User Tag List

Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #61
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    No, you just have a different view of what constitutes scripture than I do. For you "scripture" = "original Bible text." For me, something doesn't have to be part of the original text of the Bible to be scripture. "Scripture" is what the Church has accepted as canonical. That can include text that was added later as long as such text is accepted as inspired, apostolic/prophetic, and binding on believers.

    For example, it doesn't matter whether Paul actually wrote all the letters attributed to him as found in the Bible. Those epistles have been accepted as inspired, apostolic, and canonical and are thus scripture. Whether they are exactly something that Paul wrote or were pieced together later out of oral tradition about what Paul wrote or taught makes no difference. They are still the word of God.

    So for LDS Christians, the Johannine Comma is considered scripture and the word of God whether it was in the autograph or added later.
    Isn't this an oxymoron? LDS and Christian? Satan still the brother of Jesus? Is it still considered that God was not God and then earned his Godhood? Got a planet waiting for you yet?

    Even though I might disagree somewhat with Wil, I think I would rather "unite" with him. I am pretty sure he beleives that Christ was the pre-existing God, always was in eternity past always will be. We will never be Gods in this lifetime or the next.

    I try and figure what someone who follows a man who was greedily looking for lost treasure and found some golden plates buried(which was never proven) and an angel then appeared to him.

    Salvation is by grace through faith! Salvation is only through the Lord Jesus Christ! When he said he had sheep not of this fold, he was talking of Gentiles in general, not Native Americans(which they could be included as Gentiles-they were'nt Jewish)

    When Christ appeared to Saul and converted him, who was an apostle to the Gentiles and appeared to Peter in a vision telling him to eat unclean animals, I think this pretty much fits the bill for Christ appearing to bring sheep of another fold.

    Repent of your sins and accept the only God and Lord Jesus Christ. He died for your sins. It would be a shame to see you die and receive the judgement of God.

    Mormonism is a cult and false religion.

  2. #62
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,397
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    227503
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    No. It was authorized for British, Irish, and French churches.

    France is no longer ruled by the British.

    British monarchies have been broken by democracy.

    The Anglican church has since adopted later translations.

    It was called "authorized" because King James authorized the work for it.

    Surely, if the translators did this without permission from King James and the Anglican church, it would have never been known as "The Authorized Version"
    So, by what authority do people claim that the KJV is God's only "authorized, perfect, inspired and inerrant" translation?
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  3. #63
    Over 1000 post club dreadknought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    just outside the forrest
    Posts
    1,314
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    8033
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    So, by what authority do people claim that the KJV is God's only "authorized, perfect, inspired and inerrant" translation?

    Morning CabinetMaker,

    THAT is the question. I'm awaiting for the answer also.




  4. #64
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    So, by what authority do people claim that the KJV is God's only "authorized, perfect, inspired and inerrant" translation?
    That, you have to get from someone else who beleives it was "authorizes by God"
    I can only tell you where authorized originally came into meaning with the bible in our language.

  5. #65
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    Isn't this an oxymoron? LDS and Christian?
    No.

    ...deleted and ignored the rest of the off-topic rant about my religion...

  6. #66
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,131
    Thanks
    3,417
    Thanked 3,114 Times in 1,853 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Mr. Religion. It is you, my friend, who needs to get his facts straight. You tell us here very plainly that "The passage appeared in the bible for the first time in 1522."

    Uh, need it be pointed out that Wycliffe had the whole passage in his Bible and this was in 1380. That is just a tad before 1522. It was also in the Old Latin, and in other Latin copies.
    Again, you are just too loose with what you think are the facts.

    I will take this entry from the NET bible on the matter over your own:

    "Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 1Jo_5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 1Jo_5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence both external and internal is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, Codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest MS with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 14th century (629), and that MS deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the Textus Receptus (TR) was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (Codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this MS sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus (TR) and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings even in places where the Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (TR) = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (TR) is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others."
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  7. #67
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    So, by what authority do people claim that the KJV is God's only "authorized, perfect, inspired and inerrant" translation?
    It is not by authority, but by theological necessity.

