I don't. I prefer the KJV over the NIV. But I did not make the claim that one of these versions is "abominable". Since you did, I pointed out that you ought to support such a claim. You did not.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are There Actual 'Fundamentals" In Theology for Fundamentalists?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I don't. I prefer the KJV over the NIV. But I did not make the claim that one of these versions is "abominable". Since you did, I pointed out that you ought to support such a claim. You did not.
Yes, and KJVO does undermine this tenet. It denies that the original writings are the supreme and final authority in faith and life. They replace the originals, or at least suppliment them, with the KJV.
So, oddly enough, some of the ones who tout the "fundamentalist" title the loudest actually undermine this particular idea of fundamentalism.
Once again you misrepresent KJVO (and I'll once again remind you that I am KJVP). The vast majority of KJVO claim that KJV is God's Word for English speakers. They do not claim that it is superior to the originals. You take a very fringe group and attempt to apply it to the whole. Maybe you should do some of that research you are always talking about instead of relating your very limited personal experience?
Robert Snow
New Member
And????
Are you not going to support this claim?
It is pointless if you do not.
Well, the KJV is the Word of God; Calvinism is a doctrine that twists the Word of God into many heretical teachings. Just look at John 3:16. The KJV says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Calvinism twists this into a lie stating that God didn't really love the world and that whosoever really cannot come to him. In my book that is calling God a liar, which is heresy.
There are several other like passages, but if you fail to believe God here, it really doesn't matter how you feel about the other passages.
Calvinism twists this into a lie stating that God didn't really love the world and that whosoever really cannot come to him. In my book that is calling God a liar, which is heresy.
Thank you Robert Snow for not remaining silent and for speaking out against the heresy that is Calvinism. Calvinism is a dark, twisted, evil theology straight from the pits of Hell. It is the #1 tool of Satan against Christianity today.
This thread is spiraling down hill remarkably fast.
Luke and matt, you both are saying crazy things.
-Seriously? Calvinism is doing more harm than the multitudes in mainline denominations who are rejecting or re-interpreting the very divinity of Jesus and the authority of God over our lives at all? More damage than the complete abandoning of commitment to marriage by our culture and even by those in conservative evangelical churches? I can tell you my church is filled with people who's lives have been damaged by divorce and adultery...and it is also filled with the empty places where those who have committed adultery and left their spouses used to sit, some of them for 20-30 YEARS before their sudden and sinful departure. (I can't think of anyone who would give testimony that calvinism has shipwrecked their faith or life, as they might about the breakup of marraiges).
Calvinism is not Heresy, it came about by people trying to make sense of some very difficult passages of scripture which could easily be interpreted to say God chooses people for salvation. People who try to honestly wrestle with these verses are not heretics.
-Matt is correct that most KJVO simply believe that the KJV is the best english translation, some because of the TR; and a few who may even think it is itself inerrant. They may be mistaken, but they are not heretics. It is not heresy to think God may have preserved his word and guided the translators who translated it.
Luke and matt, you both are saying crazy things.
FROM MATT WADE: Calvinism is a dark, twisted, evil theology straight from the pits of Hell. It is the #1 tool of Satan against Christianity today.
-Seriously? Calvinism is doing more harm than the multitudes in mainline denominations who are rejecting or re-interpreting the very divinity of Jesus and the authority of God over our lives at all? More damage than the complete abandoning of commitment to marriage by our culture and even by those in conservative evangelical churches? I can tell you my church is filled with people who's lives have been damaged by divorce and adultery...and it is also filled with the empty places where those who have committed adultery and left their spouses used to sit, some of them for 20-30 YEARS before their sudden and sinful departure. (I can't think of anyone who would give testimony that calvinism has shipwrecked their faith or life, as they might about the breakup of marraiges).
Calvinism is not Heresy, it came about by people trying to make sense of some very difficult passages of scripture which could easily be interpreted to say God chooses people for salvation. People who try to honestly wrestle with these verses are not heretics.
