Comment by Anonomous

September 29, 2007 @ 2:41 pm

Rachel, I am very sorry if I offended you.

Comment by Amy

September 29, 2007 @ 3:44 pm

Ahh, I’ll proudly take the blame for your outstanding Scrabble skills… Oh! OH and your Crazy Cool blog design!

I’ve posted my reply to the comment here:

Dear Anonymous, If that is your real name…

Comment by Rachel

September 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

Anonymous, I accept your apology, and you should know that there are no hard feelings. I wish, though, that you would email me and let me know who you are. I would be happy to talk to you, and it would be such a relief to not be wondering if everyone I know is “Anonymous”. Please consider having a conversation with me without the pseudonyms and ambiguity. I would really love to lay this to rest, and have peace about the whole matter.

Comment by Cassandra

September 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

I’m glad that you found such a good friend. I, too, have such a best friend, and sometimes I feel as if I would be lost without her. I kind of feel bad for anonymous. They probably feel pretty bad right about now…..

Comment by Cassandra

September 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

And no, I wasn’t anonymous! lol….

Comment by Hillery

September 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm

Rachel:

What a beautiful response in a tough situation. You and Amy both have a great way of expressing yourself that brings your personality out onto the screen.

I also have noticed that Amy says “crazy” a lot and it makes her all the more special! I am glad that you found each other, she really needed that great girl friend to be there for her. I can help with some things, but I know she Needed You! And I enjoy your posts. Thanks.

Comment by Patti N

September 29, 2007 @ 9:42 pm

Rachel, you are so gracious. You’re just a beautiful witness. The fruit of the Spirit was all over your response. I’m proud to know you and to hear how you have changed. God is so good and more faithful than any friend and closer than any brother. Praise Him!

Comment by Amy

September 29, 2007 @ 11:40 pm

Anonymous,

I hope that my words have not hurt you in anyway. I’m thankful for you because it seems you care for Rachel. Thanks for praying for my friend.

Comment by Nicole

September 30, 2007 @ 2:58 am

Rachel, I don’t know you, but since I am a long time friend of Amy’s, I feel that somehow we are friends by proxy.

I know what it is to be friends with Amy. My life was changed because of it. She became my friend in a time in my life when I needed a friend like her more than I needed just about anything. And now you have come in to her life at a time when she needed a friend like you more than she needed just about anything. Thank you for returning the love to her that she has shown to others. I am so glad you have been influenced by her. I am also glad that she has been influenced by you.

I admire the way that both you and Amy have handled this situation. It speaks volumes for your character.

I didn’t have a chance to comment on your previous post about Sarah, so I’ll say here that it brought tears to my eyes, as it did to so many others. I ache for my friends. Yet, I am so proud of my friends. It’s a strange feeling, isn’t it? This combination of pain and admiration. I don’t know that I’ll ever understand it completely.

I don’t really have any response to the comment by Anonymous. I just wanted to encourage you, one friend of Amy’s to another.

Comment by Debbie

September 30, 2007 @ 11:43 am

Thank you so much for being there for Amy. You can read my long response in the comments on Amy’s blog. I don’t think my typing fingers can leave another comment that long. Love you as my fellow sister in Christ.

Comment by jason

September 30, 2007 @ 1:25 pm

sissy, you definately have a way with words……. i think it runs in the family……. it seems like you have a very good network in the friendship aspect of life i am workin on mine alot of the people that said were my friends were only there when i was hanging off the ceiling fan, car surfing, jumpin off bridges from the bed of moving trucks, runnin from the cops at 135 in a 35, or all the other adrenaline rushing things i did while i was drunk. it does though seem to me that this “character” whoever it might be, is not only jealous of you but also immature.

Comment by Elise

October 1, 2007 @ 8:13 am

Both you and Amy are being so gracious, Rachel. This was an excellent, well thought out post. I can learn so much from you!

Comment by Sarah

October 1, 2007 @ 8:49 am

Nice response to anonymous. I don’t know how I would’ve handled something like that! I applaud you!

