The war has been won against KJVO?

Is having a difference of opinion with the majority opinion of a thread now "Offically" classified as "Spamming a Thread"?

Do I detect a hint of pride and arrogance here? Two things the Bible says that God Hates.

God is the judge on this and every Biblical issue, and mind you, there is no jury.

Just a thought.

 

Amen Bro. Dave,

It is also "heresy", "false doctrine", and "off topic", to have a dissenting view. I am not a brother in Christ. I am a "brother." That is not debate, that is effeminate railing.

Lacy

 

If this is true then yours is perhaps the saddest testimony on the whole board. Your preservation by restoration theory stretches scripture well beyond any reasonable point.

 

They did not believe in the Bible...

If they were Christians, how can they not believe so many fundamental doctrines? </font>[/QUOTE]Your charges have been answered before on this board Askjo. The fact that you keep making the same charges after having been thoroughly refuted by folks like BrianT says terrible things about your integrity and suggests that you are hardened to the truth.

But since the issues you raised means that W&H were not Christians in your mind then let's turn that argument around.

The KJV translators believed in the divine right of kings. They made the English monarch a quasi-pope with headship over both state and church. They believed in baptismal regeneration. The leader of the translation committee, Archbishop Andrewes, preached that the eucharist is both sacrament and sacrifice. The CoE that these very men belonged to persecuted Baptist and other dissenters during their life time. The CoE is unique in that it separated from Rome not over doctrinal issues, which were an afterthought and still in development when the KJV was made, but rather over a political squabble between the Pope and King of England who couldn't get approval for a divorce he wanted.

The CoE did not take a stand against alcohol and the testimony about one of the translators is that he drank his fill every day while doing the work.

"If they were Christians, how can they not believe so many fundamental doctrines?" Especially the ones that would prevent the church from trying to make converts by physical threats and force.

 

Amen! </font>[/QUOTE]...blah, blah, blah....

 

Oh well, so much for what Dr. Bob described as
"being civil and dealing with a subject without rancor."

As an admitted "progressive," I disagree with Daniel David on practically every social and political issue ever discussed, but I would never question his "holiness." Furthermore, was it "hurtful" or "hateful?"

By the way, I have never seen anyone extol "every-version-onlyism." I, for one, don't approve of every version, I simply reject KJVO, a well-established "ism" and a moniker that is worn with pride by some on this list. Until someone can show the SCRIPTURAL justification for the complete and total rejection of all other Versions of God's Holy Word in the English language, then I will maintain that it is UNSCRIPTURAL. And yes, Lacy: I have read everything you have offered.

My Authorised Version has more than sixty-six books, does yours? Remember: if your King James Bible ain't got the Apocrypha, then you ain't got a REAL King James Bible.[sic]

 

Dear BIR,

David continually refers to me as "brother" Lacy. (quotation marks his) Several posters on both sides of the kjvo issue, including myself, have asked him why the word is in quotes. He has yet to respond or to stop. Is he questioning my salvation? Is this a new debate technique? If I don't agree with you, I must not be saved?

I am full of rancor because I ask him about it? How would you know whether it is hurtful? I know how I feel, but how do you? I'm thinking you jumped into the middle of something before you looked at what was going on.

Lacy

PS. Forgive me Pastor Larry if any of this is inappropriate. If you need to delete it, I'll understand.

 

Amen, Tom!
In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]Blah! Blah! Blah!

 

Duh! I mean Pastor Bob!

Lacy

 

Explain how this is "questioning" your salvation, especially given the fact that, by your own admission, he hasn't answered you.

Moreover, what gives someone the right to "question" anyone's holiness? If you feel that he is questioning your salvation, and that this is wrong, then why would you question his "holiness?"

You are "full of rancor" because you are speaking out against "every version onlyism." I haven't seen anyone publicly extol this bizarre "ism" that you have invented. Like I said before, I do not like every Version of God's Holy Word, I simply dismiss KJVO for what it is: a personal preference that CANNOT be justified Scripturally, despite the claims of some on this list.

And just think: I actually use the 1611 Authorised Version yet I do not subscribe to KJVO.

 

Dear BIM,

This is really none of your business. A moderator has already approached me privately about it. That is where I should have kept it in the first place. If someone is being hateful, on purpose, if someone knows what he is doing is hurtful, then we all have the right to question his holiness. If David will explain the quotation marks, I'll shut up.

Lacy

PS As to your question about my "every-version-onlyism" comment, I think if you will go back and see where it originated (my playing with the words of another poster), you will see that there was definitely no "rancor". In fact it was very tongue in cheek and lighthearted. Would Almost-Any-Version-Onlysim (AAVO) suit you better? That way you could still choose.

 

Then perhaps you should not have brought it into the public forum, huh? The minute you bring it into a public forum, it becomes a public discussion.

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?
When is that the case? If it is wrong for him to "question" you, then it is indeed wrong for you to do likewise.

He did: problem solved.

How about just simply The Word of God?
That one has a nice ring to it.

Why does your need to identify yourself with an "ism" necessitate the need for another one to identify those of us who do not subscribe to the belief, especially when it cannot be Scripturally justified?

By the way, it's BiR, not BIM.

 

Sorry friend, I have been "busier than a termite in a wooden yo-yo." I am preaching at a Youth Conference in Benton, Arkansas next week so my study time has been priority this week.

I'll try and pick up the discussion when I get back.

Pastor Bob

 

Thank you Brother. That makes sense.

God bless, Lacy

 

Love ya, Lacy. And you are full-fledged BROTHER in my book, no matter where you stand on the KJVO issue! Besides, your wit is out of this world.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I don't know if my fellow moderators did anything to fix the tone of this thread, or whether it repaired itself in its own. Been quite busy the last week or so. It is a blessing to see the maturity which brought the thread back to honest discussion. Way to go folks!!

 

The false teaching of Every-Version-Only-ism is alive and well. Satan is still seeking those whom he may devour. God's Word is still under attack from Every-Version-Only-ism . So no, the battle is not over. We must defend God's Word against the liberals

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Bro Lacy, you know this isn't true "Every-Version-Only-ism", those of us who don't hold to the KJVOnly view, have the same belief as the translators of the AV, as so far as the philosphy of translations; i.e. as they quoted Augustine, "a variety of translations is profitable for gaining the sense of the Scriptures" (not sure if I got the quote exactly right, but you get the picture). </font>[/QUOTE]Like you Kevin, I've never encountered this, and I know I certainly don't believe this. If there are those out there that belive that all 'supposed' Bible versions are equal, they are completely and seriously misled.