Confusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bro Blue
  • Start date Start date
Bro Blue said:

I take it that saying one is KJB preferred is better than KJVO? Are people going to harp on someone that says that they prefer the KJB because it was what was preached when they got saved and is satisfied with it?

Are the KJV-preferred going to go farther and say that their own preference is the correct Bible for everyone else?  If not, then no.

Are they still going to be accused of being ignorant and unwilling to broaden their horizons?

Are the KJV-preferred going to shake their fingers at those Christians who want to broaden their horizons? If not, then no.

If one says I'm going to hold onto my KJB and not knock the ones who use otherwise, would this be better? Being as there is no biblical proof for one to say matter of factly that X version is THE ONE?

Not only better, but biblical.

Bottom line is, everyone is perfectly welcome to hold their preferences as a matter of taste or opinion. However, when someone takes their preferences and tries to make them into rules, they've crossed a line.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
I rest my case.  You don't even realize how you come across.  I am imagining you with a smirk on your face as you typed
Click to expand...

Then your case is weak. 

FSSL was not being cocky; anyone reading back over that post can see that is the case.  As for imagining smirks - the fact that you imagine people smirking says more about your own insecurities on this topic, than about anyone's behavior. 

Reading back over your posts in this thread, you seem to believe that because both sides (KJVO and anti-KJVO) have arguments, then that somehow means that the sides are balanced and equally worthy of consideration.  And, in particular, that both sides are equally biased in championing their position.

This is similar to what happens when pollsters ask people "Who do you blame, Republicans or Democrats", or "which is more important, cutting taxes or increasing revenue".  A large percentage of respondents will answer "both". Why do they do that? Not because they actually understand the issues or have thought them out, but for other reasons.  It's because they have been house-trained to think that actual truth will always be found somewhere in the middle.  So, by giving an answer that includes both options equally, they think they are somehow demonstrating deep insight or intellectual maturity. 

The problem is that it isn't always true that the balance (or the truth) is in the middle.  Sometimes it's very heavily on one side, or on the other side.  In those cases, the kneejerk reaction answer of "both" will fail.

Viewing the KJVO and anti-KJVO positions as simply two equally balanced forces may appeal to some misguided sense of symmetry, but it's a pretty poor way to evaluate the relative merits of two opposing sets of arguments.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
redgreen, stick it, pal, no one asked you.  TIA
Click to expand...

Feel free to communicate in private messaging to folks here, anytime you like.

But if you post something here in a public forum, and it interests me to do so, I'm going to respond.  Sucks for you, maybe, but that's life.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
FSSL said:
jimmudcatgrant said:
That was a caustic and self-serving remark by you. No, so we can talk man to man and I can see if I have misjudged you as I know you have me. You immediately thought I was threatening physicality.
Click to expand...

I don't make it a practice to meet those who accuse textual critics of superiority complexes and smear those who have studied the original languages as "know-it-alls."

I pass.
Click to expand...

I never figured you for the sort to hide behind a computer, too afraid to converse face to face with someone with differing opinions from yourself.  And you accuse KJVO of being closed-minded. A lot of the stuff I posted was rhetoric, designed to get you to see that y'all go to the same extremes as the KJVO in presenting your position, and you are just as holier than thou as they are.   This post here proves it, as you think you are too good to meet a brother in Christ who happens to believe different than you do.  Congrats, you really lifted your position mightily this evening.
Click to expand...

i.e. manipulation. Not real, godly, humble discussion of issues, just plain old manipulation so you can win.  That's why I gave up on arguing with anything you said.
 
Pretty amazing.

First jimmudcatgrant whines about being misunderstood and people misreading his intentions:

That was a caustic and self-serving remark by you. No, so we can talk man to man and I can see if I have misjudged you as I know you have me. You immediately thought I was threatening physicality.

But now, he tries to tell us that he whipped up emotions on purpose, as some sort of experiment, to prove some point.

In other words, nobody misjudged him at all.  He really WAS trying to piss people off, even if we didn't know his hidden reason for doing it.  His experiment had the expected outcome, so why is he whining and bellyaching?

Sounds like a guy who likes to poke bears in the eye with a stick, and then complains that the bear got mad.

Assuming, of course, that he isn't making the whole "I did it as a test" claim up out of thin air, just to excuse his bad manners.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
First, Redgreen, I wasn't talking to us.  So butt out.
Click to expand...

Still not listening very well, are you? 

Long version:
If you post it publicly, and it interests me to do so, then I'm going to respond publicly. Don't like it? Then feel free to PM someone instead.

Short version:
Make me butt out.


  I could take FSSL's position and say I don't make it a practice to talk to men who don't believe the bible is true and can't take God at his word for the meaning of eternal.  But I won't.
Click to expand...