Comment by Mammy

October 1, 2007 @ 9:48 am

I have thought alot about this since you read me anonymous’ post. And being human, and a momma(especially your momma), have had many thoughts on the subject (some might have been in the flesh and not the spirit). Like how they were not brave or bold enough to sign their own name even though they seemed to think that they were taking a stand for the right and they lied about their email address. Many scriptures, KJV, came to mind about lying and how we are to deal with the brethren if we have a fault against them. I also wondered why someone would write that on a post about Sarah. (I think her daddy’s comment on his blog says it all about that post. “Wow”.) And yes, I do read Amy and Joel’s blogs on a daily basis, and have since meeting Amy and Sarah and Jeremiah. I think they are remarkable people and am glad to call them “friends”. They are welcome in my home anytime, even though we may not agree on some theological issues. I am thankful for their service to our country. Being a mom of an Airman and a Marine, and mother-in-law to an Army chaplain candidate, I have a very different perspective on that than most people we come in contact with. I am so glad that you have a friend like Amy. Everyone should be so blessed to have a friend like that. And, apparently anonymous does not know you well enough or they would never presume to call you impressionable. Having known you for twenty four years, impressionable is not a word I would use to describe you. I am very proud of the way that you handled that post. I think that it showed maturity and spiritual growth. You were brave and bold enough to stand up for what you believe in, kind in doing it, and you have a mind of your own. Too many Christian people never bother to figure out what they believe and why they believe it, only blindly follow what someone else says. Sorry to say, I have seen that many, many times in the Independent movement in the 31 years that I have been saved. We may not always agree on everything (like that’s something new ), but we both have a right and a responsibility to decide for ourselves what we believe to be right. I will love and respect you no less for that. It all ultimately boils down to the fact that it is not an issue between you and me, but an issue between ourselves and God. He is The One who holds us responsible and The One we will all have to answer to. I love you and I’m proud of you.
~Mom~

Comment by Chris

October 1, 2007 @ 1:55 pm

Wow!!! This post has gotten a lot of attention. I know that this type of comment seems almost mean spirited to a lot of people, but you do need to understand the mindset of the person who wrote this.

The KJV thing is a HUGE issue to some people. Not just a preference, but to them it is a fundamental theological truth which warrants separation from those who do not hold to it. It isn’t only that they think that the KJV is the only Bible that a person should read, but that it is the only Bible that can be called “God’s Word”. Some people even take it to the point of teaching that someone cannot be saved by the reading of any other version of the Bible. This is partly based on a horrible misinterpretation of the following verse:

1 Peter 1:23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

They obviously see modern versions as the “corruptible seed”, thus no salvation possible. Many that hold this view believe that God used the KJV translators to correct the originals which were corrupted. In other words, they were inspired, thus the KJV is absolutely perfect without any error whatsoever. The problem, there is not a single verse of Scripture that would even slightly suggest that God would ever inspire a translation. How do you argue with someone who believes such a thing?

Not all KJV only advocates have this view, but I just used this as an example. Anonymous has probably been taught the KJV via the Textus Receptus position. This argument attempts to show that God has preserved His word through Bible believing Christians throughout the centuries.

The Textus Receptus position opposes textual criticism, the science of examining the variant readings in the manuscripts and applying scientific methods to determine how the original text most likely read. It opposes the use of the older manuscripts that have been discovered since the translation of the KJV. Many scholars believe that these older texts are closer to the original autographs than the line of manuscripts from which the Textus Receptus was compiled, known as the Byzantine line. These scholars believe that scribes, intentionally or unintentionally, have both deleted and added to the original writings in the process of making copies of copies of copies over hundreds of years. Evidence seems to support this due to the large number of variants within the line of manuscripts. Thus, we need to start with the older manuscripts, and utilize textual criticism to find the closest text.

Textus Receptus folk deny the need to restore the original, and say that preservation teaches that God preserved His word through the Byzantine line of texts. They believe that the older manuscripts were corrupted by Gnostics in the early years of the church, and that those manuscripts were put away to never be used again. They believe that the doctrine of preservation must mean that God preserved His word through the churches.

They often quote Psalm 12:6, 7 (KJV):

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Wow, that proves preservation!!!

