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! NEW version

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

    You are stating your own subjective, personal, non-scriptural opinion.

    Marke, you do not answer nor refute the clear scriptural truths which expose the actual problems with modern, man-made, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.
    Of course I don't refute what has not yet been posted.
    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

      Of course I don't refute what has not yet been posted.
      You do not answer nor refute what has been clearly and actually posted over and over. You merely close your eyes or avoid what has been posted.

      No one asked you to answer nor refute what has not been posted as you incorrectly suggest in your bogus claim.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
        Agreed.

        So you oppose the KJVO doctrine?????
        Originally posted by marke View Post

        I have been accused of being KJVO for favoring the KJV above other versions, but then other people claim that is not right. So what exactly is "the KJVO doctrine" specifically? Can you explain it in terms which sum up the whole false doctrine in simple terms?
        The question was very simple, Marke!

        Please cease your equivocating because you are attempting to butter both sides of your bread. How about for ONCE making up a chart, and submitting it. Use the table tools on the right side of the toolbar to make a chart, and call it "KJVO ism"

        Chart for KJVO ism
        Things I like about KJVO ism Things I do not like about KJVO ism
        1 1
        2 2
        When you do that, you get to define what you believe is the nature of KJVO ism.

        When you start the table, make 2 columns and 10 rows. If you make the column titles as I did, that will give you 9 things to say in favor about what you both like and dislike in your understanding of KJVO ism. It really is not too hard to do, and surely it will help the discussion go better than it has for the last 100 years. (hyperbole).
        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 marke View Post
          Originally posted by Trucker View Post
          Agreed.

          So you oppose the KJVO doctrine?????
          I have been accused of being KJVO for favoring the KJV above other versions, but then other people claim that is not right. So what exactly is "the KJVO doctrine" specifically? Can you explain it in terms which sum up the whole false doctrine in simple terms?
          You're not yet ready to simply, for one example, say Easter [Acts 12:4] is wrong so you're not yet ready to deny King James ONLYISM. No amount of subtly worded posts can conceal that fact.
          Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

          Comment


          • Originally posted by marke View Post
            So what exactly is "the KJVO doctrine" specifically? Can you explain it in terms which sum up the whole false doctrine in simple terms?
            The accurate term KJV-only has been soundly defined and explained in simple terms for you several times, but you may refuse to understand it or else you try to misrepresent it.

            Are you unable to understand that KJV-only doctrine would concern non-scriptural teaching concerning the KJV?

            The accurate term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for one English Bible translation—the KJV.

            Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English.

            While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles.

            It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they make any exclusive, only claims for the KJV.

            Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible would be KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would qualify as being a KJV-only view.
            The inconsistent rejection of the Geneva Bible or the NKJV as being the word of God translated into English in the same sense as is claimed for the KJV may indicate the acceptance of a KJV-only view.
            Last edited by logos1560; 11-25-18, 08:33 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by john t View Post



              The question was very simple, Marke!

              Please cease your equivocating because you are attempting to butter both sides of your bread. How about for ONCE making up a chart, and submitting it. Use the table tools on the right side of the toolbar to make a chart, and call it "KJVO ism"

              Chart for KJVO ism
              Things I like about KJVO ism Things I do not like about KJVO ism
              1 1
              2 2
              When you do that, you get to define what you believe is the nature of KJVO ism.

              When you start the table, make 2 columns and 10 rows. If you make the column titles as I did, that will give you 9 things to say in favor about what you both like and dislike in your understanding of KJVO ism. It really is not too hard to do, and surely it will help the discussion go better than it has for the last 100 years. (hyperbole).
              I don't know how to draw charts here. Let me just say this: I have heard certain ideas called KJVO. Of those ideas called KJVO here are a few I disagree with:

              1. The KJV is more inspired than the originals.
              2. The KJV has replaced the originals.
              3. Every word of the KJV is divinely inspired to the very jots and tittles in every spelling.
              4. Anyone reading any other version of the Bible is a heretic.

              Now here are some ideas called KJVO that I do agree with:

              1. God motivated its translation into English.
              2. God has preserved His Word forever.
              3. God expects Christians to honor the written Word of God and to believe and obey every word of the Bible.
              4. God has motivated Christians to use the KJV for the Word of God for more than 400 years.

              And so forth.
              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 Trucker View Post

                You're not yet ready to simply, for one example, say Easter [Acts 12:4] is wrong so you're not yet ready to deny King James ONLYISM. No amount of subtly worded posts can conceal that fact.
                If accepting the word "Easter" is KJVO then I agree with that particular KJVO point.
                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 logos1560 View Post

                  The accurate term KJV-only has been soundly defined and explained in simple terms for you several times, but you may refuse to understand it or else you try to misrepresent it.

