The purpose of this forum?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Plain ol' Ralph, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    roby said,
    If this forum was about versions, then I would have to ask when and where these versions are discussed? Every single topic revolves around the "KJVO myth", and Roby? You are probably the most adherent to stay on THAT topic most vehemently!!

    First a system of labeling is invented, then each of you uses its negative aspect profusely, but that's the problem, labeling one as "KJVO" has no positive conotation, not according to the symposium afforded at the heading of this forum, TALK ABOUT ad-nausium!!! Or should I have said: anti-eudaemonism??

    But can versions actually be discussed without attacking the KJB? NOT. This forum is non-the-less than a ranting place for those who DON'T know what the Bible is!! [​IMG]
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again POR you falsely claim that those of us who attack the KJVO lie are attacking the KJV. You need to get your facts right before you make the claim that the KJV is under attack.

    You sir need to review your remark and correct it. We are taught in the bible to confront error and KJVOism is full of errors.

    The KJVO myth is just a lie. To be KJV preferred is one thing but to be KJVO is another. There is nothing wrong with only using the KJV. It is dishonest for the KJVO to attack MV’s when the KJV family is guilty of the same things that KJVOist accuse MV’s of doing. Don’t take my word for it! Study the AV1611 and it’s revisions.

    Now what about corrected yourself POR.

    I fully know what the bible is and I fully understand how a translation is made from the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. Do you understand this process? It has nothing to do with KJVO Ex Cathedra and advanced revelations [​IMG]
     
  3. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    POR ...

    I cannot believe you said this:

    Surely, it has some positive conotation even if only to you ...

    In Him,

    Wayne
     
  4. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, we were discussing the NIV without mentioning the KJV until a poster came and started saying how corrupt the MV's are compared to the KJV - hijacking a perfectly good thread. Many threads start out that way and quickly become KJV versus all others because some just can't let it go.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    "KJV-only" is an accurate description or label for a certain viewpoint. This term is not negative unless it is proven that this KJV-only view is mistaken and unscriptural. If the view is wrong and unscriptural, it should be given up and forsaken. If the view is correct and supposedly scriptural, then those who hold that view should provide consistent scriptural interpretations and reasoning that would defend that view and that would show it to be valid for all believers regardless of what language that they speak and valid for believers that lived both before and after 1611.

    D. A. Waite claims that he is "not KJV-only."
    I can provide a good description of the KJV-only view based on Waite's own exclusive statments concerning the KJV.

    Waite wrote: "The King James Bible is the only accurate English translation in existence today" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 47). Waite claimed that the KJV "is the only acceptable translation from the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts" and "is the only true Bible in the English language" (FUZZY FACTS, pp. 8-9). Waite wrote:
    "There are no good translations except the King James Bible" (CENTRAL SEMINARY, p. 129). Waite wrote: "If you use any other version than the King James Bible you are tampering with the Words of God" (p. 136). Waite wrote: "The King James Bible is always superior to all others in the English language" (p. 80).
     
  6. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    102
    TC said:

    "Actually, we were discussing the NIV without mentioning the KJV until a poster came and started saying how corrupt the MV's are compared to the KJV - hijacking a perfectly good thread. Many threads start out that way and quickly become KJV versus all others because some just can't let it go."

    There was also a discussion of a passage in the NASB ... which was going along fine until KJVO was inserted into it.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Plain ol'Ralph: "If this forum was about versions, then I would have to ask when and where these versions are discussed?"

    The NIV was being discussed on the first three
    pages of this thread:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2238/4.html

    That is a pointer to page 4. A couple of KJVos
    are in the process of hijacking the DISCUSSION
    OF A PARTICULAR VERSION.

    I'm so disappointed.
    I went to a fight and a dad-gone hocky
    game done broke out right in the middle of
    that fight.

    Well, be on notice, i'm turning this KJV/MV
    battle topic into a VERSION DISCUSSION.

    Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 edition):
    How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer||,
    sonne of the morning? how art thou
    cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?


    Translator Sidenote: || Or, day starre.

    I.E. the second best undertanding of the
    verse would have it read:

    Isa 14:12 (KJV1611 edition, alt):
    How art thou fallen from heauen, O day starre,
    sonne of the morning? how art thou
    cut downe to the ground, which didst weaken the nations?

    The first translation supports that the
    name of the lead devil is "Lucifer".
    Tee hee, that name comes from the Latin Vulgate ;)
    and is found only in Isaiah 14:12.
    But this may not be a name but the
    reference here is to
    the planet Venus, aka: Morning Star, Day Star,

    Isaiah 14:12 (The Latin Vulgate)
    quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui
    mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui
    vulnerabas gentes

    Interesting, today's modern doctrine is determined
    by the KJV translator's first choice because
    KJVOs don't like the translator margin notes.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ralph, you are not helping your cause by your ranting here. It only lowers opinions of others, and many will ignore reading when they see your name in a post.

    The purpose of this forum is to compare and contrast versions of the Bible and other topics related to translation issues.

    The KJVonly sect has introduced a divisive new schism into the Body and it will be part of many discussions here. That will not change until these teachers split apart from fundamental Baptists and, like the Adventists, start their own distinct group.

    Soon, Lord; soon.
     
