The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

[robycop3]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that no doctrine of faith/worship not derived from Scripture is true, and that included KJVO. No matter how many different pro-KJVO arguments are made, the supporters of KJVO simply cannot overcome the "no Scriptural support" fact, which makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot, void, & dead.

I believe the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam['i] elsewhere, so there's no use bringing it up again. But I'd like to see how a KJVO can justify believing the KJVO myth when he/she has no Scriptural support for it & therefore no authority from GOD to believe it.

 

[Salty]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that no doctrine of faith/worship not derived from Scripture is true, and that included KJVO. No matter how many different pro-KJVO arguments are made, the supporters of KJVO simply cannot overcome the "no Scriptural support" fact, which makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot, void, & dead.

I believe the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam['i] elsewhere, so there's no use bringing it up again. But I'd like to see how a KJVO can justify believing the KJVO myth when he/she has no Scriptural support for it & therefore no authority from GOD to believe it.

RB - get out your Bible and look in the book of Hezekiah 16:11 - it plainly prophecies that after the year 1799, the King James Version will be the Only perfect translation, not only in English, but in any language. RB, you need to search the Scriptures before you make these silly comments!

 

[rlvaughn]

...has been discussed ad nauseam...

At least in part because you keep creating such threads ad nauseam!! It would be interesting to check your church and see which practices you all have that also fit the TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT category. Perhaps you haven't started any threads on those subjects, since this one appears to be your hobby horse.

 

[robycop3]

At least in part because you keep creating such threads ad nauseam!! It would be interesting to check your church and see which practices you all have that also fit the TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT category. Perhaps you haven't started any threads on those subjects, since this one appears to be your hobby horse.

Well, in this forum, it is. Elsewhere, I go into pseudo/quasi-Christian denoms such as JW. SDS, & SDA.

And, I or someone else will KEEP creating such threads long as this false doctrine is still taught. Nobody is making you participate or forbidding you to.

 

[rlvaughn]

Nobody is making you participate or forbidding you to.

Quite obviously, since I chose to comment -- pointing out the obvious, that the one complaining about ad nauseam is part of the reason for the ad nauseam.

As far as false myths with TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT that aren't about the KJVO ad nauseam, you might start a thread about your belief that God created someone else for Cain to marry, if I remember correctly what you advocated elsewhere.

 

[MartyF]

As far as false myths with TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT that aren't about the KJVO ad nauseam, you might start a thread about your belief that God created someone else for Cain to marry, if I remember correctly what you advocated elsewhere.

You're making up a false equivalence here. KJVO believe that their translation was divinely inspired and overrules all other translations which are demonic in comparison. Many KJVO believe that this divine inspiration means that the KJB (as they like to call it) is even free of transcriptional errors.

Among the many problems with this belief are cockatrices and unicorns. Sorry, but the translators knew what a rhinoceros was and weren't thinking unicorn = rhinoceros. They wrote in these mythical creatures in the Bible knowing that they were mythical creatures.

But even the most definitive evidence won't convince a lunatic. They will commonly present a red-herring to distract. Facts will cease to exist, history will be rewritten, and nothing will change their mind. This is the reason why there are still flat-earthers.

I don't believe robycop3 said that he discovered in a dream or was divinely inspired to know that Cain's wife was made by God. I'm not going to look it up but he was likely just giving his opinion about what happened in the gaps of the Biblical narrative. He didn't think Cain married his sister or niece, so he decided that God must have made him a wife.

Doing this does not claim authoritative divine inspiration as KJVO claims. He is simply giving an opinion as to what happened. If I said I think Cain took a dump sometime in his life, I'm not claiming divine inspiration even though it's not in the Bible. And yes, you could say that Cain taking a dump has a TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT!!, but it's not the same.

KJVO's claim of authoritative divine inspiration above all other translations which are demonic in comparison is not the same as giving an opinion that fills in the gap of a narrative.

 

[rlvaughn]

You're making up a false equivalence here.

Actually, no, because I am not saying they are equivalent, just trying to make a point to roby about his making a big deal in capital letters about TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT when he is talking about others but never turns it back in introspection (as far as I have noticed).

He didn't think Cain married his sister or niece, so he decided that God must have made him a wife.

Which contradicts what the Bible says, unlike the "false equivalence" of saying "Cain took a dump sometime in his life" -- which is not mentioned in scripture but wouldn't contradict anything in it.

