Your In Trouble

[TomVols]

TomVols,

You said: “You can't even say it on public television”.

Not true. They can and do.

FFF, I don't watch programs that do. Maybe you do

I have seen it bleeped out on news programs.

“Do you use it in ordinary conversation? I doubt it”.

Ad hominem.

Uh, no it isn't. You offer no proof. Maybe I shouldn'tve answered the question for him, but the question remains: would he or you use the word in public conversations?

You said: “Reason is simple: words change meaning. We're not talking about a theological word. We're talking about a word that is now vulgar describing the process excess is discarded from the body. To equate theological words with body functions is ludicrous”.

Non sequitur. Much to the contrary my fellow Knoxvillian, theological (meaning God’s) words do discuss body functions, hundreds of times. Two very clear examples are given in this thread.

No proof this is non-sequitur. Your response has nothing to do with the previous post. there is a difference theologically speaking between propitiation and using the bathroom. Surely you understand this.

 

[TomVols]

is there not says:

The word describing that function is not vulgar.

Then, says :

even heard some "preachers", and I use that term lightly, use that word in the vulgar, as a curse word. I call it a curse word when it is used as the expliative, and not as word proper.

Once more, you say

I didn't make it vulgar and offensive, the world in it's confusion has.

How is this not a contradiction in terms? You call the word unvulgar, then call the word an expletive and vulgar in the next sentence and indict those who use it. How is the word in question differentiated between the two by language today? And you still haven't answered my question: do you consider usage of the word acceptable? Do you use the word in common conversation?

Like I said, are we going to let people change the root meaniongs of words and thereby make them vulgar and obscene?

So then, your logic dictates that we should recover a four-letter word describing sex acts because it used to be a term for a law? So we should recover an unflattering word for women because it was once used in perhaps a non-insulting fashion? You're watching too much HBO buddy

I understand where you're going with modern dictation of language. But you're getting there the wrong way. Vulgar language is vulgar language because of the connotation, not the substance, which is why your "Christ is now vulgar" argument is invalid.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

TomVols,

You said: “FFF, I don't watch programs that do. Maybe you do I have seen it bleeped out on news programs”.

I bet a good godly man like you would never even think of a cuss word.

You said: “Uh, no it isn't. You offer no proof. Maybe I shouldn'tve answered the question for him, but the question remains: would he or you use the word in public conversations?”.

Would you read the NIV rendering of the passage out of Ezekiel in public?

You said: “No proof this is non-sequitur. Your response has nothing to do with the previous post. there is a difference theologically speaking between propitiation and using the bathroom. Surely you understand this.”.

I understand something you don’t evidently. Don’t you know Theos means God. Anything God said is a “Theological” word. Come on now Tom, you get my meaning don’t you?

 

[Istherenotacause]

Hey Tom Vol,

I sincerely believe if you go back and re-read my post, without the bias, you'll see excatly what I was saying, instead of what you're reading into it. But then again, maybe it's because no one can tell you anything, you've already got your mind made up and are impervious to rational thinking. Whoops! I understand exactly what you are saying, although you are wrong in some degree. The word hell is definitley one of those "slang" words in modern diction, mainly due to the denial of hell by those who attempt to avert judgement. But the word represents that very place created by God for the devil and his angels,though most today use it in the expliative. This is just another of the many examples.

Hope you see things in the proper perspective to avoid offence on your own part, societies have an unusual way of demanding certain graces to be non-offensive to their "snobby" status.

I wasn't contradicting myself as you said.

In Christ,

Brother Ricky

 

[swaimj]

I didn't make it vulgar and offensive, the world in it's confusion has. So let me ask you, are you going to let this world dictate what is acceptable, allowing it to have dominion over knowledge, dictating what is truth contrary to what is established?

All vulgar things are the product of the world. If it were not for sinful man, nothing would be or could be vulgar. If you really mean what you say then I assume that you use the words s---, d---, f---, etc freely because you disregard the fact that the world uses them in a vulgar way. Brother Ricky, I don't think you really live your life that way. If you do, don't come to my house. I'll have to wash my ears with alcohol and your mouth with soap!

Removing the ancient landmarks a little at a time, thinking it goes un-noticed.

The King James Version is not referred to in the verse about not removing ancient landmarks. When that verse was written, there was no KJV. Furthermore, the KJV is not ancient.

I'm not saying you are doing this knowingly, but maybe just ignorant to the facts.

What facts are those?

The "BIG" excuse modernists always use is that we don't have the originals, that ideal comes straight form the pits of hell, eventually the powers of darkness will use that to deny the whole matter of the Word of God altogether, saying, that if the originals are missing, then no one can say what the Word of God is. Now doesn't that lead right into where the devil wants us?

