How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:


All the proponents of the MVs attack the KJB crowd and say there is a mountian of evidence to prove the KJB is not the word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have never heard/seen anyone who accepts the historic, orthodox doctrine on the Bible say that the KJV is not the Word of God. KJVO's such as yourself simply mis-define the term Word of God to mean a particular set of English words. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However, there is also a mountian of evidence to prove it is, it's just a matter of what you believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I remember correctly you presented this mountain of evidence and it has been completely, factually refuted. It certainly is not a matter of "what you believe." It is a matter of diligently seeking the truth without predetermining the outcome. It is about accepting the scriptural and historical facts then shaping your opinions to match them rather than forming an opinion based on tradition and emotion (experiential religion) then distorting or denying the facts in order to maintain your false doctrine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And yes, I believe that a God that can create the universe in 6 days, make a perfect Heaven, and inspire Godly men to write the original texts in their language,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very good analogy. God created it perfect. Man's sinful weakness corrupted it. Nonetheless, God's general revelation still perfectly, magnificently shines through His natural creation just like His Word is communicated perfectly through the manuscripts and translations. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I believe He can take on the simple task of making sure His original words are translated perfectly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I also believe He could do this. However, can and did are two entirely different propositions. He could but the overwhelming objective evidence says that He didn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It all comes down to who believes the first four words of the Bible, "In the beginning God...".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe the message of those words but reject you non-sensical mis-application of them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is the most important statement ever made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would actually nominate "in the beginning was..." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> God always was and always will be. He is perfect and every thing He does is perfect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. The problem for KJVO's is that He didn't translate the AV; a group of Anglican scholars did. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> He promised to preserve His words, and if they are just preserved in the originals, we are all in trouble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good thing that God providentially gave us over 20,000 mss, versions, and witnesses to ensure that the Word of God was not lost in spite of the weakness and sinfulness of man. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Those who have faith in God don't have to spend all of their time proving that God didn't leave His word, they just believe it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Faith that disagrees with the objective facts that God has revealed is nothing more nor less than superstition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So go ahead and give your ignorant arguments as to how a God that is perfect was not smart enough to preserve His word perfectly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So unless we concur with your presumptive demand that God give us a perfect translation through the imperfect hands of men that were not prophets and did not have apostolic authority in contradiction to all of the objective evidence then...we are the ignorant ones??? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But as for me and my house, we will have faith in the Lord and serve Him through His perfect, preserved, infallable Words, the King James Bible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would only point out that the Pharisees also said they were serving God through the superiority of their law and tradition. Jesus condemned them for abiding by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the God's Word.

By assigning perfection to the works of the hands of man (the KJV), you have made yourself an idol.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we can't have a Bible without the originals then we are a most miserable lot, where then is Truth?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said this. Shaun made the statement that something was “taken out” and I questioned how he would know something was “taken out” unless he had the originals. The point is that you nor anyone else can know for sure something was “taken out” without the originals.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unless a person is willing to accept the fact that God could and did preserve His Word so He could communicate with us, all discussion is futile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe God did preserve his word and he does communicate through it to us. At this point, I find the NASB95 and the NIV to be the best translations for this time in history. They are both translations of God’s preserved words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How confusing to have several perversions, none of which agree, this is one of Satan's masterpieces...to divide by confusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you study the MVs, you will find that it is usually the KJV that doesn’t agree. The others read strikingly similar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any honest saved person with a desire to know the truth arrives at the same conclusion....the KJV is the living Word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is perjorative at best. I am honest and saved and I do have a desire to know and I do believe that the KJV is not the living Word of God. Christ was the Living Word of God (John 1). The KJV is a very good translation of the Word of God that has language that is somewhat outdated. The NASB and NIV are both better translations for the language that we speak.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't it strange that those who cling to the new perversions also want to cling to the world system of life. … Why are those who are against standards also those who are anti KJV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a patently false statement and it is offensive to those of us to hold to the biblical doctrine of inspiration and read, study, and preach from modern translations. We do hold standards and preach them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those who oppose the KJV are not interested in Truth, but only in being right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement has not truth whatsoever to it. It is the truth that there are textual variants. It is the truth that the KJV has some verses and words in it with no Greek manuscript support. It is a fact that the KJV uses words that no longer mean what they meant when they were translated and actually give the opposite meaning. You need to know some of these things so that you can accurately study the Bible. No one here, to my knowledge, is against the KJV. We believe it to be a good translation. We simply believe that there are other good translations.

