"laestadian, apostolic, gay, lgbtq, ex-oalc, ex-llc, llc, oalc, bunner" LEARNING TO LIVE FREE: Watered down KJV?

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Watered down KJV?

I offer this post tongue in cheek, in light of the King James Onlyism that pervades many Laestadian churches. Growing up, our only options were either the King James Version or a Finnish translation. Since I don't read Finnish, I was stuck with the King James. The Finnish version some churchmembers used was a modern translation! I'd hear things like, "it's so much clearer in the Finn." Irony!

Hurrah! At long last, I've finally found an online King James Bible. What's that you say? It's easy to find the KJV online? You could not be more wrong. Not this King James Bible, the original and best:

Original 1611 King James Version

What's the difference? Well, the original KJV contains a whole lot of prefatory and commentarial matter not found in your average off-the-shelf pseudo-KJV, as well as the Apocrypha. But more relevant to me is that your garden-variety KJV has been updated, reworded, and worst of all re-spelled, so that it no longer provides any adequate hint of the original language and pronunciation of 1611.

For example? Well, your namby-pamby, watered down, fit-only-for-Evian-drinking-fundamentalists fake KJV will start out something like this:

Genesis 1

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Whereas the REAL KJV starts out like this:

called GENESIS

1 The creation of Heauen and Earth, 3 of the light, 6 of the firmament, 9 of the earth separated from the waters, 11 and made fruitfull, 14 of the Sunne, Moone, and Starres, 20 of fish and fowle, 24 of beasts and cattell, 26 of Man in the Image of God. 29 Also the appointment of food.

IN* (*Psal. 33.6. and 136.5. acts.14.15. and 17.24. hebr. 11.3.) the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darknesse [was] vpon the face of the deepe : and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, * (*2.Cor.4.6.) Let there be light : and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good : and God diuided+ (+Hebr. betweene the light and betweene the darknesse.) the light from the darknesse.
5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: + (+ Hebr. and the euening was, and the morning was &c.) and the euening and the morning were the first day.

So if you're man -- or woman -- or Christian enough to take your Bible STRAIGHT UP, without any dilutions or distortions, go read it in Hebrew manuscript. No, no! I mean, go check out this site. It's really cool.

*italicized portion originally posted by Vanity in the Bible and Christianity forum on ISCABBS



  1. Good topic, Tomte! This one should bring out some good discussion.

    I've always thought it was ludicrous that the King James Version was the only "acceptable" or "true" bible. King James was Church of England, for goodness sake. Anybody recall why the Church of England was formed? It was formed by Henry VIII, who broke from the Catholic Church primarily because it would not allow Henry to divorce his wife! So there's one of those ironic twists, as fundamentalists who decry divorce choose to follow the guidance of the Fidei Defensor, or Defender of the Faith, which is part of every English monarchs' title.

    As your post points out, the KJV was a translation done more than a thousand years after the original text was written. That last in and of itself probably would cause many of the fundamentalists alarm, as they probably think there was a scribe walking along with Jesus, recording carefully his exact words, rather than an oral history that was passed on for many generations before the first quill was ever used to record in writing those stories.

    When my in laws offered to buy me a Bible of my choosing many years ago as a gift, I looked and studied long and hard before finally settling on the St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible. I find it easy to read, and it contains those books not selected for the KJV but which the Catholics deemed acceptable; Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Book of Sirach, and the Book of Baruch.

    Going beyond these better known writings, there are also many other books such as Esdras, Susanna, the Prayer of Manasseh, Jasher, Enoch, Book of the Wars of the Lord, and the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and Judah. The Dead Sea Scrolls are adding to the great "library" of writings as well as they are painstakingly being studied and interpreted. (I had the good fortune to be able to see a portion of the Dead Seas Scolls in Seattle recently, and it was amazing.) Note that some of these books, while referred to in other parts of the Old Testament, have never been found.

    So what version does every else like, and why?

