A need for a reverse-litmus test

[Rippon]

Hello again Bob

We can both thank "winman" for the term "KJB"!
I like it too.

What? Are you trying to deflect that it is merely a version? The KJV is not THE Bible as if no other translations are.

I think I will rename some versions:

NIB,NLB,ESB etc. The NASB alreay has the "B" in its designation. So does the MLB,HCSB and so forth.

 

[David Lamb]

What? Are you trying to deflect that it is merely a version? The KJV is not THE Bible as if no other translations are.

I think I will rename some versions:

NIB,NLB,ESB etc. The NASB alreay has the "B" in its designation. So does the MLB,HCSB and so forth.

I agree. Perhaps we should all change, and use T, because there is no getting away from the fact that every bible in English (and in French, German, Russian, Polish, Chinese, and so on) is a Translation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I have no trouble being honest. ...

stilllearning, please respond to the questions posed to you in posts #75, #76, and #77 for the benefit of any person (including those that may be unsaved) reading this thread presently and the viewable archive for years to come.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello franklinmonroe

Your appeal for me to make things clear, for any unsaved person, who might read this sometime in the future, was effective.
(Causing me to go back and find out what you were talking about.)

But, after this thread is closed, and goes beyond the 2nd or 3rd page of this part of this forum(unless things change), it will be lost forever anyway.
-----------------------------
I had a very good reason for not responding to your question in post #75;
Because your “challenge” had already been answered, but you didn’t accept my answer;
So we were at an impasse.

By the way, your challenge was about “proving” that “preservation” was a Bible Doctrine, by presenting some kind of “man-made documentation”; And you were not satisfied with the documentation that I posted.

But I should have never accepted that challenge in the first place, because the only “documentation” needed for Bible Doctrine, is for it to be found in the Bible itself.

So much for post #75
-------------------------------
Now for post #76....

This question had to do with “Ken Camp's” honesty; That I had questioned(at some point), because in his article about people who are KJVO, he only seemed to talk about Ruckmanism.

I characterized this as dishonest, because Ruckman does not represent the majority of people who are KJVO.

I still say, that this is dishonest!

So much for post #76
---------------------------------
Now post #77, is the same issue; and you wrote..........

“I cannot find in the Camp article any such charge. Please reproduce the statement from the article that would substatiate your accusation. Thanks.”

As I have said; there is no “statement” to reproduce.
In my opinion, it was just generally dishonest.

 

[franklinmonroe]

But, after this thread is closed, and goes beyond the 2nd or 3rd page of this part of this forum(unless things change), it will be lost forever anyway. ...

Apparently you are ignorant of the fact that past threads are archived and available to view. You can go back several years and read what was written. They can randomly pop up in saved and unsaved people's Google searches. (Not to mention that we will give an account for our words one day.)

 

[annsni]

But, after this thread is closed, and goes beyond the 2nd or 3rd page of this part of this forum(unless things change), it will be lost forever anyway.

I just looked at "Who's Online" to see what threads they were looking at. The guests tend to look at old threads, thanks to Google (ever notice sometimes there's an old thread dug up? That's how it happens.)

Right now, someone is looking at this 5 year old thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32514

Then there's this thread from 2003!!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=23376

So threads certainly don't become lost, especially when it's on a particularly "hot" topic like KJVO beliefs.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Because your “challenge” had already been answered, but you didn’t accept my answer; So we were at an impasse. ...

No, you failed to answer the 'challenge' (your description, not mine); of course, I cannot accept an 'answer' that doesn't actually qualify as an answer.

You were aware of the exact 'challenge'. You repeated it in your post, and then you mocked it by changing a key word (from "before" to "after" in red letters in Post #44). But here is the original again: "Please cite any genuine orthodox articulation of a Christian doctrine of the 'Preservation of the Scriptures' from, say, before 1900."

Your 'answer' (if it can be called that) is from after 1900 (actually 1982). Therefore, it doesn't meet the pre-1900 qualification. You failed.

In Post #48 I explain line-by-line why the four sentence quote you offered also did not meet the articulation-of-a-doctrine criteria. Failed.

But what is more concerning was that you attributed the statement to Dean Burgon which was untrue --

Now for the answer to your challenge..........

