-
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!
Heretick or Divisive?
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
You certainly have exposed yourself. I would assume after such a beating you might consider some of the things people have written. If they wanted to just disprove you it would be of no value. But to correct you is different. You have writen some things that you know nothing about and have never experienced.Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Here's the proof, Hank. I'll keep I John 5:7,8 in the Bible, Larry and his kind will keep trying to change it or attempt to pull it out.
I know it belongs without Will's facts, but now I understand the facts, I now know the "Firm Foundational Truth" according to God's Word.
I never knew the evidence given according to the harmonizng of the Koine Greek about the answering of the masculine verbage in that particular passage, I just believe God/ The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost.
Trying to explain the value of knowing languages to someone who does not know, is like trying to explain light to a blind person.
For example in Phil 2:2-4 there is only one verb. In the Greek text it is one sentence. But in the English KJV it is two sentences. If you only look at the English you are trusting the translators judgment. If you do not know the text then you are trusting others to interpret and transalte it for you.
A good point is made with James 1:12,13. In the Greek text the word used is trials not temptation as is so often translated. In verse 13 there is the shift to temptation. You would never know that in the English translation.
If all you know is English then you will spend much more time in sermon preparation than if you knew the languages. I know from experience.
If languages were not important do you really think we are so stupid to say they are, if they were not. Many of us have been on both sides of the fence and know the difference from experience. But if you will not be convinced that is your choice. But you have to live with it. I am glad for two reasons that I took the languages. I am better able to help my child in school with English. When you learn another language it helps you to better learn your mother tongue. Another is that I am better able to look at a text and undeertsand the mesage better.
Also I am able to see the phraseology of the wording. It tells you a lot about the writer. It is just like you can tell if a person is a foreigner speaking English versus someone who was born and raised here.
English is very ambiguous compared to the Greek text. The Greek has ways to say something with far greater accuracy than we do in English. We have to explain what the Greek can say in just one word.
In a Bible study someone can ask a question about a text and I can tell them what the text actually says by looking at the Greek or Hebrew text.
Knowing the languages prevents a lot of argument and the he said-she said kind of stuff.
Larry said
Hmm? I say "will" when the rest of my post clearly indicated I meant "would" and I'm accused of questioning some one's salvation when I never really did.
But Larry can say he knows the Spirit bears witness that I John 5:7 doesn't belong in the Bible, then turn right around and agree with HankD that he agrees with his statement that 1 John 5:7 is part of the Canon. Hmmm? Which is it? It seems Larry said two opposing things regarding this one scripture, what am I missing here? Anybody help? Are we now to believe the Canon is not the ible anymore? Can anyone tell me when it became unCanon and not the Bible? Or tell me when the Bible became unCanon?
You make this staement and then :
This is where you agreed with HankD's statement, and here's is his statement you agreed with:
So I guess this some how isn't lying. Maybe we should call it pitching for both teams?
Hmm? I say "will" when the rest of my post clearly indicated I meant "would" and I'm accused of questioning some one's salvation when I never really did.
But Larry can say he knows the Spirit bears witness that I John 5:7 doesn't belong in the Bible, then turn right around and agree with HankD that he agrees with his statement that 1 John 5:7 is part of the Canon. Hmmm? Which is it? It seems Larry said two opposing things regarding this one scripture, what am I missing here? Anybody help? Are we now to believe the Canon is not the ible anymore? Can anyone tell me when it became unCanon and not the Bible? Or tell me when the Bible became unCanon?
You're right, I'm a liar. I have never experienced anything I've experienced about the Truth of the Word of God.
You pick at words and say they are the wrong words but then turn right around and say those same words can't be right because, even though they have the same meaning, your opinion over-rides everything.
Just for clarity's sake, are you calling me blind?
You should base your assumptions on case by case and not give the impression you have appointed yourself a judge.
I missed that accurate point you just tried to make. You just told me in English what you understand about Greek and then try to say the Greek says it more accurately. I think you undershot or overshot, besides, how do you know what you understand in Greek without the English? Duh?
Oh! You are my hero! but i see you don't mind going to the extent to twist what I've said and post many typos in the process, but you are practiced at taking things out of context. Your actions are malicious.
Go ahead folks, you too can form your opinions as rsr has. At least I'm not perfect.
Go ahead folks, you too can form your opinions as rsr has. At least I'm not perfect.
I did not consider it out of context. As if context could justify your statements. You've said what you've said; live with it.
It seems you have accused me of introducing typos of yours where there were none. Prove it. Go back and look. All I had to do was copy and paste. I really don't need to alter your statements. (BTW, I have never, ever, attacked folks because of typos. Ask anybody familiar with me.)
As for the typos, if they're yours, they're yours. If they're mine, they're mine. If I have attributed you with a typo you didn't make, please feel free to prove it. As to mine, I will accept them.
It seems you have accused me of introducing typos of yours where there were none. Prove it. Go back and look. All I had to do was copy and paste. I really don't need to alter your statements. (BTW, I have never, ever, attacked folks because of typos. Ask anybody familiar with me.)
As for the typos, if they're yours, they're yours. If they're mine, they're mine. If I have attributed you with a typo you didn't make, please feel free to prove it. As to mine, I will accept them.
Malicious, you say? I will let the rest of the board judge that and be satisfied with the result.
There is no jesting here. Just as your pretended jesting with inane smiley and winky icons does not constitute jesting.
"You are an apostate, devil-filled heathen. But, hey, I'm only joking." I don't think that fits the bill, though you do.