  2. I am a former OALCer, and have been reading this site for quite some time, and this is my first post.I would like to talk about my life experiences growing up in the church.
    As a young child my favorite preachers were Leo Lobbestael and Sam Juvonen. When the Elders came to our locality, they would always stay at my parents home. I have many fond memories of Gunner Johnson and William Erickson, and they said to me and my siblings, they watched us grow into adults.
    When I was very young (4 yrs. old) we had church in our homes, until our church was built. As a teenager, I enjoyed going to church, and the fellowship of the preachers and other Christians. It was a warm and comforting place to be. I married a Christian mate and was blessed with children and a loving family. My spouse and I have been married for many years and always attended church with our children, grandchildren, siblings and parents.
    Over the years I have noticed how the church has changed. In the past it was a loving, caring, and comforting place to be. That has now changed. The message has become more rigid and law minded. We hear how powerful the devil is and how we have to avoid sin at all cost, and we can lose our Christianity in the twinkling of an eye. We are told that we are not saved by asking forgiveness, but are saved by faith in Jesus, however the implication is without the forgiveness of sin by the preachers, there can be no faith.
    It is also taught that this is the only way your sins can be forgiven. I have seen the change in the preachers. They do not speak with love and compassion for the human race, but instead we are told to stay away from the "World", as they HATE US! The congregation has become cold and judgemental, due to the harsh preaching. Do this, don't do that, dress this way, talk this way, etc., etc., etc.. All the while, the members judge each other and spy and gossip! It has become stifling!
    I have so much more to say, but I feel I am rambling on. I will write again soon. Prayers to all.

  3. I heard that a OALC elder said that God sunk the Titanic because of who was on board.

  4. Peace be with you, Movin-on, and welcome! You are saying the same thing so many of the rest of us have been saying.

  5. Dear Movin-on,
    I enjoyed reading your post. Welcome! No, you are now rambling. It's good to see another person's views of the OALC. You are probably in my generation, maybe a little older. It's nice to have a few Old Folks writing here..

  6. Sisu, you just be careful who you include in "old folks". I am very young as you know, and it was a real shock when I went to Finland and some of my young cousins put me at a table with the "vanhukset".


  7. I can remember about ten years ago at the annual business meeting in the Brush Prairie church a preacher (I wont give his name but he has a bad neck) suggested the church bylaws need to be revised to say that the Bible of the church is the ORIGINAL King James Version. He said it is necessary because of all the different versions of KJV. Maybe they feel threatned by the New King James? Anyway, of course it was approved unanimously, and they really believe the have the original KJV! It just shows how unaware they are of how many times the KJV has been revised to correct mistakes. Never once has an OALCer been involved in translating or revising a Bible. (Yes, OALCers, the KJV is a TRANSLATION!!!!) A TRANSLATION!!
    I believe that is the first thing to accept before they can realize other translations are just as good. The KJV is good, but I like the New International Version (NIV.) Anyway, had to point out a little ignorance in the system.

  8. Welcome to movin-on. I appreciate the clarity of your post--sez it like it is. Looking forward to hearing more from you.

  9. In the ALC (Federation) the bylaws state that only the KJV can be read from the pulpit. I remember back in the 1970s the Plymouth, MN congregation got its voting status at Convention revoked for insisting on using the NIV from the pulpit. As far as I know this congregation is without a vote to this day.

    Meanwhile, time has passed. I haven't set foot in an ALC congregation in years, but from looking at some of the congregational web sites (especially the one in Lake Worth, FL) I wonder if there aren't at least a couple of congregations that use something other than the KJV from the pulpit. And if so, why hasn't an action been brought against them?

    And If the ALC is really okay with other translations now, then how about reinstating Plymouth MN's voting status?!?!!!

    Could the answer be because that would be admitting they were WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE?

