Clarifying KJVO

[Logos1560]

Jordan can honestly believe what I posted in #74, and therefore it is not a lie.

His logic is chop logic, but it is, nevertheless, a logical, but incomplete, conclusion.

An incomplete, inconsistent, unproven conclusion would not involve use of sound logic.

A KJV-only advocate would limit their unproven conclusion to only one English translation--the KJV.

A KJV-only advocate would assume his KJV-only conclusion to be true by the use of fallacies, instead of soundly proving his conclusion to be true.

The use of fallacies is not logical.

Because a KJV-only advocate may honestly and sincerely believe his own subjective, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning does not make his claims true and does not mean that his claims could not be false.

 

[Yeshua1]

An incomplete, inconsistent, unproven conclusion would not involve use of sound logic.

A KJV-only advocate would limit their unproven conclusion to only one English translation--the KJV.

A KJV-only advocate would assume his KJV-only conclusion to be true by the use of fallacies, instead of soundly proving his conclusion to be true.

The use of fallacies is not logical.

Because a KJV-only advocate may honestly and sincerely believe his own subjective, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning does not make his claims true and does not mean that his claims could not be false.

They refuse to apply towards the Kjv itself the same "logic and reasoning" they use against all other translations...

 

[Rippon]

The post is a rant.

My short paragraph of five sentences was not a rant by any stretch of the imagination. It was purely factual.

I do not know enough of the NIV 2011 to comment on Y1's statements

Then perhaps you are not entitled to speak about them.

, but they are his views and he is entitled to state them on this forum without you abusing him.

The most damaging words in post #109 are y1's very own words.

It's not a matter of his opinion or personal view. He is deliberately telling falsehoods repeatedly year after year.

What I have said, and am happy to repeat, is that the NIV 2011, by its inclusive language, occludes possible references to Christ, and for that reason alone is not worthy of being used by a serious Bible-believing church.

You are on a broken branch with your wackiness.

Gotta go for now. I will finish up dealing with your nonsense in a while.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But you are guilty as much as he is in vilifying the NIV --saying utterly false things about the NIV and its translators is not an okay thing to do.

You have to prove that what I have said about the NIV is 'utterly false' and that you have failed to do so far.
The rest of your post is another rant and not worthy of reply.

 

[robycop3]

Bottom line is:

The KJVO myth is not found in Scripture by the least quark of the slightest implication. Therefore, it CANNOT be true. No man-made excuse is a substitute for SCRIPTURE.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have to prove that what I have said about the NIV is 'utterly false' and that you have failed to do so far.
The rest of your post is another rant and not worthy of reply.

What is really ironic to me is that just the same way Kjvo tend to see the Kjv is how he seems to view the Niv 2011, as in there are NO legitimate reasons to ever be concerned about it being deficit in some translation areas!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan,
I would be interested in your view of this KJVO position:
http://concealathing.blogspot.com/2017/04/kjv-impossibilityof-contrary.html

It is definitely interesting. However I felt like the article didn’t really bring it all to the KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

It also assumes the KJVO is correct, period,and uses circular reasoning to arive there!

 

[robycop3]

The KJVO myth is simply NOT CORRECT, & no amount of man-made eye candy, flattery, or excuses will legitimize it.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJVO myth is simply NOT CORRECT, & no amount of man-made eye candy, flattery, or excuses will legitimize it.

I respect their devotion to the Bible, but they fail to see that satan has used their most vocal holders to sow disunity among churches and bethren!

 

[robycop3]

I respect their devotion to the Bible, but they fail to see that satan has used their most vocal holders to sow disunity among churches and bethren!

that's why I've said for many years that the KJVO myth was created by Satan & introduced to mankind by men that he'd deceived, with some being under his influence. (Remember, the current edition of KJVO was derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by a couple of dishonest "Koppie-Katt" authors.)

Satan uses it to create strife & dissent among and within congregations, and to cast doubt upon God's word. I believe we all know he's succeeded in both aims with this myth. And I believe that this myth has hit the Baptist faith fairly-hard, as I believe the Baptist faith is more Bible-centered than any other denomination.

And the falsehood of the KJVO myth is easily-seen in the UNDENIABLE FACT that it doesn't have one word of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, in ANY legitimate Bible version in any language.

NO doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture is true! That's the bottom line!

 

[Logos1560]

The rest of your post is another rant and not worthy of reply.

Are you suggesting that you are entitled to make negative comments about someone's else posts but that someone would not be entitled to do the same? Did you rant about someone else's post?

 

[JonShaff]

I respect their devotion to the Bible, but they fail to see that satan has used their most vocal holders to sow disunity among churches and bethren!

Yes, very unfortunate. Not to mention, They claim modern Bibles are of Satan. Calling the Word of God Satanic is pretty blasphemous, don't you think?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you suggesting that you are entitled to make negative comments about someone's else posts but that someone would not be entitled to do the same? Did you rant about someone else's post?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Anyone on the board is perfectly entitled to decide that any or all of my posts are rants and not to reply to part or all of them.

 

[AV]

I respect their devotion to the Bible, but they fail to see that satan has used their most vocal holders to sow disunity among churches and bethren!

Yeshua,
I believe the zeal is against secular scholarship crept into churches stealing the words of God from us in the form of 'textual criticism'. I think in some cases on the KJVOnly side there is more zeal than knowledge. I hope you would consider this issue from a presuppositional perspective:
http://concealathing.blogspot.com/2017/04/kjv-impossibilityof-contrary.html

 

[AV]

It is definitely interesting. However I felt like the article didn’t really bring it all to the KJV.

I was arguing that the KJV can more consistently function as final authority for English speaking peoples in accordance with principles of presuppositional apologetics. In what way do you think it was weak?
Thanks

 

[AV]

that's why I've said for many years that the KJVO myth was created by Satan & introduced to mankind by men that he'd deceived, with some being under his influence. (Remember, the current edition of KJVO was derived from a CULT OFFICIAL'S book by a couple of dishonest "Koppie-Katt" authors.)

Satan uses it to create strife & dissent among and within congregations, and to cast doubt upon God's word. I believe we all know he's succeeded in both aims with this myth. And I believe that this myth has hit the Baptist faith fairly-hard, as I believe the Baptist faith is more Bible-centered than any other denomination.

And the falsehood of the KJVO myth is easily-seen in the UNDENIABLE FACT that it doesn't have one word of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, in ANY legitimate Bible version in any language.

NO doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture is true! That's the bottom line!

RobyCop3,
How familiar are you with presuppositional apologetics?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5 AM Pacific.

 

[robycop3]

RobyCop3,
How familiar are you with presuppositional apologetics?

Not at all.

However, the KJVO myth can't be found in Scripture at all, and is therefore false. Its MAN-MADE origin has been posted several times in other threads.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe the zeal is against secular scholarship crept into churches stealing the words of God from us in the form of 'textual criticism'.

Can you demonstrate that your stated belief is the truth?

Does a consistent application of your claim suggest that the actual textual criticism that lies behind the making of the KJV would steal the words of God?

Do you ignore the fact that the makers of the KJV used multiple, textually-varying sources in their textual-criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions?