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!

Perhaps a Divorce Is In Order

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Major B, Jun 15, 2003.

Top Posters
  1. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since there are many of us who would like to discuss Bible versions without having to deal with the whole KJV-MV argument and the associated idiocies, I propose that we have a separate forum for the KJV-MV threads, and banish forever that species of argument from this forum.
     
    #1 Major B, Jun 15, 2003
  2. mesly

    mesly Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen!
     
    #2 mesly, Jun 15, 2003
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Little history: When the BB began in June 2000, there were only a coupla forums. When a subject was raised again and again, it was decided to have a separate forum for that topic . . so folks could choose to go there OR choose to ignore it.

    Like - Calvinism, Creationism, Theology
    and
    Versions

    SO . . we are NOT going to subdivide Versions, since there would not be much to talk about if there was a KJV (whatever revision) Forum that was a love fest for Jacobeans, and a MV (whichever preferred) that would not have much to talk about and no one to fuss with.

    MY ADVICE - If you feel like MV'ers are heretics or that Onlies are bibliolaters, come by and read the same-old-same-old.

    If not? AVOID THIS FORUM! I did for a year and am back only because of being asked to help moderate it. It stinks up the BB and for 99%, we are better off avoiding it like a skunk crossing the road. :rolleyes:

    And, of course, it is ALL THE FAULT OF THE ________ (fill in your preference) [​IMG]
     
    #3 Dr. Bob, Jun 15, 2003
  4. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Several years ago I set up a discussion board for discussion focused on Bible versions (I have since handed the reigns over to others). I had two main forums: one where topics dealing with KJV-onlyism were not allowed, and another forum where they were. Everyone was welcome in both, and it allowed discussions about version/translation issues to take place in the first forum without worry they would degenerate into the typical KJV-only merry-go-round debates. The second forum was still the busiest though. [​IMG] It worked out really good, and still operates in this format without problem.
     
    #4 BrianT, Jun 15, 2003
  5. Istherenotacause

    Istherenotacause New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still don't see what all the fuss is about, I have the Holy Bible and the MV's have a book. I'm settled, stedfast and secure in the Word of God. [​IMG] :eek: [​IMG] :D [​IMG] :eek: [​IMG]

    Post Script: [​IMG]
     
    #5 Istherenotacause, Jun 15, 2003
  6. Major B

    Major B <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, Bob, I have no big bone to pick with either side. I'd just like to be able to talk about versions and translations without the nonsense; I will definitely take your advice. The post just before this one illustrates why.
     
    #6 Major B, Jun 16, 2003
  7. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. It's called God's Word [​IMG]
     
    #7 TomVols, Jun 16, 2003
  8. Ben W

    Ben W Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,883
    Likes Received:
    6
    The problem as I see it with the KJVO stuff is that the discussions degenerate into name calling or rude remarks within one page. Which is really lame. :rolleyes:

    I think that threads concerned with KJVO should have to be done like the Creation / Evolution forum and checked prior to being made public. Some threads that have gone on in here on KJVO are worse in conduct than on an Athiesm forum, yet no doubt there are people who are proud of that. [​IMG]
     
    #8 Ben W, Jun 18, 2003
  9. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Glad that there won't be another needless division. Just wish you would have applied this rule before you started the "Fundamentalist (but we really mean Dispensationalist) Forum"
     
    #9 go2church, Jun 19, 2003
  10. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    The best thing that can happen is for the rules to be enforced strictly and without bias, and that is happening. In the last week, 3 BB members have been banned and 1 suspended for consistent rule violations, particularly as occuring here in the BVT forum.

    Be warned folks. The garbage isn't going to be tolerated. I suggest each of you refer to the BB rules and the BVT posting guidelines.
     
    #10 TomVols, Jun 19, 2003
  11. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    OOOh I'm shaking!!!
     
    #11 go2church, Jun 20, 2003
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Brother GotoChurch, you've been around a while, so I hope that that was really in jest. :D Usually a silly icon :rolleyes: can help show the spirit [​IMG] of your comment even when folks can't hear the tone of voice. :eek:

    If not, we have a vote for a suspension. I'll give you a chance to change your comment or show it was in humor.

    And I'm not joking. :mad:
     
    #12 Dr. Bob, Jun 20, 2003
  13. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dr. Bob,
    I do not understand your previous post. Surely, you are not saying that if someone, like the poster you are referring to, shows a dislike for this new method of rule enforcement and expresses this belief without using profanity or being vulgar that they are in danger of being suspended.

    What's next the thought police?
     
    #13 Terry_Herrington, Jun 20, 2003
  14. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think this current batch of moderators much more evenhanded than about a year ago, when posts were mysteriously snipped n threatening PMs sent out.

    it's just shameful to sneer at the ref when cautioned; yet in this case, u see the ref giving a second chance, to use an emoticon/icon to correct an *attitude.*

    don't worry, u missed the thot police by a year!

    ;)
     
    #14 Forever settled in heaven, Jun 20, 2003
  15. Harald

    Harald New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #15 Harald, Jun 20, 2003
  16. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Forever,
    I will agree that it has improved over what it was a year ago with this group of moderators. I think that, overall, they do an excellent job. This is just one place where I think that threatening to suspend someone because of a silly comment is, shall I say, extreme. [​IMG]
     
    #16 Terry_Herrington, Jun 20, 2003
  17. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terry, the post in question is a violation of the user's agreement every BB member signs to get membership, along with rules 2 and 3.
     
    #17 TomVols, Jun 20, 2003
  18. go2church

    go2church Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG] :confused: :confused: [​IMG]
     
    #18 go2church, Jun 20, 2003
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Terry, Moderators are trying diligently to keep order and civility on the BB without become too overbearing.

    When a reaction comes of cynical defiance or (hopefully form the icons given by go2) humorous tongue-in-cheek, we must respond. If it's fun, we repond with a chuckle like you do! But if not . .

    This is not an unmoderated food-fight or free-for-all. He does not have to be vulgar or profane to show a defiant and not-gonna-listen-to-you attitude.

    Spanked my kids when they were "mouthy". But I agree, it is a fine line, and I don't want to jump on a poster just because I'm having a rough day and might be thin-skinned. Appreciate the good reminder.
     
    #19 Dr. Bob, Jun 20, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...