Mass Thread Closing

Good, it's about time. Pastor Bob, if you will look, you will find that there is a handful of people who have caused most of the name calling in these threads.

Also, you will find that most of these, if not all, have the KJVO position. For some reason these few people are unable to carry on any type of descent converation about the KJV or the MV's without resorting to this type of tactic. How sad.

 

Pastor Bob, thanks for the words of wisdom. There appears to be very little constructive going on in these posts. But I would like to point out that amidst the one-liners that are slung back and forth by certain persons, once in awhile someone posts something of value. As an outsider who reads some of this "stuff," but seldom posts here, I'd like to say that we do get some things of value sometimes. On one thread about scriptural proof of KJVO, some comments about Psalm 12 encouraged me to take another look at what I had assumed it was saying. I'm saying this not because I agree with the nonsense that goes on between some of the individuals, but to say to you and PTW as moderators that your labor is not in vain.

Terry, as someone who uses and recommends the KJV, I find the representation of the KJV side in this forum quite embarrassing (from several angles). But I must also say that there is at lot (a whole lot) of goading of these individuals from those on the other side. It all adds up to an embarrassment to the forum and the BB.

 

With all due respect, isn't this a bit lopsided and unfair? It begs the question.

 

Good call pastor. You couldn't be more right. This "debate" needs to end and everybody let everybody else be a good Baptist and choose their own translation. Any Baptist church can make any rule it wants about what Bible their members should use (no one is forcing you to be a member of that church so if you choose to join you follow their beliefs or find another church), but when they walk out the door and start trying to tell me what version I must use, all of a sudden those "Baptists" start to sound uncomfortably like the Watchtower and their insistance that members use a specified version only. May His kingdom increase "without end."

 

I don't think Bob is trying to be unfair. He has asked both sides to let others have their opinion and stop throwing meaningless insults back and forth. Frankly, I'm glad he put me out of their misery!

 

I echo the call for an end to the pointless debates. But the wording used seemed vitriolic, thus part of the problem. As a former moderator of this area, there are steps the mods can take that can be taken to improve the quality of the debate, if both mods will join together in action.

 

Highlights mine!

TomVols, I hope you did not intentionally overlook the rest of the quote you used; the quote, at least in my opinion, does not seem vitrolic to either stance when taken as a whole!

 

I did not overlook it. I have pointed out the flaw I saw in the statement in private to the moderator in question, which is probably what I should've done to begin with. At the time, I felt a public misconception needed to be addressed publicly. I apologize for any harm done. I could've handled it better.

 

The question I have is why now?

I started two of the threads in question. My two biggest reasons for rejecting KJVOnlyism is that it lacks scriptural and historical proof. It violates any reasonable interpretation of both.

Immediatetly, it became apparent that the KJVO's were not interested in facing those two questions. I know how I reconcile my beliefs to scripture and history. I don't know how or even see a way that the KJVO does it without realizing the fallacies of that belief.

So back to the original question, why now? Why weren't there warnings along the way to stay on topic or start a new thread?

Why was the antagonism allowed to fester until even reasonable people resorted to the tactics of the unstable?

Why were massive cuts and pastes of complete non-sense allowed? If those authors want to post here they should come themselves. Why is plagarism allowed?

Why weren't those whose only tactic is to evade, change the subject, and attack their opponents not dealt with as they violated?

Why are people allowed in complete seriousness to distort the positions of others and post false information knowingly?

Why does violations of Christian conduct only become a problem when the other side responds in kind?

 

With all due respect, Pastor Bob, I disagree with your decision, although I respect it. However, Scott J, your question about scriptural proof of KJVOnlyism was absurd. I, at least, did not evade the question. I simply showed you that the "scriptural proof" you demanded for KJVOnlyism was not even offered for YOUR OWN position. If you can't "scripturally prove" YOUR position, you can't demand I "scripturally prove" mine. I'm sorry if my posts came across in a bad way - I truly am. However, I could not think of a better way of highlighting what I considered (and still do consider) your massive inconsistency. However, if we all try to be more loving (me included), as Pastor Bob suggests, I'm sure that will be a good thing. Finally, though, I'd point out that "unloving" posts are not limited to KJVOs, as many of you seem to suggest. The patronising and belittling posts of many MVers are just as bad.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Sorry, Bro., but I don't agree. Non-believers make exactly the same arguments about Christians - "if it's OK for you, then fine; just don't come and tell me what I must do." If the AV really is innerrant, then surely people have a duty to tell you? If we just let everyone have their beliefs and not challenge them, nobody would post anything on the Baptist Board.

 

How so? You would say that I am in error and possibly even in sin for using another version. Why is it not completely legitimate for me to ask for scripture? If you think I err but not sin then please refer to question #2, historical proof for the KJV being the only Word of God in English.

No. This was your method of evasion. I would not say you were in error much less in sin for using the KJV. This is a critical difference. You would judge users of MV's without a scriptural or other objective standard. I would not judge your use of the KJV because I recognize that there is no scriptural nor objective basis for doing so.