There is no jesting here. Just as your pretended jesting with inane smiley and winky icons does not constitute jesting.
"You are an apostate, devil-filled heathen. But, hey, I'm only joking." I don't think that fits the bill, though you do.
Over-reactionary,over-reactionary,over-reactionary. I noticed what I had done and edited my post, and you jumped like a wolf to the kill. Over-reactionary.
I thought it was the board rules if you had a beef with another member to take it out on the PM function, but I see you're allowed to present your case motive to defame and ridicule, how proper!
I thought it was the board rules if you had a beef with another member to take it out on the PM function, but I see you're allowed to present your case motive to defame and ridicule, how proper!
As did I edit my post when I noticed you had edited yours.
You have, in public, attacked and ridiculed respected members of the board, often in infantile language, repeatedly. You are being held accountable. That's all. Since you have made your screeds in public, it is only fitting you should be answered in public.
You have, in public, attacked and ridiculed respected members of the board, often in infantile language, repeatedly. You are being held accountable. That's all. Since you have made your screeds in public, it is only fitting you should be answered in public.
I won't report your post calling me names and trying to hisde it with quotation marks, I'll let some one else from the open forum handle it.
If you want to call me names either PM me or here's my e-mail:
QuickeningSpirit@kjvmail.com
I know I have come across wrong to some and I apologize for so doing, but your intention is quite clearly malicious. I can be wrong and I can be corrected, but you are behaving maliciously.
If you want to call me names either PM me or here's my e-mail:
QuickeningSpirit@kjvmail.com
I know I have come across wrong to some and I apologize for so doing, but your intention is quite clearly malicious. I can be wrong and I can be corrected, but you are behaving maliciously.
Feel free to report my posts; and I have no wish to communicate with you privately. God forbid.
I care not for any so-called "apology." You will not accept correction under any circumstances; you have been offered many opportunities.
As far as being malicious, I will stand upon my reputation.
I care not for any so-called "apology." You will not accept correction under any circumstances; you have been offered many opportunities.
As far as being malicious, I will stand upon my reputation.
T
Travelsong
Guest
LOL! There is no possible way QS is for real. Guarenteed he's someone's idea of ironic satire.
So according to your reputation you are allowed to now blatantly break the BB rules? Hmm? Privileged character, privileged character, privileged charatcer. Must be nice to have pull with the big boys and be a privileged charatcer and eat up bandwidth in the malcious process as well.
You got anything to debate on topic, or do wish to continue in total disregard to the BB rules and the request to keep from taking up such a large amount of bandwidth?
Your character being portrayed is on topic as being heretic and divisive, but your name calling is not.
You got anything to debate on topic, or do wish to continue in total disregard to the BB rules and the request to keep from taking up such a large amount of bandwidth?
Your character being portrayed is on topic as being heretic and divisive, but your name calling is not.
You're right, I'm a liar. I have never experienced anything I've experienced about the Truth of the Word of God.
You pick at words and say they are the wrong words but then turn right around and say those same words can't be right because, even though they have the same meaning, your opinion over-rides everything.
Just for clarity's sake, are you calling me blind?
You should base your assumptions on case by case and not give the impression you have appointed yourself a judge.
I missed that accurate point you just tried to make. You just told me in English what you understand about Greek and then try to say the Greek says it more accurately. I think you undershot or overshot, besides, how do you know what you understand in Greek without the English? Duh?
</font>[/QUOTE]That’s quite a harsh statement to accuse someone of calling you a liar. I have never done that once to you or anyone on this board. What I have tried to show you is that you do not really understand the value of languages. I could not tell you the value of them because you would not understand.For clarity’s sake yes I am saying that you are blinded by your ignorance. You are assuming something that is not true.
You are like a rabbet instead of a dado to hold a board in place. I just used English. Do you fully understand that. If you do then I don’t ned\ed to explain what I meant. If you don’t understand those words would I assume that you need to study English enough so that you could define rabbet and dado and know the meaning of what I wrote?
Do you understand what paraenesis is? If you don’t then someone or a dictionary would have to explain it to you. But if you do, no explanation is necessary. That is the same way it is with Greek and Hebrew. I don’t define those words with others who understand. But I do with you because you do not know. The only thing I know is that you seemingly understand English. So I am limited to that with you.
So are you saying that with your knowledge you would have no problem understanding the difference between de and alla in the Greek text when it is always translated with the same English word? Or do you rely on someone else who knows how to explain it to you? When I see de and alla in a Greek text I don’t need someone to explain it to me. I understand it well enough to explain it to the ignorant. I can read the text and understand without reading someone else’s commentary on it. I don’t need to take valuable time to read what someone else writes because I already know.
Prov. 25:11, “ Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances. Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise reprover to a listening ear.”
Prov. 13:1, “A wise son accepts his father's discipline, But a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.”
Prov. 19:20, “ Listen to counsel and accept discipline, That you may be wise the rest of your days.”
Do you have a listening ear? If your mind is already made up I am wasting my time to try and convince you. But that does not change the facts until you do something about it. Simply put yes you are blind about what you don’t know. A wise man knows enough to know that he does not know. He is humble enough to learn from those who may teach him the things he does not know.
What that means, I don't know.
I called no names. I was answering another post. Actually, it was a good question. Perhaps you were pulling our legs.
Or perhaps you are calling me a heretic.
You, however, have repeatedly demeaned other posters and called names. Not once. Repeatedly. I cannot believe you are now the one who feels the offended party.