Enough of the Ad hominen Debate in KJV-Only Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Enough of the Ad hominen Debate

Author	Comment
2Timothy316	Enough of the Ad hominen Debate	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1 (10/12/2009 05:00:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None Remove this ad Interesting debate going on here. As a neutral observer, why do you argue against the KJVO kooks instead of taking on the heavyweights. Lets see some convincing arguments instead of attacking the integrity of the likes of Gail Riplinger. I have read through the links here and no one has rebutted with Biblical arguments any of the following writers: http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/ http://www.febc.edu.sg/as...eBurningBushVol15No2.pdf I note Mr Brandenburg answers all comers and will debate anyone on the subject of the superiority of the TR. So instead of preaching to the converted here, why do you not take him on?
amarillo		#1	[-]
Posts: 3481 (10/12/2009 05:31:32) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hello "neutral observer"--perhaps a little Search for "FEBC" will reveal a little further the extent to which VPPism's been refuted. so, moving on to Mister Brandenburg n his "convincing arguments," is this the same guy who on the one hand: Denies having a gripe about the text of the NKJV--"To start, it isn't because of the text that I don't use or support the New King James Version. I don't like the New King James Version as a translation. When I think about certain aspects as to why I don't like it, I feel angry" While claiming the NKJV "translators attack the text behind the King James Version"? in an addendum he goes: "I'm now convinced that despite saying that they used the same text as was used for the KJV, they didn't. That is a lie. They used a different text and this was pointed out very clearly by someone who commented on the blog (read comments below)." bottomline: despite their protestations to the contrary, they're NO Different from the Ruckies, who correct the Greek (whichever TR edition) with the English (whichever KJB edition, oftentimes the 1769 rather than the 1611s). anything that aligns with their KJB of choice is the "preserved text"! (Ferguson of FEBC, of course, calls it a "presuppositional approach," which is--contra Van Til's--devoid of any biblical support whatsoever!) perhaps when he starts answering his self-contradictions at his site (http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/), we can give him a hand. he's also welcome to post his queries here (same for FEBC). perhaps he can start asking himself how many textual questions cld exist among TR or KJB editions for the VPP theory itself to come a-crashing down. perhaps he can deal with Christ n the Apostles showing the opposite presuppositions to VPP in their quotations of the OT. so for all their multiplied verbiage, they've not come close to answering the objections stated in this forum. and weren't they bosom friends of Riplinger until her real Alexandrian marital tendencies leaked out? Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
2Timothy316		#2	[-]
Posts: 2 (10/12/2009 07:23:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi Joseph You must have assumed that simply pumping out verbiage trumps proper exegetical argumentation. I have read through this site and you especially have managed to fill page after page with ad hominen diatribes against the like of Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger etc. That may impress the simple minded but not anyone with a minimum of theological understanding. You sound as if you have only studied this issue superficially, which may indicate why you only write on blogs where you do not have to face scrutiny. I would like to see you face off with Brandenburg on his blog. Just cut and paste your points from here and be a man. If you are afraid, I will do it for you. Brandenburg and his friends on their latest post have put a presuppositional biblical framework that guides them to all the Words of God today. You may dispute the application of that to the TR (a different argument) but you haven't dealt with the substantial point of their challenge. Their challenge is for any opponent who believes in the suffciency of Scripture to replace their framework with a Critical Text one (as I understand it). You say they are "devoid of biblical support" implying that you have biblical grounds that refutes their position and one that establishes your own. Ok, lets have it...