FROM LUKE: KJVO does undermine this tenet. It denies that the original writings are the supreme and final authority in faith and life. They replace the originals, or at least suppliment them, with the KJV.
-Matt is correct that most KJVO simply believe that the KJV is the best english translation, some because of the TR; and a few who may even think it is itself inerrant. They may be mistaken, but they are not heretics. It is not heresy to think God may have preserved his word and guided the translators who translated it.
Once again you misrepresent KJVO (and I'll once again remind you that I am KJVP). The vast majority of KJVO claim that KJV is God's Word for English speakers. They do not claim that it is superior to the originals. You take a very fringe group and attempt to apply it to the whole. Maybe you should do some of that research you are always talking about instead of relating your very limited personal experience?
I have done the research and you are wrong.
Most KJVO believe the words of the KJV are infallible- without error.
How, Matt, is this possible?
BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE GOD INSPIRED IT.
That brings into question the fundamentalist view on inspiration- plain and simple.
Well, the KJV is the Word of God; Calvinism is a doctrine that twists the Word of God into many heretical teachings. Just look at John 3:16. The KJV says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Calvinism twists this into a lie stating that God didn't really love the world and that whosoever really cannot come to him. In my book that is calling God a liar, which is heresy.
There are several other like passages, but if you fail to believe God here, it really doesn't matter how you feel about the other passages.
And again you just make claims with no support.
You might as well say the flying spaghetti monster is perched on your rooftop.
Making a claim without support is a pointless waste of your time.
These things you say are not true just because you state them, Robert.
I know that GOD speaks to you and you don't need any man to teach you anything- but even so, intelligent people will always require more of you than unsupported claims.
See, this is a DEBATE site. We make A R G U M E N T S on a debate site.
You know what arguments are, don't you?
Look it up. It would be very helpful for you.
This thread is spiraling down hill remarkably fast.
Luke and matt, you both are saying crazy things.
-Seriously? Calvinism is doing more harm than the multitudes in mainline denominations who are rejecting or re-interpreting the very divinity of Jesus and the authority of God over our lives at all? More damage than the complete abandoning of commitment to marriage by our culture and even by those in conservative evangelical churches? I can tell you my church is filled with people who's lives have been damaged by divorce and adultery...and it is also filled with the empty places where those who have committed adultery and left their spouses used to sit, some of them for 20-30 YEARS before their sudden and sinful departure. (I can't think of anyone who would give testimony that calvinism has shipwrecked their faith or life, as they might about the breakup of marraiges).
Calvinism is not Heresy, it came about by people trying to make sense of some very difficult passages of scripture which could easily be interpreted to say God chooses people for salvation. People who try to honestly wrestle with these verses are not heretics.
-Matt is correct that most KJVO simply believe that the KJV is the best english translation, some because of the TR; and a few who may even think it is itself inerrant. They may be mistaken, but they are not heretics. It is not heresy to think God may have preserved his word and guided the translators who translated it.
You're wrong, 12 strings. And what do you BASE this claim on? I do not think you base it on anything. It is just conjecture and it is wrong.
There have been NUMEROUS books written on this subject. Have you looked at a single one?
Read James Whites' book- The King James Only Controversy.
These people believe the KJV is INFALLIBLE.
You saying otherwise is the crazy thing, 12 strings.
Robert Snow
New Member
And again you just make claims with no support.
You might as well say the flying spaghetti monster is perched on your rooftop.
Making a claim without support is a pointless waste of your time.
These things you say are not true just because you state them, Robert.
I know that GOD speaks to you and you don't need any man to teach you anything- but even so, intelligent people will always require more of you than unsupported claims.
See, this is a DEBATE site. We make A R G U M E N T S on a debate site.
You know what arguments are, don't you?
Look it up. It would be very helpful for you.
