Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[Citadel of Truth]

Nor have I. My point is, both sides totally ignore the "facts" presented by the other side.

Can you provide examples of facts presented by KJV-onlyists that the anti-KJV-only site is ignoring?

If your purpose to is point out the fact that the facts are not really facts, then may I remind you that in my statement which you quoted, I referred to them as "facts."

The fact is, I am familiar with the KJVO arguments only as much as I have been personally involved in discussions. I have read a few books on the subject but am in no way able to debate the subject.

One "fact" that I hear mentioned time and again is the "pure line" of texts as opposed to a "corrupt" line of texts. Would that be a "fact" that the AKJVO is ignoring? 

 

[bgwilkinson]

Nor have I. My point is, both sides totally ignore the "facts" presented by the other side.

Can you provide examples of facts presented by KJV-onlyists that the anti-KJV-only site is ignoring?

If your purpose to is point out the fact that the facts are not really facts, then may I remind you that in my statement which you quoted, I referred to them as "facts."

The fact is, I am familiar with the KJVO arguments only as much as I have been personally involved in discussions. I have read a few books on the subject but am in no way able to debate the subject.

One "fact" that I hear mentioned time and again is the "pure line" of texts as opposed to a "corrupt" line of texts. Would that be a "fact" that the AKJVO is ignoring?

The corrupt-pure line of texts argument is among the most fallacious of the arguments, and is indicative of a complete disregard of original material that is readily accessible by anyone.

If one were to research this argument without the blinders of a KJVO mindset he would find that it falls apart of its own weight.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

The corrupt-pure line of texts argument is among the most fallacious of the arguments, and is indicative of a complete disregard of original material that is readily accessible by anyone.

If one were to research this argument without the blinders of a KJVO mindset he would find that it falls apart of its own weight.

I understand that. I guess my point is being missed. Actually, it probably isn't a point that needed to be made in the first place.

My point was, both sides can accuse the opposing side of putting their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to the "facts" presented by their respective side. That is not an indication of a mental disorder but more so of a closed mind full of preconceived ideas. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The corrupt-pure line of texts argument is among the most fallacious of the arguments, and is indicative of a complete disregard of original material that is readily accessible by anyone.

If one were to research this argument without the blinders of a KJVO mindset he would find that it falls apart of its own weight.

I understand that. I guess my point is being missed. Actually, it probably isn't a point that needed to be made in the first place.

My point was, both sides can accuse the opposing side of putting their fingers in their ears and refusing to listen to the "facts" presented by their respective side. That is not an indication of a mental disorder but more so of a closed mind full of preconceived ideas.

When I read things like "The KJV corrects the Greek", numerology arguments, and arguments that the scripture "purified seven times" refers to the KJV, I call that a mental disorder. 

 

[kaba]

I think the creator of this post just wants to stir the pot!

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

The corrupt-pure line of texts argument is among the most fallacious of the arguments, and is indicative of a complete disregard of original material that is readily accessible by anyone.

Although I disagree with the terms "corrupt" and "pure" there is a growing number of textual scholars who believe the Byzantine textform is more likely to reflect the original manuscripts than the Alexandrian textform. The work of Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC., and, in collaboration with the late William G. Pierpont, is co-editor of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005), which is a must read on the subject. His Introduction and Appendix by the Editors is online here:  http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html

 

[bibleprotector]

there is a growing number of textual scholars who believe the Byzantine textform is more likely to reflect the original manuscripts than the Alexandrian textform.

The Byzantine-priority and Majority Text views are modernistic too. They share some of the same assumptions as the most hardened, liberal textual critical approach.

The false view that error is prevailing and that Scripture must be dredged up "as nearly as possible" by vast amounts of empirical and rational analysis defies plain Scriptural promises about God giving His Word. Whether people favour early manuscripts, majority manuscripts, or any kind of variation of those critical approaches, holistic, stemmatic, eclectic etc., it all denies that Providence has afforded us with perfection, and instead relies upon human ability to always "modernise" truth.

So it doesn't matter how they classify, categorise and weigh Greek (and other historical) data, they are never saying or seeing that the Word of God is here now. Somehow, it always has been affected by error-producing processes in time. Therefore, they are unable to discern that their "new research" is actually a compounding of error-producing processes, leading away from the truth of the perfection of the knowledge of the present manifestation of the Word of God.

The modernist therefore sneers at the KJB, at its "primitive" scholarship, at its every "reason" (and fabrication) why it is not perfect. Jesuits don't need to attack the KJB today, because the leaven of Infidelity is widely spread, which ultimately wars against the pure and perfect Word of God.

 

[FSSL]

Modernism...