 

[MartyF]

Actually, no, because I am not saying they are equivalent, just trying to make a point to roby about his making a big deal in capital letters about TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT when he is talking about others but never turns it back in introspection (as far as I have noticed).

Yes, this is called red herring. You are trying to distract from the content of the OP.

He didn't think Cain married his sister or niece, so he decided that God must have made him a wife.

Which contradicts what the Bible says, unlike the "false equivalence" of saying "Cain took a dump sometime in his life" -- which is not mentioned in scripture but wouldn't contradict anything in it.

You didn't understand why this is a false equivalence. It's not simply that what robycop3 believes and KJVO believes lacks scriptural support. They both completely lack scriptural support.

The difference is when KJVO demands that KJB is divinely inspired and authoritative and that other writings are demonic in comparison. If robycop3 also said he was granted his knowledge with a vision from God and that we could not oppose or disagree with it, then we would have a true equivalence.

Allow me to clarify - I do not mind KJVP. I only oppose KJVO.

 

[rlvaughn]

You are trying to distract from the content of the OP.

Well, the topic certainly doesn't get enough play here, does it.

 

[rsr]

Sigh. Why do you keep doing this? This poor old dead horse should be left to rest in peace.

Lots of things have no scriptural support, yet we believe them anyway. Tell me, Roby, where is the scriptural support for the canon of the Bible? Where, exactly, do you find explicit scriptural support for the Chalcedon formulation of the Trinity? Or do you reject that too?

 

[rlvaughn]

I intended to move on with life, but got to thinking about this while mowing the yard. I'll finish what I have to say and then leave the thread to you and roby and whoever else wants to discuss it.

Yes, this is called red herring. You are trying to distract from the content of the OP.

I actually addressed something that was in the OP, unlike your quote below which adds facts roby did not put in evidence. He complained about ad nauseam. So did I. If you check his posts you will find KJVO is a constant theme he addresses. If he doesn't want to beat the dead horse, he could lay down the stick. Here is a sampling of some KJVO threads he started:

• The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"
• IFB & the KJVO myth...
• Man-made Doctrines of faith/worship 2
• The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...
• What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?
• Your KJVO myth is false.

These are just the threads he started whose titles are pretty obviously on the subject, not counting others that may descend into it, or his posts on threads someone else started.

Ultimately, he is free to start threads on the topic, while at the same time complaining about some aspect of it going on ad nauseam. I am free to complain about his complaining, and you are free to complain about my complaining about his complaining -- at least as long as the Board allows us that freedom.

The difference is when KJVO demands that KJB is divinely inspired and authoritative and that other writings are demonic in comparison.

I certainly woulldn't say roby doesn't agree with what you say here, but he didn't mention it in the OP, neither have I noticed him mentioning it elsewhere. He is pretty steady and consistent with his stick with which he beats the horse. KJVO is a myth. It isn't found in Scripture, and on and on ad nauseam! Here are a few examples that will be recognized.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!

"BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe the KJVO myth?" The answer to this question is VERY important to the veracity of KJVO, as no doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture can be true. And we know the MAN-MADE origin of KJVO.

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself.

In the man-made doctrines thread he wrote (emp. mine), "A man-made doctrine of faith/worship is any doctrine or point that's not derived from Scripture. And that includes those made by mens' twisting of Scripture to try to make it fit their invention...Personally, I don't believe ANY such doctrine, and won't hesitate to call it false and rag on it." So, yes, if he is going to dish it out, he also needs to take it. Roby needs to own the fact that he claims he doesn't believe any doctrine not derived from Scripture. IMO, all this is relevant to his "version's guitar" which only has one string and no frets.

I'll leave you all with the final word, words and posts. That's all I'm going to say on the subject at this time.

 

[PastoralMusings]

I’m not KJVO, but in the interest of fairness need to state that not all KJVO hold to secondary inspiration, as though the translators were inspired.

 

[robycop3]

Quite obviously, since I chose to comment -- pointing out the obvious, that the one complaining about ad nauseam is part of the reason for the ad nauseam.

As far as false myths with TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT that aren't about the KJVO ad nauseam, you might start a thread about your belief that God created someone else for Cain to marry, if I remember correctly what you advocated elsewhere.

Well, the KJVO myth is still being taught, so it must be fought.

As for Cain's wife, I've always said I was open to any PLAUSIBLE explanation as to her origin. But I've also seen that God was against incest from the beginning, and God does not change. I simply DO NOT BELIEVE he married his sister & I'll let it go at that.

 

[robycop3]

Sigh. Why do you keep doing this? This poor old dead horse should be left to rest in peace.