No, it says nothing of preservation. Verse 6 speaks of the words of God, but verse 7 speaks of the people discussed in verse 5 and earlier. Check what the early church writers said about this verse and you will see that verse 7 is not to be interpreted to mean the words of God. A modern translation makes this clear (and so does reading the KJV in context):

Psalm 12:6, 7 (ESV) The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.
You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.

The fact that this verse doesn’t teach preservation does not mean that the Bible does not teach preservation, because it is taught in other passages. What this example shows is that KJV folk will interpret scripture for their own purpose.

Just because the Bible teaches preservation, does not prove that it is preserved in any particular version. It doesn’t even prove that it is preserved in any particular text. So how do we know which line is preserved? We don’t. One group believes that God used the hand me down method, the other group believes in applying scientific methods to the manuscripts, starting with the oldest. The fact is, the Bible doesn’t say and no man can be sure of anything outside of the word of God.

The Byzantine priority does have much support among scholars. Men like Dean John Burgon of years ago, to men like Pierpont and Robinson, and Farstad and Hodges of today. These men give great arguments in favor of their position, but they cannot prove their position. And more importantly, they do not believe that the KJV is the only translation that is the word of God. They don’t even believe that the Textus Receptus is perfect. Farstad and Hodges published their own copy of the Majority Text, as well as Robinson and Pierpont. They are almost identical, but not exactly.

You see, the Textus Receptus is an eclectic text, compiled by a scholar named Erasmus. Erasmus used the manuscripts he had available to compile the TR. But Erasmus didn’t believe that his new Greek text was perfect. As a matter of fact, he went back and revised it several times. The KJV didn’t even use his final version. As a matter of fact, Erasmus left out many verses you would find in today’s KJV. Actually, the Textus Receptus wasn’t even called the Textus Receptus for many years later. The KJV translators didn’t even use the TR exclusively. Many times they used the Latin Vulgate. Many verses in the KJV agree with the Latin Vulgate. So, what I am saying is that the KJV translators knew that they were not working with a perfect Greek text.

Problems with proving a perfect Greek text is why many people today (often referred to as Ruckmanites) believe that the KJV had to be re-inspired. If you’re going to have a perfect Bible, but can’t prove that the text from which it came is perfect, what do you do? You claim that God made the new translation perfect.

The other issues involve the translations themselves. There are many translations available, most are good, and some are not. There are different techniques used to translate them. They are:

Literal: Almost every word is translated. They can be difficult to read. Examples: Young’s Literal Translation; J.P. Green’s Literal Version

Formal Equivalence: Most words are translated, but some freedom is given to make the text more readable (these are the best for serious study and reading) Examples of FE: KJV, NewKJV, ModernKJV, Easy-Reading KJV, Webster’s KJV, NASB, ESV

Dynamic Equivalence: This is a thought for thought translation. The translators are not concerned with making sure each word is translated (they interpret some of the text for you).
Example: NIV, NLT

Loose: These are merely a paraphrase (and you should stay away from them)
Examples: The Message, The Living Bible

Most modern versions use the text based on the older manuscripts, but some do not. The following versions use the Textus Receptus as their base text, just like the KJV: New KJV, Modern KJV, Easy-Reading KJV.

So you do have options for the Textus Receptus other than the KJV. Also, most modern version will list the Majority Text reading so you will know there is an alternate reading. This should cause you to study and find out why. The New KJV will also note the alternate readings (this does not make it bad, it makes you informed, and informed is a good thing).

The fact is that no translation is perfect. We have today what God wants us to have. If you believe it’s the KJV then good, go read it. But if you believe that other versions are just as correct, good. But separation based on a translation is just plain “silly”.

I could say much more, but my fingers are tired. Buy my book sometime. So in summary:

Generally, when a KJV via Textus Receptus teacher teaches, they will teach their theory as fact. They will never teach the opposing view. The opposing view is slandered and taken out of context. Those who listen to them and believe them are convinced that those who believe differently have been sold a lie of Satan. They often teach that people who use other versions are liberals. They will teach that Modern version readers have not studied for themselves. They will teach that they are in danger of leaving the church, and all sorts of crazy stuff.

