what the WoF forum is designed for.

Then why are we seeing signs of fear of being defeated? And feeling the need to bar against any future trouble? We are going to have future trouble - we even enter the Kingdom through tribulation. Trying to avoid it because of fear is not what we are to do. We are to overcome.
I agree with you again. But this 2-year mess has been a distraction. A HUGE distraction. I'm not afraid. I just don't like to be distracted.

Though they seem very negative and the flesh would rather avoid it - confrontations and needing to solve a problem like here a few days ago are actually an OPPORTUNITY to exercise FAITH AND LOVE. If we do so, we will always triumph over those speaking and acting in doubt/fear and hate.

Romans 12:21 MKJV Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I agree again, and much good has come from this. For one thing, I'm glad to see so many more people participating here! For another, I am relieved that the secrecy has been removed. Under the old CF, I was alone, save for the excellent support of my friend and colleauge flaglady, as well as some other staff members.

I know that when we go through major conflicts, we can then get tired of conflict and just want a long nice rest from it all - and guard against future conflict. But, that is futile. As long as people are still living in corruptible flesh and can sin, you're going to have conflicts. There is no way to actually have perfect peace like the world wants it. Only when all the enemies (of Messiah) are overcome and he reigns with an IRON ROD over the nations will there be peace. And even more so once the new heavens and earth are created and sin and darkness are banished forever. Hallelujah for that! I look forward to it - but for not I see the evil existing as an OPPORTUNITY to OVERCOME rather than something to fear.

After all, greater is HE who is in me, than he who is roaming around seeking to destroy in the world. Selah.

THAT SAID: we can learn from past issues and make specific statements in the wiki to HELP prevent the same problems from happening over and over. New ones are likely to arise over time, but we wouldn't have to deal with as many old ones. I'm new - so I'm not as familiar with "trouble" on CF as many of you.

Thank you for your post David. I have tried to remain as objective as possible, amongst a barrage of accusations from all sides, but it's not always easy. Your outside viewpoint it refreshing and very much appreciated.

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 10:10 PM

I always thought of WOF as a truth that should invade denominations. People usually come to realizations of truth little by little. I'd love to see WOF begin to invade all denominations and by us becoming anti denominational we're working against that, we should have our SOF for matters of debate and our rules about conduct when debating and not exclude anyone based on the church they go to, now if they want to debate that Mary was an eternal virgin and sin free well that's something that should be addressed in our Wiki.

Yes there are churches that are now Spiritfilled or charismatic denominational churches. But they hold to alot of their same doctrial teachings. And lately some have gone independent but still believe like they did. Charismatic Lutherns, Pentecostal Baptist, Spiritfilled Methodist . many names or terms. But its not all what the Word Of Faith churches teach.

This is to be a safe haven for those in likeminded in churches that teach Word Of Faith teachings not denominational doctrines plus a few of ours. Otherwise we are constantly having to deal with what we dont agree on instead of enjoying sharing what we DO believe. You can debate all those things in the main forum and it appears anyone now can debate there . Also we have the debate area.

The problem with what you mentioned is if we let all the chuches debate here but have to mention Mary in the wiki where do we draw the line.? What about other teaching some have? According to whose opinion and how would we decide what LONG list of doctrines or churches would we need in the wiki.? We dont want to do that. Get my point? That would get too "anti" and we don't want to be anti anything.Thats not what this is about; We are all God's children if we are born again. But we do have different views. We now can form any forum we want on here. Each forum can make their own rules and that denomination could have a Charismatic subforum if they wish . Anyone can come here and fellowship. But not teach, answer questions or debate. Thats the way the rules are here since last year.

It may take awhile but everyone needs to read what I posted with the wiki rules and forum rules and statement from 2006, if you haven't. Sometimes things are overlooked to just skim it like we all do at times. It will show if these are truly your beliefs.

Don't think I am saying this just to you alone :) But I'm sharing this with everyone here who reads this wiki

J4Jesus

24th July 2007, 10:41 PM

David
We understand what you are saying. But some people will not cooperate. We have learned from the past issues and that is why we need to do this. :) We have tried everything else. Since you have not been here then that is why you do not understand. We have to find another solution. And this is what was suggested by some staff, and I dont mean anyone on this thread.

