The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

[robycop3]

Please don't minimize Robycop's troubling concocted theory of non-Adamic humans like that.
He was saying it'd happened post-Flood as well, had something to do with his race views:

As I told RLVaughn, I'm still waiting for a PLAUSIBLE explanation that doesn't involve incest.God was explicit about taking one's sister in Deut. 27:22 among other verses.

The simple truth is, GOD **HATES** INCEST, and God doesn't change. If he hated it once, he's always hated it. Prob is, some people have their minds made up that God DID allow incest, and they won't change their minds.

That's all I have to say about it. Now, let's please get back to the subject of this thread.

 

[robycop3]

But that was not my point. I simply spoke of fairness, which certainly deserves a showing among God’s people.

Nothing fair about promoting a false doctrine.

 

[robycop3]

1) What is the scriptural reference that God was against incest from the very beginning ?

2) Were Abram and Sara guilty of incest since they were half-siblings

3)
a. If Cains wife was not his sister - then how did she appear - -
b. If she had been created separately - then would she also have been tempered by the
the devil -to loose her sinless condition?
c. and since Eve was created from Adams Rib- was she not then part of Adams DNA - and
thus did they commit incest?

I'm not gonna keep beating this dead horse. Either one believes God once permitted incest, or one doesn't. Given how He called anyone doing it "cursed", I don't think he did. As for Abe & Sara, she was his HALF-sister, & there were several examples of that, later on in Scripture. But the cases of Cain and Noah's children, the disbelievers say it was DIRECT incest between full bros. & sisters, which I don't think God EVER approved. And that's THAT!

 

[Salty]

That's all I have to say about it. Now, let's please get back to the subject of this thread.

Yes, you are correct - this has gotten off OP - so I have started a new thread - click here

RC - would still like you to answer the other questions.

and now back to the original OP

 

[MartyF]

I intended to move on with life, but got to thinking about this while mowing the yard. I'll finish what I have to say and then leave the thread to you and roby and whoever else wants to discuss it.
I actually addressed something that was in the OP, unlike your quote below which adds facts roby did not put in evidence. He complained about ad nauseam. So did I. If you check his posts you will find KJVO is a constant theme he addresses. If he doesn't want to beat the dead horse, he could lay down the stick. Here is a sampling of some KJVO threads he started:

• The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"
• IFB & the KJVO myth...
• Man-made Doctrines of faith/worship 2
• The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...
• What's the AUTHORITY for "King-James-Version-Only"?
• Your KJVO myth is false.

These are just the threads he started whose titles are pretty obviously on the subject, not counting others that may descend into it, or his posts on threads someone else started.

Ultimately, he is free to start threads on the topic, while at the same time complaining about some aspect of it going on ad nauseam. I am free to complain about his complaining, and you are free to complain about my complaining about his complaining -- at least as long as the Board allows us that freedom.
I certainly woulldn't say roby doesn't agree with what you say here, but he didn't mention it in the OP, neither have I noticed him mentioning it elsewhere. He is pretty steady and consistent with his stick with which he beats the horse. KJVO is a myth. It isn't found in Scripture, and on and on ad nauseam! Here are a few examples that will be recognized.



In the man-made doctrines thread he wrote (emp. mine), "A man-made doctrine of faith/worship is any doctrine or point that's not derived from Scripture. And that includes those made by mens' twisting of Scripture to try to make it fit their invention...Personally, I don't believe ANY such doctrine, and won't hesitate to call it false and rag on it." So, yes, if he is going to dish it out, he also needs to take it. Roby needs to own the fact that he claims he doesn't believe any doctrine not derived from Scripture. IMO, all this is relevant to his "version's guitar" which only has one string and no frets.

I'll leave you all with the final word, words and posts. That's all I'm going to say on the subject at this time.

So, he comes back to the same point. But to be honest, KJVO is beating their own drum as well. Even this week on this forum, I had a KJVO tell me I was a demon-worshipper for denying the true inspiration of the KJB. So I see robycop3's point. When the idiocy of KJVO stops, anti-KJVO threads will stop.

I'm not sure if his angle with the argument is the best choice. Personally, I think the only way to deal with idiocy is to behave like an idiot. I've thought about starting NLTO and telling everyone that they can't understand the Bible because they don't believe and trust the divinely inspired NLB.