It is pointless to attempt to discuss anything with you. Along with your sidekick P4t, I through responding to you. You should spend time learning how to talk to others. Bye! :wavey:
It is pointless to attempt to discuss anything with you. Along with your sidekick P4t, I through responding to you. You should spend time learning how to talk to others. Bye! :wavey:
And yet another claim without support.
Is that what you do all day? Make statements for which you have absolutely no support whatsoever and then expect that they are worth something JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THEM???????
:laugh:
Since No Mod Has Seen Fit To ...
Is Jesus Lord? Leaving out Lordship! Ha!
The shorter reading has the best manuscript support.
The NIV (based on superior documentary attestation) is best here. The TR based reading is inferior.
Matthew 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord." NIV "'Have you understood all these things?' Jesus asked. 'Yes,' they replied." NIV leaves out "Lord," again, leaving out His Lordship.
Is Jesus Lord? Leaving out Lordship! Ha!
Matthew 16:20 KJV "Then charged He his disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ." NIV "Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." NIV leaves out "Jesus,"
The shorter reading has the best manuscript support.
No,the TR added it in. It's a scribal expansion borrowed from 24:44 as per Comfort.Matthew 25:13 KJV "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." NIV "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." NIV leaves out "wherein the Son of man cometh."
The TR reading is an expansion. The NIV rendering has much better manuscript support.Mark 1:14 KJV "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God." NIV "After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God." NIV says "the good news" and leaves out "the gospel of the kingdom of God."
The NIV rendering is superior because it is based on much better testimony.Mark 9:24 KJV "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." NIV "Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, 'I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!'" NIV leaves out the reference to Jesus as "Lord."
"The WH NU reading has early and diverse testimony." (Comfort p.178) No other major translation aside from KJV and NKJV have the extra words.Luke 4:8 KJV "And Jesus said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve." NIV "Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" NIV leaves out "Get thee behind me Satan."
Again,the WH NU reading (which the NIV follows here) has better manuscript support.The "scribes could not resist adding 'the Christ.' The expansion became part of TR and KJV tradition." (p.180)Luke 4:41 KJV "And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God ..." NIV "Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, 'You are the Son of God! ...'" NIV leaves out the reference to Jesus by the devils that He was "Christ."
You are confused. The TR added it in without any Greek manuscript support.Luke 7:31 KJV "And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?" NIV "To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?" NIV leaves out "And the Lord said."
Again,scribal expansions seeking to harmonize portions of the so-called Lord's prayer in Matthew 6.Luke 11:2 KJV "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." NIV "He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come."
See above.Luke 11:4 KJV "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." NIV "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
What a sinful thing for you to say. How can he address Jesus and tell of His kingly power and yet deny His Lordship?!Luke 23:42 KJV "And he (the thief) said unto Jesus ‘Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.’" NIV "Then he said, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.'" NIV leaves out "Lord," doing away with His Deity.
The NIV (based on superior documentary attestation) is best here. The TR based reading is inferior.
Your charge is silly. Actually most of this screed (of yours?) is silly.John 10:30 KJV "I and my Father are one." NIV "I and the Father are one." Again, Satan is trying to do away with the Heavenly Father, and set himself on the throne. These are some more of the verses doing away with the Personal "My" or "Our" Father for an impersonal one, as well as changing "Our Lord" and "My Lord" to "the Lord" in referring to Jesus.
What were you saying earlier about the NIV leaving out the personal pronoun regarding the Father? The NIV has our,the KJV has just the.Galatians 1:3 KJV "Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," NIV "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,"
Last edited by a moderator:
seekingthetruth
New Member
You're wrong, 12 strings. And what do you BASE this claim on? I do not think you base it on anything. It is just conjecture and it is wrong.
There have been NUMEROUS books written on this subject. Have you looked at a single one?
Read James Whites' book- The King James Only Controversy.
These people believe the KJV is INFALLIBLE.
