Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

robycop3

New 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

New 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

New 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.
 
Top