Just a friendly reminder...

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel David, Oct 2, 2002.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the Fundamentalist Forum. Just about any topic can be raised. Topics that are dedicated to specific issues (such as calvinism and arminianism) are welcome here. What is not welcome here are any issues that do/might call into question the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture.

    BrianT, I understand your point. I do not agree. I think DocCas gave alot of sources that would not agree with you. On this particular issue, you should take it up with the version forum and debate it there. The thread about the dead soldiers is about what happened to them, not how many there were. I hope you understand. I have never discouraged your posting in this forum.
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Preach the Word.

    I have not called into question the integrety or inerrancy of scripture. At most, I implied that people (including scribes and translators) can make mistakes when dealing with scripture. This does not go against fundamentalism in any way, as many of the "original fundamentalists" (as one poster here once called them) made similar statements about other verses. I thought the issue was relevant to the discussion, because having to deal with 27 corpses is different than having to deal with 27,000, thus providing a possible answer to the original question in the thread.

    I'm sorry for any confusion I have caused, but I assure readers here that I fully affirm the inerrancy of scripture as originally given (and stated so several times in the thread), despite several others misunderstanding my comments. I personally feel that my points were largely misunderstood, and that a moderator has used his personal disagreement with an issue as an excuse to censor. Nothing I posted was in anyway contrary to fundamentalism, just contrary to what that particular moderator believed.

    Perhaps someone needs to define some formal rules about what can and cannot be discussed on this forum (hey, now that sound familiar! ;) ). Without such rules, it appears censorship is at the current whim of whichever moderator is present at the time. I realize moderators have a tough job (I used to be one), but really there should be some sort of standard defined.
     
  3. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to side with Brian on this one. His discussion was in the vein of "what did God inspire" rather than "God made a mistake." At least that is how I read his posts. I disagree with his transliteration and conclusions, but I don't see where he questioned the inspiration of the bible, only the accuracy of the transcription of the Mesors when they added the vowel points. [​IMG]
     
  4. Wisdom Seeker

    Wisdom Seeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,702
    Likes Received:
    0
    When in doubt add rules :rolleyes: I vote "no" on adding rules. I think the ones there are are good enough. I think that each post and poster should be treated individually. Can we please hold off on adding "rules" for the time being. Pleeeeease? :D

    [ October 02, 2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]
     
  5. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek: Wow, DocCas. Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at. [​IMG]

    Wisdomseeker, I guess I'm not really wanting more "rules", but obviously something went wrong here, and I'd just like to minimizing the chances of it happening again. [​IMG]
     
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rule no. 1 - No rules will be used for the time being;

    Rule no. 2 - You must be a fundamentalist;

    Rule no. 3 - You must agree with my definition of fundamentalist;

    Rule no. 4 - No rule will ever contradict a previous rule;

    Rule no. 5 - Ask Wisdomseeker about posting a rule first;

    Rule no. 6 - If you object to my posts or out takes, you must not understand your own objection;

    Rule no. 7 - As Baptists, you have the right to disagree with me, just keep it to yourself;

    Rule no. 8 - This rule is the last rule unless I deem it necessary to institute more rules.

    [ October 02, 2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]
     
  7. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to suggest an alternative set of rules:

    1. DocCas is always right.

    2. In the event DocCas is wrong, please see rule #1.

    :D [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] :cool:
     
  8. RomOne16

    RomOne16
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Brian. After all, he is just asking for posting standards to be defined. We fundies thrive on standards, right? :D

    It's just a real bummer to be reading a thread and find that whole chunks of some very interesting posts were censored because one guy didn't like it. **shrug** Just my .02 [​IMG]
     
  9. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    :D Who says Fundamentalists don't have any fun! :D
     
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    *** post edited ***

    I had to edit my own post. It seems that I disagreed with rule no. 7.
     
  11. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had to edit your editing because I disagreed with your disagreement! :D
     
  12. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    DocCas, I will swallow my pride on this. I could not have imagined a thread were we were going back and forth and I was laughing so hard.

