CCW at Church

[Guest Boomhower]

My question is regarding churches, is when is it considered a school? Since the church has a sunday school section for children and daycare and classes are taught is it then considered a school and therefor off limits? Rob

I going to say that it has something to do with the state and government mandates. The church, I wouldn't think, wouldn't fall under any of those.

[dralarms]

My church has a uniformed police officer at the child care section of the building. My question is regarding churches, is when is it considered a school? Since the church has a sunday school section for children and daycare and classes are taught is it then considered a school and therefor off limits? Rob

It's a school if:

1. they teach k through 12 or anything in between.

2. College

3. state funded child development center (Just 4 of some other class like that).

Sunday school does NOT classify as school.

[Guest cdsusong]

In our particular set up, we do have a school that leases our facility. However the school is in a separate building from the sanctuary. We do have Sunday school classes in that building but it is youth only. Since the church does not officially run the school......I believe it is OK to carry. I really do believe that if a person keeps it truly concealed, by this I mean no one knows but me, my wife and God, its all good. I didn't get a chance to talk to the pastor tonight but i will asap.

[PackinMama]

I carry everywhere, church included. My grandfather-in law was at my house the day the church shooting happened in Knoxville......the special report interrupted his golf tournament on tv. Him and I frequently get into debates about carrying......he doesn't think it's necessary and he thinks I'm "scared" and "paranoid." My response is always "No, I'd be scared without my gun, and I'm not paranoid, just prepared." Anyway, after the tv report I said, "See that? You never know when you might need a gun, even at church." He proceeds to tell me that if I were to shoot someone, even in self defense, that I would still be sinning because I'd be breaking the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I just shook my head and quit talking to him at that point. I'm not near as knowledgable about the bible as I should be......so I couldn't really think of anything in the bible to back me up that it's ok to kill someone that's trying to kill you. What do you guys think about that one?

I could use some "ammo" for this sundays visit!

[strickj]

You know what Jesus said to his disciples before he sent them to do work?

If you dont have a sword sell your cloak and buy one.

[tnroadrunner]

It's actually "Thou shall not murder" was the original saying.

[Guest Linoge]

tnraodrunner beat me to it - according to most translations, the original text read "Thou shalt not murder." I think it was the Latin-to-next-language that fuzzified that particular problem. At any rate, most churches make exceptions for self-defense (non-premeditated, and only if the killing is absolutely necessary for the preservation of your life or another's) and wartime.

More topically, once my holster arrives (no exucse, I know), I will carry any time I am out of the house and anywhere I am legally permitted to do so - and, yes, that means church.

[Guest grimel]

He proceeds to tell me that if I were to shoot someone, even in self defense, that I would still be sinning because I'd be breaking the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I just shook my head and quit talking to him at that point. I'm not near as knowledgable about the bible as I should be......so I couldn't really think of anything in the bible to back me up that it's ok to kill someone that's trying to kill you. What do you guys think about that one?

I could use some "ammo" for this sundays visit! :D

If he read his Bible as much as he ran his mouth he wouldn't have made that ignorant statement. The proper modern translation (people used to understand these things) is Thou shall not murder. There is a reason the Law (the 10 Commandments are just a small part of it) makes allowances in punishment for self defense and accidental killings. Also, it would be rather insane for God to make a rule and then tell you to violate it (i.e. telling Saul to go kill every man, woman, and child).

That "should" be enough, but, there is a lot more if one takes a few minutes to do the research.

[analog_kidd]

I don't see how that translated to "Thou Shalt not murder..."

Luke 22:36 (New International Version)

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

[robbiev]

I don't see how that translated to "Thou Shalt not murder..."

I don't think that's what the post meant. I believe he was commenting that even Jesus told his disciples to go get swords (the sidearm of the day) if they didn't have one.

On the other issue: Others have said it, "Thou shald not murder" (or kill unjustly) is the original phrase. I think it's pretty clear considering that the Bible is full people being killed with God's approval, and the fact that God condoned killing animals. He clearly did not mean "Never kill, ever." The original Hebrew word is "ratsach" which is normally translated as "murder" and not just "kill."