You saying otherwise is the crazy thing, 12 strings.
If it is not infallible, then how can we believe it? If some of it is the true Word of God, and some isn't, then how do you decide which is which?
IMHO, if I can't believe ALL of it then I can't believe any of it.
Now, as far as the "inspired" part of the argument. Yes, I believe the translators of any language (Greek to English, Hebrew to Russian, ect) must be inspried by God to correctly translate it.
If a man sat out to translate a Bible for the Chinese, he would have to have the inspiration and guidance of the HS to correctly convey the messege of the Word.
Their are many that see Bible translating as merely an academic endeaver, needing only the education of a linguist. I submit to you that a person trying to rightly divide the Word of God from the original texts cannot do so correctly with simple human intelligence.
I am not saying that God has not already inspired a correct modern translation, I am saying though that I am not convinced of it at this time.
Has anyone read "The Message"? It is a new version straight from the pits of Hell. Anyone who says that ALL modern versions are the Word of God needs to read this one.
John
seekingthetruth
New Member
Is Jesus Lord? Leaving out Lordship! Ha!
The shorter reading has the best manuscript support.
No,the TR added it in. It's a scribal expansion borrowed from 24:44 as per Comfort.
The TR reading is an expansion. The NIV rendering has much better manuscript support.
The NIV rendering is superior because it is based on much better testimony.
"The WH NU reading has early and diverse testimony." (Comfort p.178) No other major translation aside from KJV and NKJV have the extra words.
Again,the WH NU reading (which the NIV follows here) has better manuscript support.The "scribes could not resist adding 'the Christ.' The expansion became part of TR and KJV tradition." (p.180)
You are confused. The TR added it in without any Greek manuscript support.
Again,scribal expansions seeking to harmonize portions of the so-called Lord's prayer in Matthew 6.
See above.
What a sinful thing for you to say. How can he address Jesus and tell of His kingly power and yet deny His Lordship?!
The NIV (based on superior documentary attestation) is best here. The TR based reading is inferior.
Your charge is silly. Actually most of this screed (of yours?) is silly.
What were you saying earlier about the NIV leaving out the personal pronoun regarding the Father? The NIV has our,the KJV has just the.
Rippon, please don't make this personal by calling me silly. Why do you always resort to name-calling?
I am in no way saying that you should not use the NIV, I am merely giving examples of why I prefer the KJV.
Take the chip off of your shoulder, I am not your enemy. There is only one person on here that I consider an enemy, and that is because he is tearing down the bonds between Christians and causing strife among the bretheren. Please don't be like him.
John
It was you on another thread who said that every word in the Bible was important. :smilewinkgrin:Rippon said:Originally Posted by seekingthetruth
Matthew 13:51 KJV "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto Him, Yea, Lord." NIV "'Have you understood all these things?' Jesus asked. 'Yes,' they replied." NIV leaves out "Lord," again, leaving out His Lordship.
Is Jesus Lord? Leaving out Lordship! Ha!
The longer reading is in the vast majority of extant manuscripts including FWIW two dating back to the 5th Century.Quote:
Matthew 16:20 KJV "Then charged He his disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ." NIV "Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." NIV leaves out "Jesus,"
The shorter reading has the best manuscript support.
Prove it! Once again, it is in the vast majority of the extant mss. It is far morelikely that a scribe accidently missed it out.Quote:
Matthew 25:13 KJV "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." NIV "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." NIV leaves out "wherein the Son of man cometh."
No,the TR added it in. It's a scribal expansion borrowed from 24:44 as per Comfort.
Same as above. It's far more likely that a scribe accidently omitted it.Quote:
Mark 1:14 KJV "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God." NIV "After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God." NIV says "the good news" and leaves out "the gospel of the kingdom of God."
The TR reading is an expansion. The NIV rendering has much better manuscript support.
