When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html ^

[G Larry]

PING1

[scripter]

I thought Scripter and I were on opposing sides, but he's complimenting me now. I must have done something wrong.

Unless you've come to your senses we are still on opposing sides! :-)

Seriously, just because I disagree with you, and vehemently at that, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate your zeal for the Lord or His word.

It grieves my spirit to read the way fellow Christians treat each other on some of these threads. Romans 12:18 and Matthew 7:12 seem to have long been forgotten here.

[scripter]

Again you really make me wonder if you're being disengenuous or purposely ambiguous.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

It was Frances Schaffer’s son Franky. 622 posted on 08/27/2003 12:09 AM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ("I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum!" -Roddy Piper)

Yeah, exactly... See #617 (beat ya to it, hah hah).

What can I say, out reflexed by somebody (barely) young enough to be my son. (sigh) I suppose that is why they don’t put old men on the front lines of either debate or combat, we don’t react as quickly, and it takes longer to recover physically and mentally.

You know, CDL, I'm beginning to think that we should just tag-team these threads:

• I was trained by the infamous "David K", the Terror of the National Debate Circuit -- I'm happy to say he loved me, "apple of his eye" (it's been ten years and even now his name still inspires fear -- it's actually kinda funny)... whereas you, you actually debated against him in Competition.
  
  
• You know everything I know, except that you're a Born Calvinist (and they say infant baptism "doesn't matter"), faithful to Blood and Family (not that there's anything wrong with that - I Cor 7:14); whereas I'm a White Trash, wrong-side-of-the-tracks, "Zealotry of the Convert" kinda guy.

We really should just tag-team. Otherwise, it's not even fair.

FAIR???? You do realise of course, that there are already a great number of people out there who believe that you and I are actually the same person? It is of course, not true, ~the difference in styles is self evident to anyone with eyes~ it should have been self-evident on those rare occasions where we have faced each other in "mortal combat".

I'll buy the beer, you debate. Next round, you buy the beer, I'll debate. My only demand is the Second AFF Constructive. Everyone has their virtues -- I couldn't always handle the Negative Block when we switched speakers (and my partner never could, grumble grumble)... but I own the Second AFF Constructive. Most of the debates I ever won (and I did win a few, on my way to the Nationals) stopped right there -- GAME OVER, halfway through.

i usually took the first affirmitive myself, simply because i’m far more brutal, and being older even back then, (i was in my thirties in college) i had skin like a rino, and was extremely good at turning cross exam against the Negative (or the AFF). A couple of times i was warned, but the old army sergeant in me never relented. As a negative i was usually second, and i prefered the second Neg. i especially liked the inside/outside style, where i’d take second negative constructive and first rebuttal. That way your thought doesn’t get interrupted. Of course it did not much matter, the infamous David K. kicked me all over Wake Forrest, as he did everyone else on his way to a national championship, (actually it was a fairly close round). i still from time to time get nightmares about the round with Dartmouth, Harvard’s team were wimps compared to Dartmouth. Everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong.

We do have one modification that needs be discussed: The sewer swill that you call beer is definitely a non starter. We have to at least stick to quality microbrews, hangovers are bad enough, i refuse to spend a day thowing up my internal organs, another fact of aging.

You do realise that we are likely to start the "Scottish Revival" (a concession to the fact that your ancestry is, I believe, German), in that the number of people posting against us will decrease, and that will not make the powers that be happy. Of course, we could go against each other from time to time to amuse the Lurkers.

Ahhh (grin). Good times. Old times.

Indeed, glory days, such as they were. i’d still insist on taking my late 40’s brain with me if I had the chance to go back.

Regards,

CDL

A horrid thought: What do we do if the Infamous David K. should show up here? (gasp!) It will really ruin our image.

[George W. Bush]

Let's see.

I said: "I hope you will take the time to review those letters of Westcott & Hort." and posted extended selections of W&H's private letters to demonstrate that they had secret purposes and belonged to secret occult organizations and worked to fulfill a hidden anti-orthodox agenda.

You responded (twice): "Again you really make me wonder if you're being disengenuous or purposely ambiguous."

Maybe this makes sense in some alternate universe but I'm at a loss to explain your remarks or insinuation or whatever it is.

'Disengenuous' (assuming you mean 'disingenuous') I understand. You're accusing me of misleading by quoting actual selections of the two top attackers of the Textus Receptus and all the bibles which were translated from it. A strange disingenuousness to be sure.

But I don't quite grasp 'purposely ambiguous'. I understand 'purposely' as meaning 'deliberately'. But 'ambiguous'? I posted documentary evidence of that which you were scoffing over, in W&H's own words. Exactly how is that 'ambiguous'?

I assure you that I have no reputation at FR for being anything but blunt. I am very seldom accused of some hidden agenda.

The irony here is that you started by joining p-marlowe in scoffing at these secret groups who march about corrupting the scriptures. When I posted their own words on exactly how they did do that and formed the occultic organizations that rotted the Anglican church from within starting in the nineteenth century, all of a sudden you decide that it is me who is being 'ambiguous' or somehow deceptive.