Trish1947

25th July 2007, 01:05 AM

I don't get upset about other peoples denominational beliefs. Most of them are about.. is it Gods will to heal all, and we know it. This is usually what they want to discuss. But when it comes to Catholic doctrine RC or OC, being compatable with scripture, that we have accepted as the word of God, is a different matter, and thats where I think we're missing it..we are trying to say that their doctrine is not compatable with Wof beliefs..uh..no..it goes further than that, of the 66 books in the Bible, some Catholic doctrine is not supported by what we believe to be the Word of God. So why not leave in the 66 books minus the Apacrapha,(sp?) and just state it in that manner? This wiki is not about denominational ties, but what binds us to the truth as being WOF.

J4Jesus

25th July 2007, 02:38 AM

I can remove your vote.

It is simple though - either you do fully agree with version #1 or you do not. If you do not, then you simply say "no." And that is your vote.

Voting on version #1 doesn't mean you are making a final decision on the Scripture SoF. It is only for version #1 we are voting.

Do you want version #1 as is, or not?

If "no" and it gets voted down - we make another version from the suggestions given and vote again - until we have one.

I dont see how your are going to do that.
If we vote no now and then you have taken yours bacl to revises it and this one would have been better than thats not good. Please understand I am not saying it would be, but we can't read your mind. Why not revise them the best we can before voting on themand vote for the one we like best? We may vote this down and the other one not be wha t we rally want either.

DavidPresently

25th July 2007, 04:04 AM

I dont see how your are going to do that.
If we vote no now and then you have taken yours bacl to revises it and this one would have been better than thats not good. Please understand I am not saying it would be, but we can't read your mind. Why not revise them the best we can before voting on themand vote for the one we like best? We may vote this down and the other one not be wha t we rally want either.

I'm not sure I'm fully getting what you mean. The majority don't like the current version concerning the KJV. The first portion (what Paul wrote to Timothy) has already been agreed on last week or whenever it was.

Just because this particular version of wording that includes KJV stuff gets voted down, doesn't mean the rest of the statement has to go. No one has been counted as voting no because of any other disagreement than the KJV baseline statement.

That shows the voice of the people - the people are saying - "No KJV baseline statement!"

I do say we move on from version #1 however. It is clear that the majority are against it, over the KJV baseline issue. We can just start discussing what else to add to what Paul told Timothy in defining what Scripture is. Such as by adding the 66 book think I suggested.

And I do get and agree that we should a feeling of what the majority wants while discussing it, and then propose a version based on that, and then vote again - instead of voting on every little suggestion. That would be too much.

We need to keep track of the suggestions people make and when others agree to suggestions - so we can add that to the list of things to be put in the statement to later be voted on.

DavidPresently

25th July 2007, 04:15 AM

It is pretty apparent the majority are against a KJV baseline statement. What about this?

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, of 66 books, found in such common English translations as the KJV, NKJV, NIV, Amplified, NASB, NLT, etc. We fully affirm that all such Scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The part in red is straight from the Scripture, 2 Tim 3:16-17. The rest is expounding to further define what we believe to be Scripture - to include the 66 books of the OT and NT, so that apocryphal writings and others are not included.

If such a statement is not included, then we don't have a clear statement about what canon WoF considers Scripture. Someone could claim the book of Mormon or the apocryphal writings or something else as "Scripture" if we don't include that 66 book part.

pdudgeon

25th July 2007, 08:21 AM

this is what we began with:
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).

it has been suggeted that we modify it to this:
It is pretty apparent the majority are against a KJV baseline statement. What about this?

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, of 66 books, found in such common English translations as the KJV, NKJV, NIV, Amplified, NASB, NLT, etc. We fully affirm that all such Scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else for determining faith and practice. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; Ps 138:2)

The part in red is straight from the Scripture, 2 Tim 3:16-17. The rest is expounding to further define what we believe to be Scripture - to include the 66 books of the OT and NT, so that apocryphal writings and others are not included.

If such a statement is not included, then we don't have a clear statement about what canon WoF considers Scripture. Someone could claim the book of Mormon or the apocryphal writings or something else as "Scripture" if we don't include that 66 book part.

if we are not accepting the KJV then i don't think we should list any of the versions or translations. i do however agree to including verbage that the apocrypha is not included in the count of those 66 books.

spiritfilledwoman

25th July 2007, 09:59 AM

Anyone else feel like we're chasing our tails at this rate? :help:

Moving on. I don't have time to go back and thoroughly read everything that was posted last night after I signed off. So, I'll sum up my take here. We need to be careful, as some others have mentioned, about being very anti-denomination. However, J4Jesus had a good idea about each forum starting their own charismatic subforu