Is it possible?

Terry,

It is possible, but I don't think it happens that often. A KJVO who is very good about staying on-topic in these discussions and avoids personal attacks is Bob Krajcik. Also, Pastor Bob does well.

A civil discussion certainly could be and should be had. Although I am KJVO, I have to admit that it is the people on my side that are most likely to turn a discussion into a personal attack and avoid the issues at hand.

Jason

 

No. That is not possible.
It is a people problem.

Many Fundamentalists belive in the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture

Levels of Infallibility:

(note that LOIs with negative numbers
are not infallibile. They are included
here for completeness.)

-3 the Bible has many major errors and is invalid
-2 The Bible has major errors
so is only marginally useful
-1 the Bible has minor errors and should
be used with caution
0 The Bible has minor errors but is still useful
1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues
2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues:
doctrinal, historic, and scientific
3 The Bible is inerrant in the origional autographs
4 The Bible is inerrant only in the Textus Receptus (TR)
5 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611
(exclusive of translator notes)
6 The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV 1611
(including the translator notes)
7 The Bible is inerrant only in the
KJB1769 and/or KJB 1873
8 The Bible is inerrant in any English
translation based on the TR
9 The Bible is inerrant in any
English translation translated
by dynamic equivalence
10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations
11 the Bible is inerrant as implemented
in the Doctrine of the Church of England
12 The Bible is inerrant as
implemented in the US Republican
Party platform

How inerrant do you believe the Bible
to be? I give it an infallibility of TEN!!!

 

Hi,I am from New Brunswick,Canada and up this way it seems impossible. A discussion about Bible translations can turn even the closest of friends into almost enemies.
It seems that the KJV crowd usually become the most defencive.I guess the fact that we are settled on only the one translation causes us to come under attack on every side as there are many translations printed today.Each seems convinced they need to convert the other.Too bad this has to be and it is usuall among Baptist only.Most other denominations could care less it seems!!!!!!!!TOO bad "A"

 

I believe that in order to have any type of Biblical discussion (doctrinal, spiritual, devotional, ect.) we must have a standard that we can call our "final authority". I have carefully chosen the King James Bible (AV 1611) as my final authority. I confidently accept it as the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God. Let me ask you one question. Why should I change my position?

Some of you change positions every time a new bible version (translation) hits the market. You gotta have the latest and greatest. Well at least I know where I stand. I stand upon God's perfect word.

If you choose to use a modern version then please do us all a big favor. Pick one modern version and stick with it no matter what else comes down the pike. Believe that the Bible you hold in your hands is God's perfect word. We would have less belly aching and less fights if users of modern versions would only believe that the Bible they hold in their hands is God's perfect word.

[ February 02, 2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

I see no reason why you should
change.

I have carefully chosen the New
King James Version (nKJV)
as my final authority.

BTW, Brother Pioneer, which of the three
KJVs is your final authority?
KJV1611?
KJV1769?
KJV1873?
I keep a copy of each on my computer
desk, in case I need to check them. But
my final authority is the nKJV1982.

 

I have had an intersting ride on the Baptist Board so far, and have got into a few heated discussions here and in other forums. I will always post onto the thread and apologise if it is neccesary.

I think Saturday is the Sabbath,

I defend some elements of Pentecostal Belief,

I am anti KJVO, yet used to be in favour of the idea also.

So as you can see i often am on the other side of popular issues.

Yet it is possible to be of an opposing view and post as a gentleman. When somebody makes a rude remark in a post, I consider that their post however good it was is void, because they clearly have a wrong attitude.

 

The answer Terry is probably... unfortunately, no. As long as there are [men]like this who set standards where God has set a different one, who speak when God has remained silent, who make presumptuous demands of God, and who condemn those who refuse to adopt their inane, foundless, false doctrine....

... and as long as anyone who embraces the biblical, historical, fundamental, orthodox doctrine of the Bible is willing to stand opposed to radical KJVOnlyism....

... there is little chance of having a peaceful discourse on this subject.

[edited to remove name-calling]

[ February 02, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]

 

Since when do we "choose" our final authority?

Where a final authority exists on a matter, it is such not because men choose it to be so, but because its own attributes make it such whether anyone recognizes it or not.

This statement reveals one of the fundamental flaws of KJVonlyism.

 

Terry,
Hi, Speaking for myself as a KJVO I am being perfectly honest when I say that I do not dislike you or anyone for the version that they use.
Seriously the only problem that I have with the ones that use the other versions is not the people but the versions they use.
I STRONGLY BELIEVE that the new english versions are weakening belief and trust in the accuracy of God's Word. Many lost people that I have talked to do not take the Book seriously because there are so many saying different things.
If there was a secular historical book with as many different "corrections" and changes, who would believe that it was accurate?
Many would say that I am wrong, that many more people have access to the Bible now that ever before but you have to agree that, they may have it in several different versions but the Body as such does not believe it as it used to.
If a homosexual can show you a version that homosexuality is condoned by God, who are you to tell them that it is wrong"This is the bible they would answer". If one shows you that God is feminine, its just your opinion. If one denies the trinity in a verse, how can you tell them that your Bible is more accurate than theirs? Do they take your word for it?
That is what I mean when I say that the world is losing faith in the Book, I can't blame them.

Terry in a previous post on another thread I was accused of being antichrist in a answer to you, I was not intending to doubt your salvation, I was trying to be funny, No offense intended .
Swordsman

 

Because it cannot be supported from Scripture. To believe the KJV is the word of God is fine. To believe that other faithful translations are nothe word of God is not fine. It is error.

We do believe that and can say that about all good translations. Your dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

 

Great testimony Terry! "I got saved;had a bible;went to a church that believed it was the bible;went to bible college;learned I didn't have a bible;now I spend my time trying to convince others they don't have a bible either!"
Wow! You go Terry! HA HA HUH HAWW HAW HAAAAAAA

 

My favorite Jack Chick Comic book is SABOTAGE. In it a Bible professer at the Christian college states to the class how the KJV is not reliable. One of the students (who reminds me of a older Opie) tries to debate the professer but then within minutes goes psychotic smashing the professer in the mouth declaring how he had destroyed his faith and then runs out of the classroom and tries to burn the University down! It was unintentially funny as the guy is transformed from a clean cut all American kid to Charles Manson.Sounds like he had deeper problems!

 

I'm thankful none of you were called upon by God to protect the scripture to death if need be.God needed real men with spine and conviction.Thank God for faithful men who stood and would not compromise!

 

rsr said:

I think Jack Chick is posting under another name.

Sounds more like Beavis. Huh huh huh. You said chick.