An all-too-obvious parallel

Scott,

I don't believe I would make God look so foolish. As far as God is concerned the Earth is the center of the Universe, so much that His Son came and died on the cruel Cross of Calvary for the sin of creation.

Just as Israel is the "apple of His eye", yet His sole attention is not limited to Israel alone, but all mankind, even though His attention is "centered" in this universe on this planet earth, yet He is as certainly aware of the rest of the expanse and every aspect as well.

Your "paralell" is limited in it's thinking, so obviously you think the KJB to be in error, but you fail to see the truth.

Now, let's see your "paralell" in the discerning of a man's heart. I suppose too, that you will start making the claims that the KJB is wrong to indicate the pulmanary muscle located in the left center of your chest has nothing to do according to the passages in the KJB?

We know the heart muscle isn't what is referred to, but it's not limited to just the mind, simply because the will and emotions are involved.

The soul of man does exist, right? If not then Jesus dying for men's souls is according to Ted Turner, a mistake.

Since you like these "paralells", would you please try to explain the "soul"?

The earth is the Lord's footstool, the clouds the dust of His feet, now I suppose you'll be looking for His feet in some distant divide, uncharted by mortal man to either prove or disprove the KJB?

 

Please read Scott's post carefully, and indicate to us where he attacks the KJV. Not the mss from which it was made, but the KJV itself.

You're defending against an attack which hasn't taken place.

 

Interesting post, Scott.

I would even push it further. Here we have two groups, each trying to promote doctrine that is not directly from scripture. Since neither doctrine comes from the authority of scripture, then simple logic tell us such assertions must be derived from another authority - in the case of the Catholics, the authority is the Church itself, in the case of the KJV-onlyists, the authority is the KJV-onlyists.

Now, comparing those two sources of authority, we see two interesting things:

1. KJV-onlyists are "sola scriptura" folk (I have never met a KJV-onlyist who wasn't). Since KJV-onlyists are arguing for the KJV to be the "final authority", yet are imposing their own authority to make the claim in the first place, they are contradicting themselves. Catholics are not sola scripturists, thus do not contradict themselves in this manner (they are not contradicting sola scriptura, because they don't hold to it in the first place). From the perspective of sola scriptura, at least the Catholics are being consistent - KJV-onlyists don't even have that.

2. Each "authority" needs to have a "claim" to that authority to at least be taken seriously. The Catholic Church points to apostolic succession and to verses, *in scripture*, like 1 Tim 3:15 which says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Even if one does not agree with their interpretation or application, at least they have something to point to in the first place. There is nothing in scripture that says KJV-onlyists have a similar authority, and no KJV-onlyist would dare say that they themselves are authoritative - in other words, their own authority to assert KJV-onlyism as a doctrine (a doctrine not in scripture) is completely void of support. At least the Catholics have reasons to claim they have authority, KJV-onlyists don't even have that.

So *WHY* would *ANYONE* accept the authority of KJV-onlyists in their assertion of this doctrine, when they as a group are both completely unauthoritative and completely inconsistent, *especially* if one is not willing to accept Catholic authority when they at least have some consistency and reasons behind their claim? If one rejects Catholicism, there is even *less* reason to adhere to KJV-onlyism.

Note: I'm not promoting Catholicism in this post. I'm just showing that *whatever* validity Catholicism has, logically KJV-onlyism has less. It is not a "parallel" in my mind, as the first post puts it - KJV-onlyism doesn't measure up that much.

 

Ah, but Cranston, you indicate Scott has the nature to attack. We've seen this "creep up" on them style before, so I just went ahead and broke the ice.

Maybe you can't deal with my questions either?

 

Same ol'song and dance.

We fellowship with KJB crowds, won't let anyone preach or teach from another version, but we never had the "attributes" awarded as yall guys do to any of us, but to relate to catholocism as not promoting it, when the "KJVO" crowd ,as yall put it are distinctly Baptists?

Maybe the viewers of that post will see the insanity.

 

Well, that's sort of my point. KJV-onlyists claim to be Baptist, but to assert KJV-onlyism requires an authority outside of scripture, since scripture itself does not tell us to believe in KJV-onlyism. And if there is another authority needed to make KJV-onlyism work logically, then you cannot believe in sola scriptura at the same time - yet sola scriptura is one of the Baptist "distinctives".

Basically: By what authority should we believe in KJV-onlyism? Go ahead, actually answer the question. Surprise us.

 

Originally posted by Quickening Spirit:[p/i]
[

Maybe you can't deal with my questions either?

Yoy mean THESE questions?

The soul of man does exist, right?

Absolutely.


If not then Jesus dying for men's souls is according to Ted Turner, a mistake.

Since you like these "paralells", would you please try to explain the "soul"?

The soul is the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. It includes his/her spirit, conscious thoughts & mental processes.

 

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

Same ol'song and dance.

We fellowship with KJB crowds, won't let anyone preach or teach from another version, but we never had the "attributes" awarded as yall guys do to any of us,

BUUZZZ!

Just yesterday you told me you did NOT believe the KJV was the ONLY valid BV, but you & your cohorts enforce KJVO in your church or group, whatever the "we" you mention is. Looks like a double standard to me.


but to relate to catholocism as not promoting it, when the "KJVO" crowd ,as yall put it are distinctly Baptists?

Maybe the viewers of that post will see the insanity.

Actually, he was comparing certain KJVO actions to certain RCC actions in the PROCESSES involved and not the actions directly at face value.

Yes, the viewers might see some of the insanity-of believing the KJVO myth.

 

Finally something we agree on, the KJVO "myth"

The "myth" is within your minds, it is an oxy-moron having only mythological attributes.

KJVO can't exostenciously exist. There are the texts from which the KJB is derived, Byzantine BTW, not alexandrian

To believe in KJVO is to believe a myth concocted in the hell bent minds of those who take all sorts of avenues to attack the KJB, all the while saying how much they love the KJB, yet attack passages taken from it trying to prove their myth.

It's like you guys can't comprehend the truth that your battle is against the very "monster" thought up in your heads.

We believe the KJB is the Word of God and that allowing other versions to be used always inhibits confusion.

"Offering better understanding" according to the MV crowd's allusion, when the KJB had the full contextual meaning all along.

Then making allegations as paralells to catholocism? You people are nuts!

You don't know what you're talking about and some of us see right through you.

 

Um, dictionary?

I believe that 100%! Using other versions always inhibits confusion. "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures:"

I use other versions all the time, to inhibit confusion.

Then it should be quite simple to answer the question: by what *authority* should we believe that only the KJV is the word of God? Answer it in a way that doesn't require rejecting sola scriptura, so as to maintain your "distinctive" from Catholicism.