  10. mia from the llc4/29/2007 02:40:00 PM

    In a conversation with an unnamed person still in the church regarding the exclusiveness of the doctrine, Romans 10:9 was brought to this person's attention, and he said dismissingly, "That's because you're reading it out of the NIV. That Bible is so twisted out of proportion that it's not even relevant." NEVER bothered to look it up in the KJV, which says, by the way, quote "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," unquote. How many ways are there to interpret that??? This was not my conversation or I would have asked him to look it up on the spot.

  11. Here are a couple more links to pages in this King James Version that Laestadians might find shocking:

    A liturgical calendar for Morning and Evening Prayer that notes the current astrological sign in which the readings occur. (for instance, April notes "Sol in Tauro":)

    Who says dragons aren't biblical? Here's a whole biblical book devoted to them.

    Of course, controversies about biblical translation are not limited to Laestadians. I remember when the New Revised Standard Version came out in 1989 it was decried by many evangelicals for its use of gender fair language. Time moves on however, and when the TNIV (Today's New International Version) was released in 2003 or so it did the same thing, and was accepted by evangelicals!

    What's the difference between liberal Christians and evangelicals? About 20 years. :)

  12. backtothefuturecc4/30/2007 07:18:00 AM

    I remember my first NIV bible and feeling guilty reading it because my parents said it was not a true "christian bible". I just didn't get it. Anyway finally going back to work- 8 weeks of with broken wrist and arm- may 2 Goldens are sure going to miss me!!

  13. The Apocrypha, which you mentioned Cvow, is included in the old Finnish Bibles and someone recently said that the old folks used to read from it often. If I understand correctly, they are considered historical but not necessarily divinely inspired. Not my words but just something I've overheard. I prefer the KJV because it comes so easily to me now.. it's like I almost have passages memorized. But I use many different versions also, and have no problem with that. As someone said, the Finnish Bible is often referred to as a help in understanding the KJV (for those who understand Finnish!).

  14. Tomte, doesn't it seem as though the more we learn, the more we realize how much we don't know? Like the book about dragons.. lol.. OH! so many taboos have been created from so little knowledge.. things that are part of history yet totally unknown. Only good can come from knowing and understanding all of these things, and not being afraid of knowing them. KWIM?

  15. To editorialize: I have studied the Word of God in the New American Standard, New King James and in the KJV Bibles. It has ALL been profitable. I say: Just take it out and read in whatever for you can get it, it will edify you.

  16. I read the book about the dragon. It seems to be that the dragon was a statue that was worshiped. Not a real dragon. At least the first one was. It was harder to tell on the second dragon because of the language. Does anybody know? Is it a false idol that is being worshipped or is it a real dragon?

  17. The translation of the Holy Scriptures has been controversial for nearly more than 1600 years in Christian history. To my mind, the problem has been and will always be the fear of change. Fundamentalists of all sorts, even fundies of dozens of differing belief-systems who would condemn each other, are almost always desperate to fix once for all eternity some set of basic teachings, words, and principles. There is great fear, almost horror, among fundies that if ANY new translation is allowed, that translation will subtly change the meaning of an eternal teaching. And, hence, the sub-conscious thinking goes, if the text of God's Word can change (and how can it, really, since God is immutable?!), then there is no certainty whatsoever. Everything goes up for grabs if the Word itself can change. And certainty is the goal, truth fixed for all time, never to change by one iota.

    Nonetheless, the devotion of certain groups to the King James Version of the Bible has always been a difficult, puzzling subject. But remembering the long history of struggles in Christianity with translations can help us relax about the whole problem. Hey, it can help to recall that there was a time when it was against the law and punishable BY DEATH -- my goodness, they took these things seriously back when -- to translate the Bible into ANY "vulgar" language from the Hebrew. Any translation, it was once commanded, on pain of death, must be from the Vulgate, Saint jerome's Latin translation from ancient times that was once believed, like the KJV, to have been as much inspired by the Holy Spirit as the original writings themselves.