The only issue you should have is if your grandfather is one of the "The KJV is the only real Bible" people, or if he just simply chooses not to believe you.

Edited August 17, 2008 by robbiev
spelling correction

[Guest Boomhower]

That "should" be enough

It will never be enough. She can argue with her grandfather til she's blue in the face, and it just won't matter. I'd compare it to convincing a dem to change over to being a repub.

[Guest sermon8r]

It's actually "Thou shall not murder" was the original saying.

+1 from a Preacher...with a HCP

[PackinMama]

Thanks everyone for all the input. I've done some reading and highlighting in my bible myself this week....and I think I'm ready for tomorrows visit

Exodus 22:2 says, "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed."

I don't think that's what the post meant. I believe he was commenting that even Jesus told his disiples to go get swords (the sidearm of the day) if they didn't have one.

On the other issue: Others have said it, "Thou shald not murder" (or kill unjustly) is the original phrase. I think it's pretty clear considering that the Bible is full people being killed with God's approval, and the fact that God condoned killing animals. He clearly did not mean "Never kill, ever." The original Hebrew word is "ratsach" which is normally translated as "murder" and not just "kill."

The only issue you should have is if your grandfather is one of the "The KJV is the only real Bible" people, or if he just simply chooses not to believe you.

That's exactly how he is! I got out my NIV along with my KJV last sunday and he told me that the KJV was the "correct" translation and that these other versions "added" and "changed" a lot.

It will never be enough. She can argue with her grandfather til she's blue in the face, and it just won't matter. I'd compare it to convincing a dem to change over to being a repub.

Dang Boom!! I didn't know you knew my grandfather!!! LOL

[robbiev]

That's exactly how he is! I got out my NIV along with my KJV last sunday and he told me that the KJV was the "correct" translation and that these other versions "added" and "changed" a lot.

Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck then. Some of the KJV people are more stubborn than anybody.

[Guest sermon8r]

Some interesting facts of the KJV... not ment to hijack the thread..

The Proposal of John Reynolds

by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Out of the year 1611 one of the most beloved and widely used translations of the Bible emerged, The King James Version. Since then, the King James Version has long been admired throughout the centuries. It seems there is an attraction to its poetical arrangement and uplifting tone of phraseology. Most people are convinced that the language used, which is sixteenth century English, could actually be the most beautiful sounding language of all. But where did this beloved treasure come from? Who wrote it? Was it a man named King James? Was he actually a king? It may be helpful to understand the answers to these questions for our personal edification and help to others. As to not belabor these questions, let us find out what the real story is behind this version of the Bible.

The King James Version was born out of a need to still the voices of godly ministers who relied heavily on the Geneva Bible and the exceptionally well written notes in the margins which taught that Christians should not obey corrupt Kings who ordered them to obey even in wicked instances. The Bishop's Bible, the Great Bible, the Tyndale Bible and the Coverdale Bible could be found in various churches, yet for a generation they had not been revised nor had they been reprinted. The Geneva bible has been the favorite of Puritans for 50 years, and found its final revision in 1599. King James, though, being the wicked man he was, did not want the notes of the Geneva Bible circulated as far and wide as they had. He desired another translation to be made without notes.

When Queen Elizabeth died, on March 24, 1603, the crown of England passed to a man named James I, who had already worn the crown of Scotland for thirty-seven years as James VI. Some months after his coming to England, James summoned a conference of churchmen and theologians at Hampton Court "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church". Nothing much came about from the Hampton Court conference, which was held in January of 1604, except (and a notable exception it was) the resolution that a translation should be made of the whole Bible. This new translation was to be as close to original Hebrew and Greek as it could possibly come. Then from the point of completion, this new Bible was to be used in all the churches as its' approved text. But why? The Geneva Bible had served the reformational mind-set with great fervor. Why did James want another translation made?