As far as the number of times? We have Arminians/Calvinists bringing up arguments/passages which have days worth of video and piles of books in refutation and they bring nothing new to the table. They just rehash the same argument.

 

[MartyF]

Sigh. Why do you keep doing this? This poor old dead horse should be left to rest in peace.

Lots of things have no scriptural support, yet we believe them anyway. Tell me, Roby, where is the scriptural support for the canon of the Bible? Where, exactly, do you find explicit scriptural support for the Chalcedon formulation of the Trinity? Or do you reject that too?

The scriptural support for the canon is in fact found within the Bible. This has been discussed ad nauseum by those in apologetics to Atheists. "Letters from a Skeptic" by Greg Boyd could be a primer but there are many, many others. Basically, the books of the Bible interweave with one another in such a way as to promote the canon.

Where, exactly, do you find explicit scriptural support for the Chalcedon formulation of the Trinity?

I would say that any part of the Chalcedon formulation of the Trinity not found in the Bible is speculation. But the Chalcedon Creed is more concerned with the divinity and physical nature of Jesus than the Trinity as a whole.

 

[1689Dave]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that no doctrine of faith/worship not derived from Scripture is true, and that included KJVO. No matter how many different pro-KJVO arguments are made, the supporters of KJVO simply cannot overcome the "no Scriptural support" fact, which makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot, void, & dead.

I believe the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam['i] elsewhere, so there's no use bringing it up again. But I'd like to see how a KJVO can justify believing the KJVO myth when he/she has no Scriptural support for it & therefore no authority from GOD to believe it.

I always assumed since God controls the universe, the KJV was part of his plan for us. But he also provided many other translations where we can compare and clarify using the modern tongue.

 

[PastoralMusings]

Nothing fair about promoting a false doctrine.

Yet you and I should be fair and honest in our dealings.
That’s not too much to expect of professing Christians.

 

[GoodTidings]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that no doctrine of faith/worship not derived from Scripture is true, and that included KJVO. No matter how many different pro-KJVO arguments are made, the supporters of KJVO simply cannot overcome the "no Scriptural support" fact, which makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot, void, & dead.

I believe the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam['i] elsewhere, so there's no use bringing it up again. But I'd like to see how a KJVO can justify believing the KJVO myth when he/she has no Scriptural support for it & therefore no authority from GOD to believe it.

Honestly, who cares?

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, the KJVO myth is still being taught, so it must be fought.

As for Cain's wife, I've always said I was open to any PLAUSIBLE explanation as to her origin. But I've also seen that God was against incest from the beginning, and God does not change. I simply DO NOT BELIEVE he married his sister & I'll let it go at that.

If the genetics were perfect, it would not make any difference. It was before the law, so it was not illegal.

Well, in this forum, it is. Elsewhere, I go into pseudo/quasi-Christian denoms such as JW. SDS, & SDA.

And, I or someone else will KEEP creating such threads long as this false doctrine is still taught. Nobody is making you participate or forbidding you to.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is SDS? JWs are a cult.

What difference does it make if someone uses the KJV all the time? I do, and I am not KJVO. I notice that the ESV is gaining popularity now.

 

[Salty]

What difference does it make if someone uses the KJV all the time? I do, and I am not KJVO. I notice that the ESV is gaining popularity now.

I cannot speak for Robycop - but I would think we would agree --

There is no problem with using the KJV- the problem is when someone says that any other version
is a perversion. I grew up with the KJV (at the time- that was about the only version that anyone used.) I have memorized many verses from the KJV. But language does change - for some - it is hard to understand the KJV- especially the archaic words. In addition the reading level may be too high for others
Currently, I use many different versions - as I like to make comparisons.
Just keep in mind that translation is not a perfect science.

 

[rsr]

The KJVO myth, which is clearly-false, is still being taught in some churches.

As for the canon, God plainly chose the Old Testament content, making it plain to the Jews. And I believe He influenced what went into the New testament, especially the writings of the apostles.

As for the Trinity, it's plainly implied in the story of Jesus' baptism, where all three Personages of the one Godhead are manifest, clearly physically separate from one another.

So I guess that means you have no defense since you decline to address the specifics. How do you determine the extent of the New Testament canon?

I didn't ask about the Trinity as a concept, but of its explication as set forth at Chalcedon.

