T-Bone said:
qwerty said:
Izdaari said:
Ransom is right, even if I don't care for his snarkiness. KJVO is a novel, heterodox position, not part of historic Christianity, and so it cannot have the status of a default position. It's a weird innovation ("If it's new, it can't be true"), so we're free to reject it, even obligated to reject it, without proving anything. It is up to those who argue for it to make their case from Scripture, if they can. Alas, year after year of tiresome dead horse arguments have made it abundantly clear that they cannot. You KJVOs will have to do better before I even think it's worth my time to argue it with you.
But there's nothing at all wrong with somebody having a personal preference for the KJV. There are times when I prefer it myself, not usually but when an especially literary mood strikes me. De gustabus non disputandem est. Just don't try to tell me it's the only legitimate translation, or be ready to be called a heretic, and if you're extreme about it, a cultist and bibliolater.
The principle is the same either way. To accuse someone of false teachings because your position as well has the same lack of support is hypocritical. Blame someone for a crime because it is not a law to commit that crime, but they have to prove their innocence....
Both arguments hold no water.....the non KJVO crowd has as much scriptural support for their argument, but because we are asking first you require them to cite verses .....yeah, that's the better position
Actually this matter is easy to solve...if a person who is KJVO states that the Scripture teaches that the KJV is the only valid translation and was particularly inspired by God, then they are required to show their scriptural proof. If I say the Bible does not teach such, I am not required to show a verse that says the Bible doesn't teach something...its mere absence from Scripture proves my point. If someone claims Scripture teaches something that it does not by definition at the very least they are mistaken and at the very most they are false. If they are mistaken and then asked to show their clear proof but cannot, and they continue to hold to their false claim then they are false teachers.
Using the same principle in the example given above....
"If a person who is non-KJVO, states that the KJV is not the only valid translation which was particularly inspired by God, then they are required to show such biblical truth."
Both sides can't unless there is something in there that we don't know about. If you wish to hold one argument to a standard, you should hold both arguments to the same standard to prove validity to the arguments in general.
A persons belief and conviction that can not scripturally based in solid biblical evidence can not be refuted by a belief or conviction that is not scripturally based in solid biblical evidence.
Which of us is to say that the KJV is not inspired and the best translation of the original text? Which of us is to say that the ESV is not that? How about if the Living Bible was miraculously translated into the best translation? The KJV argument is a straw man for both sides....one that compartmentalizes God and the scriptures to fit their belief; The other side wants to play God and pass judgement against a group and their beliefs.
