Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Sherman said:
I have family members that have recently left a KJVO church because of emotional abuse by mentally ill members in that church. The KJVO movement does seem to attract unbalanced people.
Click to expand...

I'm so sorry to hear that Sherman, and I hope that they've escaped to a church that is neither superstitious nor cultish.

- Bob
 
Last edited:
Bob Enyart

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Desert Reign said:
Yes, agree entirely. It's like today when you write something and yu make a mittake or two. And you call it a 'typo'. It's exactly like when children proclaim 'I didn't mean it!'

At the back of this is that old Platonic philosophy: ever the notion that there is a perfect example of everything in cyberspace somewhere. 100% inerrancy is just such a fundamentally Platonic idea. The perfect soul emprisoned in the dreadful and damnable physical body. In all areas of life, adherents of this philosophy must live in utter frustration. You can't so much as sit down on a chair without it being an imperfect one. Your thoughts are constantly drawn to how bad it is as a chair; you see all the imperfections in the grain of the wood, the creaking movements, the stains from spilt coffee and so on.

We, however, as opennists, (perhaps I should say realists, meaning that we believe in just one world, not two) take the world as God's very good creation. It is there to be enjoyed. It is after all, all we have. 100% inerrancy is an affirmation that the real world which God has made, and in particular his work of inspiration of men to make the scriptures, is not good enough.

And you would have to ask KJVOnlyists how far the concept of inerrancy goes. For example, if you have two words which in the context are synonymous such as 'Remain here until I tell you!' against 'Stay here until I tell you'. Now on what basis would you say that one version was inerrant but the other was not? This is very relevant to KJVO discussion because in 1611 it was a totally accepted feature of the language that written words did not need to be consistent in their spelling. But by 1769, the language had definitely changed. I mean, I would say that the notion that spelling should be consistent was a significant difference in the language. And not only were the spellings rationalised but vocabulary choices were also made. Clearly, the 1769 versions were not identical with the 1611 ones, no matter how much KJVOnlyists argue that only cosmetic changes were made. If they argue that a vocabulary change was not a significant change then that is an admission that inerrancy is limited to the underlying meaning of a text, not the actual words used to express it. And if the inerrant text can be happily altered to suit changes in the language, then why can it not again be altered? Once again, the Platonic principle in operation.
Click to expand...

DR, it is posts like this that have led me to go back to your One-to-One with Lon right here in the Coliseum on TOL which debated openness vs. reformed hermeneutics. So far I am enjoying, and being edified, by your posts. Thanks for that effort! -Bob
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
brandplucked said:
We must all eventually stand before God to give an account. If we see any truth at all, it is all by His sovereign grace. I would rather stand before Him having believed and defended the inerrancy of His Book, a real Book I can hold in my hands and read and tell anyone else where to get one too, than to be one who sowed doubt, uncertainty and confusion about what His words are or where they can be found.
Click to expand...
Because of your stand on the KJV, in the Judgment, God will say, "You never really believed there ever was such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, translated or untranslated. So, why did you choose to put that condition for belief as a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in your brother's way?"
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
False Prophet said:
Sophistry seems to be the norm on this board, and the KJV seems to be the pulprit.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame the KJV per se. It's just that the KJV is such a fine translation that it's perhaps not surprising that a cult-like belief system has developed around it.
 
George Affleck

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
brandplucked said:
And then Bob E. has the chutzpah to imply that we Bible believers are somehow mentally unbalanced!
Click to expand...

Not just that. There must be a Ruckmanite hidden inside every one who believes God has, indeed, preserved His words and given them to English speaking people. They're a little 'tetched in the head. Be very afraid of them!

Here's what I originally, and rightly, objected to:

Will Kinney’s defense of the KJV’s contradictory “Thou shalt not kill/murder” (Ex. 20:13 / Mat. 19:18) led us straight to the KJO leader Peter Ruckman’s grotesque claim that dismembering the tiniest boys and girls in their mother’s wombs
Click to expand...

No it didn't. They went there because they wanted to go there. The specific design of a comment like this is to go outside of the bounds of the debate to gain points with undiscriminating readers. It is a very skilfully crafted ruse to castigate their opponent based on someone else's wrong beliefs. They may have fooled some, but for me, that was the end of the debate. A red herring always has that 'fishy' smell that lingers...

The unstated inverse, however, is just as untrue. Once having tied Mr. Kinney to Ruckman, its a walk in the park for the gullible to assume that Mr. Enyart and Mr. Duffy wear the only white hats in town and deserve to be believed on that basis alone. Especially if you can hide your magic by spilling a bottle of "tiniest boys and girls" blood at the scene.

I wonder how it would be received if I said something like; "Mr. Enyart's profession led me straight to the self-proclaimed "King of All Media", Howard Stern whose obnoxiousness and juvenile humour is evidence that radio hosts share a common lack of brain cells and wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over it".
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
Sherman said:
I have family members that have recently left a KJVO church because of emotional abuse by mentally ill members in that church. The KJVO movement does seem to attract unbalanced people.
Click to expand...

My family left a non-KJO church because of emotional abuse by mentally ill members in that church. The non-KJO movement does seem to attract unbalanced people.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
Sherman said:
Sadly, I have KJVO relatives.
Click to expand...

You're sad that they believe the KJ bible only? Why? What is it to you if they believe they have the pure words of the Lord and all scripture? Instead of being saddened by it, why not preach the word with all long suffering and doctrine with them. If they're going to take God at His word(s) believing they mean what they say, as they say it and to whom they say it, there's no end to what you can show them!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
heir said:
My family left a non-KJO church because of emotional abuse by mentally ill members in that church. The non-KJO movement does seem to attract unbalanced people.
Click to expand...

I suspect the percentage of mentally ill within the group of KJB believers would match all other churches and society in general.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
I'm wondering when being a Bible believer became a greater stigma than being a registered sex offender.
Click to expand...
You can't have bible believing folk in your assembly or midst when you're trying to sell them something contrary to wholesome words/the ministry of reconciliation in the dispensation of the grace of God!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
heir said:
You can't have bible believing folk in your assembly or midst when you're trying to sell them something contrary to wholesome words/the ministry of reconciliation in the dispensation of the grace of God!
Click to expand...

Like focusing on this,

Romans 1
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



But ignoring the next verses,

Romans 2
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top