Three reasons prompted King James I to make a new translation. One reason was the “back to the Bible” movement trying to recapture the true meaning of scripture as a result of the Reformation, and the King desired to ride that soap box as a way to “identify with the people” as best he could. The second reason was the scholarship which was beginning to become prominent during the Renaissance. Being a King during the reign of scholarship was always something that has been noted in history. It was another way King James would be “remembered.” Thirdly, the King detested the current bible. The most beloved bible was the Geneva Bible. It was the favorite of Puritans and almost every home had one. But the Geneva Bible had something the other bibles had not previously had – extensive notes reflecting reformation thought. This was dangerous to the King because of his immoral lifestyle. (He was a very corrupt king, and a sodomite as well.) The Geneva Bible extensively spoke against corrupt kings. King James did not favor this at all. So he desired a new translation without notes.

The proposal for a new translation came from Dr. John Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College at Oxford, a leader of the Puritan side in the Church of England, and one of the greatest scholars of his day. Reynold's proposal caught King James' fancy and he set in order the machinery to bring about the translation. King James himself took a leading part in organizing the work of translation. Six panels of translators, (54 in all), had the work divided up between them; the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one. Two of the panels met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. The qualifications of the King's translators and the guide rules set up assured the best revision possible at the time. Some of the guide rules for format were as follows: "it was laid down that the old ecclesiastical words were to be kept, ("church" and not "congregation" for example). Marginal notes were to be used only to explain Hebrew and Greek words, and to draw attention to parallel passages. Words necessary to complete the sense of meaning were to be printed in distinctive type. The existing chapter and verse divisions were to be retained, and new headings were to be supplied for the chapters." Some of the workers died before the completed text and others were found to replace them. A letter speaks of fifty-four translators, however, only forty-eight names have been preserved.

What ancient texts did they work with? They had the Complutensian Polygot of 1517, published at Complutum, now in Alcala de Hanares, Spain, and they had the Antwerp Polygot, 1569-1572. These gave the Hebrew and Greek texts with versions in other tongues added. Of course they had the Latin Vulgate, though that was suspect because it was popish and uninspired. With some fragments of early church scrolls, they had countless comments by the early church fathers and ancient scholars. Often they referred to Saint Chrysostom, (347-407 A.D.), whose works Sir Henry Saville had begun to edit, with the help from Andrew Downes and John Bois. Another reference authority was the Geneva scholar, Theodore Beza, (1519-1605 A.D.).

The outcome was not a bible literally translated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, but a redaction of the Geneva bible (20%) and the Bishop’s Bible (80%) but all without notes. Some of the more difficult passages were translated from the original, but most of the Bible was cutting and pasting from the other sources.

After the final draft was completed by the fifty-four scholars, a concluding committee of twelve reviewed what the lower committees had prepared, and then Bishop Thomas Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith added the finishing touches. By 1609 the whole revision was ready for the public. Though the King contributed no money to its production, and though no record of an official authorization of the finished product survives, if such were ever given, the Bible became to be known as the King James Version. Miles Smith, Canon of Hereford, later to be known as the Bishop of Gloucestor, and Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, saw it through the press, and Miles Smith composed the informative preface, "The Translators to the Readers.” The title of this new translation was: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues, with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall commandment. Appointed to be read in the Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. Anno Dom. 1611." The New Testament Bore a different title: “The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Newly translated out of the Originall Greeke; and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by His majesties speciall Commandment. Imprinted at London by Robert Baker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. Anno Dom. 1611. cum Privilegio.”

Though the King James Bible was never “authorized” by King James, it was called the authorized King James Version nevertheless. "Many stood up against the King James Version. Dr. Hugh Boughton, a distinguished scholar recognized by John Lightfoot, said "The late Bible...was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches...The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." Even John Lightfoot, in 1629, objected to the Apocrypha being placed in the canon. The King James Version went through fifteen printings in the first three years. It seems many disagreed with its translation and the committees were forced to revise it over and over again. The first major revision being some months after the 1609 version and the authorized version (1611) came two years after.