    The use of the KJV has been an ongoing struggle, I hear, in the FALC, which I grew up in but left long ago. But the KJV has been an object of fiercely fixed faith for dozens of conservative Christian groups for centuries, groups which Toots would normally have no truck with. If someone has found a scholarly article on the web on the origins and history of devotion to this one translation, I think it would be very instructive and helpful to know about it. Here's a fascinating web site in defense of the KJV. It's entitled "Fighting Back! A Handy Reference For King James Bible Believers" by one James L. Melton and published by Bible Baptist Church of Sharon, TN (how many Toots would be pleased about siding with a group of Baptists?):


    In reading this, I marvel at the intensity and inventiveness of the defenders of the KJV. To me, it is an object lesson that shows us that someone can cook up "good" reasons for believing just about any ol' thing if one puts one's mind to the cooking with determination.

  18. Can we get one of the OALCers to explain why they have such a KJV fettish? That might be the wrong word because of how often the typical OALCer opens the bible, but I know there are many OALC lurkers, so what say you, OALC? Why is it a sin to read another translation?

  19. To Movin On above:
    Do you still live in the Detroit area? I lived in that locale for over two decades, and stopped going to the church several years ago for many of the same reasons you shared. It wasn't my hometown so I don't know much about its history, but I felt for years that something wasn't right in the preaching.
    Recently an OALC longtimer told me that they don't preach much about women's hair any more there. (Some of the most genuinely loving and sincere women in that locale have short hair.)

  20. If you compare the KJV to the NIV, they are about the same, just words are easier to understand in the NIV.

  21. That may be so, but we were always taught that you could not change ONE word of the Bible, disregarding the fact that it was not written down in English. I have read several books in recent years about all the politics involved in writing the New Testament and the KJV. We had been told in the OAlC that the Bible was written by God, and I understood that to mean the men were inspired by God. We each believe what is most comfortable for us, I suppose.

  22. A bit off-topic, but another anonymous poster had mentioned something about an OALC preacher saying that the Titanic was sunk because of who was on board.

    Interestingly enough, I'm not sure if any of you were aware, but an Apostolic Lutheran speaker, I believe by the name of Lahtinen died on the Titanic along with his family. I have heard this before from many older relatives, but also from some of the limited resources online that one can find about the Laestadian groups.

  23. Linnea says:

    Yes, their is a connection... This article explains it pretty good.


  24. As a long time ex-OALCer, I have an opinion as to why they distrust any version of bible except the KJV.
    All the OALC preachers, including the Elders, are uneducated in the scriptures. All they know about scripture is what they have heard and been taught by the other preachers in their lifetimes. They all have become very familiar with those dozen or so "familiar places" that they take on Sunday to "speak alongside of". They have these places in memory, often interpreting each word of each verse, one by one. Can you imagine what would happen to this group of memorizers if you gave them an NIV, and told them to interpret?

    The preachers really have very limited biblical knowledge, and don't want anyone to rock the boat.
    Any thing new is suspect, and probably a sin! Someone once posted on one of these blogs (can't remember where)that an OALC preacher once said about one of the new translations, that they have taken the sin out of the bible! Can you imagine that? You would have to remove half the text!

    Anyway, just my thoughts. What do you all think?

  25. True. They are not educated and they take pride in that, because God speaks to them in the pulpit. Education of scriptures would be wrong in their eyes. Which is sad because they could probably learn so much more if they went to seminary.
    I don't think they have really even compared any other versions to the KJV. If they would, they would be surprised to see that they are the same words, just worded a little different. But like you said, any change in anything would be sin.

  26. Hello, 4eyes,
    The comment from the preacher is probably correct since the total focus in the OALC is sin. That's the first, last, and only thing they ever look for. I am seriously beginning to believe that they worship sin and evil because that is what they focus on almost to the exclusion of everything else. Grace, redemption, love, and all the other good things seem to take a very distant backseat.
    So, I agree with your comments, 4eyes. It's nice hearing from you. Write again soon.

