I'm about to be banned for defending the KJV on a KJVO message board...how odd

Oh well!

 

You have a way more interesting life than me.

 

You can have it, LOL

 

This board is owned and operated by Independent, Fundamental, KJV Baptist believers. We are not interested in arguing or debating as this Boards is set up for IFB to fellowship and uplift our Lord Jesus Christ.


This the 9th rule of the OB forum, looks the mods and admin don't know how to follow their own rules

http://onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/viewtopic.php?t=9666


What I love is how the Admin brought this whole thing up on his board.
Guess we (I) don't play with a full deck bescause we go to a fellowship Christian privately about her stinking rotten, attitude. And others don't like to be called a lesbian stalker because they have stalked others numerous times on other forums, to seek out trouble.

They refuse to let me post on their site, because my rebuttal is truthful and it hurts. If the Adminstrators had any character they would try to settle the issue instead of stir up trouble. Their life must be so boring, that all they can do is point fingers, without realising they have 3 more pointing right back at them. Guess they just want more traffic to their site

 

"It is someone who continually stirred up strife here and who we tried dealing with over and over again but eventually banned. What happened is one of our Mods was on another board and responded to a post this woman started - then she started blasting the Mod with insinuations, etc. including this slander.
Yes, because the other woman was saying our Mod followed her to that website to basically harass her, which wasn't the case at all.

So I wonder who is going to send this copy to my Pastor? I am still waiting for the fall from the last threat.
LIE LIE LIE

Guess they won't let me tell the truth, they want others to believe their lies about me.

and the people that are the lesbian stalkers are not IFB, infact barely baptist

 

I am still a bit disturbed that this thread is running on to its third page. If you don't like the way things are run at OLB just don't go back. Simple enough, no problems, no hassle, no anger, no stalking, and no slamming.

Find a place you do like and settle down there.

To each their own.

 

People who are on a power and control trip and have something to hide do not like thsoe who disagree with them.

 

After reading this entire thread,- Man, I need to get a life! Like going out and wading through knee deep manure with my cattle, or seeing how much grease I can get on myself when overhauing a tractor or haybine. Something! Even starting early on income taxes. Well, maybe not that far, yet! Hey, the last one is it! I'll take a nap for about three days!
In His grace,
Ed

 

Mike


You should have been allowed to defend your KJV ONLY position without getting the boot. Personally I am not a KJV only supporter. If the KJV was the ONLY inspired word of God, then what did the church have to read BEFORE the KJV was printed for 1400 years? A false bible?

Also we must remember it was the original Greek and Aramaic copies that were inspired and NOT any Anglo Saxon texts. For this is what the NT authors wrote the New Testament in. The sad fact is, is that NONE of the originals exist anymore. All we have is copies upon copies.

When the KJV first came out it INCLUDED the apocrypha. The 2nd edition didn't. So which KJV is the inspired word of God now? Also when Erasmus and the other translators translated the Greek and Aramaic copies into the King James, they did NOT have as many manuscripts available to them as they do NOW. Both the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus date EARLIER than the Alexandrian of the 4th century. Also we have many MORE papyrus manuscripts than we did when the KJV was translated.

The KJV ONLY folks refuse to accept these facts. Lastly, there are also HUNDREDS of words in the KJV that we no longer use in our present day english and many of these archaic words carry an entirely DIFFERENT meaning today, than what they did in 1611.For example, see the word "PREVENT" in I Thess 4:15 of the KJV. This is not what Paul meant. The proper word should be PRECEDE and not prevent as the KJV states.

Lastly, may I recommend you purchase this book for a thorough study on this matter by James White called "The King James Only Controversy". Mr White is a Greek scholar and a very well know Baptist apologist at that.

 

It's a good thing those folks keep to themselves because I wouldn't want them anywhere else.

 

I did say something, I was active on that board quite a while ago. I was banned. When I pressed the owner/moderator on the issue, he even agreed that I had not broken any rules, but they didn't like my questions about the KJV. I think the specific question I was asking was simply: what did Psalm 12:6-7 mean in 1500? </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm? It must be he decided to separate you from them? Antagonism isn't very Christlike, but if you're attemtping to demean or impugn onlinebaptist for taking a stand, i believe you're in the ballast, or was, i should say.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]They are: one is the physiological term for being a drunkard, the other is judgement pending against such as it is sin.

 

I hope that if anyone is banned that the person that bans them will be responsible and give a reason to every member.

 

I don't underdstand why people post on a board where they disagree with almost everything there.

Boards are privately owned and operated. The Webmaster at OLB or any other board has every right to do whatever he wants.

What profit is there is carrying those disagreements to other boards?

 

What profit is there is carrying those disagreements to other boards?

Same profit as a book or movie review.

 

Mike McK said:

No, there's a guy there named Jerry who cited a Bible verse that says that showing the thigh is nakedness and condemning me because I said that my shorts come down to just over my knees.

I am guessing that he cited Isa. 47:2?

This verse often comes up in discussions of "modesty" as proof that the Biblical definition of "nakedness" means uncovering the thigh. However, it really doesn't say that. Isa. 47:1 is about the destruction of Babylon, personified as a "virgin daughter." It speaks of her humiliation. She shall "sit on the ground" because there is no throne for her anymore. She grinds meal on her own millstone because there are no servants to do it for her. She "uncover the thigh" because there is no one to carry her across the river anymore: she must hike up her skirts and walk herself.

Forgive me for injecting a little theology into this thread.