When did it become sin...

Well Tiny, the problem is your anachronistic argument. It is a fallacy. So how long has the Unicorn been associated with the New Age movement? The answer to that question shows your question is an unhistorical attempt at guilt by association. Since both what we now know as the New Age movement and its highjacking of the Unicorn as one of its symbols is a RECENT NOVELTY, your question is absurd. It is as absurd as the Sodomite community saying that God is not against homosexuality because he puts rainbows in the sky, and the rainbow is the symbol of the Sodomite community. Brilliant!

 

So are you saying that God meant "Unicorn" Although He knows they never existed? That's interesting

 

Arminius, it's obvious you don't like the worx of W&H. But canya *PROVE* they were actually wrong? I doubt it. All ya can prove is that their texts differ from some others.

Dean Burgon had some unkind words for the TR. He said it could stand a thorough revision.

You cats seemta think God retired in 1611, that he no longer provides His word in the language of the day.

"Division"? The Geneva Bible was the ONLY English version in general use in 1610, the ONLY version affordable to the common British family. Therefore, why was the AV needed, except for the personal whim of KJ, who didn't like the GB's footnotes? The GB was in the English style of the time, so the Anglicans couldn't use THAT for an excuse to make a new Bible. And you know the AV caused quite a stir and division between its advocates & those who upheld the GB. Again, WHAT VALID EXCUSE DID THEY HAVE TO MAKE A NEW VERSION?

 

That's just it... KJVO is not a fundamental doctrine. It is new to fundamentalism. (last 15 yrs) I grew up IFB, and it never was an issue until around 1995! It is a new doctrine that has no biblical basis.

Fundamental means that it is Fundamental to the Bible. Every fundamental doctrine has to be based in the Bible....
KJVO is not.
Jesus used other versions not underlying the KJV. I guess he was wrong, huh?

It is time for people to get back to the basics... Let's bypass this SDA doctrine of KJVOism and go back to the Bible.

 

First, there's no indication that their unicorn was anything but the mythical horse-like critter with the one spiralled horn between its eyes. But in defense of the AV men, several older Bibles have 'unicorn', & the translators had no reason to believe it didn't exist. Besides that, the horse-like unicorn was in KJ's coat-of-arms & is on the British coat-of-arms to this day.

But I reckon God allowed some translators' opinion to enter the text of the AV, same as He has in other versions.

 

That's the ONE, BASIC FACT about KJVO that renders it false, TT...it's not even HINTED AT in Scripture, nor in the writings of the AV translators themselves. Yes, it's a new and untrue doctrine.

 

RobyCop, I appreciate the fact that you did not sidestep the Unicorn issue like Tiny did, after bringing it up in a new Age accusation against the AV, and then not acknowledging that this intial post was absurd. What I don't like is when you actually prove people wrong, they just ask another question that states something they couldn't prove if their life depended on it! Tim does not know if the Unicorn ever existed, and He sure can't speak for God about it! These kinds of desperation tactics show the open seeker of truth that something is wrong when to support one's attack on the KJV, one must engage in such tactics. So far Tiny, you are simply confirming what we already know--that there are some people who sure don't seem genuinely interested in facts and will post NONSENSE to support their viewpoints. I will not waste time here answering foolishness, that is for sure.

Roby, you said:

Thats your uproven assertion, that is all. What do you mean "hearsay"??? Are you kdding? Some of you claim to have read KJV apologists. If you truly had, you could not post some foolishness like this. What I said has been DOCUMENTED by the likes of your afrementioned Burgon, F Scrivener, Edward Miller, Herman Hoskier, Edward Hills, Theodore Letis, and of course Gail, Ruckman, David Cloud ESPECIALLY has two large books documenting what I said. Have you read anything from beginning to end from the above list? If you had, you would KNOW that Westcott and Hort's THEORIES were not only an unBiblical approach to God's Word, but were totally refuted as well. And you would know their texts were obviously serious deviations from the Common Text as reflected in the TR, and that is why the church never used these texts, and why they survived so long in Rome's possession. They were rejects.

Wilbur Pickering wrote a book back in the 1980s called THE IDENTITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. It rocked the scholarly world. In it he minutely dissects and demolishes Hort's entire approach, which is still the approach followed today. It is a great resource for those who actually want to get into the nuts and bolts of the Textual problems and Hort's absurd theories. The book stands unrefuted and unanswered to this day, and the few who actually tried to address its points in Theological journals as "reviews" were answered by Pickering. I have the correspondence, and have had it for 20 years.

Burgon remains unanswered to this day also--140 years later the entire field of Hortian scholars--thousands of them have chosen to leave Burgon alone. Gee, I wonder why? Because he was the premier mss scholar of his time, with Scrivener a close second according to a pupil of both- Edward Miller, and the Hortians know they cannot overturn the 1500 pages of documented evidence he provided back then.