It was not until 1662 that the King James Version was beginning to be used in Churches. The popularity of the King James Version today has grown exceedingly compared to its very unpopular beginning years. People are constantly quoting that erroneous statement "the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus and Paul, it is good enough for me!" It is easy to see the dedication to such a beautiful translation in the King's English, though any church historian knows that Paul or Jesus never carried it around with them. Why is it that so many cling to such a "sacred" translation? To see one obvious reason is to observe the fact that it is popular. Another reason would be the poetical structure and the flowing words which come out with grace as one reads. People say that the first Bible one reads is the one he or she falls in love with. As the King James Bible became a “fad” in England as a result of the King’s desire to rid his court with the Geneva notes, people began to find its appeal more and more.

Yet, many think the Kings English far too outdated. To state such an example would be to observe the odd sentences used throughout the King James Version. Such as, "To brake his skull-Judges 9:53, Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing-Psalm 5:6, The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour-Job 36:33, and also, Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels-II Corinthians 6:12. There are also various words which are seemingly foreign to most twentieth century readers. Such as, "ouches of gold"-Exodus 28:11, "collops of fat"-Job 15:27, "Wimples"-Isa. 3:22, and "cast clouts" in Jer. 38:12. What does all this mean to the modern reader? It means that those who are fanatics concerning this translation are going to spend long hours trying to decipher the English text. Would it not be more sensible to decipher the Greek or Hebrew than to spend the time trying to figure out what sixteenth century English says? Possibly. Of course there will be forever the numerous "traditional" King James adherers, and they shall have their own opinion about the meaning of scripture. The traditionalists sometimes forget that new texts and fragments appear and add to the more concise meaning to scripture rendering it a better translation than its' predecessor. Yet even as such staunch readers hold fast to the King James Version of 1611, to their surprise they have been readily deceived. They actually carry a translation rewritten about 158 years later! The King James Version underwent a flutter of minor revisions until a final revision was brought about by Dr. Benjamin Blaney in 1769. This revision was not authorized. Not until 1881 was an official revision done. Even for the traditionalist, the actual English of 1611 would be a task in deciphering in itself. Yet, it must be agreed upon that once these archaic terms are overcome, the translation read quite nicely.

In saying all of this, I must emphatically assert that the KJV bible is an excellent translation since it is simply a recompilation of the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible. It is unfortunate that the Geneva Bible is not readily available today, although facsimile versions abound. Of the translations which are available today I would certainly choose to read the KJV over most, if not all.

Edited August 17, 2008 by sermon8r

[The Average Joe]

I'm a member of a Missionary Baptist Church not far from the Nashville Fairgrounds. It's located a few blocks off of Nolensville Road. The congregation has had all kids of freaks walk in on the sermon. Night time revivals are the time to really be on your guard.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with me carrying within the church, especially if I sat there with my mouth shut about it. I don't think the Sunday School Teachers, the Song Leader, or the Preacher are up to doing a weapons search before the sermon begins.

[dralarms]

Some interesting facts of the KJV... not ment to hijack the thread..

The Proposal of John Reynolds

by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Out of the year 1611 one of the most beloved and widely used translations of the Bible emerged, The King James Version. Since then, the King James Version has long been admired throughout the centuries. It seems there is an attraction to its poetical arrangement and uplifting tone of phraseology. Most people are convinced that the language used, which is sixteenth century English, could actually be the most beautiful sounding language of all. But where did this beloved treasure come from? Who wrote it? Was it a man named King James? Was he actually a king? It may be helpful to understand the answers to these questions for our personal edification and help to others. As to not belabor these questions, let us find out what the real story is behind this version of the Bible.

