Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

The ONE QUESTION that stumps every KJVO!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by marke View Post


    The term "KJVO" is a hodge-podge of ideas loosely gathered under the catch-all title. Saying an idea is wrong just because some people criticize it as supposedly being "KJVO false doctrine" is not proving an idea to be false doctrine. If the idea is wrong then Bible scholars do well to dismiss it with argument and reason instead of blind unsupported prejudice.
    You fail to prove your opinions to be true. KJV-only is not a catch-all title. KJV-only is an accurate, clearly-defined term to describe a certain reasoning/teaching concerning the KJV.
    There are many ideas and differences among those whose teaching is identified as Baptist. There are many variations and differences among those whose teaching is described as Calvinist.
    There are differences in the individual opinions in any identified group. You use the same-type terms as KJV-only is to describe the overall teaching of certain groups even though there may be different smaller groups within the larger one.

    Your attempts to smear and dismiss this accurate term KJV-only are wrong and may be based on your own blind, unsupported prejudice. Your attempts to attack and smear the sound use of this accurate term may be a diversionary tactic to avoid presenting a positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true case for your own stated claims for the KJV.

    KJV-only advocates do not support their KJV-only reasoning/teaching with sound arguments or scriptural truths as they cling to blind, unsupported prejudice and showing of partiality and fallacies.

    Erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching has been soundly exposed by use of sound arguments, actual established facts, and scriptural truths.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

      You fail to prove your opinions to be true. KJV-only is not a catch-all title. KJV-only is an accurate, clearly-defined term to describe a certain reasoning/teaching concerning the KJV.
      There are many ideas and differences among those whose teaching is identified as Baptist. There are many variations and differences among those whose teaching is described as Calvinist.
      There are differences in the individual opinions in any identified group. You use the same-type terms as KJV-only is to describe the overall teaching of certain groups even though there may be different smaller groups within the larger one.

      Your attempts to smear and dismiss this accurate term KJV-only are wrong and may be based on your own blind, unsupported prejudice. Your attempts to attack and smear the sound use of this accurate term may be a diversionary tactic to avoid presenting a positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true case for your own stated claims for the KJV.

      KJV-only advocates do not support their KJV-only reasoning/teaching with sound arguments or scriptural truths as they cling to blind, unsupported prejudice and showing of partiality and fallacies.

      Erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching has been soundly exposed by use of sound arguments, actual established facts, and scriptural truths.
      It is much easier for critics of the KJV to slander supporters of the KJV if they can simply dismiss them as being some sort of proponents of the nebulous 'KJVO cult.' Christians should know better than to buy into that unsupported class-action nonsense. We should be able to refute bad doctrine, not just categorize it as evil and then avoid specifics in debate.

      Major argument promoted by opponents of support for the KJV:

      "I don't know why it is wrong but it must be wrong because it seems to me to be KJVO."
      I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

      If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

      For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

      Comment


      • Originally posted by marke View Post
        We should be able to refute bad doctrine, not just categorize it as evil and then avoid specifics in debate.
        Erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching has been exposed and refuted (with specifics, just measures, sound reasoning, and scriptural truths) as being wrong

        It is makers of unproven claims for the KJV who avoid specifics, use of consistent, sound measures, and sound reasoning.

        You do not provide sound specifics in your incorrect attempts to smear sound use of the clearly-defined and accurate term KJV-only.
        Last edited by logos1560; 05-30-18, 11:59 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

          Erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching has been exposed and refuted (with specifics, just measures, sound reasoning, and scriptural truths) as being wrong
          Typical anti-KJV Bible argument: 'KJVO has been defined and refuted in past posts. The end.'

          It is makers of unproven claims for the KJV who avoid specifics, use of consistent, sound measures, and sound reasoning.
          Typical anti-KJV Bible argument: 'Supporters of the KJV make bad arguments, a fact that has been pointed out so many times in the past that there is no need to do so again.'

          You do not provide sound specifics in your incorrect attempts to smear sound use of the clearly-defined and accurate term KJV-only.
          Typical response to support for the KJV: 'You are KJVO so your arguments have never been right. The end.'

          I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

          If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

          For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

          Comment


          • Originally posted by marke View Post

            The KJVO myth is a myth. I am surprised that people still assault the myth as if it is real.
            No, it's REAL,& it IS a myth. it's taught in more than one church. "KJV Only" appears on more than one church shingle. More than one pro-KJVO book has been written.