    There exists a tiny group of Christians that believe that God would never allow His word to be corrupted in any way, no matter how trivially or inconsequentially. For them, there simply MUST be a word-perfect text available. The KJV Onlyists sprang into existence when 19th century scholars began the first real work into textual analysis that called into question several beloved verses and when that scholarship became reflected in new versions of the Bible in English. The absolute lightening rod for this was Isaiah 7:14, where new scholarship questioned whether almah should be translated as a "young woman" instead of "virigin." These issues practically caused riots in the early- and mid-20th century, but have since died down as it became incontestably obvious that the KJV readings weren't the most accurate reflection of the autographs.

    KJV Onlyists are the final gasp of certain reactionary elements in fundamentalist Christianity, similar in methodology and isolation to Flat Earth Society members of the mid-20th century, deniers of plainly visible evidence because their ideology has no room for it. Brandplucked does a valiant job here and elsewhere trying to defend his idea, but if you carefully read his arguments you will see that it ultimately comes down to something like "one must accept that the KJV is God's word-inerrant Bible because the alternative means that one must then reject the personal belief that God has promised a word-perfect English Bible."

    It is all about doctrine driving the interpretation of facts and the Bible, not facts and the Bible driving doctrine. "Authority" doesn't figure into this.

  8. #68
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,397
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    227503
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    It is not by authority, but by theological necessity.

    There exists a tiny group of Christians that believe that God would never allow His word to be corrupted in any way, no matter how trivially or inconsequentially. For them, there simply MUST be a word-perfect text available. The KJV Onlyists sprang into existence when 19th century scholars began the first real work into textual analysis that called into question several beloved verses and when that scholarship became reflected in new versions of the Bible in English. The absolute lightening rod for this was Isaiah 7:14, where new scholarship questioned whether almah should be translated as a "young woman" instead of "virigin." These issues practically caused riots in the early- and mid-20th century, but have since died down as it became incontestably obvious that the KJV readings weren't the most accurate reflection of the autographs.

    KJV Onlyists are the final gasp of certain reactionary elements in fundamentalist Christianity, similar in methodology and isolation to Flat Earth Society members of the mid-20th century, deniers of plainly visible evidence because their ideology has no room for it. Brandplucked does a valiant job here and elsewhere trying to defend his idea, but if you carefully read his arguments you will see that it ultimately comes down to something like "one must accept that the KJV is God's word-inerrant Bible because the alternative means that one must then reject the personal belief that God has promised a word-perfect English Bible."

    It is all about doctrine driving the interpretation of facts and the Bible, not facts and the Bible driving doctrine. "Authority" doesn't figure into this.
    It is my understanding that the LDS church believes that all translations are corrupt and that the Book of Mormon corrects the corruption. Is that a correct understanding?
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  9. #69
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    It is my understanding that the LDS church believes that all translations are corrupt and that the Book of Mormon corrects the corruption. Is that a correct understanding?
    No. There is no particular instance in which LDS Christians believe the Bible to be more corrupt than most other Christians (KJV Onlyists not included). I am not aware of any instance of LDS doctrine or apologetics being based on a claim of a corruption of the Bible. LDS Christians DO believe, however, that the Bible does not contain all the inspired words ever written.

    The Book of Mormon does not "correct" the Bible any more than the Gospel of Luke "corrects" the Gospel of Matthew. The Book of Mormon is not inerrant, does not trump the Bible, and is not considered somehow more canonical or more inspired than the Bible.

  10. #70
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,397
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 398 Times in 284 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    227503
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb View Post
    No. There is no particular instance in which LDS Christians believe the Bible to be more corrupt than most other Christians (KJV Onlyists not included). I am not aware of any instance of LDS doctrine or apologetics being based on a claim of a corruption of the Bible. LDS Christians DO believe, however, that the Bible does not contain all the inspired words ever written.