    Cvow, I forgot to comment on your "old folks" referral. hehe.
    The last time I visited my mom, I went to church with her (I dutifully go out of respect for her). Dinner is served after church, and she pushed me to sit at the Old Folks table. My own mother! You can imagine how that made me feel! Btw, I'll be in your neck of the woods soon. Maybe we can get together.

  27. To anon 07:35,
    Funny how we try to guess who posters are and where they are from. I too thought movin-on was from Detroit, but am trying to figure out the other comments about church being built, Elders staying with them, etc. etc..

    When a new poster comes on here and talks about their OALC experiences, the words always sound so familiar. I guess those churches really are very very similiar, different preachers, different locality, same whacked out message. Sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, and oh by the way, if you are very very fortunate, salvation , maybe, at the very end!
    That is if you are the right color, have the right family history, if you look the part, and talk the right way, and sit up front, etc. etc. etc....
    My head is spinning!!!!

    How about it , movin-on, are you still here?

  28. Sisu,
    Hello to you too. I read here a lot, and post when the urge arises, but not too often. I do enjoy reading others experiences, as we are so similar.
    I, too am "older", but don't consider myself "OLD FOLKS" as yet.I hear you on the old folks table. I didn't want to sit there either.
    I think you and cvow are MUCH older thar me. HE he he he.

  29. I admit that I am just old enough to have an opinion, not that any of you would have noticed...

    A cousin of mine that was of my folks' generation used to always make sure he was with young people, because they kept him young with their energy, enthusiasm, and not yet jaded vision! He said people his own age were much too serious and self important.

    I think he had a point. I will think only young thoughts from now on.

  30. i agree..you "old farts" are waay too serious! no, i'm just kiddin!! haha. actually its good, reading thru the more serious stuff, and finding meaning for myself and my new life out of the church..

  31. I suppose I should tell you all that I am not from Detroit, but have been there many times over the years. I did say that Leo and Sam were my favorite preachers growing up, but that was from them traveling and from my visiting there at meetings.
    As I remember my years in the OALC, I can now see how my heart cooled toward the preachers and the church teachings as time went by. It was a very gradual process, but helped along by many life events, as I struggled with some of the advices given to me by preachers when I went to them seeking guidance. Not only was some of the advice poorly given, some of it was outright wrong!
    When I questioned this advice on several occasions, the responce from the preacher was to remind me that this is what he has been taught, and also that I should not question his counsel. I must also say, that the preacher's demeanor changed when I had the nerve to question his advice! Cold and aloof would be an accurate description of him at that point.

    Over the years I have witnessed how members who leave the church are shunned, talked about, and downright vilified. Lifelong friends sometimes become hostile and aloof, because someone had the audacity to leave the "Truth"

    Church members who have no bible knowledge, are nontheless able to judge others by their appearance, church attendance, number of children,etc., etc....

    The lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7

    I believe that many there put their faith in the church and the preachers, and do not recognize the Holy Spirit.

    Thanks to all for this site. Being able to read and post here is like therapy to me. Blessings to all.

  32. To Joy above:
    You said "I don't think they have really even compared any other versions to the KJV. If they would, they would be surprised to see that they are the same words, just worded a little different."

    Please consider the following.....In Isaiah 9:3, the KJV says:
    Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy ...

    The NIV says:
    You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy.......
    If one is right, then the other one is wrong. We can’t possibly say that they are both correct. Did God increase their joy or not?
    For starters, find the following verses in KJV & then try finding the same verses in the NIV:
    Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
    Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
    Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4.
    Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
    Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7.
    They are not there. They have been removed entirely.What did these verses say? Among other things, they say that: Jesus came to save the lost, that hell is a place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, and that a person must be a believer in order to be baptized.
    But the problems with the NIV do not stop there. In addition to the verses that have been omitted entirely, thousands of verses have partial omissions. Many who have studied this issue have stated that the missing words are in excess of 64,000 - not counting the additions. Remember what God said about those who take away from or add to his words. (Rev. 22:18-19)

