1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Just Something I Read

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Baptist4life, Sep 2, 2009.

  1. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ummm............no it wasn't.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, yes it was. In the very first post. You artificially compare the KJV to other versions as the litmus test regarding the presence or absence of the word "yet".
     
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    From the OP-

    One little word makes all the difference. The KJB does not make a liar out of Jesus. The NIV, Nkjv, and some others, oppose themselves by including the word with a footnote suggesting it shouldn't be there. The above versions have Jesus telling a lie, meaning He's not "the way, the truth, and the life", nor is He God "which cannot lie". But those are not important doctrines according to modern versions.

    If that isn't espousing KJVO, then what's the point?
     
  4. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, if you assume my OP was espousing KJVOism to begin with, then it wasn't "derailed" by KJVO proponents, it was a KJVO topic to start with!:tongue3: Which it wasn't, BTW.
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ok, so first you were for it, then you weren't? Feet palnted firmly on both sides of the issue? :laugh:
     
  6. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For what? :confused:
     
  7. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems you interupted the discussion with your railing upon my person with the same old song and dance. get back on topic.

    Milled grains were prepared with animal fat.:sleep:
     
  8. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know what I learned about critical baptists? If you go on a witch-hunt you eventually will find one!

    Your suspicions are no different.:sleep:
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, that was your interruption, when you complained about a "tirade of sorts explaining it away with the use of the rules of grammar", yet you complety ignored your own prior tirade about "meat offering" being of animal flesh, which demonstrated your lack of understandiing regarding grammar.
    You fabricated that statement out of animal fat.
    Interesting. Your history of posts doesn't demonstrate you having learned anything.
     
  10. Harold Garvey

    Harold Garvey New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, so your lack of research into the meat offering never being apart from the whole burnt offering out does my grammar lacking.:smilewinkgrin:

    olive oil wasn't always available and you haven't yet done much research, I did say YET!

    Your history demonstrates the same lack of research and an exceptability that your view is altered by modern thinking.

    Your statements concerning the meat offering overlook too many dictates found within the outline of how the offerings were to be done. You say the meat offering was "always" bloodless, when if you would get beyond your modern authors, which undoubtedly all of them stand for the accepting of modern versions and the thinking that accompanies them, you would find within the eclectic notes that "the meat offering was not always bloodless".

    Then you might begin to understand that the whole burnt offering was to be drained of the blood before it was burnt, thus the meat offering was a part of the meal offering which none of the offerings were to be separate from the other. separating them is heresy in action due to oversights of the foreshadowing of the upcoming event of Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection. Omission of any one of these three elements in the singular event effect the Gospel, (the Gospel according to the scriptures) and makes for all sorts of idol worship. Just one evidence of these is the wearing of a crucifix as if it wards off evil.:smilewinkgrin:

    Keep attacking my person, I'll reprove your error in thinking, but remember "pride cometh before a fall and a haughty spirit before destruction.":flower:
     
Loading...