    The Book of Mormon does not "correct" the Bible any more than the Gospel of Luke "corrects" the Gospel of Matthew. The Book of Mormon is not inerrant, does not trump the Bible, and is not considered somehow more canonical or more inspired than the Bible.
    Thanks for explaining that. There is a lot of "information" regarding the LDS church on the internet. Some is accurate. Some is not.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  11. #71
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M
    That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds....Ask somebody that reads hebrew. They can't all be wrong about "suphs".
    Hi Nick, greetings.

    The Hebrew speakers have all sorts of interesting ideas, historically and etymologically and rabbinically and exegetically about this, and we could go into that later. (You might start with the b-hebrew thread in 2004 for a bit of this background.) We can include in the study the fascinating history of the names of the waters in the region, and all the verses in the Tanach (OT) that reference Yam Suph and the historical name understandings around the time of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ when both the Tanach and the NT were translated into other languages.

    Please, let me ask you one question first.

    Did you ask the Holy Spirit, speaking through Luke and the author of Hebrews, know what is the name of the sea through which the Israelites passed and which drowned Pharoah's army ?

    Acts 7:36
    He brought them out,
    after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt,
    and in the Red sea,
    and in the wilderness forty years.

    Hebrews 11:29
    By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land:
    which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.


    Nick, do you have a different understanding and reading of the inspired and pure New Testament text ? Do you have a pure and perfect Bible ?

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  12. #72
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    177

    By faith they passed through the Red sea

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick M
    That right there is easy to show wrong. The Red Sea was not crossed, but a sea of reeds....Ask somebody that reads hebrew. They can't all be wrong about "suphs".
    Hi Nick, greetings.

    The Hebrew speakers have all sorts of interesting ideas, historically and etymologically and rabbinically and exegetically about this, and we could go into that more later if you like. (You might start with the b-hebrew thread in 2004 for a bit of this background.) We can include in the study the fascinating history of the names of the waters in the region, and all the verses in the Tanach (OT) that reference Yam Suph and also the historical name understandings around the time of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ when both the Tanach and the NT were translated into other languages.

    Please, let me ask you one question first.

    Rather than just ask a few differing modern scholars of sorts .. did you ask whether the Holy Spirit, speaking through Luke and the author of Hebrews, knew what is the name of the sea through which the Israelites passed and which drowned Pharoah's army ?

    Acts 7:36
    He brought them out,
    after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt,
    and in the Red sea,
    and in the wilderness forty years.

    Hebrews 11:29
    By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land:
    which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.


    Nick, do you have a different understanding and reading of the inspired and pure New Testament text ? Do you have a pure and perfect Bible ?

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  13. #73
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    177

    LDS - as far as it is translated correctly

    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
    There is a lot of "information" regarding the LDS church on the internet. Some is accurate. Some is not.
    Hi CabinetMaker,

    This site gives the basic situation in a nutshell. To the true-blue LDS the BOM will trump the word of God, there is no concern about "translated correctly" with the BOM, while there is for the Bible.

    http://www.bible-truth.org/LDS8tharticle.html
    LDS view.
    "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;
    we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

    In fact, the LDS does not really believe that corruption is only in translation.
    Even Joseph Smith made that crystal clear ... .

    "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.. .From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled" (Translation of Prophet Joseph Smith).


    In fact the use of the word "translated correctly" today can be considered as only trickery, if it is meant to imply to the Christian hearer that the LDS view is that the underlying Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic texts are pure.

    As the LDS itself acknowledges that this is not their view.

    http://www.lds.net/forums/98580-post22.html
    Joseph Smith often used the words "translated" and "translation," not in the narrow sense alone of rendering a text from one language into another, but in the wider senses of "transmission," having reference to copying, editing, adding to, taking from, rephrasing, and interpreting. This is substantially beyond the usual meaning of "translation." When he said the Bible was not translated correctly, he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission. Thus, the available texts of the Bible are neither as complete nor as accurate as when first written.


    It is possible that the LDS poster here is not really aware of the view of his own group.