More important is the fact that the NIV leaves out 'with tears.' Tears are very precious to the Lord Jesus (2Kings 20:5; Psalm 6:8; Isaiah 25:8; Luke 7:13; Rev 7:17etc.). When I come to write my 1,000 page thesis :laugh: on tears in the Bible, I shall certainly be including this verse. 'With tears' has excellent manuscript support.Quote:
Mark 9:24 KJV "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." NIV "Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, 'I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!'" NIV leaves out the reference to Jesus as "Lord."
The NIV rendering is superior because it is based on much better testimony.
Since there is no doubt that the Lord Jesus did use those words, or something very similar (Matt 4:10), and they are in the huge majority of extant mss, it seems perverse to leave them out.Quote:
Luke 4:8 KJV "And Jesus said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve." NIV "Jesus answered, 'It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" NIV leaves out "Get thee behind me Satan."
"The WH NU reading has early and diverse testimony." (Comfort p.178) No other major translation aside from KJV and NKJV have the extra words.
Once again, an inattentive scribe missed out the important words. Fortunately they are preserved in the vast majority of extant mss.Quote:
Luke 4:41 KJV "And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God ..." NIV "Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, 'You are the Son of God! ...'" NIV leaves out the reference to Jesus by the devils that He was "Christ."
Again,the WH NU reading (which the NIV follows here) has better manuscript support.The "scribes could not resist adding 'the Christ.' The expansion became part of TR and KJV tradition." (p.180)
Here undoubtedly the words should be in italics to show that they are not part of the original. However, there is no question that the Lord did not say the words, so there is no confusion.Quote:
Luke 7:31 KJV "And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?" NIV "To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?" NIV leaves out "And the Lord said."
You are confused. The TR added it in without any Greek manuscript support.
The C.T. mutilates the Lord's Prayer most barbarously. Praise God that the expanded form is found in the large majority of the MSS.Quote:
Luke 11:2 KJV "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth." NIV "He said to them, "When you pray, say: "'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come."
Again,scribal expansions seeking to harmonize portions of the so-called Lord's prayer in Matthew 6.
See above.Quote:
Luke 11:4 KJV "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." NIV "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation. '"
See above.
If the thief had actually used our Lord's name without any title, he would have been the only person in the whole NT to do so. In fact, of course, he acknowledged Him as Lord (cf. Rom 10:9) as the huge weight of extant mss so eloquently testifies.Quote:
Luke 23:42 KJV "And he (the thief) said unto Jesus ‘Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.’" NIV "Then he said, 'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.'" NIV leaves out "Lord," doing away with His Deity.
What a sinful thing for you to say. How can he address Jesus and tell of His kingly power and yet deny His Lordship?!
The NIV (based on superior documentary attestation) is best here. The TR based reading is inferior.
I think there is a important point here. Surely we should assume that the most exalted, God-honouring text is the correct one? Why should we suppose that the Holy Spirit, whose great task it is to bring glory to the Lord Jesus (John 16:14) would fail partially in His task?
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
If it is not infallible, then how can we believe it? If some of it is the true Word of God, and some isn't, then how do you decide which is which?
By studying the original.
IMHO, if I can't believe ALL of it then I can't believe any of it.
I used to hold that opinion and it was anything but humble. I used to preach that very thing with clinched fist. But if I'd been TRULY humble I would have done the appropriate study required to understand the truth on that matter BEFORE I went around preaching it.
Now, as far as the "inspired" part of the argument. Yes, I believe the translators of any language (Greek to English, Hebrew to Russian, ect) must be inspried by God to correctly translate it.
NOBODY and I mean NOBODY in the field of reputable scholars in the HISTORY of the church before a hundred years ago EVER purported that translations are inspired.
That ought to be enough for you right there- at least enough for you to be willing to consider that you may be bad wrong on this issue.
If a man sat out to translate a Bible for the Chinese, he would have to have the inspiration and guidance of the HS to correctly convey the messege of the Word.
