The FFF, Fundamentalism and Reality.

Tarheel Baptist said:
busman7797 said:
I will just put in my 2 cents. All of those things you are saying are bad (separation and such) are not bad things. I believe that may be the problem. We exalt things and make them look terrible and they are not. Skirts on women and the King James are two examples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome to the FFF!
Happy to have you participate.

Bad things is a relative term.
If you want to hold those positions as simply your personal preferences, not a problem for me...at all!
But, to claim that those who don't hold your positions are wrong or unbiblical is another matter.

My point is that the KJVO position and the no pants on women argument(s) are invalid...in that neither can stand up to debate or an exchange of 'evidence'.
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
busman7797 said:
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??

I like this guy already.
 
busman7797 said:
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??

Your question is over-simplistic; you can't merely reduce the history of the English Bible to "this one is right, the rest are wrong."

Every English Bible in current use is the work of a committee of fallible human beings. Maybe they all have errors of translation, but in different places. This would mean that none of them (individually) are "right," but all of them (collectively) are.

I'm not going to argue with you at all, because I am right.
 
busman7797 said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
busman7797 said:
I will just put in my 2 cents. All of those things you are saying are bad (separation and such) are not bad things. I believe that may be the problem. We exalt things and make them look terrible and they are not. Skirts on women and the King James are two examples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome to the FFF!
Happy to have you participate.

Bad things is a relative term.
If you want to hold those positions as simply your personal preferences, not a problem for me...at all!
But, to claim that those who don't hold your positions are wrong or unbiblical is another matter.

My point is that the KJVO position and the no pants on women argument(s) are invalid...in that neither can stand up to debate or an exchange of 'evidence'.
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll argue with myself:

The Ormulum.
No, Wycliffe.
No, Tyndale.
No, Coverdale.
No, The Geneva

I'll have to argue awhile and get back to you.
 
Twisted said:
busman7797 said:
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??

I like this guy already.

Invite him to your study of New Age Bible Versions!
 
Ransom said:
busman7797 said:
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??

Your question is over-simplistic; you can't merely reduce the history of the English Bible to "this one is right, the rest are wrong."

Every English Bible in current use is the work of a committee of fallible human beings. Maybe they all have errors of translation, but in different places. This would mean that none of them (individually) are "right," but all of them (collectively) are.

I'm not going to argue with you at all, because I am right.

And I endorse Ransom's answer. He doesn't care, but as he says, he's right... this time.
 
The IFB have their own problems. But the SBC has its own set of problems as well,

https://founders.org/cinedoc/

SBC leadership seems to be going woke. Within the IFB, standards can be fluid.
Within the SBC, what qualifies as evangelical is taking on broader dimensions.

The the SBC can't be looked to as a safe-haven from the IFB.
 
HereIStand said:
The IFB have their own problems. But the SBC has its own set of problems as well,

https://founders.org/cinedoc/

SBC leadership seems to be going woke. Within the IFB, standards can be fluid.
Within the SBC, what qualifies as evangelical is taking on broader dimensions.

The the SBC can't be looked to as a safe-haven from the IFB.

There is an ongoing debate in SBC circles over a number of issues. This particular link you post may not reflect truthfully on them. The producers are being challenged on the way the vid was made.

Why do you need a safe haven from anything...autonomous being what it is...
 
Ransom said:
busman7797 said:
I?m not going to argue with you at all. Just one question, Which Bible is right if they are all different??

Your question is over-simplistic; you can't merely reduce the history of the English Bible to "this one is right, the rest are wrong."

Every English Bible in current use is the work of a committee of fallible human beings. Maybe they all have errors of translation, but in different places. This would mean that none of them (individually) are "right," but all of them (collectively) are.

I'm not going to argue with you at all, because I am right.
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"My point is that the KJVO position and the no pants on women argument(s) are invalid...in that neither can stand up to debate or an exchange of 'evidence'."

I really dislike the KJV (except for Psalms, where it flows well), but if someone else likes it, that's ok.
I find not wearing pants to be problematic. It draws way too much attention when I go out without them.
 
busman7797 said:
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

The person who wrote that, by Holy Spirit inspiration, did not have a KJV.
 