Anonymous was not being mean spirited. Anonymous was just concerned for the spiritual life of Rachel. Anonymous was doing what he/she thought was right. Sometimes the way we do things are not always right. Many times what we want to say will come across wrong to the receiver. It’s okay though. Rachel and Amy are all grown up. They’ll be okay.

And I haven’t seen Rachel happier in years, and her relationship with the Father is closer than I have ever seen it. So, if she changed, rejoice with her. Our life is supposed to be one of conformity, and growth. She hasn’t left God, she has gotten closer than ever. She hasn’t gotten more worldly, she has became more like Christ.

Praise Jesus!!! Hallelujah!!! Amen!!!

Comment by Heather

October 1, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

Rachel~

You HAVE changed since you met Amy…for the better! I am so happy she(along with her family)came into your life. Not often in life do you get to find that kind of connection…where you just “get” the other person! Both of you handled the situation beautifully and your Mother’s comment got me all teary-eyed. You are so loved!

Comment by Anonymous

October 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm

Its great Rachel that you have so many friends that are taking up for you. Even if I completely think differently. I do realize that this is your business, but if you didnt want to make it everyone elses business you wouldn’t even have a blog. Nor would you have a place for people to comment on what you have said or whats going on in your life. By the way I did not mean to post my comment on the post about lil Sarah. I apologize for that, it was an accident. Just to clear things up… I am not immature in the least. I am definitely not jealous either. I found that comment pretty humorous. Anyway… I am not a liar. Call me what you will but I dont appreciate being called a liar(it was implied). I couldn’t write my true email address because I knew it would cause a big stink. I think that its too late for that now though. I am not closed or narrow minded. I just believe that if something was wrong twenty years ago then it is still wrong today. We could’ve asked Mrs. Treesa if she felt that same way a few years back and she would’ve said yes. If we are thinkin maybe we need to change with the time then we will never stop changing. Soon we also will believe in fallen grace or maybe even no Heaven at all. I know you said that you and Brother Chris have been studying and praying on the issue of the KJV for several years. I just dont understand how you think that you are so much smarter than all these great men of God that did the exact same thing you have but only many years before, and probably more thoroughly. Its good that he knows Greek, but he’s not a scholar. The men who translated my Bible (the KJV) were men who were filled with the Spirit of God. I think that matters alot. The men who translated these other versions obviously were not. I dont think God would fill a man with His Spirit so that he could add to or take away from Gods Word when God clearly stated that that wasn’t to be done. I know that you said you still dont agree with everything that Amy believes, but its only a matter of time. As far as the issue of you being impressionable goes, I stand firm on the comment I made reguarding that.

Pingback by Nothing Gold by Rachel Harmon » An Explanation by Chris

October 1, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

[...] husband’s response to the Anonymous [...]

Comment by Anonymous

October 1, 2007 @ 2:51 pm

Another thing, the people that are applauding you are friends you have met through Amy. So im assuming they believe the same as her. Dont let there comments go to your head before you clearly consider what I have said.

Comment by Jami

October 1, 2007 @ 5:06 pm

I appreciate Anonymous’s concern for Rachel, I know that it is heartfelt. I am also proud of Amy and Rachel for being fine examples of Colossians 4:6

“Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man” KJV

Comment by Chris

October 1, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

Anonymous, I am sorry that you have been offended by some of the comments that have been left. Unfortunately, that is the way the internet world works. This is a Christian site and it is our desire that everyone posts in a Christ like manner.

The following is my response to your last post:

“I do realize that this is your business, but if you didnt want to make it everyone elses business you wouldn’t even have a blog. Nor would you have a place for people to comment on what you have said or whats going on in your life.”

With the exception of a few recent posts this has been a very friendly, non-hostile blog. It is not expected to be a wrestling ring, or a mud throwing contest. Serious issues should be dealt with in private, but as Rachel made clear, you didn’t leave an email address.

“I am definitely not jealous either. I found that comment pretty humorous.”

There is no reason to believe you are jealous, and there is really no need for you to reply to that comment. I am sorry it was posted.

“Call me what you will but I dont appreciate being called a liar (it was implied. Anyway… I am not a liar).”