  9. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's be honest here, this place is something of a quarantaine area, where KJVO discussions are contained so that they don't mess up threads all over the board.
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    True, but if this is a quarantaine area, then the science forum must be Siberia. :D

    Rob
     
  11. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is actually the BB version of the "hobbyhorse" corral....on BOTH sides of the KJV/MV issue.....it's also why as a general rule I don't even post or even bother to look in here MOST OF THE TIME anymore.Just makes me weary.I'm secure in my position so I see no need for endless debate about it.I see absolutely NOTHING in here that has influenced my thinking one way or the other.Carry on.Have a nice day.

    Greg Sr.
     
  12. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KVJOs (4 & 5) need to break off, like the Adventists. If they refuse to accept new updates to the KJV, the evolution of the English language will continue making their Bibles even more incomprehensible and the myth will die.
     
  13. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Surely, it has some positive conotation even if only to you ...

    In Him,

    Wayne
    </font>[/QUOTE]My Dear Brother, it was stated as "per se" and only from the viewpoint of those who attack the KJB by attacking those who know what the Bible is.

    In other posts, I have noticed that those who say "the discussion was going perfectly fine until...", but then the conversation about the niv could never have been going perfectly fine about the imperfect niv.

    The "problem" for those who promote the mv's have is that the Bible/ KJB, is the rule, they dodge, deflect, disagree, debate, determine to concoct false dichtomy, divide, get devilish, desire to maintain the character of Ishmael, destroy, delegate to themselves this "authority", and a few more "d's" after that!

    One can discuss VERSIONS, but when the BIBLE is introduced, they COMPLAIN that the discussion wasn't about the BIBLE afterall, but the version.

    The point is clearly made, any discussion about versions ends up pitting those versions against the KJB, whether introduced by their dogmatic label : "KJVO" or not, eventually you have to introduce the BIBLE to point out the fallacies involved in the interpretation of what is KNOWN as a VERSION.

    What is so ludicrous, is that the labeling of one as being KJVO carries a negative conotation in the minds of these who promote the mv's, even to the point of trying to convince others like myself, that no one reads what is posted on our behalf, but yet to this moment, several of THEM have done exactly the obverse.

    The KJB isn't then allowed to be necessarilly "attacked", but their false dichtomy is therefore allowed as an alternate way to attack thus said KJB.

    This forum is nothing more than a snare, an entanglement of thistles and thorns. No one is ever edified here when they have been affixed with the label :"KJVO". We are persistently attacked, our posts denigrated, why even the moderators introduce falsities in regards to our posting, SHAME on the devil!! and those who want to side with him!!

    We give them the Scriptures concerning the preservation and the Final Authority ONLY the LORD has concerning this issue, they deny said Scripture, they have identified themselves, why, they even accuse the brethren, as satan continually does before God's Throne, of "nearing blasphemy of God's Word" when we point out the error of the vwersion they daunt as "better" and such, ( and that by one of the "moderators", which only moderately do so, and only in the event it is a "KJVO" they want to censure.)

    So? Go Figure; either stand on the Inerrant, Infallible, Inspired, Perfect Word of God, or slip and slide around with the slippery ones. (Speaking generally, my Brother, not specifically towards you). :eek:

    And YES! Being "KJVO" has its POSITIVE effect, coupled by the conotation of standing right where the LORD, GHimself will have us to stand!! :D [​IMG] ;) [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then friend, you are pitted against the Lord. He has preserved His Word, the mv's use of Alexandrian mss and the &lt;banned word snipped&gt; W/H Greek texts have PROVEN so ultimately, and everytime as well.

    Salvation is of the Jews, Jesuis said/ The Lord's Chosen, and the Masoretic hebrews he aslo chose to keep His Word intact for the believer who speaks English today, and NOT this ever "evolving tangle of words known by us who KNOW what thus saith the LORD.

    What it all boils down to is this, "If one can't cahnge the Bible, change the language it is written in." DEVILISH!!!

    "Hath God said?" Eve's answer should have been, "Yes! Adam talks with Him daily, and that is what Adam told me, he wouldn't lie, and neither should you!!!" :D

    [ March 16, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  15. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! ;)
     
  16. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just like yall, take it out of context to "prove" a "point" :rolleyes:
     
  17. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a hard time accepting arguments about text and grammar from someone who uses the word "yall". ;)
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, 'yall' is very paranoid in that context.

    It is bad to lump KJVO#0, KJVO#?, KJVO#1, and
    KJVO#2 together.

    0 means no KJVO at all
    ? means don't know
    1 and 2 are described at:
    ???
    it has been moved, now we have to triple
    our typing load instead of talking in code :(
     
  19. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't deal with the issue in point so you have to invent one, sounds TOO familiar. BTW, I'm not arguing, you are!! [​IMG]
     
  20. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep, 'yall' is very paranoid in that context.

    It is bad to lump KJVO#0, KJVO#?, KJVO#1, and
    KJVO#2 together.

    0 means no KJVO at all
    ? means don't know
    1 and 2 are described at:
    ???
    it has been moved, now we have to triple
    our typing load instead of talking in code :(
    </font>[/QUOTE]Seems yall may have somehow hung yourselves then. especially having to speak in code, [personal attack deleted]
    [​IMG]

    [ March 16, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...