As for your claim regarding his "unkind" remarks about the TR--Go ahead and state what they are.

As for what that great scholar said about his debate on this issue, notice:

Did Burgon dare imply that who he was really arguing with, when attacking Westcott and Hort, was THE Textual Critic??? I wonder who he meant by that(Hint Eph 6:12!)

 

The folks who do not support the KJVO myth ARE Bible believers, Arminius. Just because you believe the KJVO myth doesn't give you the right to say or imply that those who do not follow the KJVO myth do not believe the Bible. I could conversely say you are not a Bible believer because you do not believe the NASB or the NKJV is the inerrant word of God, but I am not saying such a thing. However, I would be just as right and have just as much authority to make such a statement or implication as you have to say or imply this about those who do not follow the KJVO myth. You are placing yourself in the position of judge and jury, when you have no authority, biblical or otherwise, to do so.

Since the KJVO myth is based in falsehood and confusion, then it is absolutely correct and proper to say it cannot possibly come from God. The KJVO myth was formulated and is spread by people who become confused over God's ability to preserve His word in various English Bible translations, and who place their own false and humanistic opinions over the authority of God's word. BTW, calling Bible versions "perversions" is also forbidden here at BB. But then there is always a double standard applied by supporters of the KJVO myth. If Mexdead is not to say that the KJVO myth is from Satan, then no one is to call the Bible versions God has graciously given us "perversions." Pretty simple, really. If supporters of the KJVO myth are not bound by the BB rules, then no one else should be bound by the BB rules.

No one here is seeking to steal the word. However, those who support the KJVO myth misinterpret Scripture (often intentionally, often naively) and bring into question the very word of God. Taking verses out of context in order to "support" a false theory like the KJVO myth IS questioning the word of God and sowing confusion. It is the "TR-KJV people" who more closely reflect these characteristics - and by a very large, no, a HUGE margin!

The lies actually come from the originators of the KJVO myth, Arminius, not from those who stand in truth against the KJVO myth.

In the following verse Jesus, talking to the Pharisees, made a very good point about Satan.

And yet you have determined, based on your own authority, that only one English Bible version is actually the word of God while all the MVs are not really God's word. Quite subjective, Arminius, quite subjective! And if you had bothered to read further you would have seen that when I refer to valid English Bible versions I place that validity against Bible verisons that were "translated" in order to give errant groups (Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses in particular) versions that finally agree with some of their errant beliefs. But then you didn't want to read further and find out what was really meant, did you? Of course not - that gave you just enough ammunition for you to hurl more false accusations and stick your foot deeper into your own mouth than it already was.

Of course there can never be a Bible version that supports the KJVO myth because that vrsion would also have to be mistranslated. The belief in any form of onlyism is not biblical - there is nothing in any existing English Bible translation that supports the KJVO myth. Supporting a Bible version that supports onlyism would mean that you would have to support another Bible version other than the KJV, and that will never happen with KJVO supporters, will it?

It is true that writers may sometimes err in their zeal to support something in which they believe. But when they start with nothing but error they damage their own positions as they continue on in their error. Riplinger and Ruckman are fine examples of writers who start out with nothing but error and then dig themselves in further and further as they go.

Your definition of "facts" is in error, Arminius. Riplinger and Ruckman present everything but facts and truth. Their entire theory is based strictly in error and untruth.

And what are your sources for these fantastic and outlandish claims, Arminius? If you cite Riplinger and Ruckman as your sources, then you actually destroy your own credibility because nothing these writers have presented so far has had one thing to do with facts.

Obviously your definition of sin is in error, Arminius. We opponents of the KJVO myth have no ax to grind - we merely spread truth in the wake of the errors and falsehoods that are spread by supporters of the KJVO myth. The sin is in blaspheming of God's word in all the MVs, making false accusations like your "ax to grind" falsehood, standing on error after you have been shown truth, spreading the falsehoods that make up the KJVO myth, and believing God does not have the power to preserve His word in the various English Bible translations He has so graciously provided for us. We should be on our knees thanking Him that he has chosen to provide His word for us in various English Bible translations that are understandable for every generation, not demeaning the very Bible versions He has given us. You should get some Ruckman points for your post, Arminius. You mimick him very well with the false accusations - he would be proud of you!

 

I really don't get the "Ruckman points" thing here. Looks to me like you ran into a KJVOer who can actually speak in complete sentences and argue critically and it scares you to death. So you start dropping bombs of subjectivism.

I have really enjoyed this thread. Old Arminus really gets 'em scatterin'!

Lacy


"Even God knows there's no such thing as unicorns!"

