Rufus_1611:KJVO beliefs center around the Word of God being preserved in the KJV line exclusively. Calling this belief system a myth, over and over and over and over and over again, does not reinforce your argument but rather puts it on par with me calling your modern versions perversions of the true word of God.
This view is a belief about Scripture that's not found in scripture. Therefore, by believing this view, one is placing it ABOVE SCRIPTURE IN AUTHORITY.
Neither of these methods add to the debate. However, yours is a rather mean-spirited tactic that uses hyperbole and a repeat of a lie in the hopes that if you repeat it enough times, people will actually believe you.
The ACTUAL lies are the assertions made by many of those KJVO authors such as Ruckman or Riplinger.
There is no foundation in scripture for the belief that God isn't strong enough to do it right through a single line.
And there's no foundation in Scripture that He actually did it.
The belief in hundreds of versionism implies that God is the author of confusion, which He is not.
First, there are NOT hundreds of English versions. From Wycliffe onward, there are less than 50. And in every valid version, there are four Gospels that differ among themselves, and several historical narratives of the same events in the OT which differ among themselves...but have been accepted as Scripture for several thousand years. So much for the 'differences'.
I don't believe sir, that you are using the word "myth" in a proper context to begin with. I stood against a humanist college teacher for calling the Bible a myth but at least she understood what the word meant. You are using the word in an innacurate context to disparage a group of people who revere a single translation in the English language as being the pure Word of God.
We have agreed, and been thus directed by Roger, to refrain from using the word 'myth' when referring to the KJVO doctrine. However, that doctrine remains just as incorrect as before, regardless of what we call it. it'd be different if its advocates could PROVE it's true. Instead, all they can do is repeatedly SAY it's true, and all we have are their OPINIONS. and many of those opinions were formed by their owners reading the stuff of riplinger, Ruckman, Fuller, Ray, Melton, Gipp, etc. which were all taken at least in part from SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson's book.
It was not alleged that you believe the KJV is not the preserved word of God however, we do not share the definition of preservation. I believe His Word was preserved in the AV. You believe it was preserved in hundreds of "valid" translations. It is possible to disagree with each other and still respect each others views.
So good of you to respect a brother's wishes.
And that's just what we're gonna do since the KJVOs cannot prove the veracity of their doctrine. therefore, we Freedom Readers will continue to regard it as untrue.