Scott McClare		#3	[-]
Posts: 3263 (10/12/2009 08:15:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	a neutral observer, What? Who? Where? Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
Scott McClare		#4	[-]
Posts: 3264 (10/12/2009 08:19:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	You must have assumed that simply pumping out verbiage. . . . That may impress the simple minded but not anyone with a minimum of theological understanding. You sound as if you have only studied this issue superficially, which may indicate why you only write on blogs where you do not have to face scrutiny. . . . Just cut and paste your points from here and be a man. If you are afraid, I will do it for you. Aren't you the character who was complaining about "ad hominem" in your first post? That didn't last long, did it? Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
BrianT		#5	[-]
Posts: 1982 (10/12/2009 08:52:19) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2Timothy316, We have no real problem with the position for TR superiority. This section of this board is focused on the extra-Biblical, unauthoritative doctrine of KJV-onlyism. That is not an excuse for anyone to use ad hominem though, and I do wish there were more serious and respectable argumentation from all sides on this issue. I think good argumentation in this debate is relatively rare because good argumentation against KJV-onlyism is unanswerable with sound responses. Brian
Armchair Scholar		#6	[-]
Posts: 1259 (10/12/2009 08:59:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2Timothy316 wrote: "Lets see some convincing arguments instead of attacking the integrity of the likes of Gail Riplinger." When many KJO leaders STOP following and borrowing (stealing?) the teachings of Mrs. Riplinger then some of us will debate them, as you've asked. As it stands (and has for nearly 16 years), Gail Riplinger is the core problem of the modern KJO debate. Most KJO teachers defend her books despite the many errors and outright lies that have been exposed. Jude 10: "But what things they don't understand, they denigrate; and things they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."
77		#7	[-]
Posts: 930 (10/12/2009 09:16:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2Timothy316 wrote: "Lets see some convincing arguments instead of attacking the integrity of the likes of Gail Riplinger." 77: Nobody needs to attack Gail Ripper. Her multiple marriages, and compulsive lying do all that very effectively. Nobody can make Gail look anywhere near as foolish and dishonest as Gail herself can. "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
77		#8	[-]
Posts: 931 (10/12/2009 09:22:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2Timmy: "You must have assumed that simply pumping out verbiage trumps proper exegetical argumentation." 77: You fail, Bible Bully - you are the only one pumping out verbiage here. How about manning up and backing up your trash talk with some substance? "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
amarillo	KJBO verbiage	#9	[-]
Posts: 3482 (10/12/2009 10:49:42) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2Timothy316 wrote: You must have assumed that simply pumping out verbiage trumps proper exegetical argumentation. false. i've seen it for myself. go back to those 2 sites you offered and do a checklist of the verbiage that violates exegesis. a little homework cld do u good--post the top 3 examples here: Brandenburg: 1. 2. 3. Burning Bush: 1. 2. 3. I have read through this site and you especially have managed to fill page after page with ad hominen diatribes against the like of Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger etc. spare us the sanctimony. at least the above exposes are documented (sometimes by the perpetrators themselves!). how about listing the occasions where Westcott n Hort (no friends of ours, but who sometimes take an opposing view fr KJBOs) are falsely maligned? again, a little checklist of the top 3 lies might help: 1. 2. 3. That may impress the simple minded but not anyone with a minimum of theological understanding. You sound as if you have only studied this issue superficially, which may indicate why you only write on blogs where you do not have to face scrutiny. I would like to see you face off with Brandenburg on his blog. Just cut and paste your points from here and be a man. If you are afraid, I will do it for you. actually, we've been in the business of exposing KJBO mythology for a long time, including the mutant called VPPism. ask urself (hmm, maybe ur last name's Brandenburg?) why KJBOist leaders can't come to the main forum--right here at BVDB--to face the music themselves. nor are our activities here alone--u'll find several of us at various places, Baptist Board, Fighting Fundamentalists, etc. where's your heroine Gail in any of these places, eh? Brandenburg and his friends on their latest post have put a presuppositional biblical framework that guides them to all the Words of God today. You may dispute the application of that to the TR (a different argument) but you haven't dealt with the substantial point of their challenge. Their challenge is for any opponent who believes in the suffciency of Scripture to replace their framework with a Critical Text one (as I understand it). ah, but a presuppositional framework like Van Til's has a biblical foundation over which we can discuss or disagree. Brandenburg n VPPers have a presupp framework that rests on nothing, faith in faith itself, which isn't worth discussing. hey, i can claim that God's Word exists only in the Majority Text by ABusing those same texts which do NOT address the issue. so deal with it. actually, Majority Text n Critical Text folk do NOT claim any biblical teaching on the exclusivity of their positions. that's cos the Bible's basically silent on the issue of underlying texts. not everybody who claims to believe the Bible likes to wrest or add to it, if u get the drift. the onus of proof still rests--as it's always been--in the KJBOs' court. so far, all we've heard is nothing substantial biblically--as one 10-year-old philosopher says, "Cricket, Cricket"! You say they are "devoid of biblical support" implying that you have biblical grounds that refutes their position and one that establishes your own. Ok, lets have it... easy. do ur homework (or call FEBC n Brandenburg for help). assuming u read the NT and OT, underline all the occasions where Jesus or the Apostles quote the OT. how many times do they go with the Masoretic Text (that Waite n other KJBOs claim is THE preserved whatever)? 1. 2. 3. how many times do they NOT? 1. 2. 3. 4. ... don't shirk the homework now. Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB Last Edited By: amarillo 10/12/2009 11:11:47. Edited 1 times.
