Quote Stacking v. Source Grounding

[KermitDaFrog]

Yo Anthoney thanks for this reply because I'm sick and tired of people kicking the KJV when that's all they do I don't see the same kind of appreciation for their own texts.

I am posting this for the readers, not for those still replying to me. I stepped out of the discussion because it had reached the point where nothing new was being said. The arguments were being repeated in loops, and the replies had shifted from substance to personal accusations. When a discussion becomes repetitive and the focus turns to claiming victory rather than addressing the text, there is no value in continuing.

The continued replies after I left show exactly why I stepped out. They are not attempts to advance the argument. They are attempts to keep the performance going, and that is all it is, performance. The language of “thrashings” and “taking his ball and going home,” the extreme quote stacking, the constant reframing of my words, the shifting of categories to avoid direct answers, and the false claims about my motives and about my position on the KJV and the preserved text are not theological argument. They are posturing. They are strutting. They are attempts to frame the discussion as a contest that must be won, even after the actual exchange has ended.

The readers can see the pattern. When someone stops replying and the other side continues posting in rapid succession, it is not debate. It is fixation. It is an attempt to claim victory by volume rather than by truth. I am not interested in that. I am not responding to it. I am not reading it.

My position was stated clearly. Their arguments were answered directly. The replies that followed did not address those answers. They repeated the same claims, reframed my words, shifted categories, and added personal remarks. That is why I stepped out. Not because the arguments stood, but because they had already been answered and the discussion had degraded into noise.

And that is all any further replies will be, posturing, strutting, false claims and much noise.

 

[Logos1560]

Anthoney thanks for this reply because I'm sick and tired of people kicking the KJV when that's all they do

Disagreeing with a human, non-scriptural KJV-only view is not kicking the KJV.

I love the KJV, which I have read over 60 years. I believe the KJV as what it actually is. My effort is to present the truth concerning the KJV. I am not an "industrial bible complex scholar" as you seemed to try to suggest.

The KJV itself does not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611. Many KJV-only advocates make non-true claims for the KJV in opposition to the doctrine of truth taught in the KJV, and they make misleading or non-true accusations against the word of God translated into present-day standard English such as in the NKJV. Non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning depends upon use of fallacies such as begging the question. Human KJV-only reasoning shows partiality to an exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 while the wisdom from God above is without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:16).

 

[37818]

The KJV adds in Revelation 1:11, . . . which are in Asia; . . . .

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Yo Anthoney thanks for this reply because I'm sick and tired of people kicking the KJV when that's all they do I don't see the same kind of appreciation for their own texts.

Thank you, Kermit. I appreciate that. My concern in these threads was never about the KJV itself. I use it. I respect it. I have defended it many times. My concern was the way the discussion shifted from the actual text to personal claims, reframing, and attempts to force categories that were never part of the argument. Once a conversation stops dealing with Scripture and history and turns into posturing, there is no value in continuing.

The readers can tell the difference between someone engaging the material and someone trying to win by volume. That is why I stepped out. My position was stated clearly, and the replies that followed did not address it. They repeated the same claims and added noise. That is not debate. That is performance.

I am glad the readers are paying attention to the content rather than the theatrics. That is all I ever ask.