KaphLamedh
Puritan Board Freshman
Here a good debate about KJV-onlyism. James White Debates Jack Moorman On Exclusive KJVOnlyism
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He often accuse this opponent of using conspiriacy theories
Yikes! Those Jesuits sound downright diabolical.I don't know if it's just me but Jesuits and Unitarians would definitely not be in my choices to revised the texts of the holy scriptures, anybody who know about the history of the Jesuits should definitely have red flags going up when you have them in the editorial committee of a text that is used to translate "protestant" bibles. Even the dictionaries describe "Jesuit" and "Jesuitical" as being deceptive
Jes·u·it (jzh-t, jz-, -y-)
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church A member of the Society of Jesus.
2. often jesuit One given to subtle casuistry.
casuistry [ˈkæzjʊɪstrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Philosophy) Philosophy the resolution of particular moral dilemmas, esp those arising from conflicting general moral rules, by careful distinction of the cases to which these rules apply
2. reasoning that is specious, misleading, or oversubtle
casuistry
1. the branch of ethics or theology that studies the relation of general ethical principles to particular cases of conduct or conscience.
2. a dishonest or oversubtle application of such principles
But maybe I'm just paranoid.
That's because those .0005% of Reformed folk who hold to the Baptist school of KJVOnlism are virtually all conspiracy theorists.
Yikes! Those Jesuits sound downright diabolical.
Call James White to accuse him directly of deception but do not use my board to violate the 9th Commandment.James White is a better speaker but I believe if one really take the time to analyse what he is saying and weight the evidence instead of just enjoying his charisma they will be able to see flaws and contradictions in his arguments. I have read his book and I have found that he uses the same deceptive technique that he acuses his opponent of using. He often accuse this opponent of using conspiriacy theories which he say have no historical evidence support and then will invent a hypothesis on how manuscripts were corrupted down through the years. He also invent a hypothesis that byzantine scribes added to the word of God by borrowing from other part of scripture and inserting then in parallel verses of the Gospels. Not only is this ridiculous it also lack any evidence. I agree that both side have theories and biases but you should not say your opponent are dishonest if you use the same tactics.
But maybe I'm just paranoid.
I do not mean any disrespect but I do not believe I deserve to be accused of being "specious"
specious [ˈspiːʃəs]
adj
1. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false2. deceptively attractive in appearance
[C14 (originally: fair): from Latin speciōsus
As far as I know I have not lied about anything and what I have written can be verified if factual or not.
I do admit that I have use as little bit of sarcasm I apologized if it offended anybody.
I would love to hear White deal with some of the more articulate defenders of the Majority Text (and/or the TR). White is one of my favorites, and I love that he is so strong an advocate of biblical orthodoxy (particularly given his seminary of origin!).
Using the KJV for my daily devotions with my wife (after almost four decades of dwelling in the land of modern translations) has made me reconsider the "understandability" argument which I accepted so blithely years ago.
A sane discussion would be welcome. Why can't Zondervan do one of their counterpoint books on the topic? After all, they have one on differing views of church growth and the Cananaaite "genocide" and even divorce. Come'on Zondervan. Give us a CT vs. MT counterpoint book.