Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

robycop3

Member
Still, no Scripture supporting the KJVO myth. Thus, it's not true.

Fine to *PREFER* the KJV or any other valid version, but to say one's pet version is the ONLY valid one simply isn't true.
 

robycop3

Member
This is an argument from silence. A logical fallacy.

No, not at all. ALL doctrines of faith/worship must be supported by Scripture to be true, & if there was any for the KJVO myth, someone would've cited it long ago.

The fallacy is the non-Scriptural KJVO myth.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

robycop3

Member
Denying it doesn't change the fact that your argument is, by definition, an argument from silence.

I agree with your position, I'm just pointing out that your argument is fallacious, and you should be more careful about how you argue your position.

Seems to be a pretty good argument, as no KJVO has tried to counter it.

I've had "oneness pentecostals" use a "silent" argument against the existence of the Holy Trinity by saying the word "trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture. That's mainly because it's an English word derived from the Latin "trinitatem". (Which doesn't appear in Scripture,either.) But the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is there, from clear implication, such as in the story of Jesus' baptism.

However, there's NO Scriptural implication for the KJVO myth, or for any other "one-version-only" myth for any language. We see JESUS reading aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, calling it "this Scripture". So, I'll continue to wait for any KJVO legitimate response to the "no Scriptural support" fact. I sometimes take another tack & ask KJVOs to please show us the SOURCE for KJVO.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
... I've had "oneness pentecostals" use a "silent" argument against the existence of the Holy Trinity by saying the word "trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture. That's mainly because it's an English word derived from the Latin "trinitatem". (Which doesn't appear in Scripture,either.) But the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is there, from clear implication, such as in the story of Jesus' baptism.
It's from the Apostles. The Bible is consistent with the Trinity, and the Apostles taught the Trinity.
However, there's NO Scriptural implication for the KJVO myth, or for any other "one-version-only" myth for any language. We see JESUS reading aloud from a vorlage copy of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, calling it "this Scripture". So, I'll continue to wait for any KJVO legitimate response to the "no Scriptural support" fact. I sometimes take another tack & ask KJVOs to please show us the SOURCE for KJVO.
It's not from the Apostles. Everything from the Apostles is ancient, any notion that dates to long after the Apostolic era, is not Apostolic because it cannot be Apostolic.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Denying it doesn't change the fact that your argument is, by definition, an argument from silence.

I agree with your position, I'm just pointing out that your argument is fallacious, and you should be more careful about how you argue your position.
I agree. The truth is done no favors when it is argued poorly.

A skilled debater could flip an argument from silence fallacy against someone who uses it because if you are arguing that silence is something other than silence then why do you get to declare what the silence means? Why couldn't the bible's silence mean the opposite of what RC3 is suggesting and by what means would RC3 be able to prove it either way? He couldn't, which is just the whole point.

RC3's better argument is when he points out that Jesus quoted from a foreign language translation when He had immediate access to the original. That seems to count as legitimate affirmative evidence for the case against KJV onlyism and he should stick with that.

Clete
 
Top