Originally posted by Ransom:
Why don't KJV-onlyists ever make theological assertions they can demonstrate biblically?
The virgin birth occurred.
Isa:7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
M't:1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
There, you can't say that anymore.
And then he said:
And why can't they make their case without blaspheming?
I believe that the KJV is the Bible God gave to the english-speaking peoples. I believe it is perfect in plenary and verbal expression and inerrant in doctrine.
Where's the blaspheming? You can't say that anymore.
It's bad enough that the whole KJV-only mess is based on nothing but circular reasoning and double standards, without making themselves seem all the more ridiculous with reckless and intemperate claims such as Homebound has made.
Homebound has expressed her opinion, and did it without being demeaning or showing hatred, which is a lot better than I can say of yourself. In fact, between you and BrianT, I believe you guys are the only ones on your side on the issue that haven't been at least moderately courteous.
We were having quite the civil conversation here until you starting using inflammatory words.
Pastor Larry,
We can provide you with verses that prove that God will keep his word pure forever, that not a jot or tittle should pass away from the law, that those who add or take away from the bible are antichrist, where Satan changed the word, that Jesus says we live on "every word of God," (not JUST the idea that it contains), that it is trustworthy, and that we have hope in the word.
Pardon us for being a bit skeptical when someone comes along in 1881 after hundreds of years of agreeing that the KJV was the "Word of God," and tells everyone that "the bible didn't say" this or "the bible actually said," that or that "the bible really meant," the other thing.
Did He or didn't He preserve his word down to the jot or tittle and verbally. Did he or didn't he warn about adding to his words or taking away from his words? There are those of us who believe he did. For some reason this makes us out to be "ignorant," "decisive," "moronic," "a cult," among other and much worse things.
Pardon us for believing we have the Truth. Pardon us for wanting to stick to the "old paths," and carry the gauntlet that has been laid down for us.
We just are not willing to accept that God said something or didn't say something because a "scholar" said so. We'll take God's word for it. That word is the old Book.
[ December 11, 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]