Does this forum has any KJ only members

[The Real Bob]

Does this forum has any KJ only members.

You has a braindead.

 

[Ransom]

It's nice to see intolerance and hypocrisy on both sides of the issue.

There's no requirement to tolerate false teaching in the churches (quite the opposite), and no personal reason to tolerate stupidity.

 

[qwerty]

It's nice to see intolerance and hypocrisy on both sides of the issue.

There's no requirement to tolerate false teaching in the churches (quite the opposite), and no personal reason to tolerate stupidity.

So something you don't agree with is "false teaching".....you sound like an IFBx.

I am not KJVO, prefer ESV, but always find humor in the critics using the same argument in principle as the folks they disagree with.

 

[Ransom]

So something you don't agree with is "false teaching".....you sound like an IFBx.

And, misrepresenting what I said, you sound like an idiot.

 

[qwerty]

So something you don't agree with is "false teaching".....you sound like an IFBx.

And, misrepresenting what I said, you sound like an idiot.

Ahh....that validates your argument....what's next, are you sticking your tounge out and making faces?

 

[biscuit1953]

It's nice to see intolerance and hypocrisy on both sides of the issue.

Why would a Hindu even be interested in such a topic?  Seriously.

 

[qwerty]

It's nice to see intolerance and hypocrisy on both sides of the issue.

Why would a Hindu even be interested in such a topic?  Seriously.

That is your response?  This is too easy......

 

[Ransom]

Ahh....that validates your argument....

At least I had one. You only had a misrepresentation: that if I disagree with one false teaching, I call everything I disagree with false teaching.  Quack quack, duck.

 

[qwerty]

Ahh....that validates your argument....

At least I had one. You only had a misrepresentation: that if I disagree with one false teaching, I call everything I disagree with false teaching.  Quack quack, duck.

It is a weak argument for KJV only-ism....although stronger of two weak arguments.  It is humorous how vehemently the non-KJVO folks despise the KJVO folks.  How quick they are to pass judgement and take verses and bend them to their will.....just like the KJVO and the IFBx.  The principle for one side of the argument is the same for the other side.

There is so much more to Christianity than two stupid sides in a battle of wits.

And "everything I disagree with false teaching"?  You must also highly edit the Bible as well as someone's posts.

 

[Ransom]

There is so much more to Christianity than two stupid sides in a battle of wits.

Good thing it's not a battle of wits. You came only half-armed.

 

[qwerty]

There is so much more to Christianity than two stupid sides in a battle of wits.

Good thing it's not a battle of wits. You came only half-armed.

Ahh, more intelligent insight.

So if someone disagrees with you, they are a false teacher or not smart.  Sounds like you are a bit more IFBx that you let on.

 

[biscuit1953]

There is so much more to Christianity than two stupid sides in a battle of wits.

Good thing it's not a battle of wits. You came only half-armed.

Ahh, more intelligent insight.

So if someone disagrees with you, they are a false teacher or not smart.  Sounds like you are a bit more IFBx that you let on.

A couple of The Noble Eightfold Paths:

1.  Right Speech - One speaks in a non-hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way. 

2.  Right Mindfulness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness.  In India in 1942, three million people died of starvation.  Alongside the bodies of men, women and children lay the carcasses of hundreds of thousands of "sacred" cows that would have saved the lives of multitudes but because of Hinduism, animals were more important than those created after God's own image. 

One of The Five Precepts:

1.  Abstain from false speech, which includes lying, gossiping, etc.  This means speaking the truth always.  It's obvious you have come to a Christian forum for no other purpose than to cause trouble and gossip about differences in Christian beliefs.

Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged the inability of his religion to atone for sin.  Despite his moral lifestyle and good works, he admitted, "It is a constant torture to me that I am still so far from Him whom I know to be my very life and being. I know it is my own wretchedness and wickedness that keeps me from Him."  All works-based religions lead to futility and death.  It is only in Jesus Christ that sinners can find forgiveness for their sins and deliverance from death and hell.  (The Evidence Bible)

One final word.  From the only Book that has been proven to be true through the literal fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies many years and centuries in advance - the Holy Bible"

Hebrews 9:27  "And as it is appointed for men once to die, but after this the judgment."

There is no such thing as reincarnation. It is merely wishful thinking of guilty sinners trying to atone for their own sins which they deny.

 

[Ransom]

So if someone disagrees with you, they are a false teacher or not smart.

I don't know if you're a false teacher or not, but it's clear you're not smart.

Sheesh. All I said was that there was no need to "tolerate" the false teaching of KJV-onlyism in churches.  That is patently true: there are plenty of passages in the Bible where we are told: to watch out for false teachers; to refute them; not to offer them hospitality; to silence them.

Qwerty protesteth too much, methinks.

 

[thethinkingrebel]

There is so much more to Christianity than two stupid sides in a battle of wits.

Good thing it's not a battle of wits. You came only half-armed.

Ahh, more intelligent insight.

So if someone disagrees with you, they are a false teacher or not smart.  Sounds like you are a bit more IFBx that you let on.

A couple of The Noble Eightfold Paths:

1.  Right Speech - One speaks in a non-hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way. 

2.  Right Mindfulness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness.  In India in 1942, three million people died of starvation.  Alongside the bodies of men, women and children lay the carcasses of hundreds of thousands of "sacred" cows that would have saved the lives of multitudes but because of Hinduism, animals were more important than those created after God's own image. 

One of The Five Precepts:

1.  Abstain from false speech, which includes lying, gossiping, etc.  This means speaking the truth always.  It's obvious you have come to a Christian forum for no other purpose than to cause trouble and gossip about differences in Christian beliefs.

Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged the inability of his religion to atone for sin.  Despite his moral lifestyle and good works, he admitted, "It is a constant torture to me that I am still so far from Him whom I know to be my very life and being. I know it is my own wretchedness and wickedness that keeps me from Him."  All works-based religions lead to futility and death.  It is only in Jesus Christ that sinners can find forgiveness for their sins and deliverance from death and hell.  (The Evidence Bible)

One final word.  From the only Book that has been proven to be true through the literal fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies many years and centuries in advance - the Holy Bible"

Hebrews 9:27  "And as it is appointed for men once to die, but after this the judgment."

There is no such thing as reincarnation. It is merely wishful thinking of guilty sinners trying to atone for their own sins which they deny.

I was about to rebuke you Biscuit, then I saw the last part of your post!

Well done for showing the works-based, anthropocentric drivel taught in eastern religion.

 

[qwerty]

All I said was that there was no need to "tolerate" the false teaching of KJV-onlyism in churches.  That is patently true: there are plenty of passages in the Bible where we are told: to watch out for false teachers; to refute them; not to offer them hospitality; to silence them.

Back to the straw man argument of "false teaching".  The KJVO crowd has the same amount of scriptural evidence for their argument as those who claim it is a "false teaching".  It all depends on interpretation and how much you want to bend a verse or two...or three.  You say they are the false teachers, they say you are.  It is a pretty dumb position for either side to think more highly of another without firm scriptural basis of their belief.

 

[Ransom]

Back to the straw man argument of "false teaching".

No "straw man argument" at all.

The KJVO crowd has the same amount of scriptural evidence for their argument as those who claim it is a "false teaching".

That's right. Both have zero.  The difference is, the KJV-onlyists present their teachings as spiritual truth without scriptural evidence. The rest of us dispute their veracity; no scripture required, since the burden of proof is on the KJVers to present a positive case for their teachings.

Since they cannot, by definition it is false. Simple, eh?

It all depends on interpretation and how much you want to bend a verse or two...or three.  You say they are the false teachers, they say you are.

You're welcome to argue on the basis of relativism, but don't expect me to take you seriously.

 

[qwerty]

Back to the straw man argument of "false teaching".

No "straw man argument" at all.

The KJVO crowd has the same amount of scriptural evidence for their argument as those who claim it is a "false teaching".

That's right. Both have zero.  The difference is, the KJV-onlyists present their teachings as spiritual truth without scriptural evidence. The rest of us dispute their veracity; no scripture required, since the burden of proof is on the KJVers to present a positive case for their teachings.

Since they cannot, by definition it is false. Simple, eh?

It all depends on interpretation and how much you want to bend a verse or two...or three.  You say they are the false teachers, they say you are.

You're welcome to argue on the basis of relativism, but don't expect me to take you seriously.

Situational ethics at its best....

Counter false teaching with false teaching because it is less false.

 

[Izdaari]

Ransom is right, even if I don't care for his snarkiness. KJVO is a novel, heterodox position, not part of historic Christianity, and so it cannot have the status of a default position. It's a weird innovation ("If it's new, it can't be true"), so we're free to reject it, even obligated to reject it, without proving anything. It is up to those who argue for it to make their case from Scripture, if they can. Alas, year after year of tiresome dead horse arguments have made it abundantly clear that they cannot. You KJVOs will have to do better before I even think it's worth my time to argue it with you.

But there's nothing at all wrong with somebody having a personal preference for the KJV.  There are times when I prefer it myself, not usually but when an especially literary mood strikes me. De gustabus non disputandem est. Just don't try to tell me it's the only legitimate translation, or be ready to be called a heretic, and if you're extreme about it, a cultist and bibliolater. 

 

[Izdaari]

Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged the inability of his religion to atone for sin.  Despite his moral lifestyle and good works, he admitted, "It is a constant torture to me that I am still so far from Him whom I know to be my very life and being. I know it is my own wretchedness and wickedness that keeps me from Him."  All works-based religions lead to futility and death.  It is only in Jesus Christ that sinners can find forgiveness for their sins and deliverance from death and hell.  (The Evidence Bible)

Though nominally a Hindu, it almost sounds like Gandhi was a closet Christian.

He's often been quoted as saying: "I very much like your Christ. I do not much like your Christians." ... a sentiment I can sympathize with. 

Hmm, I wonder if we'll see him in heaven? I hope so. If he knows Christ to be his "very life and being", that give me hope of it.

 

[qwerty]

Ransom is right, even if I don't care for his snarkiness. KJVO is a novel, heterodox position, not part of historic Christianity, and so it cannot have the status of a default position. It's a weird innovation ("If it's new, it can't be true"), so we're free to reject it, even obligated to reject it, without proving anything. It is up to those who argue for it to make their case from Scripture, if they can. Alas, year after year of tiresome dead horse arguments have made it abundantly clear that they cannot. You KJVOs will have to do better before I even think it's worth my time to argue it with you.

But there's nothing at all wrong with somebody having a personal preference for the KJV.  There are times when I prefer it myself, not usually but when an especially literary mood strikes me. De gustabus non disputandem est. Just don't try to tell me it's the only legitimate translation, or be ready to be called a heretic, and if you're extreme about it, a cultist and bibliolater.

The principle is the same either way.  To accuse someone of false teachings because your position as well has the same lack of support is hypocritical. Blame someone for a crime because it is not a law to commit that crime, but they have to prove their innocence....

Both arguments hold no water.....the non KJVO crowd has as much scriptural support for their argument,  but because we are asking first you require them to cite verses .....yeah,  that's the better position