Attacks on Gods Word?

[John of Japan]

I pretty much agree, DD. Without using the words, you've defined the difference between argument and debate, IMO.

Debate is an exchange of views backed by proofs and logic (or in our case, hopefully, Scripture and other proofs). Debates are won and lost, depending on who presents their views the best. Ideally, the loser of the debate will change his views, at least to the extent of doing more research to fine-tune them, realizing that he presented his side poorly.

Arguement is an attempt to force your views on another, without listening to their opposing side. Arguers only wait for their opponent to stop to catch his breath, so that they can then present their side, whether or not they have understood the opposing view.

You say, "I feel the main problem is NOT the anger which comes from 2 opposing beliefs, but rather from one who refuses to allow their belief to be challenged honestly." I agree with this, as long as you do agree that the anger IS a problem, though not the major one.

I think this thread has shown, due to the comments from a couple of KJVO folk, that some KJVO folk are repelled by the BV/T forum, thinking their views will be hacked nastily. (I don't say by you; I am just speaking generally.) Of course, there have also been KJVO folk who have nastily responded.

At any rate, being supported by almost 50 churches, I know many decent, godly people who would consider themselves KJVO, but quietly go about their business serving God. Their belief on the KJV does not affect their practice much simply because they have never made a big deal out of it, and maybe not even researched it. They are more concerned with loving and serving their Savior. It is these people I often think of when I read the BV/T forum. When I post here, they are the ones I visualize talking to. I would much rather stay friends with them than offend them or cause them to stumble.

I know someone is going to jump on this post and tell me how nasty KJVO doctrine is, how much harm it does, and how nasty KJVO folk have been to them. That's fine. I can take it.

To tie this in to the OP (wouldn't want to be a hijacker), I'll agree that it may be insecurity for someone to believe their version is being attacked when translation mistakes are pointed out. The cure to me for this is the historic view that it is the original languages that are inspired (giving due regard to TCassidy's derivitive inspiration view ).

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Since we both agree on everything else, I wish to dive further into this statement of yours, John.

You say, "I feel the main problem is NOT the anger which comes from 2 opposing beliefs, but rather from one who refuses to allow their belief to be challenged honestly." I agree with this, as long as you do agree that the anger IS a problem, though not the major one.

I think this is a fine line, and should be addressed. Is being angry with something that is cleary wrong a "problem"? The bible says to be slow to anger, never sin in your anger, but being angry, I feel, when there is a clear wrong, is not only justified, but righteous. It shows that you do not agree, and that something is not right.

I feel a "Christian" who wants to express a belief which belittles others beliefs, and claims to be binding on all Christians, like the ones I mentioned, and then refuses to engage in honest discussion, is very wrong. Do you feel that being angry is wrong there? Or do you simply feel we must "be slow to anger" and "not sin in your anger"?

Example: I have often felt that when the bible talks of speaking in tongues, it may have something to do with a God-given ability to learn and speak languages other than your own, whether supernatually (as in one who never studied the language before, yet miraculously does so in time of need) or by simply being gifted in the area. Now I actually do think this, but lets say I was to go so far as to say that, much like the Pentecostals who say speaking in tongues is a sign of salvation, I believe now that if you are truely saved, you will be able to speak at least one other language than your native one.

Do I really need to call you unsaved, or does my belief in itself attack yours? I would say yes to the latter. Therefore, if I refuse to discuss that belief, would you not be righteous for being angry at it? Should it not be opposed? To steal from Doc Cass, part of the Great Commision is "teaching them to obey all that I have commanded", so in keeping that, arent we to stand against KNOWN false doctrine? I think so, and I think there is a balance here.

I would enjoy your thoughts on this, as well as anyone elses.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
I think this is a fine line, and should be addressed. Is being angry with something that is cleary wrong a "problem"? The bible says to be slow to anger, never sin in your anger, but being angry, I feel, when there is a clear wrong, is not only justified, but righteous. It shows that you do not agree, and that something is not right.

I feel a "Christian" who wants to express a belief which belittles others beliefs, and claims to be binding on all Christians, like the ones I mentioned, and then refuses to engage in honest discussion, is very wrong. Do you feel that being angry is wrong there? Or do you simply feel we must "be slow to anger" and "not sin in your anger"?

Example: I have often felt that when the bible talks of speaking in tongues, it may have something to do with a God-given ability to learn and speak languages other than your own, whether supernatually (as in one who never studied the language before, yet miraculously does so in time of need) or by simply being gifted in the area. Now I actually do think this, but lets say I was to go so far as to say that, much like the Pentecostals who say speaking in tongues is a sign of salvation, I believe now that if you are truely saved, you will be able to speak at least one other language than your native one.