We do not believe that you are a liar. I am sorry it was implied. An anonymous post of that nature can be interpreted as such.

“. I couldn’t write my true email address because I knew it would cause a big stink.”

Yeah, it kind of has become a big stink, and now we have to wonder who we have had this conversation with.

“I think that its too late for that now though. I am not closed or narrow minded. I just believe that if something was wrong twenty years ago then it is still wrong today. “

Who said it was wrong twenty years ago?

“We could’ve asked Mrs. Treesa if she felt that same way a few years back and she would’ve said yes.”

Mrs. Teresa never said she agreed with Rachel. She said they disagree on many things.

“If we are thinkin maybe we need to change with the time then we will never stop changing. Soon we also will believe in fallen grace or maybe even no Heaven at all.”

Changing with culture does not constitute changing theology. Actually my theology has changed quiet a bit, but not in the direction of “falling from grace” and I don’t think the doctrine of Heaven or Hell is in jeopardy.

“I know you said that you and Brother Chris have been studying and praying on the issue of the KJV for several years. I just dont understand how you think that you are so much smarter than all these great men of God that did the exact same thing you have but only many years before, and probably more thoroughly.”

Who said we thought we were smarter? I realize more each day of how much I have to learn. I could turn the question around and ask, how you think you are so much smarter than multitude of scholars who are on the other side of the issue.

“Its good that he knows Greek, but he’s not a scholar.”

Actually, I don’t know Greek. I am in my first year of studying it, and have already seen its importance in proper interpretation. No, I am no scholar, but I am a student, and as a student I study.

“The men who translated my Bible (the KJV) were men who were filled with the Spirit of God. I think that matters alot.”

They were! How do you know? Did someone tell you that? Weren’t they Anglicans who worked for King James, who had Baptists killed for not following Anglican doctrine? And I believe Anglicans were Calvinists.

“The men who translated these other versions obviously were not.”

Obviously! Oh, I guess you know them all.

“I dont think God would fill a man with His Spirit so that he could add to or take away from Gods Word when God clearly stated that that wasn’t to be done.”

No I guess he wouldn’t. But who added to, or took away? Do you know?

“ I know that you said you still dont agree with everything that Amy believes, but its only a matter of time.”

Well it is better to trust in the Lord, than have confidence in man (or woman). I guess I better get ready for Rachel to join the Army. And I love how you flaunt your gift of prophecy so openly.

“As far as the issue of you being impressionable goes, I stand firm on the comment I made reguarding that.”

We are all impressionable, including yourself, which is why you hold to a belief, and support it with nothing more than what you have heard some preacher say. All we ask for is Biblical evidence, but all I see is human reason.

Comment by Amy

October 1, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

Concerning those commenting in support of Rachel:
Yes some of them are my friends. Five of them are. But you can’t assume that means they believe the same as I do. Because they don’t. Of those five friends, each belongs to a different denomination or fellowship than I do. One is Lutheran. Another is Church of God. Each of us knowingly disagrees on theological issues. And yet, they are my sisters. We pray for one another, we lift each other up, we bear one another’s burdens. You see, this Church, this Body is bigger than one denomination, than one association or fellowship. And I praise God for that.

My Confusion:
What in the world do I have to do with any of this? I’ve not encouraged Rachel to read a different version of the Bible or to listen to certain kinds of music. I’ve gone out of my way to honor her beliefs and respect her church family. I’d hate to start my career known as the chaplain who goes around leading other chaplains’ wives astray. Besides, I’m not sure Anonymous knows what I believe. She/He would probably be surprised by how much we have in common. I guess it’s not really about me. It’s about the KJV and I don’t know anything about that controversy. I’ll try not to take it personally. I hope no one else is taking all of this personally.

My Prayer:
My concern is that this conversation will soon go in a direction that none of us ever wanted. It’s easy to say harsh words when we feel attacked, even more so when we feel a loved one has been wronged. As Christians, we are siblings… and sometimes sibling squabbles can become unsightly. I pray that won’t be the case here. I pray that we all will choose our words carefully. That we will ask the Holy Spirit to guide us. That we will intentionally love one another despite our differences. That those who have been offended will offer the same forgiveness and grace that Christ so freely gave to us.