  33. In response to Movin-On's post above:
    I often felt sorry for the newly chosen young preachers in the OALC - do they realize what they are getting themselves into? Having the power to influence others and making life choices for others when they are not prepared to do so? Often times when people turn to the preachers for advice, the problems are more complex than the preachers are equipped to handle. I do think that some of the guys chosen to preach like having the power over others, yet I wonder how many actually turn the job down?
    It is very sad how those who leave the church are often treated. It's not surprising though. The ONLY thing that matters is if one goes to church. It doesn't matter at all how one behaves.

  34. I plan to post later about Bel and the Dragon. However regarding not changing any words in the King James I'm surprised nobody has posted about the unicorns in the King James Version yet.

    The unicorn shows up both in the KJV that is commonly read by Laestadians, as well as the original 1611 version.

    "Modern" KJV rendition of Job 39:9:

    Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

    Unicorn appears in the original 1611 KJV as well.

    The NRSV, my preferred translation, renders this as a "wild ox."

    I guess I have to agree with the Laestadians on this one point (no pun intended); I want unicorns back in my Bible! ;-)

  35. Dear Anonymous 4:47,

    From what I undestand, the phrase about adding to or taking away God's words was added by some scribe(s) during the Middle Ages. There was, of course, much conflict and competition among believers at that time. All Bible pages were painstakingly written out by hand in cold, dank, dark cells in monestaries. The scribes could add or subtract words, make notations in margins (which then later were incorporated into the text), and inadvertently write in an incorrect word. There were many, many versions of the Bible out there before the advent of the printing press. When King James selected a Bible to be rewritten in Old English, he didn't necessarily take the most accurate version out there. He also had a wide variety of people do the translating, not all of them up-to-snuff either religiously or linguistically.
    So, now tell me, how am I to interpret your comment? Maybe that all of these people where God-inspired? I suppose that could bear some weight, but I still think there was an enormous amount of human input.

  36. And one other thing, maybe already posted earlier here, if we don't have any of the original writings, how do we KNOW this is the inerrant word of God? Because someone inserted that in while doing their tedious copying doesn't make it Gospel Truth.

    What do you think?

  37. Thanks for the info. Interesting. I haven't compared the whole thing.

    Isn't the KJV also a translation from the original bible, as this post states, even the KJV the Laestadians use is different from the original KJV. What is important is your faith. There are books that never even made it in the bible, I watched a segment on the History Channel.

  38. good insights here

  39. That is an interesting website. Scroll down to the bottom and click on bashing the Bible. Lots of good input.

  40. Also read Two Billion Doctrines. Very good.

  41. To answer Anon2's question about whether the dragon in "Bel and the Dragon" is a real dragon or an idol, the answer is both. In the story the Babylonians are worshipping an actual animal, which Daniel poisons to prove that it isn't a god.

    If you're going to read any one book out of the Apocrypha, "Bel and the Dragon" is a good choice, because it's only two pages long. However I will confess that I didn't read it in the KJV...I went with a modern translation. :)

    I have both an NIV and an NRSV (with apocrypha) that I read regularly. Both are easier to read than the KJV.

  42. I have to admit that all the discussions about different versions of the bible, books left out/added, wording changed around etc; really scares me sometimes. I have always thought of the old "telephone" game... And then I pray.

    I personally have not literally compared very much, I just try to read whatever I can get my hands on; read with an open mind/heart and LOTS of prayer. (sometimes I worry about how much I (dont) retain, but it feeds my general sense of spiritual growth) I feel a strong need to know what is available in all spectrums of life (anything opposite of "our way is the ONLY right way" thoughts) I have found that the more I read and learn, the easier it is to discern what I "believe" and digest into a part of me and my belief system.

