A proposal

I think it's a great idea. :thumbsup:

 

No.


HankD

 

No.

Excuse me, where are my manners?

No, thank you!

 

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

HankD

 

Interesting proposal, Tom. How would it be given teeth in regards to the KJVO bashing of anything that is not a KJV? Or does not use the exact same source texts?

I would have no problem not discussing KJVO. In fact, I would love to never have to deal with it again. However there's no way we can stand by while someone talks trash about the bible, no matter what translation it is.

If you can get the KJVO to keep their personal convictions personal I can hang with it. If not then the whole proposal is doomed before it has a chance.

 

I suppose that I should post my reasons for saying "no".

1. I HAVE learned many new things about both sides of this issue from the discussions.

2. If a nooB were to come to the BB seeking honest answers (or dishonest ones, for that matter) they are not likely to do a search or look at a 'pinned' thread for the answer.

3. I do not see how this issue "wastes" any more bandwidth than say the C-A issue.

4. I think the moderators do a good job of moderating and deleting personal attacks. And I have been the recipient of edits- well deserved ones, by the way. However, many times "personal" attacks are in the eye of the beholder. To point out LEGITIMATE errors in the doctrine of OVOism is NOT to attack the KJV nor is it to attack a brother in Christ who uses the KJV exclusively. In like manner, To point out LEGITIMATE errors in MV's is NOT to attack MV's nor is it to attack a brother in Christ who uses the MV'S.

That's my take.

 

As long as we can ban any discussions on Calvinism or Arminianism it's fine. :smilewinkgrin:

While we're at it, lets ban discussions on politics, osas, end times....as these topics have been talked to death also.

 

So many dead horses to beat, so little time.

HankD

 

That would work for me. I have no problem hitting the "Report" button on either side as I want peace. I have been guilty of getting a bit too passionate myself so I have no problem with anyone reporting me as well.

I have learned a good bit myself. There are several posters here who are very knowledgeable, and I have learned a lot about the "other side" along the way, too. Even so the constant fighting has gotten very, very old.

 

I'm still against it.

When you get an infection, you are told to be persistent and take every prescribed dose of the antibiotic.

It's the same principle.

The more we intelligently and with love persuade those who are infected with error the better.

Otherwise it will go elsewhere and continue to thrive.
Everyone everywhere be persistent in doing their part.

HankD

 

Whatever is decided, obviously I can live with.

Since a proposal was made and input requested I made my contribution.

My assumption is that we will still be free to quote from the KJV and call it the inspired, infallible and inerrant word of God with the understanding that the the terms "inspiration", "infallibility" and "inerancy" are legitimate terms due to the derivation of the English and their faithfulness of the text of the original language mss as we would any translation.

Another assumption is that terms like "strongly preferred" even "above all others" in relation to the KJV or any other English non-cultic translation will still be allowed.

Frankly, I don't think it will work as there are too many ways of disguising the error of KJVO. An error alive and well, dividing the Body of Christ.

Again, since it strikes at the very doctrine of the plenary inspiration, inerancy and infallibility of the Scripture, I think it is too soon to put this proposal into effect.

Plus we will further stigmatize the BB and give the radical KJVO folks more ammunition to smear us with. There will probably be drive-bys and hit-and-runs.

An alternative solution: An "all-Christian" KJVO forum (perhaps on a trial basis) where the issue can be isolated, where folks can visit (or not) while all other forums will have the protection you speak of.

A forum where truth and godly scholarship and history can be brought forth rather than emotion, feelings and sentimentality based upon the outrageous and radical doctrines of one or two of the base-line KJVO leadership.

All that aside, I will stand by and defend whatever decision is made.

HankD

 

I believe it would effectively kill any dialogue in this forum, and this forum IS needed because the KJVO issue is one of the most-divisive issues in Baptist churches today. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

I have learned some new things here, and I've been involved in anti-KJVO activities since the early 1980s, having read virtually every important pieca KJVO literature out there. I think it's simply too big an issue to simply sweep under the rug without further discussion, especially since there are people becoming Christians every day who will eventually be faced with this issue.

P.S.

There are Scriptures that seemta support both Calvinism & Arminianism, but not their extreme positions, while there are NONE that support KJVO whatsoever.

 

I would vote “no”, because like many of the others, I have been learning some things.

 

I'm against it since it would deprive us of the best entertainment the Internet has to offer.

 

You know, funny you should mention it...


HankD