    Granted, the modern versionist abject confusion about :

    "inerrancy only in the original autographs",

    .. purity only in an unknown and unknowable and ethereal text, does have some similarities and overlap with the LDS view. Joseph Smith simply being a more extreme corruptionist than the textcrits who are alexandrian modern-versionist corruptionists. Yes, they do have similarities in viewpoint about the Bible.

    While the King James Bible believer, like Will Kinney in the dialogue, affirms that we have God's pure and perfect word, inspired and preserved !

    Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure and perfect word !

    Psalm 12:6-7
    The words of the LORD are pure words:
    as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
    thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

    PS.
    Apologies for the double post above, newbie. I was hoping to be able to delete the first. Perhaps the moderator can so delete ?



  14. #74
    One Post Wonder
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    Evening Will,

    Don't worry, I am not concerned about anything you say about me personally. I'll lose no sleep over it. But your "KJVO cultish" tactics have been outlined already for your childish attacks that change the subject at hand. Honestly, it's become quite boring.
    Like your trinity statement. If you knew the meaning of the witnesses of the blood, water and Spirit in context with the whole chapter, you would see that this addition to the verse does not fit. But the first thing that comes to mind for you is to defend the nature of God instead of defending the witness of the Father's Christ. Good one! 1John 5:11 And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. This discourse in 1 John 5 has nothing to do with the trinity.

    As for the next part of the KJVO playbook you ask for the perfectly inpired Word of God. The original autographs in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic contain the inspired Word of God.

    As the rest of the peanut gallery can see you clearly Will, you have changed the subject from supporting your claim to proclaiming something else. Have at it. The controversy you promote is not of Christ. You've clearly placed a limit to how the Lord can communicate to all peoples of all languages in different translations by claiming only the Kings English is perfectly preserved. Doubts and division. How bogus! You can't even accept the NKJV from your viewpoint. That's a shame.


    God bless,
    bereancam

  15. #75
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    177

    the fallacy of claiming false logical fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb
    And you are a KJV-Onlyist, so it is not hard to understand why you would want 1 John 5:7 to stand in the Bible despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. See? The ad hominem fallacy works both ways.
    Hi Paul,

    Actually, again, there was no ad homiem involved at all in Will's sharing. He did not attack you personally, nor did he say that your position was invalid because of personal failings of yours, either moral or doctrinal. Will simply pointed out en passant a doctrinal connection of interest to the conversation.

    In fact, to link doctrinal views and textual views is not ad hominem at all, whether the linkage is 100% true and accurate and broad-based or not.

    e.g. If we point out that opponents of the King James Bible as fully pure are often textual liberals and higher critics who see 2 Peter and/or the Pastorals (e.g. Bruce Metzger) as defacto forgeries (and maybe even other Bible writings) that is opening up an important discussion and understanding of positions. Yet there is no ad hominem involved in sharing about such a frequent linkage. And it is perfectly proper for the anti-KJB-as-pure-scripture person to give examples that do not fit the frequent mold for counterpoint, and to state their own position. (By contrast I have never heard of a single pure-KJB person who considers the first-person accounts in the letters ascribed to Peter and Paul in the NT as untruthful. It would be impossible to a King James Bible receiver/believer for disinformation of that nature to be in God's pure word.)

    So the linkage is simply an attempt to place views in wider context. You would do well to understand logical fallacies a bit better before you repeatedly falsely accuse.

    Returning to the Johannine Comma, in fact one of the strongest stances historically for the Johannine Comma was by a biblical unitarian who saw the Johannine Comma as God's pure word. So we should avoid assuming too much all the time about doctrinal linkages, they are often helpful but can be overdone in textual matters.

    The fundamental issue is whether God has given us his pure and perfect word, the plumbline for all doctrine and faith. If we do not have his pure word, ultimately everything is negotiable.

    Interestingly, in my case, it was actually studying the Johannine Comma closely, textually and historically and grammatical and seeking consistency and reading the church writers and comparing the paradigmic theories of the text -- that helped bring me to the acceptance of the King James Bible as the pure word of God.

    So your fallacy claim above (as often used by many) would be towards me, would be a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us