scott <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God's general revelation still perfectly, magnificently shines through His natural creation just like His Word is communicated perfectly through the manuscripts and translations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think, no, I know, you mean only those manuscripts and translations that YOU chose.

scott <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I agree. The problem for KJVO's is that He didn't translate the AV; a group of Anglican scholars did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, lest I forget that group of scholars didn't have the knowledge the modern day scholars have. But thank's to God this Bible has lived, breathed, and been there for millions of saved through the years and you can not refute that. ( I'm sure you'll try)

scott <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Faith that disagrees with the objective facts that God has revealed is nothing more nor less than superstition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the one for the last 400 years was their faith superstition? I don't think so. Faith in the Bible is not superstition. You have no right to question someones salvation, which when you get right down to it thats what you are questioning.

scott <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By assigning perfection to the works of the hands of man (the KJV), you have made yourself an idol.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And YOU haven't with your mv's, yeah right because your scholars are men to no matter which book they worked on. Maybe you should read just for the fun of it Hebrews 11:1 and let the Holy Spirit talk to you for awhile.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has ever had to actually do any language translation here.

So, I am going to start off with an example.

What, of the following, I ask you, is the TRUE Word of Alex?

English: (original language)
I am going to the market now.

Then let's translate it into 3 other languages so that they can know too.

French:
Je vais au marché maintenant.
Spanish
Ahora voy al mercado.
German
Ich gehe zum Markt jetzt.

Now let's translate the French translation BACK into English:
I go to the market now.

Then the Spanish back into English:
Now I go to the market.

Then the German back into English:
I go to the market now.

Did anything significant besides word order change?

A frenchman, a spaniard, a german; they all know I'm going to the store, and right quick, too.

The fact of the matter is, you are displaying your naiveté when you expect every single preposition to have an exact match in another language for which the document WAS NOT DESIGNED.

You are displaying to the world your lack of knowledge of how language translation works.

Languages simply do not translate that way. And for sure they don't translate that way when the thought forms that dictate a language schema are completely rearranged from the hierarchy of the original.

If you don't believe me, you can easily prove this to yourself without my help.

Go here: http://www.systransoft.com/

Try your hand at various translations of more complicated sentences than I have used.

You are going to be surprised at what you get back when you take the target language results and translate them back into English.

Is the translator a HERETIC? NO!

It's just the way that language translates literally. This is the reason a literal translation may not always be the best method.

If you don't know anything about other language forms, and the differences a translator is likely to encounter, then don't presume upon textual scholarship because of some overbearing, confident sounding man you heard in a pulpit that you admire.

He read the same outrageous, dogmatic books he is feeding you.

The loudest, and the one who blows the most spit over the front row, is not necessarily correct.

You have a brain, you have the Holy Spirit, YOU DO THE RESEARCH. When you have the
answers for yourself, don't deny the evidence! Trust me, it won't slacken your faith, or make you an infidel, it will cause you to worship even more in His Majesty and Presence. It will give you more confidence than you ever dreamed possible.

Just because God asks you to live by faith does not give license to be lazy in the mind.

I asked a question at the beginning of this post, do you remember what it was?

Question: What, of the following, I ask you, is the TRUE Word of Alex?

Answer: THEY ALL ARE.

In His Steps,

Alex
II Corinthians 10:5

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: petersonalexw ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
You would have to first tell me what you mean by "without error." I don't think any translation is completely without error in the sense of typos, printers errors, ect. My KJV has several. If you mean "inerrant" then yes, they were "without error of fact."

[Final paragraphs snipped due to hateful content, slander, and general unchristian content.]