    Out like my carnal thoughts of abusing my rights and deleting all of DocCas' posts I didn't like.
     
  13. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Laughing? Laughing! I was being serious! :D :D
     
  14. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes - though I, also, disagree with Brian's perspective; he was not complaining or making a case for inerrancy. Brian provokes thought in a positive manner. Let's not do away with that quite so readily.

    An aside for DocCas:
    Is this a good site to direct someone to for lessons on manuscripts? I saw you had correspondence with the author and was curious of your opinion.
    I've been over this soooo many times through the years, I'd rather let someone do it on their own.

    [ October 02, 2002, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]
     
  15. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom Holland is a friend and collegue, and his website contains a lot of good information as do the books he has written, one of which I wrote a "blurb" for. However, Tom and I both think for ourselves, and we do not always see exactly eye to eye on some issues. Just as with everything else you find in print or on the web, eat the fruit and spit out the pits. [​IMG]
     
  16. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Eat the fruit and spit out the pits".
    Always good advice.
    Thanks.
     
  17. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  18. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    But given the way I was unfairly censored, I could give the thread as proof that you do.

    Mike
     
  19. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    But given the way I was unfairly censored, I could give the thread as proof that you do.

    Mike
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Smoke eater
    Why not just accept a little correction, learn from it and move on. The crying towel needs to be wrung out around here.
    Murph
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you deny that translators make mistakes??? If yes, that belief is certainly not "fundamental", and you should not allow your own view in this forum. If no, you are not saying anything different than I am.

    I simply mean that I recognize that translation is a very difficult job, and that sometimes the answer is not clear cut, but requires some digging and comparison to learn about a reading. Sometimes translators make a mistake, and some good study can be very rewarding. The scriptures were divinely inspired, but that divine inspriation does not carry over to every scribe and translator throughout history. Such a view would certainly not be considered "fundamental".

    According to your profile, you are a pastor - I challenge you to post the part of your church's Articles of Faith (or Statement of Beliefs or whatever you happen to call them) that deal with scripture. Does it say "originally written" or similar in it somewhere? Unless your church is strongly KJV-only, it will probably read something like 99% of the other Baptist churches out there, for example:

    "1. By "The Holy Bible" we mean that collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God.
    2. By "inspiration" we mean that the books of the Bible were written by holy men of old, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, in such a definite way that their writings *were* supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error, as no other writings have ever been or, ever will be inspired."

    (this example from an KJV-only, IFB church I attended for a while - shall I inform them that you will be writing to them to tell them they are casting doubt on God's word?)

    How so? Nothing I posted casted doubt on scripture, and you have yet to explain how it did. I questioned how scripture was *translated*, but so does every single person on this forum whenever they lay two Bibles down beside each other. HankD posted the verse from Young's Literal Translation - why do you not accept it at face value? Do you not question that translation? Of course you do. By doing so, are you "casting doubt on God's word" or "opening the door for personal interpretation of all sorts"? Of course you aren't. So why the double standard? Why can you do it, and I can't?

    Yes, it's true you didn't edit my posts in the alcohol thread. But in this case, you edited them after saying I cast doubt on God's word, but seem to be at a loss to explain where or how I did that. I personally believe that for you, once you made the claim that I cast doubt on God's word, it was easier for you to edit my posts to make it *appear* that I had indeed done as you had claimed, than to actually show where. I read back over my edited posts, and you even edited out stuff that had nothing to do with accuracy of scripture! At one point, I had made some comments about those who believe the vowel points cannot be questioned as implying that the scribes who added them were under divine inspiration, and had advance revelation. You edited that out and replaced it with "sentence deleted because the Inspiration of God's word will not be questioned here". Those comments never questioned the inspiration of God's word, they simply pointed out the problem of *re*inspiration in your position! Yet, they were edited out, and I can only conclude that the reason was that I was censored because you didn't like the points I was making, not because I questioned scripture.

    They make mention of it simply because they too misunderstood what I was saying.
     

Share This Page

Loading...