                  Are you unable to understand that KJV-only doctrine would concern non-scriptural teaching concerning the KJV?

                  The accurate term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for one English Bible translation—the KJV.

                  Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English.

                  While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles.

                  It is not reading only the KJV that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. It is not using only the KJV in teaching or preaching that would be considered to constitute a KJV-only view. A KJV-only view would concern a person’s beliefs, opinions, and claims concerning the KJV, not his reading only it or using only it in teaching or preaching. Someone can accept the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus and still be KJV-only if they make any exclusive, only claims for the KJV.

                  Any view that suggests or implies perfection, inerrancy, or inspiration for the KJV and any view that supposes or assumes that its translating is the word of God in a different sense (equivocally) than any other English Bible would be KJV-only. The subjective opinion or unproven assumption that the KJV alone is a perfect English translation or that the KJV is the final authority would be a KJV-only view. The subjective opinion that the KJV is the only faithful and true English translation would qualify as being a KJV-only view.
                  The inconsistent rejection of the Geneva Bible or the NKJV as being the word of God translated into English in the same sense as is claimed for the KJV may indicate the acceptance of a KJV-only view.
                  Every translation of the Bible is different. How can all claims be made "equal" if all translations are different? Is the NWT translation to be considered an excellent translation , to be fair and equal, if we consider the KJV to be an excellent translation? No, not at all.
                  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
                    Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                    You're not yet ready to simply, for one example, say Easter [Acts 12:4] is wrong so you're not yet ready to deny King James ONLYISM. No amount of subtly worded posts can conceal that fact.
                    If accepting the word "Easter" is KJVO then I agree with that particular KJVO point.
                    Spoken like a true King James ONLYIST ... after years of the verbal dodge ball routine!!
                    Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                      Spoken like a true King James ONLYIST ... after years of the verbal dodge ball routine!!
                      So, believing "Easter" is an acceptable translation is a KJVO false doctrinal error? How is that explained by the other translations which translated the word "Easter" as well?
                      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
                        How can all claims be made "equal" if all translations are different? Is the NWT translation to be considered an excellent translation , to be fair and equal, if we consider the KJV to be an excellent translation? No, not at all.
                        Your question is bogus, and it does not deal justly with what I stated. I nowhere claim that all Bible translations are equal or that all claims are equal. Applying sound just measures in agreement with scriptural truth is not making all Bible translations equal. None of my statements at all suggest your bogus improper misrepresentation and distortion that supposedly the NWT would have to be considered an excellent translation. Your response does not deal with what I actually state.

                        Some Bible translations are more accurate overall in their translating when they are justly compared by use of just measures/standards to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                          Your question is bogus, and it does not deal justly with what I stated. I nowhere claim that all Bible translations are equal or that all claims are equal. Applying sound just measures in agreement with scriptural truth is not making all Bible translations equal. None of my statements at all suggest your bogus improper misrepresentation and distortion that supposedly the NWT would have to be considered an excellent translation. Your response does not deal with what I actually state.

                          Some Bible translations are more accurate overall in their translating when they are justly compared by use of just measures/standards to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
                          You are right. I have no idea what your point is about just measures/standards. I believe every word of the KJV Bible. I don't even read other Bibles. If you think that is wrong then I am sorry but I will continue to do what I believe pleases the Lord, not men.
                          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 are right. I have no idea what your point is about just measures/standards. I believe every word of the KJV Bible. I don't even read other Bibles. If you think that is wrong then I am sorry but I will continue to do what I believe pleases the Lord, not men.
                            Thanks for admitting that you should read only the KJV is guesswork on your part.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marke View Post

                              You are right. I have no idea what your point is about just measures/standards. I believe every word of the KJV Bible. I don't even read other Bibles. If you think that is wrong then I am sorry but I will continue to do what I believe pleases the Lord, not men.
                              So, you even believe the PROVEN GOOFS in the KJV, such as the oft-discussed "Easter" one? That's not too smart.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by marke View Post
                                . If you think that is wrong then I am sorry but I will continue to do what I believe pleases the Lord, not men.
                                Some of your posts would indicate that at times you seek to please men, at least you yourself. You follow your own preconceived, non-scriptural opinions concerning the KJV.

                                Where do the Scriptures state or teach that your posts that when you choose to follow your own subjective, biased, non-scriptural opinions it would be actually pleasing the Lord?



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X