A proposal

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TomVols, Apr 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, I've been a member of this board for almost ten years now and am a former moderator of this forum. And in that time, we've broken no new ground. None.

    So here's what I propose:

    A point/counter point, much like the "four views" type books. Let a KJVO state their position. Let a non KJVO reply. Then flip it around. Post this and pin it to the top.

    Then from now on, any discussion of KJVO is off limits and subject to penalty.

    My reasons for this: (1) We're not learning anything new; (2) Legitimate threads are being hijacked with this nonsense; (3) We're wasting valuable bandwidth; (4) The fact that some do not accept one or the other leads the campers to engage in personal attacks; (5) I've seen this discussed on other forums and the attacks don't happen, so there's something in the water around here; (6) When I have seen this on another board, this was used with good success.

    Just a proposal.
     
  2. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's a great idea. :thumbsup:
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    No.


    HankD
     
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    Excuse me, where are my manners?

    No, thank you!
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

    HankD
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    So many dead horses to beat, so little time.

    HankD
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a KJVO is really attacked, or if the KJV is attacked, the thread is closed and the person given an infraction. If a KJVO attacks the Word, then the same happens.

    First I've heard of that in here.
    It's been almost ten years for me around here. I've yet to see such truly happen.

    Because this whole thread is dedicated to it, whereas C and A doesn't have such and was eliminated, much like this thread has almost been in the past. Plus, you find much more repetition here than you do with C vs A.

    And to some extent, therein the rub lies. The moderating has gotten better. But people are muddying the waters by accusing non KJVO mods of being up to no good. There was even a time when there was a requirement that mods hold one or the other views for balancing.

    I'm not married to my idea of a proposal. But saving the proposal as it stands, I'd like to see more iron fists from the mods. We see this from time to time. It's just so disconcerting to see this discussion be had on some boards and yet you come here and it's nuclear war at times.
     
  11. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank, I agree with you in theory. However, the board has acted in the past with regard to Catholicism, espousal of pro-gay themes, pro-cult thinking, etc. It got us nowhere. Just wondering if this isn't cut from the same cloth.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
    #14 HankD, Apr 28, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2010
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Note, I'm not empowered to do any of this...just making a suggestion.

    I'd agree with that.

    I hear you, but since Catholicsm, homosexuality, and other topics now off limits do the same, there is precedent. And it's not that this goes away...it's that it gets answered and we don't rehash what's been rehashed.
    We have this anyway.
    A good proposal that yours truly made years ago and quickly got shot down. At one time we had a Calvinism vs Arminianism forum, but that got eliminated and the threads merged into the theology forum, one of the worst decisions the powers that be ever made.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one's sweeping anything under the rug, just getting the rehashed stuff out of the way.

    There's no question that we must defend God's Word against the KJVOs. But I'm merely suggesting a better, more effecient way of doing it.
     
  18. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would vote “no”, because like many of the others, I have been learning some things.
     
  19. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm against it since it would deprive us of the best entertainment the Internet has to offer.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    You know, funny you should mention it...


    HankD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...