Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

robycop3

Member
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.
 

robycop3

Member
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.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

robycop3

Member
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.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
... 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.
It's from the Apostles. The Bible is consistent with the Trinity, and the Apostles taught the Trinity.
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.
It's not from the Apostles. Everything from the Apostles is ancient, any notion that dates to long after the Apostolic era, is not Apostolic because it cannot be Apostolic.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
I agree. The truth is done no favors when it is argued poorly.

A skilled debater could flip an argument from silence fallacy against someone who uses it because if you are arguing that silence is something other than silence then why do you get to declare what the silence means? Why couldn't the bible's silence mean the opposite of what RC3 is suggesting and by what means would RC3 be able to prove it either way? He couldn't, which is just the whole point.

RC3's better argument is when he points out that Jesus quoted from a foreign language translation when He had immediate access to the original. That seems to count as legitimate affirmative evidence for the case against KJV onlyism and he should stick with that.

Clete
 

Dartman

Active member
Temp Banned
It's from the Apostles. The Bible is consistent with the Trinity, and the Apostles taught the Trinity.

It's not from the Apostles. Everything from the Apostles is ancient, any notion that dates to long after the Apostolic era, is not Apostolic because it cannot be Apostolic.
The Scriptures never state the trinity, describe the trinity, or explain the trinity. Your assertion that the Apostles taught the trinity has zero Scriptural support.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The Scriptures never state the trinity, describe the trinity, or explain the trinity. Your assertion that the Apostles taught the trinity has zero Scriptural support.

Saying it doesn't make it so.
 

Dartman

Active member
Temp Banned
Nope. The fact that there isn't a single verse that explains, states or describes a single teaching that is unique to the trinity, is what makes my post accurate.
 

Dartman

Active member
Temp Banned
By stark contrast, the Scriptures repeatedly state that YHVH God alone is the true God. Jesus himself stated that his Father is Christ's God, and is the ... only ..... the only ..... "true God".
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Nope. The fact that there isn't a single verse that explains, states or describes a single teaching that is unique to the trinity, is what makes my post accurate.

So what?

Doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach that God is triune.

By stark contrast, the Scriptures repeatedly state that YHVH God alone is the true God.

Trinitarians agree with this.

So what's your point?

Jesus himself stated that his Father is Christ's God, and is the ... only ..... the only ..... "true God".

Again, we agree. Jesus, as a man, stated that His Father, Who is not nor has been nor will ever be a man, is "the only true God." This does not preclude, however, Jesus from also being "the only true God." The problem is that you assume (wrongly) that therefore Jesus is not that same "one true God," when the very scripture you refer to, as well as other scriptural passages, indicates or allows that He is.

For the record, do you claim that Jesus is not God? Yes or no?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
The Scriptures never state the trinity, describe the trinity, or explain the trinity. Your assertion that the Apostles taught the trinity has zero Scriptural support.
In Mark 2:6-7 certain of the scribes complain, "Only God can do that!"
In Mark 2:8-12 Jesus says, "I AM God!"

Paraphrasing, of course.

"zero Scriptural support" lol.
 

Dartman

Active member
Temp Banned
So what?

Doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach that God is triune.
Of course the utter lack of Scripture stating trinitarian theory means the theory isn't Biblical.
Trinitarians agree with this.
The trinity denies that the Father is the .... only .... true God.
The trinitarian position contradicts the Scripture, the reality of God's creation and rational thought.
IF trinitarian theory WAS correct, Jesus would have HAD to say "WE are the only true God".


So what's your point?



Again, we agree. Jesus, as a man, stated that His Father, Who is not nor has been nor will ever be a man, is "the only true God." This does not preclude, however, Jesus from also being "the only true God."
Hogwash. Your assertion denies the very meaning of the words Jesus stated.


The problem is that you assume (wrongly) that therefore Jesus is not that same "one true God," when the very scripture you refer to, as well as other scriptural passages, indicates or allows that He is.
Please support your assertion.

For the record, do you claim that Jesus is not God? Yes or no?
Jesus is not, never has been, and never will be .... "co-equal, co-eternal, or con-substantial" with his God.
Jesus, as one of the rulers of Israel, certainly qualifies as "god" per Psa 82, Psa 45, John 10:34,35 and Heb 1:8-9.
For the record, you are admitting that the Scriptures never state, explain or describe trinitarian theory?
 

Dartman

Active member
Temp Banned
In Mark 2:6-7 certain of the scribes complain, "Only God can do that!"
In Mark 2:8-12 Jesus says, "I AM God!"

Paraphrasing, of course.

"zero Scriptural support" lol.
"Paraphrasing" is an understatement!
You are endorsing the erroneous thinking of the scribes, while altering Christ's statement. Jesus purely stated that he had power to heal and forgive:
John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
"Paraphrasing" is an understatement!
You are endorsing the erroneous thinking of the scribes, while altering Christ's statement. Jesus purely stated that he had power to heal and forgive:
John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
lol you're silly! The scribes knew the Scripture! They knew that no man can forgive sins----they knew the Scripture! Now, here's a Man Who forgives sins? Who can forgive sins? Ask the scribes! They knew the Scripture!

You!

... do not.
 

Dartman

Active member
Temp Banned
lol you're silly! The scribes knew the Scripture! They knew that no man can forgive sins----they knew the Scripture! Now, here's a Man Who forgives sins? Who can forgive sins? Ask the scribes! They knew the Scripture!

You!

... do not.
Sorry, if the scribes knew the Scriptures so well, Jesus wouldn't have told them:
John 5:38-39 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

As to their conclusion, (which you erroneously endorse), please show Scripture where YHVH God CANNOT give the authority to His chosen servant.

By contrast, Jesus stated that his God DID give him all authority and power!
Luke 4:18-21 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Sorry, if the scribes knew the Scriptures so well, Jesus wouldn't have told them:
John 5:38-39 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

As to their conclusion, (which you erroneously endorse), please show Scripture where YHVH God CANNOT give the authority to His chosen servant.

By contrast, Jesus stated that his God DID give him all authority and power!
Luke 4:18-21 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


.
Oh oh oh! And also, "I and My Father are One." John 10:30
 
Top