            What scholars need to do instead is address points of doctrine which people sometimes refer to as KJVO. For example, some have said that the KJV supersedes the original language manuscripts as the new standard for forming all new translations. That is wrong, whether KJV supporters believe it or not. Others say they favor the KJV Bible over all other translations, and some critics call that KJVO. Whether KJVO or not there is nothing wrong with people favoring the KJV over other versions.
            there's PLENTY wrong with telling people the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That's just an outright LIE.

            The term "KJVO" is a hodge-podge of ideas loosely gathered under the catch-all title. Saying an idea is wrong just because some people criticize it as supposedly being "KJVO false doctrine" is not proving an idea to be false doctrine. If the idea is wrong then Bible scholars do well to dismiss it with argument and reason instead of blind unsupported prejudice.
            The point of this thread is that there's NO AUTHORITY supporting the KJVO myth; therefore it's false. Do YOU wanna try to justify it? You never have before.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by roby3 View Post

              No, it's REAL,& it IS a myth. it's taught in more than one church. "KJV Only" appears on more than one church shingle. More than one pro-KJVO book has been written.
              there's PLENTY wrong with telling people the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That's just an outright LIE.

              The point of this thread is that there's NO AUTHORITY supporting the KJVO myth; therefore it's false. Do YOU wanna try to justify it? You never have before.
              KJVOists should not tell people the KJV is the only English translation and anti-KJVists should not tell people God wants them reading, honoring, believing and obeying some other Bible besides the KJV.
              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marke View Post

                KJVOists should not tell people the KJV is the only English translation and anti-KJVists should not tell people God wants them reading, honoring, believing and obeying some other Bible besides the KJV.
                In other words..... just shut up?

                It appears to me that you're just trying to appear reasonable...... when you actually want people to leave the KJV alone.

                Sorry. Can't do that. Its nothing more than the word choices of men driven by a tyrant King who wanted his own version........

                Which, ironically.... is what the KJVOist largely claim most anyone else wants.....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by marke View Post

                  KJVOists should not tell people the KJV is the only English translation...
                  UTTERLY FALSE! This is also called a RED HERRING because it is a distraction, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even the most "Nazi-like KJVOist" knows that there are many English translations

                  Originally posted by marke View Post
                  and anti-KJVists should not tell people God wants them reading, honoring, believing and obeying some other Bible besides the KJV.
                  UTTERLY FALSE! This is also called a RED HERRING because it is simply NOT the case why the ones against KJVO ism post as they do. They uniformly want the KJVOers to see and to understand that their reasons for stating as they do is NOT in keeping with the facts.

                  If they ever come to the point of saying "I understand those facts of history, and transmission of Scripture, but still prefer to read the KJV" then there is no more discussion, and the entire thread can be closed.

                  But as long as the KJVOists rely on third-hand unreliable fables from others, having ZERO supporting evidence, there will be those who seek to show them the facts..
                  MY FOUR APOLOGETIC AXIOMS

                  1. Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time

                  2. We attack lies so others will see the truth; that is proof of our love for all cultists, not our hatred .

                  3. Inconsistency is a tiny hobgoblin haunting every cult

                  4. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire







                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by john t View Post

                    UTTERLY FALSE! This is also called a RED HERRING because it is a distraction, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even the most "Nazi-like KJVOist" knows that there are many English translations
                    You call it a 'red herring.' I call it responding to the exact words of another poster.



                    I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                    If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                    For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by marke View Post
                      You call it a 'red herring.' I call it responding to the exact words of another poster.
                      Please read and understand:

                      Red Herring Examples. In literature, a red herring is an argument or subject that is introduced to divert attention from the real issue or problem. Red herrings are more common in persuasive writing and speech than in fiction.
                      from softschools.com/examples/grammar/red_herring_examples/234/


                      What you stated is EXACTLY that: a DIVERSION

                      Originally posted by marke View Post
                      and anti-KJVists should not tell people God wants them reading, honoring, believing and obeying some other Bible besides the KJV.

