Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

Brother Vinny

Active member
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!

As already stated, there are KJVO-ists who are vehemently opposed to MAD, and to dispensationalism in general.

AFAICT, the KJB cannot be shown to settle any particular doctrinal dispute (I welcome correction if I'm wrong), and causes unnecessary division.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
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?
:up:

I can think of a number of examples, like forgiveness. Luke 17:3 KJV instead of our pattern for forgiving one another which is Ephesians 4:32 KJV

and/or

hijacking 1 John 1:9 KJV instead of preaching Colossians 2:13 KJV

Or how about holding someone's sins against them in preaching 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV conveniently leaving out verse 11 or the fact of 2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV?
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
As already stated, there are KJVO-ists who are vehemently opposed to MAD, and to dispensationalism in general.
Then stop lumping us all together. ANd why act as if all KJB bible believers are like that of WBC? Ridiculous!

AFAICT, the KJB cannot be shown to settle any particular doctrinal dispute (I welcome correction if I'm wrong), and causes unnecessary division.
It will never settle doctrinal disputes as there will always be men and women who refuse to make it their final authority and those who rebel against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV. We see it every day on TOL.

You can't hold it against God when believing His words can settle an enormous amount of confusion caused by religious, denominational stinking thinking ingrained in countless so called "Christians".
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The non-KJO movement does seem to attract unbalanced people.

There is no "non-KJVO movement"

There is only a "KJVO movement", and King James Version Onlyism was founded in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist.

Scripture has existed without the KJB ever since there has been scripture, and it will always exist without the KJB.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
What would you do without wikipedia?

I challenged Will Kinney, and every KJVOist to show any article written before 1930 that advocates King James Onlyism.

Will couldn't do it, and neither has anyone else.

King James Onlyism didn't exist before an SDA invented it. King James Onlyism was invented to protect SDA.

You and heir should really do some research into the "isms" the two of you parrot.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
What would you do without wikipedia?

If you go to wikipedia and type "King James Only Movement", you'll get a whole page about it.

If you go to wikipedia and type "non-King James Only Movement", you'll get nothing.

heir likes to make up phrases while defending her "isms"
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
If you go to wikipedia and type "King James Only Movement", you'll get a whole page about it.

If you go to wikipedia and type "non-King James Only Movement", you'll get nothing.

heir likes to make up phrases while defending her "isms"

Did it occur to you that heir was using someone else's own terminology , with a twist, to make a point?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If it is on wiki and planet preterist, I'm sure it's solid.

Wikipedia says the capital of North Carolina is Raleigh. Is that correct?

You act like Wikipedia is wrong 100% of the time.

All you have to do is show us one article written before 1930 that is about King James Onlyism.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Did it occur to you that heir was using someone else's own terminology , with a twist, to make a point?

Sherman used the term "King James Onlyism Movement". That is a correct term.

There is no such thing as "non-King James Onlyism Movement".
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
heir made up the phrase "Paul's, my gospel". She uses it a lot.

Why would I think "non-King James Only Movement" is any different?

Although, as you all know, I am against the KJVO position, I have to agree with STP and Heir here. Her use was a parody. People may privately believe that KJVonlyism is pathological, but it doesn't much help their case if they state it publicly. There are a great many substantive arguments against KJVOnlyism without having to drag this one up.
 
Top