Do I really need to call you unsaved, or does my belief in itself attack yours? I would say yes to the latter. Therefore, if I refuse to discuss that belief, would you not be righteous for being angry at it? Should it not be opposed? To steal from Doc Cass, part of the Great Commision is "teaching them to obey all that I have commanded", so in keeping that, arent we to stand against KNOWN false doctrine? I think so, and I think there is a balance here.

I would enjoy your thoughts on this, as well as anyone elses.

I could write a book on this, DD, but I will try to keep it brief. We are already in danger of hijacking the thread, but I think your inquiry is important. First of all, I agree with you that there is righteous anger. But it had better be for the Lord and not because I was personally offended or frustrated.

As I said previously, and I truly do mean this, I do not do guilt trips. I ignore others who presume to tell me God's will for me.

Further, I don't get angry when personally attacked and criticized. (Just don't attack my family.) Why?

(1) I look to God and His will for me, do it the best I can, and thus truly am not offended or angered if someone else dislikes me, disagrees with me or gets angry with me. I aim to please God, not man.

(2) I believe in freedom for the believer through the priesthood of the believer. Therefore, any person opposing me is allowed to. I will do my best to convince them, but then it is up to God. My opponent answers to God, not me.

(3) I have no rights. If I got my rights, I would be in Hell eternally. I do not have the right not to be insulted, I do not have the right to have everyone agree with me.

(4) I believe the Bible (in any version) teaches humility, gracious speech, gentleness and kindness to those in opposition. "Love your enemy."

I don't know if this answers you, but if it doesn't you might want to start a separate thread, and I'd be glad to meet you there.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Actually, I didnt think we were hijacking at all! I think this was right on point, and yes, you answered me quite well.

I'll make one, however, because I am intrigued.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Actually, I didnt think we were hijacking at all! I think this was right on point, and yes, you answered me quite well.

I'll make one, however, because I am intrigued.

Great! I'll meet you there--in the morning, 'cause it is bedtime in Japan.

Concerning hijacking, I'm sure I'm overly polite to many Americans, having lived in Japan so long. We have literally have 5 levels of politeness in this language.

Oyasumi! (Good night.)

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
I don't get angry when personally attacked and criticized. (Just don't attack my family.) Why?

(1) I look to God and His will for me, do it the best I can, and thus truly am not offended or angered if someone else dislikes me, disagrees with me or gets angry with me. I aim to please God, not man.

(2) I believe in freedom for the believer through the priesthood of the believer. Therefore, any person opposing me is allowed to. I will do my best to convince them, but then it is up to God. My opponent answers to God, not me.

(3) I have no rights. If I got my rights, I would be in Hell eternally. I do not have the right not to be insulted, I do not have the right to have everyone agree with me.

(4) I believe the Bible (in any version) teaches humility, gracious speech, gentleness and kindness to those in opposition. "Love your enemy."

I am envious of your spirit, John. I say the exact same things as you just espoused, but in reality, I take getting called "demonic", "perverted" or (my favorite) "spawn of satan" (actual attacks against me on the BB) somewhat personally.

Don't want to. Want to be altruistic and just defend my Lord and His Word . . but, truth be told, it hurts.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
I am envious of your spirit, John. I say the exact same things as you just espoused, but in reality, I take getting called "demonic", "perverted" or (my favorite) "spawn of satan" (actual attacks against me on the BB) somewhat personally.

Don't want to. Want to be altruistic and just defend my Lord and His Word . . but, truth be told, it hurts.

I won't deny getting in the flesh occasionally, too.

 

[David J]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Exactly. The main translation I use is the NASB. None of its translators claimed inerrancy for their work. No scripture ever claimed I would have a perfect translation in English. I have absolutely NOTHING by which to claim that the NASB is a perfect translation, even if I agree with every translational and textual choice it contains.

Therefore, if someone wants to criticize it, they can do so. IF I AM HONEST, I will continue to do so, and look at the facts OBJECTIVELY to make sure that these EARTHLY MEN did an accurate job of translating God's Word.

I feel the same way. I use the NASBU in 99% of my study and reading. I do read the Geneva 1599, NKJV, and NIV when I'm doing in depth study.

It's not like my faith is destroyed if the NASBU has an error! I would hope it would be corrected in an update but then again it might be a text issue.

My faith is in Christ and not a bible version.