                      You were not correct in calling the KJVO position a "myth"

                      Originally posted by marke View Post
                      The KJVO myth is a myth. I am surprised that people still assault the myth as if it is real.
                      and you are not correct here
                      MY FOUR APOLOGETIC AXIOMS

                      1. Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time

                      2. We attack lies so others will see the truth; that is proof of our love for all cultists, not our hatred .

                      3. Inconsistency is a tiny hobgoblin haunting every cult

                      4. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire







                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by john t View Post

                        Please read and understand:

                        Red Herring Examples. In literature, a red herring is an argument or subject that is introduced to divert attention from the real issue or problem. Red herrings are more common in persuasive writing and speech than in fiction.
                        from softschools.com/examples/grammar/red_herring_examples/234/


                        What you stated is EXACTLY that: a DIVERSION




                        You were not correct in calling the KJVO position a "myth"


                        and you are not correct here
                        It seems you and I may disagree on what is and what is not correct in different positions taken by KJVOists and anti-KJVists.
                        I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                        If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                        For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by marke View Post

                          It seems you and I may disagree on what is and what is not correct in different positions taken by KJVOists and anti-KJVists.
                          It is you, who are creating diversions, and attempting to ignore facts. More to the point is that you are OBJECTIFYING us (by calling people INACCURATE and INFLAMMATORY names.)
                          1. ZERO of us who do not hold your position are "against the KJV Bible". That is a misrepresentation of our position, and ZERO of us ever said that.
                          2. Time and time again, we state that we are uniformly against KJV ONLYISM. You seem not to understand that distinction.
                          3. By not understanding that CRITICAL difference your posts muddy the waters and erroneously make fallacious and condescending statements like "The KJVO myth is a myth " https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...40#post5297140
                          I could say more, but I'll not go there. My point remains proved that all of these are mere diversions to the FACTS. NEWER DISCOVERED and thus OLDER MANUSCRIPTS etc are now available when the Textus Receptus (Stephanus of 1550) was written. A refusal to admit that they exist is akin to believing in a flat earth.
                          MY FOUR APOLOGETIC AXIOMS

                          1. Any verse ripped from its context is a pretext 100% of the time

                          2. We attack lies so others will see the truth; that is proof of our love for all cultists, not our hatred .

                          3. Inconsistency is a tiny hobgoblin haunting every cult

                          4. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire







                          Comment


                          • Still, NO KJVO RESPONSES to their dilemma! Thus, their doctrine remains false.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by john t View Post

                              It is you, who are creating diversions, and attempting to ignore facts. More to the point is that you are OBJECTIFYING us (by calling people INACCURATE and INFLAMMATORY names.)
                              1. ZERO of us who do not hold your position are "against the KJV Bible". That is a misrepresentation of our position, and ZERO of us ever said that.
                              1. You use the word "us" as though you and all the opponents of the KJV are on the same page in all aspects. I have not found that to be true.

                              2. Time and time again, we state that we are uniformly against KJV ONLYISM. You seem not to understand that distinction.
                              Some oppose the KJV in opposition to KJVO. I oppose neither the KJV Bible nor those who believe the Bible is an excellent translation of the Word of God.

                            • By not understanding that CRITICAL difference your posts muddy the waters and erroneously make fallacious and condescending statements like "The KJVO myth is a myth " https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...40#post5297140
                            I was responding to a KJV critic who first called KJVO a myth.

                            I could say more, but I'll not go there. My point remains proved that all of these are mere diversions to the FACTS. NEWER DISCOVERED and thus OLDER MANUSCRIPTS etc are now available when the Textus Receptus (Stephanus of 1550) was written. A refusal to admit that they exist is akin to believing in a flat earth.
                            I do not agree with the assumption that little used manuscripts survived longer because they were "better."

                            I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                            If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                            For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by john t View Post

                              It is you, who are creating diversions, and attempting to ignore facts. More to the point is that you are OBJECTIFYING us (by calling people INACCURATE and INFLAMMATORY names.)
                              1. ZERO of us who do not hold your position are "against the KJV Bible". That is a misrepresentation of our position, and ZERO of us ever said that.

                              You use the word "us" as though you and all the opponents of the KJV are on the same page in all aspects. I have not found that to be true.


                              Time and time again, we state that we are uniformly against KJV ONLYISM. You seem not to understand that distinction.


                              Some oppose the KJV in opposition to KJVO. I oppose neither the KJV Bible nor those who believe the Bible is an excellent translation of the Word of God.



                              By not understanding that CRITICAL difference your posts muddy the waters and erroneously make fallacious and condescending statements like "The KJVO myth is a myth " https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...40#post5297140

                              I was responding to a KJV critic who first called KJVO a myth.



                              I could say more, but I'll not go there. My point remains proved that all of these are mere diversions to the FACTS. NEWER DISCOVERED and thus OLDER MANUSCRIPTS etc are now available when the Textus Receptus (Stephanus of 1550) was written. A refusal to admit that they exist is akin to believing in a flat earth.

                              ​​​​​​​I do not agree with the assumption that little used manuscripts survived longer because they were "better."
                              I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                              If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                              For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                              Comment

                              • Working...
                                X