@Ken, in response to my post you said, âBeating slaves was the norm. That is pure slander. You just repeat abolitionist lies. ...Why don't you learn truth.â
Ken, I invite you and everyone to read my original post, I posted a hypothetical scenario, not a âthis is what happenedâ so itâs ironic that you accuse me of slander but you have to misrepresent me to do so. đ
I sometimes contemplate whether or not I would support slavery if I lived in those times, if I grew up in a culture that beating your black slaves was the norm, would I have given it a second thought...I think that if I got saved the Lord would convict me of such an atrocity.
Nonetheless, I donât see why I should ask for forgiveness for something I had no involvement with.
In fact the church website affirms this by saying, âLead Pastors John & Debbie Lindellâ so Debbie is an elder of a church. Doesnât sound like a church to me, if they canât get the basics down, why should I think that they have the complex theology down?
So I think they might want to reconsider their ecclesiastical view.
@Neil, Dr. Tim doesn't take a lot of things seriously, thus making it hard to have a serious conversation with him. His question directed towards you is full of assumptions, thus I wonder if that question is a safe question to ask.
Because I can get a Mormon to affirm it, to say that he has repented of his sins, that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, that the prophets testified of Him, etc.
But I know that I have never seen him use his hard earned doctorate to elevate himself. I believe it is respectful to say, "Dr. Tim" but I think I know Tim enough to say that he doesn't take offense to someone just calling him Tim.
It makes me wonder why atheists are not crying out in drones against abortion. Because many atheists say that mankind's purpose is to "pass down their genes" and abortion is against this purpose (so is homosexual marriage) why aren't famous atheists/agnostics such as Richard Dawkins, Laurance Krauss, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, etc. speak out against abortion?
Now I won't grant the atheists that there is, in their worldview, a purpose, in the atheistic worldview there cannot be an objective or subjective purpose, but if they say that the purpose is to pass the next genes down, then where are the cries against abortion? Just some food for thought,
I am very hesitant on commenting, but Wayfarer can disagree withou may you please clarify the latter portion of your comment for clarification? Namely about the young, restless, and reformed tattooed hipsters?
Really? I'm being very militant? I reject that assertion but when you've claimed to have a kinda extensive knowledge of me (which you don't) , and you seem to have no problem about your misrepresentation of me and your lies about me.
And then you say I'm being "militant"? I'll try to think that one through.
I think I'm pretty much done on this thread, and on SA, sorry about that folks, but I cannot continue to address people who lie about me, misrepresent me, slander me, etc. etc. it has happened not only on this thread, but also on a couple other threads where people have accused me of being a RC, and "sticking my neck out" for the RCC, and for basically not fully understanding the Deity of Christ. Truly sad, but I guess that's the way it is, I'm sure other people will continue to slander about me, lie about me, and misrepresent but hey, it's out of my control I reckon.
@James, if you can email me, we can chat about it. Thank you for the respectful attitude you've had towards me.
(Cont) Sinaiticus. I think the boldness (if it could be called that) that you have to think that you know so much about me is simply ridiculous, you just don't know what you're talking about.
I do actually wonder about some thinks in the modern versions, such as "Why do they translate "heaven" (KJV Gen.1:1) to "heavens" (NASB) by do they translate "dragon(s)" to "jackal(s)"
(That's really important in the Creation/Evolution debate) did they have a bias to where it could not mean dragon? Because in some passages you have to translate something according to your theology I believe. why do some of the new versions translate "Sodomites" as "male shrine prostitutes"
John I can spend more time on your assertions of my life and studies, but if you are so informative of me already, then I'll leave it up to you to know my answers.
@James, I should have clarified what I mean by 'assuming' because I simply did not have the time to confirm it, and it's 5:53am for me right now (I woke up at 5) so I'll be able to double check it. And then get back to ya. But I do need you to clarify if you take Sam Gipp's position on, "Alexandrea evil, Antioch good."
@John UK, then it should all the more easier for you to tell me of my schooling, churches, college, perhaps you can give the names of them.