No, what you'll do instead is just say all of the above in the same sentence as FSSL's name. You know, use a little sideways slander, of the "have you stopped beating your wife" kind. 
And apparently you think nobody will notice you doing it.  ::)


What's a matter, did you get your little feelings hurt like FSSL?
Click to expand...

I don't respect you. Therefore, you cannot hurt my feelings.


Y'all boys can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. 
Click to expand...

I'm dishing it out quite well, thank you -- well enough that you seem to want me to go away and stop commenting.


Ask FSSL about the caustic remark.  He knows why I posted it in that reply.
Click to expand...

No need to.  You just tried to claim that you were acting like a jerk to get a reaction out of people. Well, looks like you succeeded. 
You probably go to fireworks shows and complain about the noise, too, dontcha?

homer_simpson_doh.gif

 
jimmudcatgrant said:
RG says, "Make me butt out"

What, you just graduate the 6th grade, Jethro?
Click to expand...

You're the one who apparently hasn't graduated 6th grade.

What part of "if you post on a public forum, I'm going to respond" escapes your readin, ritin, and rithmatick?
 
I read a book a while back entitled "things that are different are not the same" by Mickey Carter. The title of the book brings up an interesting question in my mind. Now I'm not talking about important doctrines now ok. In multiple translations, any given verse is given in various ways. What's the probability of misapplication because of this? Because sometimes a single word can change the direction something is going in.
 
What's the probability of misapplication because of this?

Pretty good.  I've seen a number of people completely misconstrue the meaning of a verse because of it.

Unfortunately, they were all KJV readers. They misunderstood a word that had changed its meaning in 400 years.
 
  Fact is, many, MANY Greek or Hebrew words/phrases have multiple correct English meanings within the context of where they are found. Thus, different translators are gonna make different versions. Added to that mix is that various translators who make English BVs live in different lands, with slightly-different English usages and spellings. (Example: In England, a "bonnet" is a car's hood; in the USA it's a form of a hat. Neither meaning is incorrect, of course.)  Also, there are the times in which the different translations have been made.

  I recommend the NKJV, NASV,  and KJV to new Christians, but I encourage them to read other valid translations as they grow in their faith. (NON-valid ones are the cult-specific versions such as the NWT, Joseph Smith KJV, or Clear Word version, as well as most paraphrased versions that are fashioned largely by the translators' personal opinions.)

 
I remember a preacher about 30 years ago who thought "scrip" in Matt 10:10 and Mark 6:8 was short for "scripture", so he said that Jesus told His disciples not to take any Bible scrolls with them when He sent them out to preach.
 
Wheatpenny, I had someone try to use those verses about Jesus sending them out with no scrip to argue against preachers using notes and outlines while they preached. I told him he could have that opinion if he wants, but that word scrip means a small leather pouch or bag and not written material.
 
The Greek term meant a leather wallet, but the English word scrip means none of the above. In 1611, it was a nickname for paper money (scrip is related to scrap). It's still used sometimes that way to refer to non-legal-tender currency: gift cards, vouchers, Canadian Tire money, and so forth.

The point is, obviously, that the disciples shouldn't take money with them for their journey. But the KJV translators introduced an anachronism (since they obviously didn't have paper currency back in the day), and subsequently a difficult archaism prone to misunderstanding.
 
Ransom said:
The Greek term meant a leather wallet, but the English word scrip means none of the above.
Click to expand...

My dictionary clearly defines scrip as:

"A small bag, wallet, or satchel, esp. one carried by a pilgrim, a shepherd, or a beggar."

A usage of which it shows is anywhere from the 1300-1800s.
 
My Oxford dictionary provides only the financial definitions, and gives the word's origin as an abbreviation for subscription receipt.
 
I let my emotions rule the day and let things get personal at times, which is crazy, because I do not know anyone here personally. I forgot that discretion is the better part of valor, and that controlling the tongue is an admonition that needs to adhered to by Christians.  So I deleted all my posts.  I know you can never take back words that are posted, and some of them weren't personal, but I thought that I should.  I know some are found in other posts and that is fine, I deserve the criticisms I received.  With God's help, I won't go that route again.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
I let my emotions rule the day and let things get personal at times, which is crazy, because I do not know anyone here personally. I forgot that discretion is the better part of valor, and that controlling the tongue is an admonition that needs to adhered to by Christians.  So I deleted all my posts.  I know you can never take back words that are posted, and some of them weren't personal, but I thought that I should.  I know some are found in other posts and that is fine, I deserve the criticisms I received.  With God's help, I won't go that route again.
Click to expand...

Well, Jim... that is a great thing and a good example to me and I am sure others!!!

I will delete my posts as well to help erase the past. Perhaps others who quoted you will do the same and then we can delete these two.

I am looking forward to starting over fresh and getting back into a proper spirited discussion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top