Just a friendly reminder...

Brian I feel nothing can be down to satisfy your view that I have mistreated you. It is simply that I have been called upon to perform a task and I have done so to the best of my ability. You say I am in error and I say that you were sharing views on scripture and how it was written that are not welcome here. Are those views fundamental? I don't know I'll take your word for it, but although this forum is in name fundamental as you have pointed out it's rules have not been clearly defined. My overiding comment has been that questions about validity of scripture or how they were written would not be allowed. As in any situation some will agree with your view and some will agree with mine. I made the call and faced with what I feel is a similar situation I will make the same one again.

I am very sorry to have offended you,please forgive me.
Murph

 

Briant, just because we are sloppy and make numerous typos even with our computers and spellcheckers and the lot does not mean the copyists did. These guys were deadly serious about their job and had few distractions from their work besides having others who would proofread. They washed hands and changed pens just to write YWYH so it is doubtful they would have let something like you suggest pass.

Indeed, I think that is why one of the W-H texts left room for all the so-called "questionable passages." The copyist was hired by a rich man wanting a Jeffersonian Bible, but the copyist did not want his integrity or skills challenged. Hence he left out what his client wanted, but left the space so that other copyists would know that he was not having a bad day and also to allow for the client to change his mind and not have to redo the entire thing.

They were just a different kind of people then we are. They did not dare to take out stuff that they did not understand or disagreed with. They were a lot more holy and God fearing than we are.

By the way, having been censored for spit and Bubba, I side with you on moderator overkill. In the real world, we have to deal with any issues without a moderator over our shoulder. If we cannot deal with such issues here it is sad because information either pro or con to our position will make us more apt to study to answer the point/counterpoint. We are big boys and girls. I cannot censor anyone on the job that disagrees with me. As long as we don't get to cussing (spit is a cuss word I found out) or threaten bodily harm or start sending each other virii moderation should be kept moderate. Shalom!

 

[ October 03, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

Because it had nothing to do with correction.

What I said wasn't an attack against anyone and everyone here, even the person my comment was directed at, knew it and I suspect you're smart enough to have known it, too.

Why was it an attack when I said it, but when optional quoted it and agreed with me, that wasn't?

Why was it an attack to ask why someone who condemns anyone who believes in the Christian's right to have a drink or two in moderation is so intimately familiar with the process of buying liquor, but when someone who is on the other side falsely accuses us of promoting "indulgence", which (a) the Bible says is sin and (b) no one here has done (and I challenge you to show where anyone of us has advocated indulgence), that's not an attack.

No, correction is saying "I disagree with what you said and this is why" (preferably with evidence from scripture), not "I don't like what you said, so big daddy murphy is going to call it an attack so he can censor you".

There was no correction given or intended. Just a moderator drunk with his own power.

Mike

 

Smoke-eater, Brian, I did not intend to post here, but I do want to mention something. Moderating is a very difficult job. I've been involved in it on a couple of different boards (one at a time!) for about five years now. No decision a moderator makes is going to be popular. Sometimes we literally agonize about the propriety of what another has posted and/or our response. It's not a matter of being 'drunk with power' but of learning how to use it and also of learning to let the inevitable criticisms roll off our backs -- or mentally bleed to death if not!

Murphy was asked to moderate because of his discernment of the Bible and his ability to keep his cool under pressure. Both of those qualities are very necessary and put very much to the test with this job. We know we are never going to be popular when we do what we feel needs to be done, but if popularity were the main goal, who would accept the moderator's job anyway?

I have had things edited by others which I strongly disagreed with in their decision to edit. But you know something? The world kept turning, the board kept moving, and I did not die. One of the very difficult things is to keep a board like we have here with so many personalities and variations of belief from ending up in the gutter with people throwing mud at each other.

This is considered by the moderators to be one of the more difficult forums to moderate. When you feel one of us makes a mistake on any forum, we don't mind you PM'ing us, but that is what is supposed to be done rather than bringing it up as a matter of public dispute.

There really is a time for peace! Let this be it here. We are all learning and growing and let's allow the Holy Spirit His turn at working in our hearts and our transformation into the image of our Lord. It is my suggestion to the moderators of this particular thread that it be locked and the forum allowed to move on.

In Christ,
Helen

 

Murphy, I feel you have *still* not explained where I have done what you claim, but I'm willing to let this drop.

No two English Bibles are the same, the "rules" of the forum are already in place that say this forum is not KJV-only. So then I think discussing differences in readings, if they apply directly to the subject at hand, is fair game in this forum and I will continue to do so until the "rules" of this forum are changed.

Maverick, you are oversimplifying the issue of textual transmission (even the Masoretes had questions occasionally), and your info about a rich man wanting a Jefferson Bible is news to me. Besides, it sounds like you're "casting doubt" on my Bible.

Helen, I fully understand the pains of moderating. I used to be the sole moderator on the Bible Versions Discussion Board (I can provide the link for anyone who wants it), and things got *way* more heated than they have here. But when I censored or banned, I was able to explicitly and specifically explain not only where a poster went against the forum rules, but also I was able to back up my claims against that person. Murphy has done neither. He has even censored words that had nothing to do with what he said he censored them for. I even got an "official warning" (whatever that means) from him, again without explanation of how/where I had committed an offense. But I'm going to let this drop for two reasons: 1. I don't believe Murphy will ever explain specifically how/where I did what he claimed, and I'm tired of asking, and 2. this has become ridiculous and I'd rather move on than rehash this anymore.

 

I tried and basically I was told to sit down and shut up, that he was the moderator and that he would do what ever he darned well pleased.

If I had said something offensive or something that really had been an attack, then I would understand but even the person my comments were directed at understood that it wasn't an attack.

This was purely personal and I don't understand why. I'd never said or done anything to murphy that should make him want to be this way.

By the way, I've been a moderator on other boards, too, and I can tell you from experience that to go off half cocked and start censoring people just for kicks is never the right thing to do.

Mike