steelmaker		#10	[-]
Posts: 2061 (10/12/2009 11:20:43) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad 2 Tim, please show us some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Betcha can't do it! OTOH, I betcha I can showya its MAN-MADE SOURCE if ya wanna see it. And I betcha everything said here about GAR & Co. can be proven from these folx' own worx. Please note that that virtually all disparaging remarx about GAR, Ruckman, etc. refer to quotes from their own stuff. All we do here is point out what they actually said in relationship to the TRUTH. "robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
2Timothy316		#11	[-]
Posts: 3 (10/12/2009 23:06:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joseph and Friends 10 posts later and it seems that most of you are persisting in playing the man rather than the ball. This is suggestive that you have no substantive points to make. Two deluded individuals even tried to link me with Riplinger! Joseph made the big allegations that the KJVO folks had "self-contradictions" that "Christ n the Apostles showing the opposite presuppositions to VPP in their quotations of the OT" (be interested to note how he reconciles this with inerrancy) and they had "multiplied verbiage." I surveyed the sites he recommended and he appears to be somewhat obssessed with this subject. I was interested to note that he is a reluctant graduate of the "redneck scholarship" of BJU (up there with Hyles Anderson's scholarship!!) then took a left turn into Neo-Evangelicalism in Toronto and does not know what he is now. Sounds like a paradigm of inconsistency! This probably explains why he has not proffered a single exegetical argument to take out Brandenburg and his friends. Joseph - lets give you another chance to live your dream in taking down the heavyweights of the KJV/TR movement. You clearly are someone who is confident in your abilities (without having demonstrated them yet on any postings that I have read) to demolish the KJV/TR arguments. For a guy that claims such experience, you are very shy to demonstrate it. When I read your comments they induce the feeling that I had spent the afternoon sipping latte in the company of one of those terribly sophisticated teenagers who is planning to leave home while he still knows everything. Frankly you sound kind of Riplingersesqe. So, Joseph indulge us all with your theological insight and answer Brandenburg's challenge. Let me repeat for the slow learners from my earlier post: Brandenburg and his friends on their latest post have put a presuppositional biblical framework that guides them to all the Words of God today. You may dispute the application of that to the TR (a different argument) but you haven't dealt with the substantial point of their challenge. Their challenge is for any opponent who believes in the sufficiency of Scripture to replace their framework with a Critical Text one (as I understand it). You say they are "devoid of biblical support" implying that you have biblical grounds that refutes their position and one that establishes your own. Ok, lets have it... Now, please do not waste any more snide remarks about Waite, Riplinger etc. Just answer the fundamental challenge. If you cannot just say so rather than repeating ad nauseum how much amusement you get from reading Riplinger's latest piece. We do not judge the history of medicine by the failures of a few quack doctors. If you do not want to discuss the arguments from Scripture, then you probably need to change the name of this blog as this does tend to remove a framework for "dialogue" between us.
amarillo		#12	[-]
Posts: 3485 (10/13/2009 02:55:56) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	nice try, Tim ... go back to your homework. here's the link: http://bibleversiondiscus.../getrefs/id/49347/type/0 it's just a very simple questionnaire on the Bible ... or was it too much to handle, eh? how about, let's give u by Wednesday (then we'll know if u're able to debate the issues or if u shd stick to Ad Hominems )? or do u need more time? Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB Last Edited By: amarillo 10/13/2009 03:07:37. Edited 4 times.