 

[rsr]

The scriptural support for the canon is in fact found within the Bible. This has been discussed ad nauseum by those in apologetics to Atheists. "Letters from a Skeptic" by Greg Boyd could be a primer but there are many, many others. Basically, the books of the Bible interweave with one another in such a way as to promote the canon..

And the scriptural reference is where? Sounds like another man-made doctrine.

 

[robycop3]

Honestly, who cares?

All CHRISTIANS should, as that false doctrine is being taught TO Christians BY Christians.

 

[robycop3]

If the genetics were perfect, it would not make any difference. It was before the law, so it was not illegal.



Excuse my ignorance, but what is SDS? JWs are a cult.

What difference does it make if someone uses the KJV all the time? I do, and I am not KJVO. I notice that the ESV is gaining popularity now.

"SDS" was my goof - I meant "LDS" or "Latter Day Saints - the Mor(m)ons.

And USING the KJV aint the prob - it's putting all other English Bible translations down as not really valid Bibles & that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there. That's simply FALSE, & should NOT be taught by ANY Christian.

 

[robycop3]

So I guess that means you have no defense since you decline to address the specifics. How do you determine the extent of the New Testament canon?

I didn't ask about the Trinity as a concept, but of its explication as set forth at Chalcedon.

the Chalcedon conference of 451 AD tackled the argument of the dual nature of Jesus while He was here as a man. That was their concern, much-more than the concept of the Trinity itself.

But WE should heed the BIBLE, not any councils of men. Scripture plainly sets forth the Personages of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while maintaining the fact of the one Godhead. And we must remember that GOD CAN DO ANYTHING! So again, mens' councils are not important when compared to SCRIPTURE. However, the council of Chalcedon was right about the dual nature of Jesus while He was here as a man. They didn't try to understand how God became a man, except to acknowledge that it was a fact.

 

[robycop3]

So I guess that means you have no defense since you decline to address the specifics. How do you determine the extent of the New Testament canon?

I didn't ask about the Trinity as a concept, but of its explication as set forth at Chalcedon.

As for the canon, I accept what God has given me as His word. If you wish to add to or subtract from it, that's between you and GOD.

 

[GoodTidings]

All CHRISTIANS should, as that false doctrine is being taught TO Christians BY Christians.

If someone believes in teh KJVO view and they believe that the KJV is the Word of God to the English speaking people, what false doctrine will they be engaging in? What doctrine given in Scripture does that belief contradict?

 

[rsr]

As for the canon, I accept what God has given me as His word. If you wish to add to or subtract from it, that's between you and GOD.

Again, no answer except to deflect and accuse me of something I have never advocated. No wonder it's impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

As I told RLVaughn, I'm still waiting for a PLAUSIBLE explanation that doesn't involve incest.

You won't find one, because that is by far the most reasonable explanation, usually assumed by almost all serious students of Scripture. (well, the conservative ones anyway).

God was explicit about taking one's sister in Deut. 27:22 among other verses.

Right, he was pretty serious in Deut. about Sabbath-keeping, and a million other commands not given to Cain....why assume it was his "sister" anyway? It could have been his great-great-great niece for all we know. The age difference would have been insignificant. Have you even put any serious thought into this???

The simple truth is, GOD **HATES** INCEST,

He forbids it certainly at this point, that doesn't mean he always did.

and God doesn't change.

His essential nature doesn't change, but his policies and requirements for his creatures might.
That sort of distinction escapes you.

If he hated it once, he's always hated it.

Why assume that?

Prob is, some people have their minds made up that God DID allow incest, and they won't change their minds.

Right, because they are aware of the fact that there is no evidence of it being forbidden until explicitly verboten in the Mosaic Torah.
You are inventing laws and doctrines WITH ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.....just as you accuse KJVO'S of doing. That is pointed out to you occasionally, but you only care to be consistent about a particular dying and increasingly irrelevant issue.

Now, let's please get back to the subject of this thread.

We are, you were speaking of despising teaching of doctrines with ZERO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.....such as teaching commands which are not in Scripture such as forbidding incest amongst pre-Torah peoples, and inventing creation histories out of whole cloth....both being doctrines with zero Scriptural support.
Along with the KJVO myth, you should reject such man-made doctrines.