-
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!
A new King James Bible defense book
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
Michelle, must we go one like this? You asserted that your explanation of the text is the one that has been accepted for hundreds of years, as if "preservation of people" is a novel concept dreamed up by modernists.
I have shown that is not the case, that many respected commentators (Puritans and Baptists) have disagreed.
That is what I was saying, but you insist on going beyond the text and the context. In essence, the Psalm is a promise to the righteous and the poor that they will not always be neglected and trodden upon by the wicked. That is the clear message within the context. To say otherwise is just proof-texting.
But you insist on going beyond the text.
I have shown that is not the case, that many respected commentators (Puritans and Baptists) have disagreed.
That is what I was saying, but you insist on going beyond the text and the context. In essence, the Psalm is a promise to the righteous and the poor that they will not always be neglected and trodden upon by the wicked. That is the clear message within the context. To say otherwise is just proof-texting.
But you insist on going beyond the text.
Hey, folks, this is NOT a chat room where we can demand immediate answers. Folks have a life and may be gone for days .. or choose NEVER to answer.
Deal with it. And there are people, like Michelle, who I personally opt never to answer. I may openly condemn or ridicule her, but after the first and second admonition, I choose to reject some folks.
And they do the same to me, I'm sure!
Deal with it. And there are people, like Michelle, who I personally opt never to answer. I may openly condemn or ridicule her, but after the first and second admonition, I choose to reject some folks.
And they do the same to me, I'm sure!
I'm sorry Bob.
This was yesterday and I was just responding to her accusation that I was labeling her. We were practically chatting during that time period and she quit immediately. That was the only reason. I had finally gotten her to start answering questions, but they got too difficult for a KJVo to have an answer.
I did put another post up today. I honestly am trying to get her to see some truth and weakness in her KJVo position. Michelle is a new Christian with confused beliefs. If she can be reached before she gets too entrenched, I think she has a chance to understand, but I'm about to give up.
She was answering me yesterday almost instantly, but she just quit after making the accusation above. I just felt that I had a right to ask her to respond since I know she is still reading this and not answering.
I hear you and again I am sorry.
This was yesterday and I was just responding to her accusation that I was labeling her. We were practically chatting during that time period and she quit immediately. That was the only reason. I had finally gotten her to start answering questions, but they got too difficult for a KJVo to have an answer.
I did put another post up today. I honestly am trying to get her to see some truth and weakness in her KJVo position. Michelle is a new Christian with confused beliefs. If she can be reached before she gets too entrenched, I think she has a chance to understand, but I'm about to give up.
She was answering me yesterday almost instantly, but she just quit after making the accusation above. I just felt that I had a right to ask her to respond since I know she is still reading this and not answering.
I hear you and again I am sorry.
Dr. Bob, I do not mean any disrespect from what I am saying here, but it is my opinion that this IS a debate site and although you have heard all of the KJVo arguments over and over, because you moderate the forum. When someone like Michelle comes along she has not been here long enough for us to debate the issue with her. People are constantly changing. If we do not want a KJVo to answer our questions or respond, then we do away with the entire reason for having this "debate" site.
I do believe that Michelle is a good Christian who is also a new Christian, but she is just confused. I don't mind allowing her to make her accusations as long as I can debate those issues with her.
She has obviously kept her posts fairly benign for a typical KJVo or you would have removed her.
Part of the interest of debate is to attempt to show a person where they are wrong. If we all agree with each other, we might as well just make this a "fellowship" stream.
I personally think there is hope for Michelle to realize that her stance on the KJV is a myth.
I hope I don't upset you or make you mad at me for saying this, but I think maybe the board is a little bit biased in allowing those who we disagree with to present their view. That is the fun part of debate.
I say this in all humbleness of a Christian response.
Michelle, excellent answer! I agree with you.
</font>[/QUOTE]You may agree, Askjo, but there are many errors in her post. Let me take an example or two. She states the method of translation of the CT is dynamic equivalence. This is often misunderstood and it does NOT mean paraphrasing. The KJV used dynamic equivalence when it was translated in 1611. Other posters have shown specific scriptures where this is so.Unless you believe that there is "inspirational translation", which is not scriptural, then you must understand that there is absolutely NO doctrinal change due to a few words left out. Will challenged me to discuss a few of these words on the KJVo markout site. I anwered several and it was apparent there was one of two reasons in almost every case. First, if the word was indeed left out; but you still cannot prove that it was added by the manuscript mills that pumped out thousands of TR texts. All older texts seem to be more concise with less text. In this case there is never a change in doctrine regardless of what you say.
You can claim it degrades the diety of Christ, the Trinity, etc. You cannot prove this, because it is not true.
The second reason for changes is that the words were replaced with more modern words and therefore a strawman occurs.
No problem on my part. We allow all the KJVo sect to post (and often BEG them to actually give facts and respond to questions) and only occasionally have to suspend one of them for going "over the edge". The rest - on each side of the issue - are good Christians.
This IS a debate site. Like most on here, we just choose not to debate some people whom we have decided it is banging heads. You may come to that same position. Rather than getting bitter or irritated at the people - keep focused on the issues.
Glad to have YOU on board in the discussions.
skanwmatos
New Member
Did you doubt the resurrection before you were saved? Does that mean you are still lost?