77		#13	[-]
Posts: 935 (10/13/2009 04:48:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Timmy: "10 posts later and it seems that most of you are persisting in playing the man rather than the ball. This is suggestive that you have no substantive points to make. Two deluded individuals even tried to link me with Riplinger! " 77: Ten posts later and all you have done is to play the arrogant bully. When are YOU going to stop with your grade school baiting of Joseph, and put your proofs where your mouth is? Since you are so confident of your golden calf, then it should be child's play for you to defend it here! And no, nobody here has tried to link you with Gail Ripper; you have demonstrated by your posts that you are far from even her amateur league. "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
77		#14	[-]
Posts: 936 (10/13/2009 04:51:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Timmy: "Brandenburg and his friends on their latest post have put a presuppositional biblical framework that guides them to all the Words of God today." 77: A charade, nothing more. All Brandenburg and lackeys have done is to manufacture a weak argument built on nothing more of substance than the King Jimmy Bible Bully standby: circular reasoning. "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
77		#15	[-]
Posts: 937 (10/13/2009 05:17:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Timmy: "I was interested to note that he is a reluctant graduate of the "redneck scholarship" of BJU (up there with Hyles Anderson's scholarship!!) then took a left turn into Neo-Evangelicalism in Toronto and does not know what he is now." 77: Well, Bible Bully: what about YOUR academic credentials? You DO have some, don't you? "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
2Timothy316		#16	[-]
Posts: 4 (10/13/2009 06:11:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I note Joseph has failed to answer the question again. I am beginning to suspect he is a politician. May be some of his erstwhile cyber friends here could help him out. The irony of this whole discussion is that I am being accused of being a "bully" and "baiting" Joseph when he has filled pages here spewing out diatribes against sincere believers. Now, lest I let him another rabbit hole to bolt down, I will desist from mentioning his scholarship and face him with the fundamental questions. Let me summarise the basic questions of Brandenburg's position that he puts on his website that seems so difficult for Joseph to answer: (1) Do you believe the Bible is sufficient to guide us in all areas of faith and practice? (2) What Biblical presuppositional approach guides us to know with certainty to take an ordination oath that there are 66 books in the Canon? (3) What Biblical presuppositional approach guides us to know with certainty what Words make up the books of this Canon? Ok, Joseph (you can phone a friend if you like for help) - just answer the questions! I know you claim to have destroyed all the KJV/TR arguments so this should be a piece of cake for a scholar like you. To make life easier, if you have already answered them before then just cut and paste. P.S. - The rest of you back off and let him answer unless you have an answer to these questions.
steelmaker		#17	[-]
Posts: 2062 (10/13/2009 07:50:59) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Once again, 2 Tim: Please show us some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Betcha can't do it! "robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
Armchair Scholar		#18	[-]
Posts: 1262 (10/13/2009 10:27:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Timmy comes here, stating he is a "neutral observer" and finds the debate "interesting." He proceeds to ask why there is arguing against "KJVO kooks" instead of taking on the "heavyweights." Then he expresses a dislike for ad hominem, using Riplinger for an example. Timmy comes here having no Biblical argument with which to support his KJVO stance, yet demands the same from those he wishes to challenge. And because he has no argument it quickly begins to show as he resorts to the very thing he first claimed to dislike: ad hominem: "deluded individuals," "redneck scholarship"... This reminds me of a few other individuals who have come through here under different names. All of whom threw out challenges and demanded that their questions be answered, while refusing to answer even the basest of questions about their beliefs, which brought them to this board in the first place. Again, we're seeing the proverbial dog chasing its tail. I'm about to hit the ignore button. Jude 10: "But what things they don't understand, they denigrate; and things they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."
Euthymius		#19	[-]
Posts: 2148 (10/13/2009 10:53:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Add to this that Brandenburg and his presuppositional approach has already been answered in detail on othersites, and there is no reason to reinvent the same wheel here. Examples: <http://givemetruth.net/in...ost-on-epistemology/> <http://goshareyourfaith.w...ew-came-out-my-nose/> <http://www.aomin.org/aobl...id=1&query=blank>
steelmaker		#20	[-]
Posts: 2063 (10/13/2009 11:15:24) Registered User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad Arm & Euthy, not one of these hit/skip KJVOs can get past the LACK OF SCRIPTURE prob for their myth. Notice how they avoid the question as if it were a dose of swine flu. "robycop3 - The avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Enough of the Ad hominen Debate

Enough of the Ad hominen Debate