Thoughts to ponder

[Mitex]

  Scott fails to grasp or face the O.P. as I've stated it, he and his compatriot Barry repeatedly interject their straw man fallacy into the argument instead of dealing with what I have clearly stated.

Mitex fails to answer my question, thinking that a superfluity of words might hide the fact.

What if the consensus is wrong?

Your original question was fallacious as it included a straw man accusation.
If your question is:

What if the consensus of born again Spirit filled English-speaking Christians was wrong for 350+ years, then....

... heretics, apostates, sectarians and individuals who preferred their peculiarities will wag their fingers and say, "We told you so! We don't have to submit to the evident hand of God, we can go our own way, do our own thing and get away with it."

If your question is:

Can the collective voice of Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc. be wrong when they recognized the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures as the Standard in English?

If that be the case, all of us (that vast number of God's elect) will have believed every word of our Bible that you profess is the word of God and my detractors insist that even the meanest translation contains no differences of doctrinal importance.

Can the consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians be wrong about the Canon? You know, that Standard limited to 66 books and no more. How did you come to know that the Canon is limited to 66 books? Direct revelation? Warm fuzzy feeling in your heart while you ponder it's passages? Please explain?

Are you implying that where all copies, versions, and editions agree (consensus) that they could be wrong? If so, what then?

Are you implying that a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians could be wrong about salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Or any number of cardinal doctrines held by the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth?

 

[FSSL]

Why am I not surprised that I give an analogy and Scott accuses me of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture.

... cause it happens frequently?!

 

[Mitex]

Why am I not surprised that I give an analogy and Scott accuses me of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture.

... cause it happens frequently?!

Yep, Scott and you frequently make false accusations. Disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[Ransom]

Why am I not surprised that I give an analogy and Scott accuses me of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture.

If I accused you of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture, it's because of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture.

If you're not surprised by the accusation, then you knew what you were doing. By definition, that makes you a false teacher.

 

[Ransom]

If your question is:

Speaking of straw man arguments, that wasn't my question.

If your question is:

Again, it wasn't.

Are you implying that where all copies, versions, and editions agree (consensus) that they could be wrong? If so, what then?

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm asking a question that you apparently have difficulty giving an honest answer to.

What if the consensus is wrong?

 

[Mitex]

Why am I not surprised that I give an analogy and Scott accuses me of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture.

If I accused you of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture, it's because of poor exegesis and abuse of Scripture.

If you're not surprised by the accusation, then you knew what you were doing. By definition, that makes you a false teacher.

Yadda-yadda-yada. If I tell you that a rooster can pull a freight train you better hitch him up.

You have questions that haven't been answered.

 

[Ransom]

Yadda-yadda-yadaa. If I tell you that a rooster can pull a freight train you better hitch him up.

I'll take your dismissal as a tacit admission that you intentionally tried to deceive.

 

[Mitex]

If your question is:

Speaking of straw man arguments, that wasn't my question.

If your question is:

Again, it wasn't.

Are you implying that where all copies, versions, and editions agree (consensus) that they could be wrong? If so, what then?

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm asking a question that you apparently have difficulty giving an honest answer to.

What if the consensus is wrong?

More straw man fallacy from the fallacy-meister.  I have never maintained a simple "consensus" of a small group, but rather the consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 

But to answer your question:

If the consensus is wrong. the consensus would be wrong. Simple as that.

Now,

* Can the consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians be wrong about the Canon?

* Where all copies, versions, and editions agree (consensus)  could be wrong? If so, what then?

* Could the collective voice of Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc. be wrong when they recognized the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures as the Standard in English?

*  Could a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians could be wrong about salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ or any number of cardinal doctrines held by the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth?

 

[Mitex]

Yadda-yadda-yadaa. If I tell you that a rooster can pull a freight train you better hitch him up.

I'll take your dismissal as a tacit admission that you intentionally tried to deceive.

More fallacious accusations from our resident fallacy-meister.

 

[Ransom]

More straw man fallacy from the fallacy-meister.  I have never maintained a simple "consensus" of a small group . . .

And speaking of straw men, where did I  mention a small group? Either you don't actually know what that fallacy means, or you are deliberately accusing me of the very thing you are doing. That makes you either an ignoramus or a hypocrite. Your choice.

What if the consensus is wrong?

If the consensus is wrong. the consensus would be wrong. Simple as that.

Fine. So who says the supposed consensus supposing the King James Version is correct?

 

[bgwilkinson]

This  really reminds me of the argument that is made by those who claim a consensus on "Glo Bull" warming makes the belief correct.

 

[Mitex]

So who says the supposed consensus supposing the King James Version is correct?

It's not a "supposed consensus" as you fallaciously stated above.  It is the collective voice of Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc. which recognized the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures as the Standard in English.

* I know that the AV is correct because all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The AV is most certainly the Scriptures in English. The Scriptures, being the written word of God, cannot be in error by definition.
* I know that the AV is correct because it is the Bible in English.
* I know that the AV is correct because competent persons sufficiently qualified in Greek and Hebrew determined that the AV is accurate. 
* I know that the AV is correct because the Scott's and Barry's of the world acknowledge (perhaps reluctantly) that it is the word of God.
* I know that the AV is correct in the same way that I know that the Canon containing the Old and New Testaments and limited to 66 books is correct.
* I know that the AV is correct because it meets the definition of the Scriptures: The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized by the Church of God, the pillar and ground of he truth (a consensus of born again Spirit filled believing members of the Church) in any language or generation as the very word of God in written form given by inspiration of God ? true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
* etc.