Above all, I pray that God will be glorified.

Comment by Anonymous

October 1, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

Thanks Chris for your response. Lets not even go back twenty years. Lets just go back to about five or six. When you too thought it was wrong. You never said you think you are smarter, that too was just kinda implied. I really dont think you could call those men scholars. No, I dont know these men personally. Changing one word can change alot. I dont need any comment on that statment. I already saw the one on the comment Mrs. Joy left and I disagree so theres no point. I dont understand what “I better get ready for Rachel to join the army” means. Im really not even sure where it came from. You too are believing something simply by human reasoning. I didnt do any of this to get in an argument. I was just leaving a comment. A comment to Rachel, not one to Chris, Amy, Mammy, Jason…and so on. I would’ve liked for Rachel to have been the one to reply.[Sentence edited out by Rachel.] Anyway… I am glad this is all over. You will never agree to my thoughts and I will definitely never agree to yours. Try not to think too much about who I am. It doesn’t matter. Nor would you ever guess. I’m sorry this was such a scattered comment.

Comment by Chris

October 2, 2007 @ 7:55 am

Dear Anonymous,

You are welcome. It was my pleasure to respond, and I will respond to this post as well.

First, as you mentioned, about 6 years ago I believed the same thing that you do about the KJV. What happened? Well, as I sat through hours and hours of preaching on the KJV, I began to realize that these men were not proving their case. They were just making unsupported statements. They would lead me to edge of a 2000 foot wide canyon, filled with molten lava, and leave me. They would jump to a conclusion that the facts didn’t support. They expected me to jump, but I wanted to find a way across. So, I began to search for support. I went 2000 miles in each direction, but found none. I examined their arguments and realized that I couldn’t build a bridge with them. I couldn’t have built a boat either; the material would have burnt up. I asked for help, but I was told to quit studying and just pray. I believe in study. I believe in having support for my views. I don’t accept a biblical doctrine without biblical support. What more could I do? I couldn’t continue to act as if I believe this mess. That would have been dishonest. I realized there is no way across.

So, it is true that I once believed your myth. I used to defend it. Then something happened. The Spirit of truth began to guide me. I am a truth seeker. I try not to believe anything because another man believes it. (There are still many things, I am undecided about because I haven’t had the time to study them in depth yet. But I will study them eventually.) It would be easy for me to get up and preach KJV only. I know the language and I know the arguments. I could bash the modern versions with the best of them. But now I believe it is wrong. I still love the KJV. I have memorized hundreds of verses from it. As a matter of fact, I have never memorized a verse out of any other version. I haven’t quit using it, and I don’t want anyone to. I believe churches should have a uniform translation used in teaching and preaching. So keep using it.

You completely misunderstood me if you thought I implied that I was smarter than these other men. No, I never implied that. How do you come to that conclusion? I respect many of these men greatly. I know they study and seek to honor God. But Anonymous, I am not going to put my confidence in them. I put my confidence in the word of God. God’s word does not teach a one version only doctrine. Here is what I think of them:

• I believe many of them have never actually studied the issue with an open mind. If I set out to prove a point which I have already made up my mind on, I will probably ignore facts that do not support my point. I believe this is obvious in much of the writings of KJV only authors.
• I believe many of them are full of pride and self-righteousness and willfully ignore facts so they can be popular in the movement.
• Some are just flat out liars. They saw an opportunity to sell a book and get speaking engagements and they jumped all over it.
• Most followers have never studied the issue at all.

Scholar:
1. One who learns of a teacher; one who is under the tuition of a preceptor; a pupil; a disciple; hence, any member of a college, academy or school; applicable to the learner of any art, science or branch of literature.
2. A man of letters.
3. Emphatically used, a man eminent for erudition; a person of high attainments in science or literature.
4. One that learns any thing; as an apt scholar in the school of vice.
5. A pedant; a man of books. [But the word scholar seldom conveys the idea of a pedant.]

You said you wouldn’t consider those men scholars. According to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, they are scholars. How do you define scholars? When I used the term scholar I was referring to someone who has great knowledge of a particular subject. The men I was referring to fit that definition perfectly.

