Clarifying KJVO

You do seem to have the knack to disregard whatever any would say that goes against your viewpoints, and especially in regards to the real concerns some of us do have regarding the new Niv!
But let us focus on the KJVO here on the OP!

 

Here you go:

Vocabulary-Building Flashcards, Huck Finn

The Ancient Greeks for Dummies

 

I can't speak for you, but this is a word one might hear but miss when they see it in writing. In speech when I've heard it (not saying people use it often) it comes out something like blag-ərd. (I've usually heard it as a noun, but it is a verb also.)

 

I can recall reading it (Narnia, Watership Down?), but I'm not sure if I've ever heard it in conversation.

 

Still skipping the FACT that the KJVO myth is not found in Scripture & thus has NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD for us to believe it.

If one wishes to use only the KJV for various other reasons, fine, but to say the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is simply repeating a LIE.

 

I am not responsible for your lack of erudition.
Blackguard. v.t. abuse scurrilously.

That is your view and it may or may not be right, but it does not entitle you to call him a liar.

Then you should stick to the subject instead of blackguarding others on the forum. Since the soccer World Cup is on at present, here's some soccer advice: play the ball, not the man. Those who fail to do so at soccer are eventually sent off.

 

It's not a 'lie' and you should join Rippon in ceasing to use the term. It is an opinion; an incorrect one IMO, but an opinion nonetheless and Jordan is entitled to make his case for it on this forum. He has done so politely, and you should respond politely. IT'S TIME TO STOP CALLING OUR BROTHERS IN CHRIST, LIARS! Come on, mods, do your job!

 

M&M should have no problem with the above. It is completely reasonable.

Every Christian should be in agreement with this.

For anyone to say that the KJV is the only valid or legitimate English translation is of course a lie. It's also quite stupid --but a lie nonetheless.

 

Has he actually politely made a sound, reasonable, true, scriptural case for his KJV-only view?

Are you claiming it would be polite, reasonable, and proper for a KJV-only advocate to suggest in effect that his view is more spiritually-superior or doctrinally-sound while any believers that disagree are trusting in heretics and apostates and do not believe the Scriptures?

He has been politely asked to apply his own measures/standards/principles consistently and justly

Does Jordan believe that anyone who disagree with his allegations concerning textual critics are stating the truth?

Does Jordan actually consider his claims for the KJV to be mere subjective opinions?

 

What Robycop said was:

It is not a lie since the case can be neither proved nor disproved. It's an opinion.

Again, it's not a lie, it's an opinion. Rippon may believe it's a stupid opinion-- and I may agree with him-- but that doesn't make it a lie.

 

First of all, Jordan has repudiated Jack Chick's view on this very thread. Secondly, if Chick genuinely believed it, it was not a lie, was it? It was a mistaken view.

Yes, absolutely. The words here are 'deliberately' and 'meant to deceive.' Jordan is presenting statement which he believes are true. He is not trying to deceive. Therefore he should not be attacked as a liar,[Edited: discussing Moderator actions in open forum].

 

In the beginning Jordan posted this statement of purpose:

If you disagree, then disagree, and leave off the blackguarding and accusations of lying.

 

A claim that can neither be proved nor disproved would be a claim based on use of the fallacy of meaningless claim.

Henry A. Virkler noted: "The fallacy of meaningless claim occurs whenever a person makes claims that, by their nature, are impossible to verify or refute" (Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 217).

Statements or opinions involving use of a fallacy can deceive or mislead.

Would not a fallacy be closer to the category of falsehood than to the category of truth?

 

The KJV is a translation of the Scriptures.

The KJV is not the Scriptures directly given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Because the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles were inspired, it does not necessarily follow that a translation of the Scriptures has to be also inspired or that a translation was given by inspiration of God. Because the process of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles was by inspiration, it does not follow that the copying of the Scriptures was by inspiration or that the translating of the Scriptures was by inspiration.

A Bible translation can be scripture or word of God in a different sense than the original-language Scriptures are.