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ][/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Cassidy,
I honestly want to appologize to you if I have in any way offended you in such a way to cause such rabid responses. I love all Christians and I sincerely hope that as you do your studies of the Bible that you follow the commands of Jesus. The Bible does say to point out (after you get the log out of your own eye) the sins of your brother to help him and I feel you have some sort of problem in two areas and those are egotism and anger. Since I have never lived in your shoes, I cannot judge what your life must have been like, but considering today's outcome it is apparent you have been through more than we. I will pray for you and I sincerely hope that all the other Christians reading these remarks will too. Specifically, I will pray that the Holy Spirit guide you in your study of the Word and teach the humbleness taught by our Master Jesus Christ.
I choose not to debate with you any more because I do not wish to further instigate violent reactions and if you wish to discuss without attacking a person's education, personality, intelligence and way of communication when they are inferior to yours then I am here to discuss, until then, God Bless you and may you read Paul's epistles in "whatever" translation to understand that our journey after salvation is to become more and more like Christ every day. Have a good day and again I appologize if I have triggered these emotional outbursts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
&gt;&gt;I can not use other versions because I believe strongly in Rev. 22:18, 19. &gt;&gt;

That statement seems to present a problem: The 1611 KJV (actual year of 1611) included the Apocrypha.

Therefore the Apocrypha is also the Word of God according to Revelation 22:18-19 because in the year 1611 it was inbetween the covers of every KJV Bible printed.

The words used are "of this Book".

So every 1769 version or any version which excludes the Apocrypha would come under the edict of the punishment of Revelation 22:18-19.

HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HankD, I agree with you 100% and would also like to make one statement regarding the way the "books" were used in the first few centuries of Christianity. Before the canon was created, there were individual "books" which were passed around to the churches, one of which was "Revelations" and as I said earlier, many Hebrew writers used this statement on their documents to prevent additions or changes from occurring because of the importance they held regarding the literature. That verse was specifically referring to Revelations and it is NOT intended as a statement for the entire Bible as the early Christians were unaware of the fact the New Testament would be pulled together as a library of books like the Old Testament. It is; however, possible that God had him include this for the whole Bible with his infinite knowledge of the future, but it is my opinion this is not really the case here.

Let us also be very clear that this "copyright" notice was not intended to indicate words or phrases that may be different as the book is retranslated into more modern languages. The entire book of Revelations still matches the KJV too well for this to even be an issue. In fact, I cannot understand the entire KJVO situation because as mentioned above "NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE ORIGINALS SAY" and therefore--nobody can say anything was "cut" or "added" in ANY translation. Some scholars would like to believe some old texts are better than others, but only two things can actually be used today and that is "age" of the manuscript, plus the "origin" and "numbers" or quantity of manuscripts that agree (which doesn't necessicarily mean much because the Byzantine text was printed by early (so called) printing mills by the thousands--so this agrument is invalid.
Through personal experience I have noticed one thing though. As I read ANY translation and pray for knowledge the Holy Spirit shows me surprising things in the scriptures. This occurs whether I am reading the NIV, NASB or KJV. I then pull out my parallel Bible and Greek texts and surprisingly (why should it be a suprise, it comes from God) the words of God speak directly to my heart and there is NO conflict and never has been. THIS is the reason I would be extremely careful indicating that a translation of the Word of God comes from Satan; unless it truly says Jesus is not the Son of God--which unlike some of the statements made above indicate--this is not the case--usually only different phrases are used to mean the same thing and the few things left out do not take away from the doctrine. . . as I said before, who knows what was added or taken away when we do not know what the originals contained!

One last comment regarding Christians who "know" the KJVO is correct. I must give my pastor credit for this one. If God has told you something about the KJV such as "it is the ONLY correct English version" then this should be recorded somewhere because it would be "inspired" just like the Bible.

I seriously don't think you want to add to the end of Revelations that God told you to write: "This is the ONLY inspired book of God in English." I think maybe John's statement in Revelations might refer to an addition like this. God Bless All.

I do have one question for the KJVO crowd:
Does anybody on this board believe that you cannot be a Christian if you are not a KJVO advocate? This is a serious question and I am just curious. Please answer KJVO people.
Thank you,

Thanks for your answer Phillip,

Though I use the KJV almost all of the time, I too have been blessed through reading non-KJV Bibles.

HankD

I think, no, I know, you mean only those manuscripts and translations that YOU chose

Please do not presume to know what I mean if it is not explicit in what I write. It is patently dishonest to presumptively twist someone's words to mean something the person never intended.