Lots of things have no scriptural support, yet we believe them anyway. Tell me, Roby, where is the scriptural support for the canon of the Bible? Where, exactly, do you find explicit scriptural support for the Chalcedon formulation of the Trinity? Or do you reject that too?

The KJVO myth, which is clearly-false, is still being taught in some churches.

As for the canon, God plainly chose the Old Testament content, making it plain to the Jews. And I believe He influenced what went into the New testament, especially the writings of the apostles.

As for the Trinity, it's plainly implied in the story of Jesus' baptism, where all three Personages of the one Godhead are manifest, clearly physically separate from one another.

 

[robycop3]

I intended to move on with life, but got to thinking about this while mowing the yard. I'll finish what I have to say and then leave the thread to you and roby and whoever else wants to discuss it.
I actually addressed something that was in the OP, unlike your quote below which adds facts roby did not put in evidence. He complained about ad nauseam. So did I. If you check his posts you will find KJVO is a constant theme he addresses. If he doesn't want to beat the dead horse, he could lay down the stick. Here is a sampling of some KJVO threads he started:

• The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"
• IFB & the KJVO myth...
• Man-made Doctrines of faith/worship 2
• The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...
• What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?
• Your KJVO myth is false.

These are just the threads he started whose titles are pretty obviously on the subject, not counting others that may descend into it, or his posts on threads someone else started.

Ultimately, he is free to start threads on the topic, while at the same time complaining about some aspect of it going on ad nauseam. I am free to complain about his complaining, and you are free to complain about my complaining about his complaining -- at least as long as the Board allows us that freedom.
I certainly woulldn't say roby doesn't agree with what you say here, but he didn't mention it in the OP, neither have I noticed him mentioning it elsewhere. He is pretty steady and consistent with his stick with which he beats the horse. KJVO is a myth. It isn't found in Scripture, and on and on ad nauseam! Here are a few examples that will be recognized.



In the man-made doctrines thread he wrote (emp. mine), "A man-made doctrine of faith/worship is any doctrine or point that's not derived from Scripture. And that includes those made by mens' twisting of Scripture to try to make it fit their invention...Personally, I don't believe ANY such doctrine, and won't hesitate to call it false and rag on it." So, yes, if he is going to dish it out, he also needs to take it. Roby needs to own the fact that he claims he doesn't believe any doctrine not derived from Scripture. IMO, all this is relevant to his "version's guitar" which only has one string and no frets.

I'll leave you all with the final word, words and posts. That's all I'm going to say on the subject at this time.

As you wish. But, long as it's taught, I'm gonna fight it.

 

[robycop3]

I’m not KJVO, but in the interest of fairness need to state that not all KJVO hold to secondary inspiration, as though the translators were inspired.

True, but the whole doctrine is still totally man-made and false, whether one believes every aspect of it or not.

 

[robycop3]

And, RLVaughn, please note that I said the "PSALM 12:6-7 THINGIE" was what'd been discussed ad nauseam. But we have yet to see any KJVOs respond to the "no Scriptural support" fact about their myth.

 

[Jerome]

Robycop didn't think Cain married his sister or niece, so he decided that God must have made him a wife. He is simply giving an opinion as to what happened. [It's like] If I said I think Cain took a dump sometime in his life...

Please don't minimize Robycop's troubling concocted theory of non-Adamic humans like that.
He was saying it'd happened post-Flood as well, had something to do with his race views:

while A&E were the first homo sapiens created by GOD, why could He not have later created other people to be spouses for the second generation, that is, the children of A&E? Their children would still be descendants of A&E. Same goes for Noah's grandkids....there are five distinct races of people today.

 

[PastoralMusings]

True, but the whole doctrine is still totally man-made and false, whether one believes every aspect of it or not.

But that was not my point. I simply spoke of fairness, which certainly deserves a showing among God’s people.

 

[Salty]

As for Cain's wife, I've always said I was open to any PLAUSIBLE explanation as to her origin. But I've also seen that God was against incest from the beginning, and God does not change. I simply DO NOT BELIEVE he married his sister & I'll let it go at that.

1) What is the scriptural reference that God was against incest from the very beginning ?

2) Were Abram and Sara guilty of incest since they were half-siblings

3)
a. If Cains wife was not his sister - then how did she appear - -
b. If she had been created separately - then would she also have been tempered by the
the devil -to loose her sinless condition?
c. and since Eve was created from Adams Rib- was she not then part of Adams DNA - and
thus did they commit incest?