Now, exactly why shouldn't I think that such a reaction to evidence (contrary to someone's cynical scoffing) isn't evidence of a psychiatric condition or someone in deep deep denial?

OPie, maybe you can parse this steaming heap.

[scripter]

I would imagine you are quite aware of all the facts on this issue yet you continue to push only what suits your bias. Then again perhaps I'm wrong and you don't know any better. Whatever your reasons your tactics don't work and I encourage you to speak the truth in all matters.

God expects more of the saints.

[George W. Bush]

God expects more of the saints.

I think He expects us to face the facts, to love the truth.

Well, I loved posting the truth about Westcott and Hort.

I posted their private letters. You apparently refuse to believe what they say. You tell us how busy you currently are but spend time here at making repetitive little comments which take more time than just reading the evidence I posted. You and p-marlowe were wishing for someone to post this evidence, scoffing that it doesn't exist.

But now, you're too busy to read it. Don't have time to post. Accuse people of being disingenuous. Or 'purposely ambiguous' which might be itself a purposely ambiguous tactic. (See, I can sue it too, whatever it means.) Or you're to busy lecturing people that 'God expects more of the saints' to actually read the precise information that you were asking for and scoffing at the existence of.

BTW, are you aware Westcott and Hort practiced the blasphemous and satanic Communion Of The Saints? Do you know what that was? One of them did it regularly and used his Anglican church for the purpose alone at night according to his daughter's statements.

[scripter]

I think He expects us to face the facts, to love the truth.

Hey, we agree on something. From the Bible and the Spirit's lead I believe the Godhead expects us to not just love the truth, but express the truth in love, not ridicule. Not try to see who can be more clever in putting fellow saints down.

Many engage in this behavior so I'm not picking on anyone in particular. To say it in a different way, I believe we should express the truth as best we can, without spin. As a teacher of the Bible I take this responsibility seriously as expressed in the Bible.

I apologize for not having the time to post here but my work schedule is very hectic and I'm quite busy when I'm not working. I wouldn't even know of this thread if Dr. Eckleburg hadn't pinged me to it in post 395; and since I was pinged I have to comment when I see fellow saints posting half truths. I certainly don't want others thinking I might agree with it, therefore my comment in post 586.

Back to the issue: there's a lot more to this that you're not posting. Please consider James 3:1 in your posts. Now I'm gone again until tomorrow or the next day.

[connectthedots]

And ???? Your point? There is no one on FR that can be classified a ""hyper Calvinist" There are some borderline personality disorder among the arminians though *grin*

Well, at least Arminians have personalities. ;) If I were you, I would not be so quick to say there are no hyper-Calvinists on FR. There are at least two Calvinist KJVonly types on this thread alone.

Do you deny common grace? Do you deny the free offer of the gospel? Based on you past posts, I think in all honesty, you would have to say yes to one or both question

And your answers to these two simple questions are?

I think you need to know that every Calvinist here has challenged among others Mormonism and presented the gospel

I do believe that Ihave done the same. I think it would not be unreasonable to say that I have been as much the cause of the Mormons going to the moderator to get threads pulled because I have painted them into corners from which there was no escape. I trust that you recall my three questions which conclusively proved that the Mormon Man-God doctrine was logically impossible.

The difference between us and the often silent Wesleyans and Arminians is we are not afraid of scaring someone off by giving the gospel . (I remember threads that not one non Calvinist could be found giving the gospel.While the Calvinists fielded question and gave the message of the scriptures) How many times have YOU done it this week?

Outside of FR, at least three times this past weekend alone. Can't really comment on Wesleyans, but I think Arminian pastors preach Gospel messages on a far more regular basis than most Calvinist pastors. The Arminian pastors I know do not hesitate to mention the consequences of not having Christ as one's Savior.

We happen to also believe that doctrine is important to God and Bad doctrine is displeasing to Him.

You said you checked out the web site of the church I attend and commented that you thought it was a good church. It happens to be much more Arminian than Calvinist, but certqinly is not even close to the stereotype some Calvinists have of Arminianism. An who is the judge of good and bad doctrine? Calvinists?

Calvinists do not have a one dimensional faith that asks for emotionally experiences at their church service so they feel good about being a Christian, and then after the service hide the great commission till next week.

Most Arminian churches do not try to manipulate people on an emotional basis. Certainly some do, just as some Calvinists churches are so unfriendly and cold-hearted it could lead a reasonable person to question why anyone would want to be a Christian if you had to act unhappy all the time. NOTICE I SAID SOME, NOT ALL, OR EVEN MOST.

Hey Connect we happen to REALLY believe what we say

I have never questioned that, nor have I ever questioned or expessed any doubt about the salvation of any Calvinist on these threads; have I?

[connectthedots]

Besides, it is more fun to watch ctd wallow in ignorance and boast about MENSA, the bottom of the totem poll of "high" IQ societies.