I do mean ALL of the available evidence. The Greek text behind the KJV is based on a small number of late manuscripts. Erasmus had no more than 10 plus his Latin Vulgate when he collated the first edition of the TR. My understanding is that Nestle-Aland considered over 2,000 pieces of ancient evidence.

Oh yes, lest I forget that group of scholars didn't have the knowledge the modern day scholars have. But thank's to God this Bible has lived, breathed, and been there for millions of saved through the years and you can not refute that. ( I'm sure you'll try)

On the first point, you state a fact in spite of your sarcasm. Modern scholars do have more evidence and accumulated knowledge than the KJV translators had. However, the KJV translators were probably better classical scholars than most modern translators. Modern translators are often very specialized.

Second, I could nitpick your wording but I won't. The Word of God as communicated through the KJV has indeed been a blessing to millions. I use the KJV. My church uses it exclusively. I memorize and quote it...but I will not turn it into an idol. Many Israelites were saved through the brass serpent but later they tried to make that image an idol. What a shame that modern Baptist would do the same with the wonderful KJV translation of the Bible.

What about the one for the last 400 years was their faith superstition? I don't think so. Faith in the Bible is not superstition. You have no right to question someones salvation, which when you get right down to it thats what you are questioning.

People for the last 400 years have not held faith in something contrary to the evidence. I did not say that.

Faith in the Bible is absolutely not superstition. It is the things that KJVO's believe about the Bible without historical or scriptural backing that is superstition.

I have not claimed the right to question your salvation. I know nothing about you except what you have revealed here which, to be honest, has not been an impressive testimony so far. I do however have a biblical basis for questioning your discernment when you promote religion that is contrary to the truth.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
scott
And YOU haven't with your mv's, yeah right because your scholars are men to no matter which book they worked on. Maybe you should read just for the fun of it Hebrews 11:1 and let the Holy Spirit talk to you for awhile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. I have not idolized any version of the Bible. The Bible book is an inanimate tool by which I learn the living Word of God.

Perhaps you should read all of Hebrews 11 in its context. The examples given are people who had faith in what God had revealed to them directly. Their faith was not baseless emotion. It was not human tradition. It did not conflict with any revealed truth. The examples are of people who had the faith to do what God commanded and/or faith that God would do what He had promised (btw, not faith that God would use methods determined by them). The context has nothing to do with believing things against the factual proof.

The Bereans were praised for searching the scriptures to see if the gospel was true. John wrote "so that 'we' might know we have eternal life". Christians never have a right to be lazy or willfully ignorant of truth when God provides evidence for the proving.

[ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

Phillip, allow me to comment on a few of your statements:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
Before the canon was created,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Phillip, the canon was completed at the time of the completion of the book of the Revelation, not two or three hundred years later at a Catholic Council. The RCC never did get the canon right! They still have too many books in their "canon." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>there were individual "books" which were passed around to the churches, one of which was "Revelations"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that is "Revelation." There is only one of them, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(which doesn't necessicarily mean much because the Byzantine text was printed by early (so called) printing mills by the thousands--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There were no printed texts of the bible or any book of the bible prior to Johann Genfleisch Zur Laden Zum Gutenberg who was born in the last decade of the 14th century in Mainz, Germany, and died Feb. 3, 1468 in Mainz, who printed a Psalter, followed by the entire bible in 1455. Gutenberg's bibles were all the Latin Vulgate. The Byzantine text was contained in manuscripts (manu = hand, scripts = written) until 1516 when Desiderius Erasmus produced the first printed Greek New Testament printed by the presses of Johann Froben in Basel, in what is now Switzerland.

The reason there are so many Byzantine manuscripts (the vast majority) is that Byzantium was a Greek speaking Empire. As the Latin speaking Roman Empire continued to expand, their bibles were translated into Latin (as early as 150 AD for the most ancient of the Italic bibles) and a later Latin revision was done by Eusebius Hieronymus, aka Sophronius, aka Jerome, the Gospels were completed in 383 and the OT in 405.

Thomas, You are correct on the question of Canon. There are many who mistakingly believe that the church councils sat down and determined what which books should be in the New Testament and which should be set aside. A known Canon existed for the heretic Marcion to mess with. One of the best articles I have read on this topic is by David Dunbar in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon Published originally by Zondervan, the reprint is by Baker. D.A. Carson is one of the editors.