Pathetic

 

The argument(s) in support of the KJVO myth are fallacious, Arminius. How can you support an argument that belittles the very English Bible translations (except one version, of course) God has so graciously given us? We should be on our knees thanking Him for providing His word for us in versions that every generation can understand! Yet KJVO myth supporters demean God's holy word in every version but the KJV. Questioning the validity of God's word is in itself a "Did God really say that?" position. The very men who translated the KJV held the belief that the "meanest" of versions are Scripture. Why should you believe in a false, man-made myth that says only one English Bible version is Scripture?

And for supporters of the KJVO myth...

What??? ALL Scripture??? It really doesn't say that only one English Bible version is given by inspiration??? Absolutely not! Couple Scripture with what the KJV translators believed in their hearts, and you have an irrefutable argument against the myth of onlyism.

And for those who falsely claim there are no differences between the various KJVs, then what exactly is the "un-difference" between "Scripture" and "scripture" or between "&" and "and?"

The Oxford KJV used in the Scofield Reference Bible uses the changed "scripture" and "and" rather than the original "Scripture" and "&." Yet there are those who falsely claim there are no differences in the various KJVs. This false claim is so easy to disprove it's almost funny. But what is really laughable is the false "no difference" claim itself.

:laugh:

Talk about beginning with an assumption and using circular reasoning to support that assumption, that is exactly what KJVO myth supporters do all the time! You begin with the assumption that the KJV (which KJV you don't specify) is the only true word of God in English and you use circular reasoning to uphold that falsehood. Supporters of the KJVO myth have offered no proof to support the myth because there IS no proof to support the myth. The entire KJVO myth is nothing but assertion of error and falsehood. Since it is the position of KJVO myth supporters that only one English Bible version is the word of God, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who support this fable - not on those who stand agsint it.

As for the MVs differing with the TR in doctrine, that is also a false accusation. Now which of the various TRs might you be talking about, Arminius? And since the TR is not a single text but a "best of" compilation of various texts, then which of the texts used to compile the TR do you support?

All the MVs I have ever seen (with the exception of the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses) uphold the deity of Christ. They also teach the atoning power of His shed blood, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His death, His burial and His resurrection. Please give us examples of where MVs teach different doctrines. Since you are making these fantastic claims, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders, Arminius.

Sorry, Arminius, your arguments just don't hold a drop of water. Methinks you have a huge hole in your bucket. In fact, the entire bottom of your bucket is missing!

 

Nah, Lacy, ya got it all wrong again as usual! The "Ruckman points" I mentioned are like "brownie points." Hope that clears up your confusion, at least about one thing!

I'm not "scared to death" of "Old Arminius!" Why? Because error is error no matter which supporter of the KJVO myth it comes from - whether it's from you, Arminius, Askjo or whoever. When there is nothing but error, falsehood and opinion behind the KJVO myth one supporter is just as easliy refuted as the other.

Arminius doesn't get anything scattered except his own confusion. That confusion, like the confusion of all who believe in the KJVO myth, is certainly nothing to run from!

And the pathetic thing here is the belief in error that is held by supporters of the KJVO myth. There is nothing pathetic about truth, Lacy, and that is exactly what is spread by those who stand firmly against the falsehoods of the KJVO myth.

Why don't you try to come up with something more original and truthful next time you decide to throw in your two cents?

:laugh: :sleeping_2:

 

Forgive me Keith but it is hard to take you seriously after that last post. Somehow you think that saying the same things OVER AND OVER, without one scintilla of proof is "proof". You commit one logical fallacy after another. It is clear that you are NOT WELL READ on this issue, and that you are not well read in the Scholarly publications by those of the TR-KJV position at all. You argue from a position of total oblivion to what we believe and why. And rather than deal with the nonsense you posted WITH NO PROOF, I have to ask Which English Bible is this "God's Word" that you speak of? What is this "Bible" you believe in? Is it a concept, or is it an actual book with the infallible writings of God contained? You CANNOT say all of them because they SERIOUSLY contradict each other in thousands of places. So WHICH ONE IS "GOD'S WORD" when we face those facts? If you don't answer this and point me to the book that you believe is God's Word, then I know you do not believe in "the Bible". You believe the original writings WERE the Word of God, but since we don't have them, all we have is fallible copies. We don't have THE Bible, just a Bible that is probably God's Word, mostly. You believe in nothing. I can HAND YOU the book I hold to, you cannot. So then, where is your "Bible"? Where did you buy it and what is it called?

Now if you are interested in LEARNING something, I'll give you a list of books you can read to KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that what I posted if factual and true. It is about 2000 pages of sometimes tedious material, but after you have read it, you will have studied to show yourself approved to actually give an opinion on this subject. As it is right now, your posts do not deceive me. It is clear you are very unstudied and unread on this issue, and long posts filled with verbal smog cannot cloud what is obvious. Proverbs says that he who answers a matter before he has heard it exalts folly.