I said I never joined. Are you having a 'senior moment'?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Which two Calvinists on this thread do you think are KJV-only?

[connectthedots]

Please ignore post #830, it was meant for drstevej, and thank you for pointing out the fact that I specifically stated I did not join Mensa.

[fortheDeclaration]

I think the quote that you cite proves the point that Kenyon was approaching the scriptures as any other manuscripts in his method, not necessary in his belief. And how else does one handle the manuscripts? On what basis did Erasmus handle the multiple manuscripts that he had? On what basis did he choose the "correct" rendering? On what basis will you? Are you going to choose the most accurate copy by fiat? You certainly appear to be doing so. This is why I think your entire argument fails here.

Not at all, there is a difference in approach to the manuscripts.

Those who think that God Himself has preserved His manuscripts will look for those manuscripts which best glorify God, hence the TR manuscripts.

The naturalistic approach, seeing the manuscripts preserved as any other human document would not take those readings into consideration.

Thus, for Westcott and Hort, Doctrinal passages were actually considered suspect because they did glorify God (they believed a zealous scribe added to the word)

One could view the scriptures as being verbally inspired and still hold to a incorrect method.

I do not question those mens sincerty or motives, but only their methodology.

Burgons approach was opposite to theirs and that is why even Pickering and Hodges do not use it, but still hold to a naturalistic methodology.

[Wrigley]

Just like a brain cloud diagnosis, one mustn't question the truth of that chart.

[xzins]

Where are the letters you posted? Thnx. X

I will read them. I LOVE stuff like that.

[George W. Bush]

Where are the letters you posted? Thnx. ... I will read them. I LOVE stuff like that.

I'd love for you to read them.

First, check out P-Marlowe's #403 and scripter's #405 remarks to the effect that 'There aren't a bunch of people out there trying desparately to change everyone into new age Gurus by tampering with the Bible and putting out "new age versions" like the New King James.'

Then look at my extended selection of quotes from the letters of Westcott & Hort in #457, published in separate books by their sons after their deaths, which shows exactly the conspiracy the scoffers denied. P-Marlowe went poof and disappeared, scripter won't acknowledge them and is desperately looking at the corners of the room and calling me 'deliberately ambiguous'.

Those letters are only the beginning of the evidence on those two secret heretic translators. Their spiritualism and involvement with Communion Of The Saints are also well-attested by their friends and families.

People need to understand that this all occurred in an era where the high Anglican clergy idolized Darwin (so they wouldn't have to believe creationism) and engaged in blasphemous and anti-Christian occult practices like the Communion Of The Saints. This was the same period when the Jesuit-instigated Oxford Movement was so strong, both in Britain and in America, where some Anglicans tried to undermine the Church of England and romanize. A number of high Anglicans converted, for instance, John Henry Newman who followed the example of an Oxford professor named Ward whose book of Marian devotion also included justificatoins for the advanced Christian doctrine of 'mental reservation' which meant concealing your ties and devotion to Rome as a Protestant clergyman while undermining your own Protestant church and leading others to romanize with you. Most people are unaware of how powerful the Oxford Movement was. At the time, Tract 90 was key to undermining the English churches and, incidentally, an attack on the KJV. The Oxford Movement was, along with Christian Darwinism and the first publication of modernist bibles from inferior manuscripts, the beginning of the real attack on the soundness of mainstream Reformation churches. It's continued ever since, right down to the recent appointment of the sodomite Episcopal bishop.

[George W. Bush]

Just like a brain cloud diagnosis, one mustn't question the truth of that chart.

Well, the chart is in error.

The King James is not merely the best-selling bible. It's the best-selling book of all time.

[George W. Bush]

Burgons approach was opposite to theirs and that is why even Pickering and Hodges do not use it, but still hold to a naturalistic methodology.

Burgon was a true scholar, one who actually engaged in a vast and comprehensive research of all the sources. His textual methods meant truly exhaustive and exhausting research in text. In his work, he pointed out just how shallow and unscholarly the early textual critics really were, that they were lazy in a way never before seen among Protestant bible scholars.

The modernists have it easy. They just make stuff up. Literally. Their 'scholarly' methodology is a lot like the methods of the modern Jesus Seminar. No surprise, they're birds of a feather.

Burgon was one of the last truly first-rate scholars of the Bible and its underlying Greek texts. Singlehanded, his work undermined Westcott and Hort enough to delay their modernist translations for generations. Only after a century passed and in a modern dumbed-down America could these bibles obtain their current popularity.

[connectthedots]

I did not say that they were not Christian or brothers I simply said they were not PROTESTant. Now tough if you do not like it connect it is the truth.

As I told Corin earlier sleeping in the garage and going Beeb Beeb does not make you a car.

They are Semi pelagians a near cousin the the Catholic church.

Who is the 'they' you are referring to, and just what do you think is the point of the illustration I posted?

[MarMema]

Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions

LOL. I wonder which part they felt was corrupt. Do you know, by any chance, what they most strongly wanted changed?