Chick

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Phillip, allow me to comment on a few of your statements:
There were no printed texts of the bible or any book of the bible prior to Johann Genfleisch Zur Laden Zum Gutenberg who was born in the last decade of the 14th century in Mainz, Germany, and died Feb. 3, 1468 in Mainz, who printed a Psalter, followed by the entire bible in 1455. Gutenberg's bibles were all the Latin Vulgate. The Byzantine text was contained in manuscripts (manu = hand, scripts = written) until 1516 when Desiderius Erasmus produced the first printed Greek New Testament printed by the presses of Johann Froben in Basel, in what is now Switzerland.

The reason there are so many Byzantine manuscripts (the vast majority) is that Byzantium was a Greek speaking Empire. As the Latin speaking Roman Empire continued to expand, their bibles were translated into Latin (as early as 150 AD for the most ancient of the Italic bibles) and a later Latin revision was done by Eusebius Hieronymus, aka Sophronius, aka Jerome, the Gospels were completed in 383 and the OT in 405.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My, my Mr. Cassidy, this is my point I made in my earlier positing. You MUST be an English teacher because I have NEVER seen anybody pick apart words like you do. Yes, it is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" duh, I was tired and mistyped it. What I meant when the canon was created was that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was debated strongly before it was included--this is ALL

I NEVER said WHEN the canon was created, all I said was that individual books were passed around for serveral early centuries after Christ and this is FACT.

I do NOT need a history lesson on the printing presses of the world, I probably own more books from that era than you have ever read, my point WAS that "YES, they did call these COPY HOUSES "Printing Mills" because many, many copies of HEBREW Byzantine prints were made (by hand--might I add--by many copiers) This is the reason so many were available and therefore it is not a good indication as to whether or not the documents were copied correctly or not. THIS is FACT.

Here I go again. . . What is the deal? Why do you absolutely have to correct every sentence, word and period in somebodies statement when it is not that IMPORTANT. There can either be one or both of two reasons: EGO or an attempt to impeach anything I say by correcting every statement I type.

Nowhere have I heard you discuss the Holy Spirit's involvement when we read the Bible or other main issues. Can we just let this go at this and quit attacking each word written to prove our tremendous knowledge of historical English and the printing press?..........Please?

Somebody (else), please tell me if I'm out of line here and overreacting!!!!!!!!

Not that anyone will respond to me here. Alas, I guess because I am a new member, only two have felt the need to:

Thanks to the webmaster of BaptistUniverse, and also John Wells for making me feel welcome. Thank YOU, B.J. and others for making this web site possible.

This will probably get me booted from the board, and possibly it will not, but I have noticed a thing or two while here, which I will post-haste pontifically propound:

(Hey it's alliterative, and I didn't use a copyright notice, so feel free. LOL!)

While the amount of scholarship, or even pseudo-scholarship here is staggering to the mind, my awe at it's immensity is dwarfed by the 5-year-old attitudes which seem to be prevalent.

If you guys were in a meeting face to face, I daresay you would all be more civil to each other. So, under the guise of anonymity, you are more than willing to let all of us see the attitudes you suppress when in person.

Truth is, when something gets squeezed, whatever is inside comes out. From either side there hasn't been much to be proud of.

So, in closing, I guess I would offer two unsolicited pieces of advice:

1) Thomas, when a man ain't got no education, he's forced to use his brains.

2) Phillip, your debating tactics need polishing. You are getting flustered. What this does is to cloud the credibility of any scholarship you may be able to put forth.
(And guess what Phillip, for a lot of things, I hold your view exactly. The problem is, you can't control your emotionalism long enough to engender respect from your peers.)

Let's do try to speak the truth in Christian Love. And before anyone bothers to ask, "Who do you think YOU are?", let me respond with, I am a Christian brother, who IS my brother's keeper.

If a lost person were to trouble himself enough to dig through all of this thread, and were writing a book whose topic was "The Disharmony of Christians", would he find enough subject material?

I ask you to prayerfully consider this.

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by petersonalexw:
Not that anyone will respond to me here. Alas, I guess because I am a new member, only two have felt the need to:

Thanks to the webmaster of BaptistUniverse, and also John Wells for making me feel welcome. Thank YOU, B.J. and others for making this web site possible.