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is a reasonable presentation of the KJVO corrupt-pure text argument.


http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/bible-manuscript-paths/

Keep in mind it takes only one false fact to falsify the whole presupposition.
For the record the two bible paths is a false presupposition loaded with false cherry-picked examples. No reasonable person would come to this presupposition if they had not already made up their minds. All that is then left is to find some facts, cherry-picked, to offer support.

 

[Izdaari]

KJVO is a mental disorder in the same way that leftist ideology is a mental disorder: they are both intentionally damaging software for the human brain. I'm not sure whether to classify them as viruses or just as malware.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

there is a growing number of textual scholars who believe the Byzantine textform is more likely to reflect the original manuscripts than the Alexandrian textform.

The Byzantine-priority and Majority Text views are modernistic too.

You have no clue what Modernism is. If you did have a clue you would not make such asinine statements.

Here, I will give you a quick lesson.

Modernism repudiates the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. This view overlooks the justice of God, failing to recognize that God will punish sin.

Modernism attacks the scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth.”

Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude toward the Bible, which ignores the testimony of Scripture itself. For example, it is claimed that Moses did not author the Pentateuch, as both Old and New Testament clearly teach. Rather, supposedly, the first five books of the Bible are but a compilation of documents (e.g., J, E, P, D—the initials signifying Jehovah, Elohim, Priestly, and Deuteronomic—code names for the alleged authors).

Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. Advocates of this viewpoint do not hesitate to assert that the Scriptures contain a host of errors of a considerable variety. They believe that the basis of the biblical record is an ancient legendary tradition.

Modernism, therefore, seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. Anything of a miraculous nature must be explained away as having some natural, though perhaps misunderstood, nature. According to this ideology, for example, Jesus did not walk on the water of the Sea of Galilee; instead, he was merely walking in the shallow surf near the coast, and the disciples, from a distance, just thought he was on the surface of the sea.

Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book” such as the Bible. Instead, one must individually make his own decisions on ethical issues, letting subjective “love” be the guiding principle in various situations.

Got it now?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The Byzantine-priority and Majority Text views are modernistic too.

Mechanistic. Which is one form of modernism.

They share some of the same assumptions as the most hardened, liberal textual critical approach.

That's true. The main proponent even emphasizes this component of the theory.  Personally, I think it is mostly fluff, though.  A way to look acceptable to the hortian pseudo-consensus academy with a text that has many of the TR-AV attributes.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Montanus, meet Sabellius. Sabellius, meet Montanus.

Heretics, assemble!

 

[bgwilkinson]

Montanus, meet Sabellius. Sabellius, meet Montanus.

Heretics, assemble!

LOL

Very astute observation.

 

[bibleprotector]

Got it now?

You explained Modernism (with a capital "M") which is clear, and yes, I understood that already.

But we are not talking about that. We are talking about the Enlightenment, Rationalism and what broadly is called Infidelity as not only manifesting in the hardened big "M" Modernism, but seeping through into critical view of textual criticism and in modern hermeneutics. Many of the same assumptions of modernist textual critics and modernist exegetes are to be found in those who promote the contemporary Majority and/or Byzantine view.

In the last few months I have produced numerous materials explaining that the same assumptions lay behind both Modernism and contemporary versions/interpretation, which goes as far as the Majority Text and Byzantine Priory views, and current day Chicago-statement based/Shepherds' Conference (MacArthurist) interpretation.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I think we've got a different example of mental disorder here. 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

I think we've got a different example of mental disorder here.

Lol!

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

You explained Modernism (with a capital "M") which is clear, and yes, I understood that already.

I see. So, you have taken a well understood word, and redefined it (using a small case "m") to mean something it has never meant in order to bolster your fallacious argument.

So, what you have done is descended into Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy, taking established theological terms and redefining them to fit your false doctrine.

Interesting. And very telling!

 

[FSSL]

^ this post deserves "thumbs up"

 

[bibleprotector]

You explained Modernism (with a capital "M") which is clear, and yes, I understood that already.

I see. So, you have taken a well understood word, and redefined it (using a small case "m") to mean something it has never meant in order to bolster your fallacious argument.

So, what you have done is descended into Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy, taking established theological terms and redefining them to fit your false doctrine.

Interesting. And very telling!

That is wrong. I clearly delineated TWO different words with two different meanings. Capital "M" Modernism is directly linked with the German Critics and Liberal Theology. Lower case "m" modernism has been coined for use because of the lack of another word existing to describe the theology that is affected by the leaven of Infidelity.

What word do you use to describe the broad category of late eighteenth century to present critical and Majority biblical textual studies, contemporary translation view and grammatical-historical hermeneutics?

As you can see, I have been only fair in using the term modernism and modern versionism to describe this state of affairs.

And, as any person can tell, the word "modernism" and "modernist" actually have different meanings, depending on their usage, e.g. to describe art, etc. So, again, I have been completely up front in defining the words, and even pointed to the fact that I have both done youtube videos and also extensive writing specifically related (see my website).