This is Must Reading On the KJVO Position!

"Humanistic Scholarship Onlyism" - An Old Sect.

 

Some do answer like that, that's true, and many on the other side of the isle also answer like that.

 

Only if you accept their definition of "best," which is highly subjective.

 

This is a spurious charge. I have sat under Dr. Price's Hebrew tutelage, gone soul winning with him, sat in his Sunday School class, sat with him in church, eaten dinner with him. I assure you that Dr. James Price could not be further from humanism, but is a godly, good man, and a fundamental independent Baptist. Without even knowing the man, you have defamed him, thus disobeying many verses in the beloved King James Version.

it is nasty posts like yours that drive people away from King James Onlyism. By not being gracious in your Christianity, you defeat your own purpose.

 

Actually your human reasoning concerning the KJV would be a scholarship onlyism view since it advocates blind trust in the scholarship of one exclusive group of Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

You have not demonstrated that the Scriptures teach a KJV-only view.

KJV-only advocates will disobey clear commands as translated in the KJV in order to try to defend their human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

There are few things that are as unseemly as affected and hypocritical religious superiority.
If you would come down your high hill for a moment, oh noble sir, please consider that:

A) The title said "King James Onlyism" - A New Sect. My reply was after the tenor of his title.
B) According to your thinking, I would answer you that the man has "defamed" many a man under whose tutelage I sat, gone soul winning with, sat in their Sunday School classes, sat with in church, and eaten dinner with, and of whom I can assure you that they could not be further from being sectist, but are godly, good men, and fundamental independent Baptists. Without knowing them, he has defamed them, thus disobeying whatever set of autographs he claims to believe in.
C) Nothing in my words singled out the man. It was as generic a post as could have been. I described general camps.
D) It is nasty, self-righteous, hypocritical, reflexively man-elevating posts like yours that drive people away from Humanisitc Scholarship Onlyism. "By not being gracious in your Christianity, you defeat your own purpose."

 

You must be a modern-day prophet because you know my thinking and reasoning without even hearing it.

 

You failed to prove your accusation to be true. You do not show that any believers were defamed by someone stating the truth about human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

Believers reading the KJV as what it actually is, and teaching from the KJV as what it actually is are not defamed in that book.

It is the making of unproven and even false claims for the KJV that is soundly and correctly exposed in that book. Are you suggesting that you oppose the stating of the truth?

 

I know the thinking and reasoning of KJV-only advocates from what they themselves state in their writings including in their posts.

I read your earlier posts that presented your KJV-only reasoning, and I have read over 150 books written by KJV-only authors. I have carefully studied KJV-only reasoning/teaching and have compared it to what the Scriptures teach.

 

No, you have failed to read the introductory qualifier "According to your thinking":

I was simply applying the man's logic. But you would have caught that had you not been in a rush to judge me.

 

Quote me.

And I suppose you read the posts wherein I say that nothing in the Bible states that, specifically, the KJB is the only words of God, right? ...Right?!

 

You do not soundly apply his logic. I have read his entire book. Perhaps you have not read his book or the portion of it at the link, or else you misunderstand it.

Instead of applying his logic, you jumped to wrong conclusions perhaps because of your illogical, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. His book did not at all advocate humanism. You provide no direct quotations where any supposed defaming of those you suggested was done. You alleged but did not prove what you alleged.

 

You judge me contrary to the KJV: Judge not that ye be not judge.

I was absolutely sincere in what I said, felt no superiority in the slightest. What you read was outrage, not "unseemly...affected and hypocritical religious superiority."

Apparently you don't even know the meaning of the word "sect." A sect is simply a schismatic group of religionists. They may or may not be heretical. If your crowd is not schismatic, I don't know who is. They separate from anyone that does not believe exactly like they do about the KJV. However, they need not. I know some wonderful people who love the KJV as I do, and fellowship with them often, but they are not schismatic. Some of my students are KJVO, but they are not schismatic.

Again, it is a "new" sect. Virtually no one took the KJVO position among fundamentalists until Peter Ruckman came along with his first book in 1970.

Absolute baloney. You specifically answered a text that referenced Dr. Price's book.

I see no need to even answer this.

 

If the Lord cannot show you the hypocrisy of your judgments, then neither can I.

 

Oh, that's rich. If I am a hypocrite (and I often am), the Lord is entirely capable of showing me that, and has many times.

Tell you what, I'm going to bow out of this thread before I say something I will regret. Have a nice life "Doc."

 

Modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching displays a great deal of hypocrisy and arrogance as KJV-only advocates in effect suggest that their subjective opinions are superior to clear scriptural truths.

According to the Scriptures, the wisdom from God above is without partiality while human KJV-only reasoning shows partiality to one exclusive group of biased Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

KJV-only advocates do not apply the same exact standards/measures to the process of the making of the KJV that they inconsistently and unjustly attempt to apply to the making of other English Bible translations. They do not apply the same measures/standards of doctrinal soundness to the Church of England makers of the KJV that they attempt to apply to other Bible translators.

 

"Doc", eh? With the quotation marks. In your parting (and of course, humble, godly, dedicated, conservative, educated, etc. etc.) shot, you still can't help but belittle someone who isn't of your intellectual clan, can you? S-e-c-t-i-s-m.

 

We're still waiting for those quotes, prophet.

 

Huh? I have a good friend we all call "Doc." Why are you offended? And quotation marks are often put around nicknames.