What do you BASE this on. Where are you pulling this statement out of??
Making claims without support is pointless.
Where is your supporting arguments for this claim?
Their are many that see Bible translating as merely an academic endeaver, needing only the education of a linguist. I submit to you that a person trying to rightly divide the Word of God from the original texts cannot do so correctly with simple human intelligence.
again...
I am not saying that God has not already inspired a correct modern translation, I am saying though that I am not convinced of it at this time.
Then stop calling yourself KJVP (if that is indeed what you call yourself). You are KJVO. You are only convinced that the KJV is the Word of God in English.
I am telling you that that position is heresy or pretty darn close.
Has anyone read "The Message"? It is a new version straight from the pits of Hell. Anyone who says that ALL modern versions are the Word of God needs to read this one.
Who has said ANYTHING about The Message? Who has EVER said that ALL modern versions are the Word of God?
seekingthetruth
New Member
By studying the original.
I used to hold that opinion and it was anything but humble. I used to preach that very thing with clinched fist. But if I'd been TRULY humble I would have done the appropriate study required to understand the truth on that matter BEFORE I went around preaching it.
NOBODY and I mean NOBODY in the field of reputable scholars in the HISTORY of the church before a hundred years ago EVER purported that translations are inspired.
That ought to be enough for you right there- at least enough for you to be willing to consider that you may be bad wrong on this issue.
What do you BASE this on. Where are you pulling this statement out of??
Making claims without support is pointless.
Where is your supporting arguments for this claim?
again...
Then stop calling yourself KJVP (if that is indeed what you call yourself). You are KJVO. You are only convinced that the KJV is the Word of God in English.
I am telling you that that position is heresy or pretty darn close.
Who has said ANYTHING about The Message? Who has EVER said that ALL modern versions are the Word of God?
You are a true gentleman, and a joy to converse with.
Have a nice day
John
BTW, i don't call myself anything but a Christian. You are the one that labels me an IFBer, Arminian, KJVO, Ignorant, and full of darkness (which to me means evil).
What I am is a sinner that is saved by Grace.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are a true gentleman, and a joy to converse with.
Have a nice day
John
BTW, i don't call myself anything but a Christian. You are the one that labels me an IFBer, Arminian, KJVO, Ignorant, and full of darkness (which to me means evil).
What I am is a sinner that is saced by Grace.
First of all, my goal is not always gentility. There are times when addressing some situations with gentleness is sin. Being a gentleman when God expects you to be otherwise is not good.
Secondly, you need to provide ACTUAL quotes rather than misrepresent me like you do here.
I have tried to help you on this before.
Listen. It is a SIN for you to misrepresent people. It is LITERALLY the breaking of one of God's TEN COMMANDMENTS. It is bearing false witness against your neighbor.
You have taken the things that I did say (like: you are ignorant ON THIS SUBJECT, etc..) and twisted them to make me look a certain way.
If you did that on purpose- it is evil.
Last edited by a moderator:
seekingthetruth
New Member
First of all, my goal is not always gentility. There are times when addressing some situations with gentleness is sin. Being a gentleman when God expects you to be otherwise is not good.
Secondly, you need to provide ACTUAL quotes rather than misrepresent me like you do here.
I have tried to help you on this before.
Listen. It is a SIN for you to misrepresent people. It is LITERALLY the breaking of one of God's TEN COMMANDMENTS. It is bearing false witness against your neighbor.
You have taken the things that I did say (like: you are ignorant ON THIS SUBJECT, etc..) and twisted them to make me look a certain way.
If you did that on purpose- it is evil.
No matter how you twist it, you still called me ignorant.....and you called me all of the other things too
John
seekingthetruth
New Member
If you think that the way you treat people is godly and good, then you don't just have spiritual problems....You've got mental probelms
John
John
No matter how you twist it, you still called me ignorant.....and you called me all of the other things too
John
I guarantee you that you will not provide the quotes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.