Steven Avery

If any of those readers have even the remotest idea that I was in any way, shape or form involved in a:

"due, grovelling and abject apology for use of the word 'rant' "

Then please, I might want to know who it is and talk about a bridge for sale.

Shalom,
Steven

Yellum Notnef

I think the "readers" are very amused as usual with the dog and pony show. I know I am.

Exciter

The debate is like in the movie Goodfellas were Tommy DeVito's explaing teh painting his mama made:

Gullwind

Does Bible John really think that splitting hairs over grammar and using that as justification for not answering debate questions is going to impress anyone?This is a formal debate, not a Language Arts class.

bobhope2112

No.

I'm being glib, of course, but I would say this last offering has the advantage of at least being somewhat responsive. Its focus on grammar instead of the argument, in spite of calling it a rebuttal, makes it irrelevant, but at least it appears he's read notapadwan's posting. So, I think he's at least moving in the right direction. On the downside, it looks like he's also leaving some sincerity behind to make use of "tactics:"

Clouseau

In effect it does, because KJVoers very strongly imply that use of the KJV is necessary to be a proper Christian. It is firmly in the tradition of the legalistic circumcision party whom Paul condemned.

The KJV contains varies heresies, such as the word 'Easter', a forgery used to support Trinitarianism, use of the word 'office' for a bishop, and support for fasting as a legalism. But none of those is the chief reason for KJVOers to make their choice, imv. I have several times 'translated' KJV passages using modern verb forms and prepositions, and with no other changes. In every case KJVOers have rejected the passages without reason!

They therefore shoot themselves stone dead, imv.

Steven Avery

All of those are discussed in depth on forums like WhichVersion on Yahoogroups among Christian, an excellent venue.

One question for you, Clouseau, do you believe that any manuscript in any language is the inspired and preserved, pure and perfect, inerrant word of God ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

Clouseau

The thread topic is the KJV, not manuscripts or me.

Steven Avery

Surely someone who attacks the KJB as not the pure Bible should have a standard of comparison, the Version that they do consider pure.

Or they could have the view that all manuscripts and versions are corrupt and the King James Bible is simply one of 200+ corrupt versions.

How can someone seriously criticize the King James Bible if they offer no superior alternative in its place ? Perhaps a skeptic could take that stance, but surely not someone who purports to accept the Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Clouseau

Poster, you have a choice. You can deal with what other posters write, or you can be ignored.