This will probably get me booted from the board, and possibly it will not, but I have noticed a thing or two while here, which I will post-haste pontifically propound:

(Hey it's alliterative, and I didn't use a copyright notice, so feel free. LOL!)

While the amount of scholarship, or even pseudo-scholarship here is staggering to the mind, my awe at it's immensity is dwarfed by the 5-year-old attitudes which seem to be prevalent.

If you guys were in a meeting face to face, I daresay you would all be more civil to each other. So, under the guise of anonymity, you are more than willing to let all of us see the attitudes you suppress when in person.

Truth is, when something gets squeezed, whatever is inside comes out. From either side there hasn't been much to be proud of.

So, in closing, I guess I would offer two unsolicited pieces of advice:

1) Thomas, when a man ain't got no education, he's forced to use his brains.

2) Phillip, your debating tactics need polishing. You are getting flustered. What this does is to cloud the credibility of any scholarship you may be able to put forth.
(And guess what Phillip, for a lot of things, I hold your view exactly. The problem is, you can't control your emotionalism long enough to engender respect from your peers.)

Let's do try to speak the truth in Christian Love. And before anyone bothers to ask, "Who do you think YOU are?", let me respond with, I am a Christian brother, who IS my brother's keeper.

If a lost person were to trouble himself enough to dig through all of this thread, and were writing a book whose topic was "The Disharmony of Christians", would he find enough subject material?

I ask you to prayerfully consider this.

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alex, you are 100% correct and I take your criticism with love of a Christian brother because you hit the nail on the head. Yes, I have been frustrated for the past few days because often I was trying to discuss an issue with someone else and my friend kept interrupting and calling me "ignorant and uneducated" (I bet I have more education than he will ever have--college professor or not), but I must say if you will read further back I proposed just exactly the truce you are talking about and told him I would not debate any more unless we could do it like adults. Behold, if I didn't answer some questions for another person that I was shredded AGAIN. Please, go back and read ALL of the postings before making a snap decision on specific people who have been carrying on conversations for quite some time now. The emotionalism did not occur until the personal attacks began. Yes, I guess I am still being a five year old, but I certainly wish you would read all of the posts when making your judgments. And, yes, I love you and my debating buddy as brothers in Christ, but don't base your remarks on two or three pages. Please. . .
Thank you,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by petersonalexw:
1) Thomas, when a man ain't got no education, he's forced to use his brains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no idea what this means, but I will take your word for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Phillip, please limit your quoting to only that portion of the original post you are replying to, or, if you are replying to the entire post don't quote it at all. This is a Baptist Board policy to conserve disk space and band width.

Thank you.

Thomas Cassidy
Forum Moderator
Baptist Board Administrator

Yessir!

Actually, the only thing I meant by my remark, "...forced to use his brains..." was an elaboration on I Corinthians 1:26-29:

26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

We should remember that Jesus Himself had more respect for the fishermen and children of His incarnate earthly ministry than He had for scholars of the same era.

God has spoken to us all, not just to those who have a string of acronyms after their names.

I have some acronyms after my name, as well.

But, I would not reject sound reasoning from a janitor, given that it was provable and well-founded, even though I may be educated.

You see, the janitor may not have an education, but I may still make use of his learned observations. However, I could quite possibly silence any wisdom I could receive from the janitor if I regarded him with disdain.

We should be able to accept knowledge or refute false knowledge from the well spring of Truth without malignancy.

Proverbs 10:31
31. The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out.

For instance, I actually know the algorithm for calculating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Do I feel the need to share that algorithm? No.

Some things are just better left unsaid in retrospect.

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5
(Not the forum moderator)

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: petersonalexw ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by petersonalexw:
I have some acronyms after my name, as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really! I have no acronyms after my name. An acronym is a word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging. I have some letters after my name but they are not acronyms, they are abbreviations for the degrees I have received. I have never met anyone with an acronym after his name. Could you tell me what acronym is after your name, how to pronounce it and what it stands for?

Could it be "PhD?" I always took that to stand for "piled high and deep!"

Just having fun folks! Not meant to inflict pain, suffering, or anguish!

Actually, I'm thinking of adding one to my name:

John Wells, YUC
(Young Universe Creationist)

[ September 08, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]