But I am not saying that we do not have the Bible because we do not have the originals and no one on this board is saying that. This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Note that the Byzantine came from Jerusalem, Alexandrian came from Egypt, now the question is, Do you want to continue in the wilderness wanderings, or would you live over in Canaan's fair land?

The Bible, speaking of Jesus says "Out of Egypt I have called my son". Jesus is not corrupt because he came out of Egypt is he? Neither is the Alexandrian text. Your method of allegorizing the text is the method of Catholicism upon which their false doctrine is based. You are misusing the scripture, Brother Ricky.

 

[TomVols]

I bet a good godly man like you would never even think of a cuss word.

That's correct. Only IFBs do that

Would you read the NIV rendering of the passage out of Ezekiel in public?

I don't read the NIV in public. It's not a literal translation so I don't use it in preaching. Now, answer MY question for a change

Don’t you know Theos means God. Anything God said is a “Theological” word.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. What God said was shawthan. God didn't speak KJVese.

 

[TomVols]

Ricky,
You've totally missed the point completely. Obviously, there are words (Hell, Christ, etc.) that the world can view as vulgar but also have profound theological meaning. This is a completely different issue than the other words I mentioned.

By the way, you've yet to answer the questions posed to you.

 

[Istherenotacause]

Originally posted by TomVols:
Ricky,
You've totally missed the point completely. Obviously, there are words (Hell, Christ, etc.) that the world can view as vulgar but also have profound theological meaning. This is a completely different issue than the other words I mentioned.

By the way, you've yet to answer the questions posed to you.

Both you and SwaimJ have alluded to my using curse words, I don't appreciate it at all.

I suppose this to be typical of those who start a topic and then accuse the other of the adverse for not agreeing with them and their stance on that introduced topic. The question was about the text of Scripture, not common language used by anyone today or yesterday, we are talking about the Word of God.

Just so I can be clear, I don't use any of those words in any conversation, and never the ones alluded to in the post prior to the one I'm replying to now, Thank You!

 

[TomVols]

Just so I can be clear, I don't use any of those words in any conversation, and never the ones alluded to in the post prior to the one I'm replying to now, Thank You!

Very telling then. You won't use the word in question. There's a reason...you're making my point. I appreciate it

 

[Istherenotacause]

Originally posted by TomVols:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just so I can be clear, I don't use any of those words in any conversation, and never the ones alluded to in the post prior to the one I'm replying to now, Thank You!

Very telling then. You won't use the word in question. There's a reason...you're making my point. I appreciate it

</font>[/QUOTE]I think something flew right over your head. I've already used those Bible words in a previuos post. I made direct reference to the words that in my opinion are saying them, by leaving the blanks open for anyone to fill in. When I'm reading the scripture, I'm not carrying on a conversation, I reading aloud the Word of God.

I read the passage"...all that pisseth against the wall", I don't use any form of that "questionable" word in a conversation. It's just like the word "whore", I only quote it, or read it aloud. I don't use it in a conversation, I do use the word "harlot". I don't have any problem with the Word stating the exactness, society does. I especially don't even refer to words like the ones posted with the fill in the blanks. I guess that I and the Word are on trial here though.

Maybe yall should take up knitting or crochet', or some other way of twisting things.

In Christ,

Brother Ricky

 

[rsr]

Ricky, I've read all your posts. Just what is your point? No one knows.

 

[Istherenotacause]

Originally posted by rsr:
Ricky, I've read all your posts. Just what is your point? No one knows.

Which point? The point I made that I don't use those words referred to in the passage of Scripture? No, I don't use them in conversation, but reading them from that passage are distinguishing reference inspired by the Lord. So what do you suppose, we are to accept the Bible as unadulterated, or to allow society to demand correction to the Word of God?

But then you might be asking my point about SwaimJ and Tom Vol alluding to curse words. 1st of all, I consider anyone who would post those words a religionist and not a Christian, or at least in need of an education about living for Christ. No, I don't use those words at all as they refer to them. I don't have a problem with the Bible words, they do. I refrain from using them as to not offend those more readily offended. I have a message I preached awhile back about taking up offences, one main point is that some are just looking for any little thing that might be considered an offense just so they can tell everyone else they're offended.

Much consideration of the parable of the Sower and the Seed should be taken in this particular situation, notably the portion dealing with those who are offended at the Word. When some one is offended at something, the natural response is to attack, this is exactly what is being done here, those using the dictates of society to attack the Word of God due to their offense. If one would take the time top consider the word "urination" didn't occur in the Hebrew from which that passage is taken. The words "him that pisseth against the wall" are not customary to today's society, but they do distinguish that males are the ones described.

I could simply say, that "he that urinates against the wall" would make the same distinction, but to relate the passage in the original Hebrew, and then translated into English, that can't be done without stating it exactly as it appears in the King James Bible.

