Preserved Text Only

[Logos1560]

If indeed an actual, rabid KJV-onlyist was exposed...what fate awaits them? Burning at the stake, perhaps?

You are not engaging in serious discussion as you seem to throw out false accusations to try to smear those who disagree with your opinions.

Modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is proven to be a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of God taught in Scripture.

Are you asserting that incorrect, non-scriptural, or false teaching should not be exposed and refuted?

 

[Logos1560]

Burning at the stake, perhaps?

Did you know that two of the Church of England makers of the KJV were actually involved in having two men burned at the stake for their religious beliefs?

KJV translators George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes were two of the Church of England divines who urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611 (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 142). George Abbot even presided over the proceedings (Ibid., p. 93). The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that Legate and Edward Wightman were brought before the court of George Abbot and that "Abbot was from the first resolved that no mercy should be shown them" (p. 11). This reference work also pointed out that "Abbot was constantly in attendance in the high commission court and tried to enforce conformity in the church with consistent love of order" (Ibid., p. 18). Lancelot Andrewes was also a member of the infamous Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber (Sermons, p. xxi). William Pierce maintained that Andrewes had been “one of the agents in carrying out of Whitgift’s oppressive system and especially as a press censor” (Historical Introduction, p. 127).

 

[Mike B]

Name calling is an ad hominem fallacy.
Attacking an opponent’s character undermines an argument without adding any substance.

I said that Logos was "tenacious", and in the context of this discussion it's a sort of
back-handed compliment. While frustrating in regards to this subject, being tenacious
is generally considered as a positive trait.

This very same debate (it's not a discussion) has raged since long before the days of
Dean Burgeon, and it's most certainly not going to be settled here.

Would you agree with this statement, above? Hopefully we can agree on something...

The only "accusation" I made was that you were tenacious and aggressive in your pursuit of those
presumed to be KJV-onlyites.

If indeed an actual, rabid KJV-onlyist was exposed...what fate awaits them? Burning at the stake, perhaps?

Intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment, right along with the term "inquisitors".



As stated, I see no benefit in my continued participation in this discussion.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Anthony Pritchard has been shown proper respect. Anthony Pritchard said much more than "In my opinion, I believe the King James is the best translation to use." He did more than just state his preference. He asserted that the KJV "provides that standard" [referring to a pure standard"], and he directly asserted that he holds that the KJV is "the inspired and preserved Word of God in English."

He tries to have it both ways: displaying KJV-only reasoning and denying being KJV-only.
He is not being shown disrespect when it is soundly demonstrated that (according to his very own assertions) he holds a form of KJV-only view, even if he is unwilling to associate with any other KJV-only advocates.

It is not just my personal opinion against his. I have not objected to anyone stating the opinion that they think that the KJV is the best English translation to use. I prefer the KJV.

The point is what the Scriptures state and teach, and the Scriptures do not state and teach that the KJV is "the inspired and preserved Word of God in English". His sincere belief concerning the KJV would be a doctrine of man, not taught in Scripture.

AP posted:

"Most are simply vernacular. Because English is not uniform, there is a real need for a common and pure standard that does not move with those variations. The King James Bible provides that standard. It has served English speaking believers for centuries without being placed under constant reconstruction.

That is why I hold it as the inspired and preserved Word of God in English."

This is KJVO talk in a nutshell. KJVO'ers say the King James Bible (its always Bible with them, when it is really the King James VERSION of the bible), and AP continually calls it the King James Bible. He's KJVO whether he admits it or not. His language betrays him.

 

[Logos1560]

This is KJVO talk in a nutshell. KJVO'ers say the King James Bible (its always Bible with them, when it is really the King James VERSION of the bible), and AP continually calls it the King James Bible. He's KJVO whether he admits it or not. His language betrays him.

His own language in his posts do reveal that he uses KJV-only reasoning.

Holding that only the KJV is "the inspired and preserved word of God in English" would constitute what is accurately defined as a KJV-only view.

The truth concerning what constitutes a KJV-only view establishes that his view can accurately be understood as KJV-only regardless of whether he accepts the truth.