Search results

I love this. This is the one of the most self-important and arrogant set of accolades I have ever seen one person ascribe to themself. By all means....keep talking.

To 37818: I don't know if making a "KJVO" change their minds is really very important. It depends on what version of "KJVO" they are. They are simply not monolithic in their thinking, nor monolithic in what sense they are "KJVO". The important issue is whether it is a "Theological" issue for...

Unfortunately, you won't get a sort of "peaceably agreed" suggestion agreed upon by myself and Logos. I do think (provided that it's somewhat archaic verbiage isn't a distraction) that the KJV is the best translation overall. I think it's best to train children to use it. In that way the...

I'm not at all objective.... I seek to expose you. I've made that very clear. There is nothing "objective" about my intent here. Thank you for recognizing the obvious point. I'm not angry at you, I don't know you. I have an obvious axe to grind...and I'm obviously grinding it. I admit it. You...

I'm not going to try to prove it. I'm going to let you talk. You'll prove it.

I'm going to let you simply talk for yourself here: Anyone who looks at this objectively: Do you see in Logos a man without an angry axe to grind against the KJV? Or, do you see a man who is truly deeply interested in English translations of Scripture, textual criticism, and insisting on...

Oh, absolutely you do. You always have. I do not back off from this claim. You do EXACTLY that, almost as your sole source of argumentation. YOU ARE DEFINED by exactly that. If you didn't, you would not quote William P. Grady and Peter Ruckman in the same light. They disagree. I know it, you...

. Yay.....so, you've now proven the thoroughness of the KJV translators, (and also their open-mindedness) in accepting the research of catholic counter-parts in getting their translations correct. By all means, keep talking. So, then, the KJV translators were sufficiently open-minded as to...

I began studying Hebrew, then Greek. I have an imperfect but passable knowledge of both languages. I realized that the KJV might have made much "better" translations of many words (not "incorrect" per se) And that's important. But, "better" and more clear translations of any given statement...

Because many KJVO's don't believe it's inspired. You wouldn't know that if you're a sychophant of Logos, (because he is either ignorant of, or isn't honest about, what many of them actually believe) Many of them simply would assert something like: "For the English speaking people, there is no...

And they will soon see the double-standards and unjust weights and measures you use when criticizing them. Perhaps I don't always throw out the baby with the bath-water. Black and white thinkers (like KJVOs and perhaps yourself?) tend to do so. Perhaps I can sometimes see the good tendencies...

No, many of them don't believe that. You wouldn't know it if you only listened to Logos here: But many KJVO's restrict their view to English speakers ONLY. Therefore, that criticism doesn't apply to many of them

Neither are Calvinists or even Arminians or Pre-millennials, Post-millenialls, Annihilationsists, Cessationists or any other Theological group as far as the demands you are going to place on them...namely, that they all have precisely the same identical views on EVERY nuance. Here's what you'll...

I know.. That was my point. The rest of it, we already know about. A conscientious-objector law is no challenge to the practice of conscription on its face. The point is, the Constitution (not a conscientious-objector qualifier) does not forbid conscription. If it did: Then a...

You've made no argument that their logic is faulty. You essentially quoted them being logically consistent and then criticized them for it.

Often. But, that's true of many folks and many errant teachings. I myself was KJVO (and sat under said teaching) for about 15 years. It wasn't easy to break from it. Moreover, I knew the most wonderful, Godly and passionate folks who were under that conviction. Here's the driving thing: They...

It's not possible that that statement was "incorrect". It is (by its very nature) subjective.... As in, it was my perception that it was not asked in intellectual honesty. That is still the case. I must conclude that either you utilize intellectually dishonest tactics and unjust weights and...

You have made no arguments as to why their premises are not true. You've essentially lambasted them for mostly benign statements which follow naturally from their (admittedly) false premise: Namely, that the KJVO doctrine is true. They cannot be blamed for stating that, given their...

When did the U.S. ban conscription? It's the same as the draft. And all males age 18 are required to register for it. We are presently committed to avoiding it's use, but that could change.

Yeah, it's a dumb idea. A lot of KJVO statements are absurd. But, the O.P. is: does it harm the Bible doctrine of Sanctification. The answer is NO, except inasmuch as any or at least many false doctrines do. There is no direct link making it more or less harmful than a myriad of errors.