The Comma and KJVO criteria for jumping to the Latin

Your opinion. You contradict yourself. You waste time complaining about present-day scholarship so that you can oppose the facts and truth that expose the serious problems in your erroneous KJV-only reasoning. You flunk Logic 101. You accept erroneous KJV-only reasoning that involves the use of fallacies.

This is just blah-blah. You quote books from 20 years ago that make errors. This does not address my positions.
 
They do not even seem to understand what constitutes a KJV-only view. Claiming perfection for the KJV or claiming no errors of translation in the KJV is being KJV-only.
“no errors of translation in the KJV”

Who are you talking to?
Nobody I know.
 
“no errors of translation in the KJV”

Who are you talking to?
Nobody I know.
Are you suggesting that you accept the truth that there are errors of translation in the KJV?

Here are quotations quoted from Nick Sayers, someone whom you know, as reported at another forum concerning Bible versions. These quotations are found in the opening post of a thread entitled "Nick Sayers: KJOnlyist, or just misunderstood? which you have probably seen.

"God promised to preserve His words somewhere. I believe it is in the TR and Masoretic text underlying the KJV."

"the text underlying the KJV is what I would gravitate towards. Scrivener did a good job, but not perfect."

"the unprinted edition underlying the KJV is the most accurate form of the TR"

"The KJV is the most accurate rendition of the TR."

"The TR is akin to the original."

"I wrote an article to show the errors in the KJV, and proved myself wrong."

"I have yet to find any errors in the KJV."

"We believe that the King James Version is the most accurate representation of the Textus Receptus and is without translational error."

[bold type in last statement added by this poster]
These statements indicate that Nick Sayers can soundly be considered to be a KJV-only advocate.
 
Last edited:
Just come on Facebook where there is lots of action, e.g. in Textus Receptus Academy, hosted by Nick Sayers.
Or King James Bible Debate, hosted by Will Kinney.
Do Nick Sayers and Will Kinney moderate and control the discussion, deleting some posts that would conflict with their own biased opinions?

Will Kinney is an extreme KJV-only advocate.
 
Do Nick Sayers and Will Kinney moderate and control the discussion, deleting some posts that would conflict with their own biased opinions? Will Kinney is an extreme KJV-only advocate.

All forums have some moderation, to stop trolling.
Nick is ver light on moderation.

You rarely quote Will, because he avoids the errors from those 20-year old books.
 
You rarely quote Will, because he avoids the errors from those 20-year old books.
Will Kinney does not avoid the errors in typical KJV-only reasoning. He has not written any book from which to quote. I have quoted from one article published in a KJV-only publication that he wrote. He makes bogus allegations against others that he does not prove to be true. Attacking the person making statements has been one of his typical tactics instead of answering the actual truth of the statements that are made.
 
edit personal attack
You keep describing you yourself. It is interesting to see how many times your unproven accusations apply more to you than to the ones whom you accuse.

Here is a post made by Nick Sayers in the thread mentioned above. "But you can’t point to one bible and say that is it, so you are bible agnostics. If you can’t get it together and put all the correct readings into one place, and not a scrabble set of versions, then bible agnostic fits."

He seems to be as extreme as Will Kinney as he even adopts Kinney's bogus, undefined false term of accusation "bible agnostics." Evidently the KJV translators were "bible agnostics" according to a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will Kinney wrote that “an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18).
But wasn't Jerome commissioned to translate what became known as the Vulgate because of all the variations in the Old Latin Bibles?

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
Will Kinney does not seem to have learned that his human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions are not true and scriptural. He believes assertions or claims for the KJV that are not true.
 
Will Kinney does not seem to have learned that his human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions are not true and scriptural. He believes assertions or claims for the KJV that are not true.
And I see he is now claiming there was no "pure and perfect words of God Bible before the KJB."

As you rightly ask, "Where is the printed article that changes or corrects what he claimed twenty years ago?" I'd venture to say that Avery's claim that Kinney has "understood it more excellently today" is hogwash. Kinney has a 2000 page pdf compilation containing all of his inane posts and articles through the years. I don't see him updating such a monstrosity, no matter how much "more excellently" he understands anything.
 
You quote books from 20 years ago that make errors. This does not address my positions.
I also quote KJV-only books printed after 2010 and even printed as late as 2020, 2021, 2022.

Does this 2018 KJV-only book entitled The Modern Version Incursion by Dr. Ken Matto address your oneness position?

KJV-only author Ken Matto asserted: "Modalism is also known as oneness" (The Modern Version Incursion, p. 156). Do other KJV-only advocates agree with Ken Matto's assertion that "oneness" teaching is Modalism?

Ken Matto wrote: "Modalism teaches that there are not three distinct personalities in the Godhead but only one, who manifests Himself differently at different times" (Modern Version Incursion, p. 156). Ken Matto wrote: "Modalism is the false teaching that there is only one God in three manifestations" (Ibid.).
 
Is it amazing that Steven Avery suggests that when I quote verses from the KJV that I am not quoting Scripture? The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English.

James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
 
What I said was clear, you do not affirm the text of even one verse as Scripture, in any language.

Tell us if you have a Scripture text of James 3:17, not a “same sense” or a “view.”
Weasel words.

Your attempt at Jesuit-style twisting is humorous
 
What I said was clear, you do not affirm the text of even one verse as Scripture, in any language.

That is not true. Why the "false witness"?

Tell us if you have a Scripture text of James 3:17, not a “same sense” or a “view.”
Weasel words.

How many ways can YOU say the same thing Avery?

Your attempt at Jesuit-style twisting is humorous

What is the difference between these sentences?

But the wisedome that is from aboue, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easie to be intreated, full of mercy, and good fruits, without partialitie, and without hypocrisie.

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
 
Back
Top