Thursday
Oct162014

A case for the King James Version

I would like to respond to Dr. Gore’s well-written article (“Baptists Ask” column: “Why do some Baptists only use the King James Bible translation,” Page 5) in the Oct. 2 Arkansas Baptist News.

There are some substantial arguments for usage of the King James Bible.

There are philosophical arguments. Would God not protect and superintend the transmission of the original text?

There are logical arguments. Perhaps the reason that some manuscripts or fragments on which modern versions are based are in good shape is that they were used very little. They were used very little because they were deemed inaccurate by early Christians.

There are textual arguments. These relate primarily to the New Testament. The traditional text of the New Testament is represented by the Received Text. It is far more representative of the type of Greek used in New Testament times. For example, Greek in the first century used a moveable “nu” – this is similar to our “n.” It is a spelling variant. Its usage in the Received Text is proportionally similar to that found in New Testament times. While this variation has no effect on meaning, it would seem to indicate the meticulous degree to which the text was very carefully and accurately transmitted.

Bill Chambers
Newport

Thursday
Oct022014

Modesty and church dress

Churches do not preach and teach about modesty today. The dress code of Christian men and women in church is very troubling to me.

It hasn’t been but a few years ago that ladies and girls would never wear clothes to church like they do today. I speak mainly of the skirts and dresses being too short; some even wear short shorts. Any clothes that bring sexual attention to the body should not be worn.

Parents, pastors and teachers need to teach the church what God’s Word instructs us about modesty.

Please read Genesis 2:25 and 3:7, 10; 1 Timothy 2:9-10, and Matthew 5:28.

Raymond Moore
Benton

Wednesday
Jul162014

Ed Stetzer opinion in the ABN

So Ed Stetzer, on the basis of his argument about the Hobby Lobby case, would allow a company owned by Jehovah Witnesses to not insure for blood transfusions for their employees? (Baptist Press link). Would companies owned by Scientologists not have to cover psychiatric services for their employees? Would companies owned by Christian scientists not have to cover medical doctors for their employees, only Christian science practioners? Also, does this company cover ED treatments for men while objecting to reproductive coverage for women? Why cover any sexually related treatments? I think the ACA is right in setting out what fair minimum coverages should be for all employees, period. The female workers in any company in which they work deserve the right to coverage for reproductive medicines and treatments determined by the woman and her physician.  

Ronald Ford
Simpsonville, Ky.

Thursday
Jul102014

Who will pay for this?

Do compassionate Southern Baptists and other evangelicals who favor open borders and amnesty for illegals have no compassion for American citizens who are not working because they cannot compete with illegals who work for far less?

Who will pay for all this? American taxpayers – more and more of whom cannot find jobs? With loans from China? How long before the American dollar is no longer acceptable and our economy collapses under the strain of a debt we cannot pay?

Instead of forcing overburdened American taxpayers to pay for the breaking of our own laws, those who favor such lawlessness should themselves take care of the illegals – just as the Good Shepherd did – who are flooding our borders and will destroy our economy and our country. 

Gwen Carpenter
Magnolia

Thursday
Jun262014

Conservative heritage

I was pleased to attend the recent SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) Annual Meeting in Baltimore. There were many encouraging reports, and President Fred Luter led the meeting with integrity and fairness. There were a couple of areas of concern. We were shown statistics demonstrating a 30-year decline in baptisms and other critical areas in our convention. I heard several men on the podium speak of a past conservative resurgence and return to inerrancy. 

I am thankful as an Arkansas Baptist we had no need for a conservative theological resurgence and we have always supported inerrancy. The same is true of the Foreign Mission Board (FMB) – now the International Mission Board (IMB) – where I served from 1978 to 2009. Our mission leaders and missionaries were theologically conservative and worthy of the support of our convention. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of many of the IMB trustees appointed by the leaders of the conservative political resurgence. I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the 1970s and 1980s under presidents (Robert E.) Naylor and (Russell H.) Dilday, when it was our largest seminary and was also solidly conservative theologically in the finest tradition of our convention.  

It may be that these men making reports or those they associated with or their schools were not theologically conservative and opposed inerrancy since they refer to that situation so often. If so, I only wish they could have been Arkansas Baptists or have attended Southwestern when I did or been associated the FMB/IMB and our missionaries. The 30-year decline in our convention seems to coincide almost exactly with their rise to power. I am glad to see signs of a return to our conservative theological foundation under the recent leadership or past SBC President Fred Luter and pray it continues under Ronnie Floyd. 

Ron West
Little Rock