You also said, "but the overall effect has obviously been to make you wary of the KJV and not wary of the modern versions."
Again, you seem to be very informed of my life, as if you are a close friend of mine and know everything I do, however you are misinformed, I prodominately read the KJV, but sometimes I also consult the NASB, ESV, NIV, and at times I consult the Wycliffe Translation.
"For example, you are told about a 'speck', some minor difference between the Oxford and Cambridge Bibles"
I only point out the "specks" when addressing KJVonlyism.
"but the cunning people" I would like you names some translators, maybe even some editors of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, without looking online, just to see if you know these cunning people. If you can't then I will certainly be glad to.
"who informed you about that, did not tell you about the massive 'log' concerning the huge differences in the texts used to translate the modern versions, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus."
Again, you seem to know why I read, listen to, and watch, kinda creepy but no they have informed me of somethings regarding Vanicatus and
Lurker said, "Repeat after me: "There is no word of God today." Really? That's what you think I believe? Can you give me a verse in the KJV bible where it says you are to falsely accuse Christians, lie about Christians, mock Christians, etc.?
And Lurker, the statement, "How do you know the man is KJV only? He didn't say it so you are assuming it." Because Dr. Tim and I have talked about this before, or to put it more clearly, we've had this discussion before, so it wasn't an assumption, it's simply a fact.
Well thank you Wayfarer for that comment, it is much appreciated.
Lurker, not only did I point out the false assumptions, but I think I answered his question, (see point number 4) let's stop the truck for a second, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Ray Comfort, Steve Lawson, Ken Ham, Jason Lisle, Creation Ministries International, Matt Slick, etc. do not use the KJV,
but they have greatly contributed to Apologetics, Expository Preaching, Creationism, debating, teaching about the holiness of God, they have equipped churches for missions, they translate materials in various languages, and have had a fantastic impact on my life, so I think the new versions (ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV) have had an enormous impact on various subjects.
And did you read what I said, "As long as a translation is faithful to the texts we have, that translation can be called the Word of God"
@Dr. Tim, I gave 3 creation presentations at a church, and am scheduled to go again next year, I have organized evangelism events, I share the gospel when I can, whether people come to Christ or not is not my job, that's the Spirits job to bring the elect to Himself.
Lurker said, " No.... it's not a false question. It's very straight forward." I think I pointed out the numerous assumptions that we involved in the question.
"But it's a question you are ashamed to answer so you pull out a dirty trick from the James White handbook to distract and divert."
I have yet to receive this handbook, but I have listened to Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman, I have listened to 'presentations' by Gail Riplinger, etc. etc. I have listened to the other side, in fact I was a KJVonlyist.
But when I started to listen to Dr. White, Dr. Wallace, and others, I saw that the KJVonly position was false.
"Just be honest with the man and tell him from your perspective there is no word of God today because that's the bottom line of your position. "
This implies that I was not being honest to Dr. Tim, and you have the idea that there must be 1 perfect translation of the Bible, however that 1 version you hold too (KJV) that version has differences (Oxford and Cambridge) As long as a translation is faithful to the texts we have, that translation can be called the Word of God
Well, let's sum it up, you said, that I used a dirty trick, and that I was not being honest, and then finished it by saying that it was "disgusting" I believe the KJV says th
@James, sorry for not responding to yours, I meant to try to give answers for all, but I simply did not have time.
Assuming if the text were ignored, that does not mean the texts in Alexandria are automatically corrupt, I don't know if you hold to the Sam Gipp position that basically says, "Alexandria evil, Antioch good." So I would need clarification on your position.
But Dr. Daniel Wallace has pointed out that even though we find manuscripts in Egypt, that does not mean it was produced in Egypt, the reason we have it is because the climate was dry enough.
Regarding the Greek text of the Reformation, that was all Erasmus had, we have a lot more manuscripts than Erasmus had, plus the fact that there were multiple versions of the TR, one of which did not contain 1John 5:7. If I left something out then just ask me to clarify and I'll do my best.