No, I do not believe something simply by human reason. I refuse to believe the KJV only doctrine based on flawed logic. As I keep pointing out, there is no support. It is not a faith issue, because it is not taught in the Bible. I look at facts. Facts do not support the KJV only theory. Facts do not support any one-version only theory.

Now, you made a comment to Rachel, on her public blog. There were private ways to do it. So, the way it works is that your comment to Rachel becomes a comment about Rachel to Rachel’s readers. You misrepresented her and Amy. You did not leave your name. So anything said to you, as Anonymous, in regard to the comment cannot be taken personally. Rachel is my wife. As my wife I lead her in spiritual matters. I shared with Rachel everything I studied. When you question her on this issue, you question me. That is why I felt the need to respond. If you are a woman, you should respect that. If you are a man, you have no business bringing this issue up with another man’s wife.

I don’t know who you are. I do think it matters. Your logic is flawed and your argument is weak. I hope this is over.

I will not let you have the last word.

Comment by Cassandra

October 2, 2007 @ 1:13 pm

Wow, I haven’t checked this post in the last few days, and it really has grown, hasn’t it? I left a comment on the post about Chris’s comment about where I stand on the KJV. One of the things I said is that one thing that has made me a little wary of new translations is all the fighting, strife, and contentions among Christians because of them. And I think it’s plain to see that once again, the mere mention of KJV-only, (by anonymous in the first place) has inspired comment after comment about KJV versus other translations. I am a Baptist preacher’s wife- I see it all the time! And I grow weary of it. I, too, have studied, and read bits of other translations, and I still believe that KJV is the way to go. I am not a mindless robot that just does what I hear preached and taught about- (and believe me, I hear alot of preaching about KJV only- at all of the camp meetings, tent revivals, and special meetings my husband and I attend!) and while I don’t understand exactly everything, I know what I believe. But, like I said earlier, I am not *harsh* in what I believe. I don’t believe I will ever change, but I don’t hate those who don’t agree with me. Personally, I try to stay out of the whole thing. See, I hate confrontation, and as we can see, this whole subject causes *alot* of controversary. Sigh. I’ve listened to so many arguments from both sides. It’s getting old. = )

Comment by Cassandra

October 2, 2007 @ 1:20 pm

And Rachel, even if you don’t always read the KJV, (rolling eyes and saying, Sheesh) I love your blog, I love your spirit, and I love your personality. You somehow remind me of me in ways! Even if Christians beleive differently, they can still be friends. Obviously, anonymous doesn’t think so. So, to anonymous, I say, I didn’t meet Rachel through Amy, I have known her, through the blog, for a while now. I don’t share her same views on the KJV, but you know what, eternally speaking, does that matter? What is our job here on earth? To reach sinners and point them to Christ, right? Or is it to sit around and argue KJV only? Somehow, I don’t think that’s it. So, I’ll keep reading my KJV, reading Rachel’s blog, reaching souls for Christ through soul winning, and I’ll stand by what I beleive. With my name proudly posted…. no hiding here.

Comment by Amy

October 2, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

Cassandra said “Sheesh” … that makes me somehow automatically love her.

Comment by Rachel

October 2, 2007 @ 2:51 pm

Thank you to everyone who has left comments. I appreciate all of you who have defended me or simply expressed your love for me. I am so thankful for all of my friends and family, those I’ve met in person and those I’ve met online. I love you all, and I am thankful for you.

Anonymous, I hope that you will forgive me if I have done anything that was not Christlike or kind, and I offer you my forgiveness for the things that hurt my feelings. I hope that we can learn from this, and strive to, in all things, love each other as Christ loved us. I do hope, though, that you will pray about contacting me privately and working this out. It is a bit worrisome to me to see people I know and wonder if they are Anonymous. I am praying that you will contact me, and I hope that you will consider it. Your identity will never be made known on my blog. I just wish we could end this in peace.

Again, I am thankful for all of you. I am thankful for those who have said you love me, and I am thankful for the way Anonymous’ post has helped me to examine myself and my motives. I hope that we will all learn how important it is to extend love, mercy, and respect to each other as His children and always strive to glorify Him.