I have no idea about av1611.com. I was talking about THIS forum.
-
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!
More accurate?
- Thread starter Amy.G
- Start date
- Status
I have no idea about av1611.com. I was talking about THIS forum.
Wow! I have no idea what all that post meant. But I imagine Will Kinney could post the very same thing and get accused of being mean spirited. THAT is what I'm trying to say. Certain people can say things while certain others will get labeled "mean and hateful" for saying the same thing.
In someone's words................................."The truth is TRUTH and its always HARD."...............and what I just posted is the truth.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I think the difference with Will and I is that I'm kidding around and trying to be funny and its not really intended to question peoples faith. I was playing on the Hard thing. And bringing up charmine and Mr. Whipple because I remember them. I don't think too many people will remember today "Don't squeeze the Charmine!" And I thought comparing charmine and Mr. Whipple with the devil and corruption of christianity was funny. Will is a KJO person and takes that very seriously though I wonder if other countries have the same debates about their bible? Can you imagine Kenyans and French arguing over the KJB? Is their french translation the inspired word of God? Or how about their Kiswhahili version?
I wasn't trying to accuse ANYONE in particular, of anything. Just pointing out an observation about this forum that most seem to try and deny, or claim doesn't exist.
My point is this- why does the BB have to allow KJVO discussions on this board? They DON'T. Fortunately they do but under strict rules- perhaps not strict enough in some ways. AV1611.com has banned some folks who went on there and asked questions about KJVO teaching. That's their prerogative. BB has banned folks from teaching or saying certain things here- that's THEIR prerogative.
As I said on the other thread- BB isn't church- it's a business. And businesses have the right to refuse to serve anyone that they wish not to serve except on the basis of civil rights.
Whatever you want to call BB, it's SUPPOSED to be a CHRISTIAN forum. All I'm saying is, shouldn't EVERYONE try to be Christlike towards one another? On here it seems only CERTAIN people are "called out" for being mean. Agree with him or not, I find Will Kinney to be pretty patient in his responses to you all. I've not seen any of the things some have accused him of, while I have seen those things from the "regulars" on here, and NOTHING was said to them about it. I'm sorry, but if you all cannot, or refuse to, see the double standard on this forum, you must be blind. I have "no dog in this hunt", but if this is supposed to be a Christian forum, be EQUAL in treatment to everyone. I've pointed this very thing out several times, yet it's always been ignored or denied. I've said what I wanted so I'm done.
Absolutely. Unfortunately it doesn't happen often.
Will was patient, no doubt, but calling people "Bible agnostics" and telling people that they had no real Bible etc. was out of line. Plus he broke the rules by coming back after he was banned. The moderators and administrators showed a great deal of patience towards Will before the shoe dropped.
pilgrim2009
New Member
Now I beseech you,brethren,by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,that ye alll speak the same thing,and that there be no divisions among you;but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
{1st Cor 1:10}KJB
Yes there was a long period of time when this command was obeyed.When the critical text position came along it caused great division and greatly divided those of the same mind and of the same judgment.
Logic says those of the same mind about the Bible before the critical text position came along are the dividers of the brethren not the other way around.
So there you have it the KJB people are still standing and the critical text position is still dividing over which Bible is God`s book.
God bless in Jesus.
Steven.
pilgrim2009
New Member
Hummmm......Interesting.I wont go so far as to say that but a little truth never hurt no-one.
God bless in Jesus.
Steven.
Thermodynamics
Member
It is not my intent to be mean to you Steven, but this idea is just plain stupid. Do you really believe this rubbish?
pilgrim2009
New Member
Clearly you did not read the article and it is no rubbish.
http://www.moresureword.com/LXXHOAX.htm
In Jesus.
Steven.
There is a big difference. Attacking an idea is not the same as attacking a person. I showed "strong disagreement" with his ideas but never at any point called him names. I disagree with Steven's ideology and views on Bible transmission over time and the origins of certain translations. But I'm not going to insult him as a person.
Those like Will Kinney will say things to you that are insulting to your person. Some direct and some indirect but are taken as an insult regardless.
If Will would leave out these direct and indirect statements such as "bible agnostics" and telling people that they have no Bible per say. Then he would be taken more seriously and would then be debated in a similar manner.
In my first encounter with Will he even went as far as making fun of my user name on that board which is "tatermonkey". I do need to point out that he is improving though :thumbsup: and has toned it down a bit.
I have found this board to be more than fair and patient. But you can only take so much. I have been just as guilty as others about being harsh. But if you see me doing so, call me out. I will be more than happy to apologize if I am wrong.
pilgrim2009
New Member
After reading the letter of dedication to King James in the front of my Cambridge I see why the Popes would hate the KJ Bible.
Some of the epistle dedicatory.
by writing in defence of the Truth [which hath given such a blow unto THAT MAN OF SIN as will not be healed]etc....
So that if,on the one side,we shall be TRADUCED BY POPISH PERSONS at home or abroad,WHO WILL THEREFORE WILL MALIGN US because we are poor instruments to make GOD`S HOLY TRUTH to be yet more and more known unto the people WHOM THEY DESIRE STILL TO KEEP IN IGNORANCE AND DARKNESS or if,on the other side,WE SHALL BE MALIGNED BY SELF-CONCEITED BRETHREN,WHO RUN THEIR OWN WAYS,AND GIVE LIKING UNTO NOTHING,BUT WHAT IS FRAMED BY THEMSELVES AND HAMMERED ON THEIR ANVIL Etc....
