KJV-onlyists are so stupid...

[Ransom]

. . . they think the NIV both denies the virgin birth AND teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary.

For no particular reason, I was watching Spamderson's crockumentary New World Order Bible Versions this morning. In it, he argues:

[list type=lower-alpha]
[*]Since Luke 2:33 in the NIV calls Joseph Jesus' "father," it is implying that Jesus is Joseph's natural offspring, calling the virgin birth into question.
[*]Since Matthew 1:25 in the NIV calls Jesus Mary's "son" instead of her "firstborn son," it is implying that Jesus was the only son she ever had, calling into question whether Mary and Joseph ever entered into normal marital relations.
[/list]

And I'll bet Spammy never notices that a) contradicts b).

It isn't just him, either. New World Order Bible Versions is a few years old, but I've seen these same ridiculous arguments used online for 25+ years now.

 

[Ransom]

. . . they think the Virgin Mary denied the virgin birth.

Spamderson also argues that when Mary tells Jesus, "thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Luke 2:48), that the young Jesus had to "correct" her, as if by calling her husband, who raised Jesus as his own son, his "father," she had somehow forgotten about or disavowed the circumstances of his birth.

Again, this foolishness isn't original to Spamderson. I remarked how absurd it was to BBSing KJV-onlyists in 1992 or 1993.

It's hard to take a doctrinal position like KJV-onlyism seriously when it is clear its proponents lack the ability to think.

 

[Twisted]

Anyone who uses Anderson as a source for anything (except as an example of a nut) cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Ransom]

Anyone who uses Anderson as a source for anything (except as an example of a nut) cannot be taken seriously.

1) Then he fits right in with the rest of the KJV-onlyists.

2) As I said, these have also been standard KJV-only claims for many years. They aren't original to him; I only happened to see him use them most recently. The wingnuttery is part and parcel of the KJV-only bowel movement.

 

[robycop3]

. . . they think the NIV both denies the virgin birth AND teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary.

For no particular reason, I was watching Spamderson's crockumentary New World Order Bible Versions this morning. In it, he argues:

[list type=lower-alpha]
[*]Since Luke 2:33 in the NIV calls Joseph Jesus' "father," it is implying that Jesus is Joseph's natural offspring, calling the virgin birth into question.
[*]Since Matthew 1:25 in the NIV calls Jesus Mary's "son" instead of her "firstborn son," it is implying that Jesus was the only son she ever had, calling into question whether Mary and Joseph ever entered into normal marital relations.
[/list]

And I'll bet Spammy never notices that a) contradicts b).

It isn't just him, either. New World Order Bible Versions is a few years old, but I've seen these same ridiculous arguments used online for 25+ years now.

  He likely didn't know that under both Roman & Jewish law of the time, that a man was considered to be the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage, even if it was obvious he was not the bio father. Mary was not some bimbo; she was almost certainly aware of this when she called Joe Jesus' father in Luke 2:48.

  And Luke was aware of it as well when he called J&M His "parents" in Luke 2:41.

  KJVOs have more excuses than the 2017 Cleveland Browns.