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!

lack of Scriptural support

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by robycop3, Jan 22, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 4
  1. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lacy;
    I would be in the "Club" too if I wasted my time like YOU did! [​IMG]
    Just kidding you Brother.
    You must be a "speed poster" 'cause you got to this board AFTER I did by NINE months!
    I guess humble congrats are in order, though I don't know why! :confused:
    Keep up the good fight. You are a good warrior for Truth.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
    #61 av1611jim, Jan 29, 2005
  2. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I, too, wonder how many newbie christians have wandered away from the faith because some know-it-all came along and said "You ain't got no perfect Bible and <edited>."
    :rolleyes:
    In HIS service;
    Jim

    [ January 29, 2005, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #62 av1611jim, Jan 29, 2005
  3. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    :rolleyes: AMEN Jim...I have actually run into that argument before from some of the local BJU guys(I live in Greenville)!

    Now...as to previous comments here:

    Trotter said,
    "Robycop3,

    Would you settle for KJVOs admitting hat they haold to their position out of personal conviction?

    It is painfully obvious that the KJVO stand does not have a scriptural foundation. But are those who claim to be KJVO (or don't, saying that it is a man-made label ) willing to admit that it boils down to their personal choice?

    In Christ,
    Trotter "

    To which I say a measured THANK YOU...because my position on the KJV IS a conviction for me.I would further submit that the MV adherents in here have NO MORE (or less) scriptural support for their position than we have for ours.Both of our positions are based on differing views and interpretations of manuscript evidence/history.You think yours is the best...and we think ours is the best.PERIOD.

    And as to Jim...
    "As I told another brother in a PM,
    I admit there are apparent problems with my stand.
    However, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him".
    I may not be able to explain my position to you guys to your satisfaction, and I may appear to be holding onto an unreasonalbe position in your eyes.
    I have stated a number of times here. If YOU don't believe it then fine. It neither affects me nor discourages me. I will still trust that my God has given me a perfect Book in spite of ALL the loudly proclaimed apparent problems.
    Whenever I approach the Scriptures, I hold this ONE thought in my heart.
    GOD IS ALWAYS RIGHT. WHEN I ENCOUNTER AN APPARENT PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM LIES IN MY UNDERSTANDING. GOD IS ALWYAS RIGHT.
    Trotter, brother, I appreciate your willingnes to be gracious and concede that this IS a conviction issue. Nothing more.
    Some folks have sincere convictions that ladies should never wear pants, and they can produce Scripture for it. Other folks declare that those Scripture do not apply and are being misinterpreted. Yet the "no-pants" folks tenaciously hold on. Not much difference here.
    I'll once more offer a thought for you fellers.
    I believe my old KJV is like a AK 47 assault rifle. I am in combat. Fightin' a good fight. If you are in my foxhole, please don't try to destroy my weapon. Just point YOURS at our common enemy, won't you? Even if you must use a .45 cal, or a .22 or even a slingshot. OK?

    In HIS service;
    Jim"

    AMEN brother Jim...I'm with ya on that one!In my opinion,most of the fussing that goes on in here is one big monumental waste of time.There are some well-ridden "Hobby Horses" on both sides of the fence(and yes..I've been guilty of it too).

    Greg Sr. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #63 Gregory Perry Sr., Jan 29, 2005
  4. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Greg;
    I knew I could count on you!

    [​IMG]
    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
    #64 av1611jim, Jan 29, 2005
  5. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is such a ludicrous charge! I don't think any one here would ever say such a condescending statement to a new or 'mature' believer alike. Your assumption of those of us who know something about the Bible (like Greek or Hebrew) is very telling of what you think of us in general. Do you think that anyone here, like myself and others, who have had an education where we studied Koine' Greek, Hebrew, and Baptist Theology would ever say such a thing, let alone believe that "God didn't say what He said"? I strongly would suggest that you take back this <edited> statement with an apology! <edited>How dare you ever assume such a thing like this! :mad: [​IMG]

    [ January 29, 2005, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #65 LRL71, Jan 29, 2005
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    LRL71...Jim, Greg, and Lacy will at least TRY to justify their myth. They are among the more reasonable KJVOs(even though just as much in the dark, and without valid excuse) and I commend them for their graciousness and won't rip into them as you've done here, and as I often do to another member who goes on like a broken record and tells us we'll understand when we understand.

    However well-meaning the above gentlemen are, they're painted into a corner and are looking for some way out without messing up the paint. We remind them that there was no such myth as KJVO until the 20th century. Even though the KJV was just about the only English Bible version in print for awhile, several others still existed, and no one regularly stated that only the KJV was valid, and that no other valid English translation could be made. But, not long after people began making modern-English translations, the KJVO myth arose from the work of a cult official(SDA preacher/teacher Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson) and two dishonest authors(J.J.Ray & Dr. D.O.Fuller) with Ray copying from Wilkinson & Fuller copying from both. Yes, this whole modern KJVO myth is sprung from dishonesty and is based upon guesswork, fables, misinformation, fishing stories, double standards, and plain ole outright dishonesty.

    About "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God...Did He speak them in ENGLISH to those whom He chose to write them down? Did He tell His authors that sometime in the future His words would be written in a language that didn't yet exist, some 1500 years after Jesus' resurrection, at the command of a king named James, to be sealed against forther translation no matter how much the language will have changed? No, thewre's not the slightest hint in Scripture of any such idea. However, there's quite a few Scriptures saying God will preserve His words & there's Jesus' command to spread the Gospel across the globe. Now, how can one spread the Gospel without presenting it in the languages of the target audiences? Plainly we see that the early English BVs are in the English of their day, as is the AV 1611.

    The KJVO myth goes against 1900 years of Bible history. Nowhere does God forbid the translating of His word into the languages of any given day. That's why we say the KJVO myth is bogus because it's not supported by Scripture. It's entirely MAN-MADE and just as wrong as the other man-made false doctrines. It's a myth about SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Since Scripture is the highest written authority there is, any doctrine ABOUT it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it...and in the case of KJVO, that support is ZERO, its man-made origin is well-known; therefore it's false. No number of man-made excuses can overcome that truth.

    We don't need any Scripture to support our view, as we accept the well-known older BVs, the AV and its many editions, and several honest modern translations as the word of God, while it's the KJVO who says we're wrong. IT'S THEIR THEORY, invented by man, not found in Scripture at all.Therefore the KJVO has the "burden of proof" for his/her myth, and so far hasn't met it whatsoever.
     
    #66 robycop3, Jan 29, 2005
  7. LRL71

    LRL71 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your first paragraph makes good sense, robycop. I am rather indignant! I cannot understand why someone would accuse 'us' (us meaning those who refute KJV-onlyism) of causing a new believer to lose his/her faith in the Bible. I won't let this false and derogatory charge stand!

    A good point to raise with KJV-onlyists is what I had been 'arguing' with av1611jim with on the Fundamental BB; their so-called 'doctrine' of providential preservation is equally false. I even went as far as to brand them 'non-Fundamentalists' because their beliefs run against the historic Christian doctrines of inspiration (theopneustos), inerrancy, infallibility, and illumination. Their view of 'preservation' seems to counter not only Scripture, but also the manuscript evidence. No where in the Bible does God ever say that He would 'preserve' His Word 'perfectly', nor into any 'version' of the Scriptures.
     
    #67 LRL71, Jan 29, 2005
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Page five rule invoked thread closed because of personal attacks from both sides.
     
    #68 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jan 29, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 4
Loading...