The King James Version was born out of a need to still the voices of godly ministers who relied heavily on the Geneva Bible and the exceptionally well written notes in the margins which taught that Christians should not obey corrupt Kings who ordered them to obey even in wicked instances. The Bishop's Bible, the Great Bible, the Tyndale Bible and the Coverdale Bible could be found in various churches, yet for a generation they had not been revised nor had they been reprinted. The Geneva bible has been the favorite of Puritans for 50 years, and found its final revision in 1599. King James, though, being the wicked man he was, did not want the notes of the Geneva Bible circulated as far and wide as they had. He desired another translation to be made without notes.

When Queen Elizabeth died, on March 24, 1603, the crown of England passed to a man named James I, who had already worn the crown of Scotland for thirty-seven years as James VI. Some months after his coming to England, James summoned a conference of churchmen and theologians at Hampton Court "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church". Nothing much came about from the Hampton Court conference, which was held in January of 1604, except (and a notable exception it was) the resolution that a translation should be made of the whole Bible. This new translation was to be as close to original Hebrew and Greek as it could possibly come. Then from the point of completion, this new Bible was to be used in all the churches as its' approved text. But why? The Geneva Bible had served the reformational mind-set with great fervor. Why did James want another translation made?

Three reasons prompted King James I to make a new translation. One reason was the “back to the Bible†movement trying to recapture the true meaning of scripture as a result of the Reformation, and the King desired to ride that soap box as a way to “identify with the people†as best he could. The second reason was the scholarship which was beginning to become prominent during the Renaissance. Being a King during the reign of scholarship was always something that has been noted in history. It was another way King James would be “remembered.†Thirdly, the King detested the current bible. The most beloved bible was the Geneva Bible. It was the favorite of Puritans and almost every home had one. But the Geneva Bible had something the other bibles had not previously had – extensive notes reflecting reformation thought. This was dangerous to the King because of his immoral lifestyle. (He was a very corrupt king, and a sodomite as well.) The Geneva Bible extensively spoke against corrupt kings. King James did not favor this at all. So he desired a new translation without notes.

The proposal for a new translation came from Dr. John Reynolds, President of Corpus Christi College at Oxford, a leader of the Puritan side in the Church of England, and one of the greatest scholars of his day. Reynold's proposal caught King James' fancy and he set in order the machinery to bring about the translation. King James himself took a leading part in organizing the work of translation. Six panels of translators, (54 in all), had the work divided up between them; the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one. Two of the panels met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. The qualifications of the King's translators and the guide rules set up assured the best revision possible at the time. Some of the guide rules for format were as follows: "it was laid down that the old ecclesiastical words were to be kept, ("church" and not "congregation" for example). Marginal notes were to be used only to explain Hebrew and Greek words, and to draw attention to parallel passages. Words necessary to complete the sense of meaning were to be printed in distinctive type. The existing chapter and verse divisions were to be retained, and new headings were to be supplied for the chapters." Some of the workers died before the completed text and others were found to replace them. A letter speaks of fifty-four translators, however, only forty-eight names have been preserved.

What ancient texts did they work with? They had the Complutensian Polygot of 1517, published at Complutum, now in Alcala de Hanares, Spain, and they had the Antwerp Polygot, 1569-1572. These gave the Hebrew and Greek texts with versions in other tongues added. Of course they had the Latin Vulgate, though that was suspect because it was popish and uninspired. With some fragments of early church scrolls, they had countless comments by the early church fathers and ancient scholars. Often they referred to Saint Chrysostom, (347-407 A.D.), whose works Sir Henry Saville had begun to edit, with the help from Andrew Downes and John Bois. Another reference authority was the Geneva scholar, Theodore Beza, (1519-1605 A.D.).

The outcome was not a bible literally translated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, but a redaction of the Geneva bible (20%) and the Bishop’s Bible (80%) but all without notes. Some of the more difficult passages were translated from the original, but most of the Bible was cutting and pasting from the other sources.