Except my position places no limit nor judgment upon you. Yours would condemn me therefore I have a perfect right, in fact a fearful duty, to find out by what standard my error is proven by.

I am as well. Recently, I have given a great deal of thought to leaving the BB altogether rather than make a mockery of my Lord.

Please read what I wrote above objectively. I don't think it is inconsistent to ask the reason you find me in error without being able to give a scriptural basis for believing that neither of us are in error because of our version choices.

 

But those same people would have an even greater duty to prove their standard before presuming to judge others by it. That is where we come to and why I ask those two questions.

If scripture doesn't establish KJVOnlyism and factual evidence does not establish KJVOnlyism then its ideas are not acceptable as a standard.

 

And the accusations went rolling on, didn't they? YOU say I am in error for telling people they can believe everything in the Authorised Version. (Note that when I first came to the baptist board, this is what I found: MVers attackign KJVO. NOT the other way around.) Please show me scripture that backs this view up. No, Scott, I will not relent from this position. I will not go arguing the KJVO position with you from scripture because you refuse to accept the simple fact that the only "scriptural proof" you would accept is totally non-existant for your own position. For this reason, for me (or anyone else) to do this, I firmly believe, would be to cast pearls before swine.

 

And the accusations went rolling on, didn't they? YOU say I am in error for telling people they can believe everything in the Authorised Version.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I am not saying that. It is patently dishonest to put words in someone's mouth. In fact, I tell people that they can believe everything taught in the KJV. That does not make it perfectly worded to the point of being the equivalent of the originals however.

If you mean citing evidence against the KJVO position, I would agree. However, it has only been recently that I have seen statements from non-KJVO's that even closely matched the personal attacks made by KJVO's.

To which view do you refer?

That is your prerogative. You can continue to deny the evidence as long as you wish.

And as I explained in the previous post, I do not condemn anyone for using and believing the KJV. You do judge and condemn those that use other versions. I oppose KJVOnlyism, not the KJV. You oppose the Word of God and those who learn it from other versions.

I do not seek to set an extra-biblical standard for English speaking people. You do. I don't need a scriptural proof for not asserting something I do not believe. Your attack is baseless. If I had never claimed that the US was a Muslim empire, I would not and could not provide proof from the US Constitution for why I didn't believe it. Since it cannot be scripturally proven that any English version is the only Word of God and I know this, it is ridiculous for you demand I show a text when the absence of such a text is the reason for my belief.

I can show you texts for all kinds of sins... adding to the teachings of scripture being one of them. But the Bible simply doesn't supply a text for telling us everything we should not believe.

Here is that quote in context:

Remember, it is not I that judge you beyond what the scriptures teach. It is you that judge MV users without scriptural support.

 

Ring around the rosey,
Pocket full of posey,
Ashes, Ashes,
We all fall down!

 

Your entitled to your opinion but I believe this to be a more important point than you realize. Bartholomew's chosen method of evading the request for scriptural proof for the doctrine he would foist on everyone is an attempt to turn the tables. It is fallacy and I think he probably knows it. However, his presuppositions will not allow him to admit it. He has alot invested in this defense no matter how logically flawed it is.

 

My point is that nothing believed or not believed about translations means the difference between heaven and hell. I would further say that no honest theological method means the difference between heaven and hell--we are saved by faith (not theological proofs). And yes, I do see the bigger theological issues, do you see the bigger issues of humility?

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

So, you are condemned by your own words. I challenge you to prove, from any of my posts, where I have done anything that you accused me of:

"You would say that I am in error and possibly even in sin for using another version."
"You would judge users of MV's without a scriptural or other objective standard."
"Yours[Bartholomew's position] would condemn me..."
[These are all found on page 1 of this thread, in Scott J's final posting on that page].

I don't believe you. If you could believe EVERYTHING that the KJV teaches, then (unless you're telling people it's fine to believe an error), that means there's no error in the KJV. That is my position completely. If you do tell people what you claim to tell them, then if your position on the AV is correct, your statement is decieving.

To which view do you refer? </font>[/QUOTE]Your view, which you claim is scriptural: the view that God would only preserve his word in imperfect manuscripts; and that these manuscripts are Vaticanus, Sinaitius and/or other Greek manuscripts we have now.

OK, Scott, I've tried to be restrained in this response, but that statement is a lie. A complete and utter LIE. If you can prove it. do so. However, I will allow the reader to decide whether it is I who am judging you, or you who is judging me.

No, I just seek a BIBLICAL standard - not a load of men's opinions about which verses they've decided aren't actually the word of God any more. My standard is the Authorised Version. How can the AV be "extra-biblical"? Is it not a BIBLE???

Whom, exactly, am I attacking?

You believe God ONLY preserved his word in IMPERFECT manuscripts. I believe he perfectly preserved it together in a whole. You believe that Greek manuscripts including Vaticnus, Sinaiticus, and/or others are the ones through which God chose to imperfectly preserve his word. I believe the Authorised Version is at least one of the ones God used to perfectly preserve his word. You demand I show you a verse that states my belief. I will, as soon as you show me a verse proving yours. Who is evading the question???

You are wrong.

[ February 21, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]