Church version

So, you accuse me of "obsession" because I happen to believe that my Bible is totally innerant? Because I have a real final authority? And it is the equivalent of Mariolatry to believe God preserved his word without error? Well tell me then, were the apostles guilty of this when they believed the originals were without error? And I'm still waiting for you MVers' proof that KJVOnlyism is a cult.

 

It appears I was wrong about Bartholomew, and I'm reluctantly inclined to side with Dr Bob. Believing the KJV to be completely perfect has an occultic ring to it, IMO.

 

There are many of us KJVOers who think Ruckman was an idiot. There are many of us who laugh at people who claim salvation is suspect if you weren't using a KJV. There are many of us KJVOers who scoff at the re-inspiration heresy.

A lot of us KJVOers just like the KJV. And we use it in our church to reduce confusion coming from several different versions. I have shown up with my "Living" Bible and not even gotten looked at.

After all, the KJV is a very good version.

 

Bartholomew asked:

So, you accuse me of "obsession" because I happen to believe that my Bible is totally innerant?

Did I say that? No, I said this:

Because I have a real final authority?

Whether or not its inerrancy is "real" is the point in dispute. But in either case, did I say that? No, I said this:

And it is the equivalent of Mariolatry to believe God preserved his word without error?

KJV-onlyists believe, without any basis in Scripture, history, or plain reason, that God preserved his word without error in the KJV.

Mariolators believe, without any basis in Scripture, history, or plain reason, that God preserved Mary without sin and in a state of perpetual virginity before and after the birth of the Lord.

Is it equivalent? Judge for yourselves.

Well tell me then, were the apostles guilty of this when they believed the originals were without error?

Irrelevant. The originals were the originals, produced by men of God under the influence of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21). If they were a seventeenth-century English translation, they wouldn't be the originals, now would they?

Cult: "Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing"

Are KJV-onlyists obsessive? You bet.
Is KJV-onlyism faddish? Well, it's only of recent origin and it, too, shall pass, so yes.
Are KJV-onlyists devoted to the KJV and do they venerate it? Sure do.

Verdict: Cult.

 

And I don't think any of our side would have any problem with this whatsoever.

 

You said this:

"'With whom am I obsessed? Whom do I venerate??? Back up your slanderous allegations with proof.'

Not whom, what."

What else could be the implication? Besides, you said as much in the following words: "Are KJV-onlyists devoted to the KJV and do they venerate it? Sure do."

Look Ransom, stop lying. Just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean that those who do have no reason for doing so. Now, tell me: if your statement is true, why did I go from an Anglican NIV user to a KJVO? Even you must admit there was some basis in at least "plain reason" for doing so. You can't know why all KJVOs hold their beliefs - stop accusing until you know the facts.

Ah, Ransom - the difference is that scripture plainly REFUTES such an idea. It does NOT refute KJVOnlyism. Besides, you've yet to show me a single scripture that teaches that God only preserved his words in a multitude of IMPERFECT manuscripts, inculding Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and/or others.

Surprise, surprise: scripture doesn't back up your claim that ONLY the originals were perfect, does it? You claim it was OK for the church in Corinth to have 1 & 2 Cointhians perfect and without error; but suddenly it is Mariology to let people of the 21st century have those books without error!

You've yet to show me WHAT we're obsessed with. If it's the Bible, then we plead GUILTY!!!

What god gave you that prophecy?

Look, this is stupid. We BELIEVE our Bibles. We don't treat them as good books that contain errors. But you tacitly admit that we have a higher view of the Bible than you do. And we are in good company:
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)

Well, it just goes to prove: we don't agree with your TRADITION that the Bible isn't really without error (and if there is a Bible that is without error, please show us where it is; and no, originals that do not exist will not do), so you call us a cult. And since you've obviously decided that's your definition of a cult, then there's no point in arguing with you. You lot moan about Ruckman's "name calling". Take the beam out of your own eye first.

 

This thread is being closed due to the fact that it has evolved into a dogfight. Civil discourse is no longer possible in this thread.