1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Bottom Line

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 3
  1. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #21 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
  2. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone, made in the image of God, you call a 'dung-head'? Do you even *read* the book you are trying to defend? Or are you so caught up in defending the book that you've totally missed the message it contains?
     
    #22 BrianT, Jan 24, 2003
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The substance of the revelation God gave in the originals is "The Word." It is what God chose to reveal of Himself, His will, His activities, etc. in the scriptures irrespective of the words used to communicate that revelation. It is what He said, not how it is said that makes something the Word of God.
     
    #23 Scott J, Jan 24, 2003
  4. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #24 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
  5. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #25 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
  6. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, OK. I guess that makes it OK to call people dung-heads.

    So, "that stuff is in there", but doesn't apply to you personally. Gotcha.

    Yeah, like those who say the KJV is the CULMINATION (highest point, best) and thus everything before it was imperfect, but then they still say the word of God existed prior to 1611. Like those who say they believe the KJV, but then try to say a "unicorn" is really not a unicorn, but a rhino or a goat. Gotcha.
     
    #26 BrianT, Jan 24, 2003
  7. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #27 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
  8. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why did you disregard it, calling someone a dung-head instead of applying it?

    Do you even know what culmination means?

    No it doesn't. It mentions a goat. That doesn't mean a unicorn is a goat. Stop hissing "yea, hath God said..." and simply believe the Bible. If God meant "goat", he would have said "goat"!

    Words have meanings, do they not? I suppose you cast doubt on God's word when it says "cockatrice" and "satyr" as well! Shame! You call yourself a Bible-believer? You can't impress me with your scholarship! Mess with the Book, God messes with your mind...
     
    #28 BrianT, Jan 24, 2003
  9. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is unscriptural about calling a dung-head a dung-head???? He calls Jesus Christ a liar. So I call him a dung-head.

    nope. i was indocrinated in the public sewer system in california. i barely know my name....

    Exactly. He meant a unicorn. Why don't you tell me what a unicorn is then....

    Words have meaning. I believe every word of the 1611 AV. Including: unicorn, cockatrice, satyr, thither, and harlot.
     
    #29 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
  10. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Harvest said:

    instead of coming up with nonsense answers.

    What nonsense answer? I got the perfect Word of God right here. There's nothing nonsensical about that, it's a simple existential fact.

    The fact that you claim I'm putting you on, just proves what I've been saying all along: KJV-onlyists deal in skepticism, doubt, and unbelief.
     
    #30 Ransom, Jan 24, 2003
  11. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    BrianT said:

    Someone better tell Ruckman:

    Which Ruckman? [​IMG]
     
    #31 Ransom, Jan 24, 2003
  12. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #32 BrianT, Jan 24, 2003
  13. The Harvest

    The Harvest New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    ransom, are you charismatic? cause it seems you have the gift of the tongues. every time you speak it sounds like gibberish to me.
     
    #33 The Harvest, Jan 24, 2003
  14. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which Ruckman?

    Also, since all the matter in the human body is replaced approximately every 7 years, we no longer have the "original" Ruckman.

    Thus, we have no way of knowing whether his KJV-only views are authentic or not.

    [ January 24, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
     
    #34 Ransom, Jan 24, 2003
  15. The Harvest

    The Harvest New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    trust me, if Dr Ruckman was here you boys would be crying and sucking your thumb after what he would do to you
     
    #35 The Harvest, Jan 24, 2003
  16. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Harvest said:

    every time you speak it sounds like gibberish to me.

    I guess, having admitted in the ESV thread that you cannot give me a single reason why I should buy into KJV-onlyism, you have nothing left in your arsenal but ad hominem.

    KJV-onlyists: Shooting blanks in defense of God's Word.
     
    #36 Ransom, Jan 24, 2003
  17. The Harvest

    The Harvest New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    scroll back through this thread, there are several reasons given.
     
    #37 The Harvest, Jan 24, 2003
  18. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which Ruckman?

    what a [expletive deleted]...

    I'm still waiting for a single reason to buy into the KJV-only theology of skepticism and unbelief. Is this the best you can do?

    And The Harvest stepped in:

    trust me, if Dr Ruckman was here you boys would be crying and sucking your thumb after what he would do to you

    What's he going to do? Jab me with a hatpin?

    [ January 24, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
     
    #38 Ransom, Jan 24, 2003
  19. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's pretty funny. [​IMG]

    But, you would be so lucky if he only did that ;)

    The one and only reason to use the KJB is because it is the preserved words of God!
     
    #39 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
  20. Pure Words

    Pure Words New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again. Lots of whining lots of fluff and generalities but no one can show me a single book that is the words of God, perfect, pure, and preserved that is not the 1611 AV.

    Anyone want to "show their cards?" Face the music?

    If the 1611 AV is not the perfect, pure words of God at least be MAN (if there are any left) enough to show me what is!!!
    [​IMG] have a nice day
     
    #40 Pure Words, Jan 24, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 3
Loading...