    I have to believe that God knows my heart, my sincere desire to follow and serve Him, and surely He could foresee all that has happened before little ol me... I like what was said about faith edifying whatever you have access to. (or something like that) I plan to spend my lifetime learning, reading, comparing, discussing etc, even though it sometimes seems so overwhelming, and even then I hope I will still only have an opinion and not have it all figured out :)

    Its nice to hear from others, with better memories, who have taken time to compare and research these details. I also appreciate the links and references. I can retain more information when I can read more of a topic as it applies to a life issue or topic being discussed. Thank you Free for the variety of issues you bring up and post from others :)

    to anon may 3, 455pm: You wondered how many young men selected to be a preacher turned the job down? I can remember hearing a story, told with laughter, of a man asked to come to the pulpet one sunday morning: the story says he wouldnt go up to the pulpet, so the preachers already up there said "lets go get him" and they went down into the churh pews. The man "chosen" tried to crawl under his bench seat, yet the preachers pulled him out and forcefully manouvered him up on stage. Im not sure why this story is funny to some, but I dont think "declining" was an option in my old congretation.

  43. Ive also found it interesting how some churches/people are so afraid of change. How any new information discovered or discussed is often condemned before analyzing. I have often thought that must be where faith comes in; that my faith shouldnt be shook up by "new" scientific discoveries or by "new" scrolls being discovered.

    On an interesting note, I can remember a serman about the dead sea scrolls; the preacher stated that the scrolls interpretations were closest to the KJV and OALC teachings, out of all the religions and bibles available in the world. Interesting especially since the serman was preached before any specific information or interpretations were made available to the general public!

  44. Re: Betrayal of self

    Can you imagine a wet-behind-the-
    ears 25 year old preacher
    admonishing a mature 75 year old
    pew sitter hardened by experience
    of life as to his or her
    forbidden reading habits ?

    To allow another adult to deter-
    mine what or how you should think,
    read, sing ,and worship is

    To me it is the ultimate in
    insulting ,arrogant behavior to be
    treated like a child with an
    undeveloped sense of rectitude.

    To modify or fake your behavior
    and beliefs to preserve the
    benefits of membership in a church
    is in my opinion a betrayal of

    Counterpoint by my critics:

    We all modify our behavior
    and beliefs to some extent to fit
    into the family and society we are
    born into.

    It is a trade-off to becoming a

    But where do you draw the line?

    What do you think?

  45. Many Trails Home5/04/2007 03:59:00 PM

    Troll, I think you are great. Sometimes being a hermit is very appealing; other times I am happy to modify my behavior to belong. But I also draw lines around both positions in an attempt not to be too extreme. Being "outspoken" also has its advantages, as it allows one the freedom to speak one's mind, as others have been conditioned to expect it anyway. We have to call what we see and then see what kind of response we get - as on this blog. How else do we grow? I appreciate your entries. MTH

  46. Thats exactly why I left the FALC. I couldn't modify myself to fit in anymore. I felt like it was about being true to myself to leave.

  47. I think it has to do with respect: for God, ourselves and other people. It seems always to be a fine line, a balancing dance between everyone; especially other people.

    Yet I read a verse today that I immediately thought of when reading the above comments: 1 Timothy 3:8-11, 5:1-2

    "Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

  48. sisu -
    Above you state "So, now tell me, how am I to interpret your comment?"

    By realizing that I was responding to a previous post where someone stated that there were no differences between the versions beyond "a word changed here & there"....
    64000 words is a little more than here & there. I was just giving a factual point to consider when comparing versions. Do I know for a fact that one is correct.....no, however it is misleading to believe that there are not extreme differences between versions.
    All I was doing was throwing out a point to consider....smart folks usually do consider all angles before rendering a decision, it's called logical thinking.
    So how do you take my comment? As fact that is there for you to verify in print or simply a point for consideration. All I stated was the differences in 2 bible versions for those who admittingly hadn't compared them before. I thought thats what this discussion was about.....my mistake.