After the final draft was completed by the fifty-four scholars, a concluding committee of twelve reviewed what the lower committees had prepared, and then Bishop Thomas Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith added the finishing touches. By 1609 the whole revision was ready for the public. Though the King contributed no money to its production, and though no record of an official authorization of the finished product survives, if such were ever given, the Bible became to be known as the King James Version. Miles Smith, Canon of Hereford, later to be known as the Bishop of Gloucestor, and Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, saw it through the press, and Miles Smith composed the informative preface, "The Translators to the Readers.†The title of this new translation was: "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues, with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall commandment. Appointed to be read in the Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. Anno Dom. 1611." The New Testament Bore a different title: “The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Newly translated out of the Originall Greeke; and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by His majesties speciall Commandment. Imprinted at London by Robert Baker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. Anno Dom. 1611. cum Privilegio.â€

Though the King James Bible was never “authorized†by King James, it was called the authorized King James Version nevertheless. "Many stood up against the King James Version. Dr. Hugh Boughton, a distinguished scholar recognized by John Lightfoot, said "The late Bible...was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches...The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." Even John Lightfoot, in 1629, objected to the Apocrypha being placed in the canon. The King James Version went through fifteen printings in the first three years. It seems many disagreed with its translation and the committees were forced to revise it over and over again. The first major revision being some months after the 1609 version and the authorized version (1611) came two years after.

It was not until 1662 that the King James Version was beginning to be used in Churches. The popularity of the King James Version today has grown exceedingly compared to its very unpopular beginning years. People are constantly quoting that erroneous statement "the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus and Paul, it is good enough for me!" It is easy to see the dedication to such a beautiful translation in the King's English, though any church historian knows that Paul or Jesus never carried it around with them. Why is it that so many cling to such a "sacred" translation? To see one obvious reason is to observe the fact that it is popular. Another reason would be the poetical structure and the flowing words which come out with grace as one reads. People say that the first Bible one reads is the one he or she falls in love with. As the King James Bible became a “fad†in England as a result of the King’s desire to rid his court with the Geneva notes, people began to find its appeal more and more.

Yet, many think the Kings English far too outdated. To state such an example would be to observe the odd sentences used throughout the King James Version. Such as, "To brake his skull-Judges 9:53, Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing-Psalm 5:6, The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour-Job 36:33, and also, Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels-II Corinthians 6:12. There are also various words which are seemingly foreign to most twentieth century readers. Such as, "ouches of gold"-Exodus 28:11, "collops of fat"-Job 15:27, "Wimples"-Isa. 3:22, and "cast clouts" in Jer. 38:12. What does all this mean to the modern reader? It means that those who are fanatics concerning this translation are going to spend long hours trying to decipher the English text. Would it not be more sensible to decipher the Greek or Hebrew than to spend the time trying to figure out what sixteenth century English says? Possibly. Of course there will be forever the numerous "traditional" King James adherers, and they shall have their own opinion about the meaning of scripture. The traditionalists sometimes forget that new texts and fragments appear and add to the more concise meaning to scripture rendering it a better translation than its' predecessor. Yet even as such staunch readers hold fast to the King James Version of 1611, to their surprise they have been readily deceived. They actually carry a translation rewritten about 158 years later! The King James Version underwent a flutter of minor revisions until a final revision was brought about by Dr. Benjamin Blaney in 1769. This revision was not authorized. Not until 1881 was an official revision done. Even for the traditionalist, the actual English of 1611 would be a task in deciphering in itself. Yet, it must be agreed upon that once these archaic terms are overcome, the translation read quite nicely.

In saying all of this, I must emphatically assert that the KJV bible is an excellent translation since it is simply a recompilation of the Geneva Bible and the Bishops Bible. It is unfortunate that the Geneva Bible is not readily available today, although facsimile versions abound. Of the translations which are available today I would certainly choose to read the KJV over most, if not all.

Wow I was not aware of the history around the KJV.

