Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

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

  • Still, no Scripture supporting the KJVO myth. Thus, it's not true.

    Fine to *PREFER* the KJV or any other valid version, but to say one's pet version is the ONLY valid one simply isn't true.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robycop3 View Post
      Still, no Scripture supporting the KJVO myth. Thus, it's not true.
      This is an argument from silence. A logical fallacy.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        This is an argument from silence. A logical fallacy.
        No, not at all. ALL doctrines of faith/worship must be supported by Scripture to be true, & if there was any for the KJVO myth, someone would've cited it long ago.

        The fallacy is the non-Scriptural KJVO myth.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by robycop3 View Post
          Still, no Scripture supporting the KJVO myth. Thus, it's not true.
          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
          This is an argument from silence. A logical fallacy.
          Originally posted by robycop3 View Post
          No, not at all.
          Denying it doesn't change the fact that your argument is, by definition, an argument from silence.

          I agree with your position, I'm just pointing out that your argument is fallacious, and you should be more careful about how you argue your position.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Denying it doesn't change the fact that your argument is, by definition, an argument from silence.

            I agree with your position, I'm just pointing out that your argument is fallacious, and you should be more careful about how you argue your position.
            Seems to be a pretty good argument, as no KJVO has tried to counter it.

            I've had "oneness pentecostals" use a "silent" argument against the existence of the Holy Trinity by saying the word "trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture. That's mainly because it's an English word derived from the Latin "trinitatem". (Which doesn't appear in Scripture,either.) But the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is there, from clear implication, such as in the story of Jesus' baptism.

            However, there's NO Scriptural implication for the KJVO myth, or for any other "one-version-only" myth for any language. We see JESUS reading aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, calling it "this Scripture". So, I'll continue to wait for any KJVO legitimate response to the "no Scriptural support" fact. I sometimes take another tack & ask KJVOs to please show us the SOURCE for KJVO.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by robycop3 View Post
              Still, no Scripture supporting the KJVO myth. Thus, it's not true.

              Fine to *PREFER* the KJV or any other valid version, but to say one's pet version is the ONLY valid one simply isn't true.
              No Scripture supporting the light bulb. Must not be true.
              Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

              It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

              Comment


              • Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
                No Scripture supporting the light bulb. Must not be true.
                No light bulbs in the Bible, either !

                Please note, Readers, that Mr. Kinney nor any other KJVO has responded to this FACT that makes the KJVO myth a myth & untrue.

                Comment

                Working...
                X