It seems the translators in their epistle dedicatory stepped on Rome`s toes and even said their brethren would run their own ways and not liking unto nothing {i.e.standing on one book}but what they have framed {i.e.created}on their own anvil.
These men knew what was coming in the future against the KJB.
God bless in Jesus.
Steven.
Some of the epistle dedicatory.
by writing in defence of the Truth [which hath given such a blow unto THAT MAN OF SIN as will not be healed]etc....
So that if,on the one side,we shall be TRADUCED BY POPISH PERSONS at home or abroad,WHO WILL THEREFORE WILL MALIGN US because we are poor instruments to make GOD`S HOLY TRUTH to be yet more and more known unto the people WHOM THEY DESIRE STILL TO KEEP IN IGNORANCE AND DARKNESS or if,on the other side,WE SHALL BE MALIGNED BY SELF-CONCEITED BRETHREN,WHO RUN THEIR OWN WAYS,AND GIVE LIKING UNTO NOTHING,BUT WHAT IS FRAMED BY THEMSELVES AND HAMMERED ON THEIR ANVIL Etc....
It seems the translators in their epistle dedicatory stepped on Rome`s toes and even said their brethren would run their own ways and not liking unto nothing {i.e.standing on one book}but what they have framed {i.e.created}on their own anvil.
These men knew what was coming in the future against the KJB.
God bless in Jesus.
Steven.
Ok. I'm calling you out. What in the world kind of name is "tatermonkey"???? :laugh::laugh: On second thought, maybe I don't want to know. :tongue3:
Bro,
To a man, the translators of the KJV were part of the early Anglican Church. The Anglican Church (Church of England) was basically just a reinvention of the Roman Catholic Church. Their theology was very similar. They all had things like "dedications" to Mary, etc.
I notice you never responded to my post in another thread, where I pointed out that Erasmus was a Mary worshipper, until the day that he died. I also noticed you ignored the fact that portions of the KJV agree with the Latin Vulgate, as opposed to other more reliable sources. Even in some instances, with the Dhouay Rheims...
Perhaps you need to study the English reformation, my friend. This reformation was one of authority, NOT theology. These people agreed with the Roman Catholic Church's theology. They were heretics, who believed in baptismal regeneration, purgatory, works righteousness, etc.
Tell me, why is it that the KJV translators called the Septuagint the "word of God", yet it is condemned by KJVO folks??
"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God."
The KJV translators, themselves, believed in having multiple translations.
pilgrim2009
New Member
I dont know about that.Since you praise the ESV and think its so accurate what think ye of this article?
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/esv.htm
God bless in Jesus.
pilgrim2009
New Member
To HD
QUESTION: Is it true that the King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers?
ANSWER: No.
EXPLANATION: The company of men who did the translating of the Authorized Version was made up of Bible believing men from both the Anglican and Puritan churches. Their character and qualifications have been attested earlier.
Such a statement as, "The King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers," is one of those statements which is sadly not based on fact nor conviction. It is made with the hope of character assassination and an ultimate hope of overthrowing the authority of the King James Bible in the minds of believers.
It might be beneficial at this point to note what the King James translators were NOT.
They were not adulterers, as David. Nor were they murderers as Moses and David. Nor had any of them sacrificed any of their children to Chemosh or Molech as Solomon had in I Kings 11. Nor had they vehemently denied the Lord as Peter.
These short comings are not pointed out to bring disrespect on any of the writers of scripture. But are noted so that we should be a little more gracious in our description of the men whom God has chosen to use.
Source:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_49.asp
QUESTION: Is it true that the King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers?
ANSWER: No.
EXPLANATION: The company of men who did the translating of the Authorized Version was made up of Bible believing men from both the Anglican and Puritan churches. Their character and qualifications have been attested earlier.
Such a statement as, "The King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers," is one of those statements which is sadly not based on fact nor conviction. It is made with the hope of character assassination and an ultimate hope of overthrowing the authority of the King James Bible in the minds of believers.
It might be beneficial at this point to note what the King James translators were NOT.
They were not adulterers, as David. Nor were they murderers as Moses and David. Nor had any of them sacrificed any of their children to Chemosh or Molech as Solomon had in I Kings 11. Nor had they vehemently denied the Lord as Peter.
These short comings are not pointed out to bring disrespect on any of the writers of scripture. But are noted so that we should be a little more gracious in our description of the men whom God has chosen to use.
Source:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_49.asp
pilgrim2009
New Member
To those that support the Septuagint OT.
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Source:
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Source:
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm
pilgrim2009
New Member
As I suspected.The Jesuits are behind pushing Texual Criticism {i.e.TR/KJB attack}Documented evidence.This order is a vile and wicked order that has hijacked the Christian Church through its doctrines and attacks on the Bible {i.e.texual criticism of the KJB}
For God sake brethren dont believe the Jesuit apologetics to protect them.These are the enemies of Christ and His blood bought Church.
Please read this with an open mind.It is no conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact.
http://www.present-truth.org/6-Library/KJV-HB/KJV-textual-criticism.htm
For God sake brethren dont believe the Jesuit apologetics to protect them.These are the enemies of Christ and His blood bought Church.
Please read this with an open mind.It is no conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact.
http://www.present-truth.org/6-Library/KJV-HB/KJV-textual-criticism.htm
- Status