Americans Christians are very prone at giving their opinions, no matter how unstudied on a subject they may be. They "feel" they have that right. They most assuredly DO NOT. They need to EARN THE RIGHT to spout their opinions. It is not a right. God said to STUDY to show yourself--to SHOW YOURSELF approved unto God, a WORK-MAN. It is work. And then he says who need not be ashamed---a well studied man will not embarrass himself or the opinions he gives because of the study and work involved. I suggest some of you read more and speak less. I say this after 24 years of study on this debate and over 100 books, booklets, articles, pamphlets, pro and con on this issue. I respect the right of anyone who have humbly earned the right to speak on this, but some have not, and it is obvious who you are. Don't kid yourself.

 

Then why is it you keep repeating the same old tired, disproven myths over and over again, Arminius? You have proven nothing by your repititions of the errors behind the myth. These errors have been repeated over and over again by first one person and then another - yet despite all the vain repition, there is not one more ounce of truth to the KJVO myth than there was when it first started.

Wrong as usual, Arminius! I have been standing firmly in truth against the KJVO myth for over 30 years now. I'm not well read, huh? Apparently neither are you because if you were you would not pridefully continue to hold onto the KJVO myth. Truth is truth, and the KJVO myth is definitely NOT truth. Believe what you want, but the KJVO myth is nothing more than that - MYTH!

Been there already, Arminius. Didn't you pay attention the first time? Or did it just fail to sink in?

Guess these things really didn't sink in, did they??? Why do you keep going back to the same things over and over again, Arminius? You accuse me of repitition, but it is you who keeps rehashing the same old questions that have been answered repeatedly. No matter how many time you ask the questions the answer will not change - there is still nothing that makes the KJVO myth true.

Another false accusation, Arminius. My, my, my - you're just full of 'em! The sad thing is that it apparently doesn't bother you to make these false accusations. It is YOU who doiesn't believ in the Bible because you question God's ability to preserve His word in versions that are understandable to every generation. Apparently you think God just gave up on preserving his word back in 1611.

Another "been there, done that." It is called the Holy Bible, Arminius. And it comes in several English translations. You can buy in any Christian book store.

And who are the authors of these books, Arminius? Such credible and truthful writers as Riplinger and Ruckman? The things you have posted ARE NOT "factual and true" since you continue to support the KJVO myth. Why should any of us bother to read 2K pages of errors and falsehoods? We can get all of those we want right here at BB from supporters of the KJVO myth. If you had learned anything about the KJVO myth you could no longer support it with a clear conscience. The unstudied and unread ones are those who, like you, blindly support the KJVO myth inspite of having been shown the truth over and over and over again. There seems to be a serious comprehension problem on your part, Aminius. Why do you stand so firmly against truth?

Very true, Arminius. This is repeatedly shown to be true by those who continue to spread the KJVO myth. Truth is truth, but you obviously have not understood the truth.

Arminius, I am not, nor have i ever been, ashamed of the truth. The opinions you spout are nothing more than opinion and falsehood. Your false opinions and your puffed-up pride in the error you believe do not impress me - they show you really need to go back to the ol' drawing board and start all over again. You nor any other supporter of the KJVO myth will never onvince us :freedom readers: to abandon truth and accept the KJVO myth. Why should we? just because you accept it doesn't mean that it is the truth and it doesn't mean that everyone should be swept into your error and falsehoods. God did not provide us a "one size fits all" Bible translation that was meant to be thought of as the only true word of God in English. That is why God has graciously provided us with various English Bible translations down through the centuries.

 

Deleted. The post was full of personal attacks and was made by a non-Baptist in a Baptist only forum

 

Arminius, you make me want to go hug my NKJV! :tonofbricks: :1_grouphug:

 

You need to Mex, since I practice what I preach, and what I posted about Keith is true. Anyone slightly educated on this issue can see that. You are more than welcome to visit my home and library and see for yourself. God bless.

 

Praise the Lord! For while I thought I might have to explain to you how your lame arguments can so easily be turned around on your own position. Although, you proceeded to make some more ridiculous statements. For example--

Shall we then reintstate the practice of infant baptism and other errors of our forefathers? Another one--

Same thing was said of the Latin Vulgate, my friend. You really need to get some new material, this stuff isn't even a challenge.

 

It isn't hard for those whose hearts are heardened and prejudiced against the truth. It isn't a challenge to those who don't play by the same rules--you don't deal with facts, you compare apples and oranges, and then you "see?". You Hortians need the new material, as your fallacious arguments have been refuted a hundred times over, starting with Dean Burgon 140 years ago. Not a one has offered anything new since Westcott and Hort, and they were demolished by Burgon and others. All your arguments are simply rehashed Hort. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

 

Of course, we all know that's not true. Tyndale's New Testament, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and others before 1611 and many after are also based upon the TR. Having problems with exaggeration?