But now that is what is happening here, it's not what the passage says, as much as it an attempt to correct the KJB by society's dictates, It's no wonder so many feel justified in their opinion that the Bible is the word of man and not the Word of God! So many people are bowing down to society instead of declaring the Word of God.


So, now I ask you the same question, what's your point?

 

[Istherenotacause]

P.S.

Now I guess some one will say that we should take that word "BLOOD" out of the Bible, you know some one may be offended!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Istherenotacause said,
"But then you might be asking my point about SwaimJ and Tom Vol alluding to curse words. 1st of all, I consider anyone who would post those words a religionist and not a Christian , or at least in need of an education about living for Christ."

Since SwaimJ and Tom Vol did post these words you must consider them to be, more than likely, unsaved.

How is it that you believe that God has given you such great insight to decide someone's eternal fate based upon a few words posted on the Internet? Is not this synonymous with such words as: arrogant, self-righteous, pompous. etc.?

 

[swaimj]

I could simply say, that "he that urinates against the wall" would make the same distinction, but to relate the passage in the original Hebrew, and then translated into English, that can't be done without stating it exactly as it appears in the King James Bible.

What is this supposed to mean? If "urinates" and "p------" make the same distinction, as you say, then why does it have to be translated "exantly as it appears in the King James Version(stop calling it Bible because its name is King James Version. This is dishonest on your part and may lead people the think that you are not saved)? You may insinuate that I am unsaved if you like, but if I am unsaved, the KJV translators must have been since they practiced the baptizing of babies. Why are you attributing perfection to mere men from the 1600s, especially when not a single one of them was a baptist and holds the theology you hold?

 

[Tim Wright]

First you change the words.
This just makes me wonder what’s next. The music
The name of you Church.
It’s the word of God the truth. If the truth is offensive. Then you would have to ask your self Dues God offended you ???????

 

[Terry_Herrington]

swaimj,
I don't think Istherenotacause should have made the posting he did and I said so. I have noticed that he has not taken the time to respond.

It's kind of like dealing with a rattlesnake. They quickly attack with their venom and then slither away.

 

[Gayla]

I've heard this passage (KJV) preached on before and the Preacher said something like "all males".

 

[swaimj]

First you change the words.
This just makes me wonder what’s next. The music
The name of you Church.

Are you saying that you have not added a new song to the list of songs you sing in your church in the last year? How about the last 5 years or the last 10? If so, I feel sorry for you. You're missing out on some great music. Scripture is given by God. I am not advocating changing scripture. I am advocating changing the translation we use so that the wording is up-to-date. Your equating the changing of music and versions with changing the word of God is a tell-tell sign. You see, you sing the music you sing, not because the hymns are inspired and given by the breath of God, but because they are the hymns that are your tradition. Just the same, you do not favor the King James Version because the tranlators were inspired, you favor it because it is your tradition. Jesus condemned in no uncertain terms the elevation of man's tradition to the level of the commands of God. Yet that is what you are doing. That is why you are wrong, Tim.

I've heard this passage (KJV) preached on before and the Preacher said something like "all males".

I think that's a pretty good interpretation of what is being said. The ironic thing is that, if a preacher who is KJVOnly explains that it means male in the course of his sermon, or if he says urine instead of "p---" in the course of his sermon, that's OK. But if a translator changes the word to the same thing the KJVOnly preacher explains it to mean, the translator is viewed by the KJVOnliest as an heretic. Makes no sense.

 

[Tim Wright]

First you change the words.
This just makes me wonder what’s next. The music
The name of you Church.

Are you saying that you have not added a new song to the list of songs you sing in your church in the last year? How about the last 5 years or the last 10? If so, I feel sorry for you. You're missing out on some great music. Scripture is given by God. I am not advocating changing scripture. I am advocating changing the translation we use so that the wording is up-to-date. Your equating the changing of music and versions with changing the word of God is a tell-tell sign. You see, you sing the music you sing, not because the hymns are inspired and given by the breath of God, but because they are the hymns that are your tradition. Just the same, you do not favor the King James Version because the tranlators were inspired, you favor it because it is your tradition. Jesus condemned in no uncertain terms the elevation of man's tradition to the level of the commands of God. Yet that is what you are doing. That is why you are wrong, Tim.

Swaimj

You took what I had said the wrong way. Maybe I did not explain my point in the right way.
What I was trying to say is that. What’s next? You seem to be so caught up in
Not wonting to offend some one that you change words.
And when I say words I mean not saying it just like it is wrote in the bible.
So when you start feeling like some one would be offended because your church has the name Baptist in it are you going to change the name of the Church???
As for tradition. I would be way off here is why.
I was raised up in a Pentecostal church and when I stated reading the word of God
I knew that what they teach is wrong. And my mother is supposed to be a Pentecostal preacher so if I was following tradition. I would be Pentecostal. Not Baptist

So that’s where you are wrong Swaimj