[edellson]

As part of the security team at our fellowship I can tell you that although not needed but in rare instances, it is those rare instances you need to have a plan for the safety of your fellowship. Focusing such as making sure only minimal access to entrances to the building (keeping all doors locked is usually a job in its self) and parking lot mischief. Not everyone needs to be armed for this task and unless one has a carry permit no one needs to carry in an organized security team. With that being said what about the liability - not much of a question in our fellowship. The protection of our family and friends out weighs the fear of a corrupt politicial system.

When seconds matter help is only minutes away!

[dralarms]

Here is something that most of you do not know (judging from some of the comments), according to the state fire marshal (they guy who can come in at any time and lock your doors until you do what he says is law) you can NOT (and I stress NOT), lock the doors of any place of assembly while an assembly is taking place. I've been fighting with him on a church that wants access control on all their doors and what I had to do to get approval is crazy, but to give you an idea here it is:

1. request to exit motion (this automaticlly unlocks the door as you approach),

2. request to exit button (this is backup incase the motion fails, Not likely)

3. During "open hours" the system must automaticlly unlock the doors.

4. they have a card (or will have once the system is in place) to unlock the doors to the sancuary while they are holding services.

On top of that, they have a "child development cented" on site which from my limited understanding, you can't carry, it's treated like a school. So they are screwed.

[edellson]

Here is something that most of you do not know (judging from some of the comments), according to the state fire marshal (they guy who can come in at any time and lock your doors until you do what he says is law) you can NOT (and I stress NOT), lock the doors of any place of assembly while an assembly is taking place. I've been fighting with him on a church that wants access control on all their doors and what I had to do to get approval is crazy, but to give you an idea here it is:

1. request to exit motion (this automaticlly unlocks the door as you approach),

2. request to exit button (this is backup incase the motion fails, Not likely)

3. During "open hours" the system must automaticlly unlock the doors.

4. they have a card (or will have once the system is in place) to unlock the doors to the sancuary while they are holding services.

On top of that, they have a "child development cented" on site which from my limited understanding, you can't carry, it's treated like a school. So they are screwed.

I must admit that I am not up to date on Fire codes, but seems to me that if a locked door can be opened from the inside without a key what would be the infraction. It is not locking people in but intruders out.

[Guest sermon8r]

I must admit that I am not up to date on Fire codes, but seems to me that if a locked door can be opened from the inside without a key what would be the infraction. It is not locking people in but intruders out.

I guess locking the FD out.... it isnt like they have an AX to open the door if they had to.......

[dralarms]

I must admit that I am not up to date on Fire codes, but seems to me that if a locked door can be opened from the inside without a key what would be the infraction. It is not locking people in but intruders out.

I tried that arguement, never got a satisfactory answer.

I guess locking the FD out.... it isnt like they have an AX to open the door if they had to.......

Yea the bad part is the doors are aluminum framed glass doors, not like the FD can't just bust it out anyway.

Oh on top of all that, if the fire alarm goes off it unlocks the door anyway. so the FD question should NOT be an issue.

[Guest Boomhower]

Dang Boom!! I didn't know you knew my grandfather!!! LOL

....Nope, just know several like him!!

[mhm2a]

I also carry in church, but not as any part of a team. My goal would be to get my family to safety. I also try to sit in a position that I can view most of the exits/entrances. It is sad that you have to be so prepared in God's house.

[Guest cdsusong]

I did get a chance to talk to our pastor this weekend. He said the staff has been discussing this very issue. They are thinking of posting a uniformed guard at the main entrance as a deterent. I did let him know that there are a few that have the CCW and carry at church. He felt some comfort in knowing that but he has some feelings of concern because as we all know, it does not take alot to get the permit to carry. We could have one of those guys with the Highpoint 40cal strapped to his belt with the wanna-be badge pinned to his chest. The pastor wants to contact the attorney to see what we can and can't do as far as a security team. I believe we need to get a few guys with permits and training for critical situations in place soon. I have checked some of the "Church Security" web sights and they seem more focused on the primary target than the flock if you know what I mean. There has to be a lot of thought put into a security team as well as scrutiny. Hopefully we can get something going very soon. I will let you know what we decide and the direction we will go.