You are way behind on answering questions. Here are a few that you missed:

1) Can the consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians be wrong about the Canon?

2) Was  the collective voice of Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, National Baptists, North American Baptists, International Baptists, American Baptists, Mexican Baptists, General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Hard-shell Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists, Old German Baptists, 7th Day Baptists, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Baptists, Union Baptists, Independent Baptists, Particular Baptists, Bible Baptists, Bible Believing Baptists, Fundamental Baptists, and all the other Baptists, all branches of Mennonites, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Moravian Brethren, Open Brethren, Closed Brethren, Evangelical Free, non-denominationalists, etc. wrong when they recognized the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures as the Standard in English?

3) Where all copies, versions, and editions agree (consensus), could they be wrong?

4) Can  a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians could be wrong about salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Or any number of cardinal doctrines held by the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth as orthodox doctrine?

5) Since you apparently don't like my definition of the Scriptures, would you give the Reader your definition so that we can diligently compare the two?

There are other questions that you failed to answer as well.

 

[Ransom]

It's not a "supposed consensus" as you fallaciously stated above.  It is the collective voice of blah blah blah yada yada blurgle blurgle glurgle

And around and around we go.  Consensuses can't be wrong because all these people are in consensus.

You are way behind on answering questions.

Feel free to point out the post where I promised to answer yours.

 

[Mitex]

It's not a "supposed consensus" as you fallaciously stated above.  It is the collective voice of blah blah blah yada yada blurgle blurgle glurgle

And around and around we go.  Consensuses can't be wrong because all these people are in consensus.

That's right Scott, a small group forming a consensus could be wrong, but the consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God are not wrong about the identity of the Scriptures.

You are way behind on answering questions.

Feel free to point out the post where I promised to answer yours.

Just as I suspected. You will not answer the questions, because when you do you will have to admit things you can?t afford to admit on your side of the aisle. Got your number and have had it for quite a long time.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex,
You have failed to provide any evidence that the majority of Spirit filled believers would have chosen the KJV if it had been on an even playing field free from the influence of the State Church. Sure some may have chosen it but you have no way of going back in time and making a valid judgement on the matter.

Until you advance past this you are just spinning your wheels.

 

[Ransom]

That's right Scott, a small group forming a consensus could be wrong, but the consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God are not wrong about the identity of the Scriptures.

Maybe we should all convert to Romanism, then, because until the 16th century, that was the consensus.

Just as I suspected.

What was your first clue? The part where I said I wasn't obliged to?

 

[Mitex]

That's right Scott, a small group forming a consensus could be wrong, but the consensus of born again Spirit filled members of the Church of God are not wrong about the identity of the Scriptures.

Maybe we should all convert to Romanism, then, because until the 16th century, that was the consensus.

Romanism wasn't the defined group, the defined group was born again Spirit filled believing members of the Church of God. When recognizing Scriptural truths only the opinions of born again Spirit filled Christians matter. All other opinion can only help confirm the consensus, they can never hinder the consensus reached by born again Spirit filled Christians. This point is important because the definition of consensus is an agreement reached by a group as a whole. The group must therefore be defined and is defined as the Church of God which is made up of born again Spirit filled Christians. Along these lines I note that many call themselves Evangelical Believers. Why the need to modify the Scriptural term Believer with Evangelical if not to imply that you are a born again Spirit filled member of the Church of God in contrast to those who call themselves believers but have never been born again? Other terms are used as well such as Fundamentalist, Conservative, Baptist, Independent Baptist, etc. which are terms used to distinguish between ?born again Spirit filled Christians? and those who ?profess to be Christians or profess to be Spirit filled?.

Just as I suspected.

What was your first clue? The part where I said I wasn't obliged to?

Past experience. As one wit stated, "Yet not ONE SINGLE Modern Version User or Textual Critic on this board will touch the issue of CANON with lead gloves and a four-mile laser. You will use the word, build an illusion about it, accuse it of irrelevance, but you will not EXPLORE your personal reasons for ACCEPTING it, exactly it, nothing more than IT."

 

[Ransom]

Canon is a red herring Roman Catholics like to raise in debates about the authority of the Bible, and canon is a red herring you obviously like to raise to deflect attention from your own version of ecclesiastical infallibility. As FSSL has said, you make a good Romanist. You both openly tout a form of sola ecclesia: thus-and-so is true because the church says it is so, and therefore we are all required to believe it. They have their infallible Magisterium , and you have yours. Yours just happens to be a lot bigger.

As it happens, I have studied the history of canon and canonization, both personally and academically, and have taught it to Sunday-school classes on more than one occasion. Your panties are in a bunch only because I won't answer to your beck and call.

 

[Mitex]

...
As it happens, I have studied the history of canon and canonization, both personally and academically, and have taught it to Sunday-school classes on more than one occasion. Your panties are in a bunch only because I won't answer to your beck and call.

All that education and you still can't articulate your position. The best you can do is rail, misinform and use straw man arguments. You help yourself. I've had your number for a long time.

 

[Ransom]

ou help yourself.

I'll have to, if the alternative is being helped by "Baptist" crypto-papists.