Dean John William Burgon (1813-1888)

He said..........

I pointed this error out in a previous post, and you still have not addressed the above issue.

... By the way, your challenge was about “proving” that “preservation” was a Bible Doctrine, by presenting some kind of “man-made documentation”; ...

My 'challenge' was not about proving that Preservation is a Bible doctrine, but about showing that is not a historical doctrine of the Church. As it has now been articulated (in various forms), it is a very MODERN doctrine. You have been very critical of modern scholarship and theology in previous posts.

 

[BobinKy]

My 'challenge' was not about proving that Preservation is a Bible doctrine, but about showing that is not a historical doctrine of the Church. As it has now been articulated (in various forms), it is a very MODERN doctrine. You have been very critical of modern scholarship and theology in previous posts.

This is a very interesting observation. Can you expand on your observation? For example: What period of time (centuries) are you speaking about? What is your definition of historical doctrine? What is your definition of the Church?

...Bob

 

[franklinmonroe]

... This question had to do with “Ken Camp's” honesty; That I had questioned(at some point), because in his article about people who are KJVO, he only seemed to talk about Ruckmanism.

I characterized this as dishonest, because Ruckman does not represent the majority of people who are KJVO.

I still say, that this is dishonest!

There are only about 16 paragraphs in the article, of which 2 are about Ruckman (I reproduced those in Post #76). That does not qualify as "only" talking about Ruckman. In addition, Camp made it very clear that Ruckman was "extreme". You have no real evidence that he was in any way dishonest.

 

[stilllearning]

I just looked at "Who's Online" to see what threads they were looking at. The guests tend to look at old threads, thanks to Google (ever notice sometimes there's an old thread dug up? That's how it happens.)

Right now, someone is looking at this 5 year old thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32514

Then there's this thread from 2003!!
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=23376

So threads certainly don't become lost, especially when it's on a particularly "hot" topic like KJVO beliefs.

Thank you annsni, for the information.

And also thank you for not calling me ignorant!

 

[franklinmonroe]

This is a very interesting observation. Can you expand on your observation? For example: What period of time (centuries) are you speaking about? What is your definition of historical doctrine? What is your definition of the Church?

Yes, but I think we need to make that discussion a separate thread.

I will answer your three questions briefly: I was including ALL centuries from the end of the Apostolic age even up to about 1900; historical doctrines are those which have been discussed, argued, debated, systemitized, put into creeds, and otherwise extensively studied and written about by Church fathers and scholarly theologians during the Christian era (the Trinity, and Diety of Christ for examples); 'the Church' would be any and all recognizable groups of genuine orthodox Christians.

 

[franklinmonroe]

As I have said; there is no “statement” to reproduce.
In my opinion, it was just generally dishonest.

Yes, any one who read the article would know that there is no such statement. But you stated in your OP --

One more thing;
The article repeated a charge, that I have read here many times; “That KJVO people have no Scripture to support their position.”

So, just show us where the 'charge' in any form is repeated in that article.

 

[annsni]

Thank you annsni, for the information.

And also thank you for not calling me ignorant!

No problem. It's actually interesting to click on things on the site. For this, you go to the main forum page (where you can see all of the different sections of the board) and then go to the bottom to see "Currently Most Active Users" - it shows who's on the board now. Then click on that and you can see what everyone is doing right now!! It's fun!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Then click on that and you can see what everyone is doing right now!! It's fun!

Thanks, annsni. I was ignorant of that feature!

 

[BobinKy]

Yes, but I think we need to make that discussion a separate thread.

I will answer your three questions briefly: I was including ALL centuries from the end of the Apostolic age even up to about 1900; historical doctrines are those which have been discussed, argued, debated, systemitized, put into creeds, and otherwise extensively studied and written about by Church fathers and scholarly theologians during the Christian era (the Trinity, and Diety of Christ for examples); 'the Church' would be any and all recognizable groups of genuine orthodox Christians.

Based on your definitions, I agree with your observation. However, I think there is a wide gap between practice and doctrine--both historically and in the current times.

You are also correct that this should be a separate thread. Thank you for replying to my questions.

...Bob