Izdaari said:
I find not wearing pants to be problematic. It draws way too much attention when I go out without them.

I have the same issue.
 
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

You are equating God's exact, chosen, inspired, Spirit-breathed Words with ANY man-made English (or other language translation's words?  I don't care if it AV1611 or ESV or in between; that is dangerous ground. 

To claim perfection, inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration for a product of imperfect, error-prone, fallible and non-inspired people is fool-hearty.  This is why, until the nonsense of the "only cult" surfaced in Adventism and then drifted to some Baptists, the doctrine of inspiration was always crystal clear - "We believe that the Bible, consisting of a total of sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments, is without error in the original manuscripts."
 
Dr. Bob said:
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

You are equating God's exact, chosen, inspired, Spirit-breathed Words with ANY man-made English (or other language translation's words?  I don't care if it AV1611 or ESV or in between; that is dangerous ground. 

To claim perfection, inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration for a product of imperfect, error-prone, fallible and non-inspired people is fool-hearty.  This is why, until the nonsense of the "only cult" surfaced in Adventism and then drifted to some Baptists, the doctrine of inspiration was always crystal clear - "We believe that the Bible, consisting of a total of sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments, is without error in the original manuscripts."

Sorry, Bobbi, but ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
 
Twisted said:
Dr. Bob said:
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

You are equating God's exact, chosen, inspired, Spirit-breathed Words with ANY man-made English (or other language translation's words?  I don't care if it AV1611 or ESV or in between; that is dangerous ground. 

To claim perfection, inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration for a product of imperfect, error-prone, fallible and non-inspired people is fool-hearty.  This is why, until the nonsense of the "only cult" surfaced in Adventism and then drifted to some Baptists, the doctrine of inspiration was always crystal clear - "We believe that the Bible, consisting of a total of sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments, is without error in the original manuscripts."

Sorry, Bobbi, but ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Brilliant argument...
Don-boy Boys would be so proud!
 
busman7797 said:
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved.

I have every faith in the Bible. It is an immutable characteristic of my Sunday school lessons (when I teach it) that the Bible is God's word and is absolutely reliable.

It gets the KJVers' panties in a wad that I don't subscribe their retarded fantasy bibliology, but frankly their opinions don't matter to me or God.
 
Twisted said:
Sorry, Bobbi, but ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Thanks for your endorsement of the ESV. I will now continue to promote it as the infallible Scriptures.
 
Ransom said:
Twisted said:
Sorry, Bobbi, but ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Thanks for your endorsement of the ESV. I will now continue to promote it as the infallible Scriptures.
Ditto that. And in addition to the ESV, I give the same endorsement to the NRSV, the RSV-2CE, and Kingdom New Testament (by N.T. Wright).
 
Dr. Bob said:
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

You are equating God's exact, chosen, inspired, Spirit-breathed Words with ANY man-made English (or other language translation's words?  I don't care if it AV1611 or ESV or in between; that is dangerous ground. 

To claim perfection, inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration for a product of imperfect, error-prone, fallible and non-inspired people is fool-hearty.  This is why, until the nonsense of the "only cult" surfaced in Adventism and then drifted to some Baptists, the doctrine of inspiration was always crystal clear - "We believe that the Bible, consisting of a total of sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments, is without error in the original manuscripts."
Too bad no one has those original manuscripts.
 
16KJV11 said:
Dr. Bob said:
If you don?t have faith in any Bible you cannot possibly be saved. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

You are equating God's exact, chosen, inspired, Spirit-breathed Words with ANY man-made English (or other language translation's words?  I don't care if it AV1611 or ESV or in between; that is dangerous ground. 

To claim perfection, inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration for a product of imperfect, error-prone, fallible and non-inspired people is fool-hearty.  This is why, until the nonsense of the "only cult" surfaced in Adventism and then drifted to some Baptists, the doctrine of inspiration was always crystal clear - "We believe that the Bible, consisting of a total of sixty-six books in the Old and New Testaments, is without error in the original manuscripts."
Too bad no one has those original manuscripts.

Do I detect sarcasm?

Don't worry, if Bobbisox had the "originals", he'd find errors in them.
 
Top