Just when I thought that JD Hall and some of his Calvinist followers couldn’t get any lower, I stumbled upon a conversation that took place on Twitter where JD Hall, Fred Butler, “Rhology”, Gene Clyatt (Shinar Squirrel) where all of these Genevan Calvinists were harassing Ergun Caner’s 15 year old son. Not only is the […]
[Assistant Editor's note: this looks like a deliberate conspiracy to slam the borders with known sick immigrants to spread disease as well as chaos into the country. There's just no other explanation for the things that OBama has allowed to happen on the US borders. A scary thought would be that if the US is […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.com&blog=40542567&post=1613&subd=dorightchristians&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />
WARNING: If you are a member of the Anon Church, and can’t handle what you’ve dished out to other Baptists, this article is going to REALLY offend you! The Anon Church is a group of cyber religious terrorists lead by a convicted sex offender Matthew Coker (convicted for child pornography) -who goes by “Back Row […]
A so-called Christian heavy metal band whose frontman was convicted of attempting to hire a hitman to murder his estranged wife has admitted that it duped fans into believing that they were Christian in order to sell their music. “Truthfully, I was an atheist,” Tim Lambesis, the lead singer and founder of As I Lay Dying told theAlternative Press in a recent interview. […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.com&blog=40542567&post=1529&subd=dorightchristians&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />
Wow, what a bunch of pious sounding Palestinians who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails into our living quarters, and then go crying to the UN (in this case, the moderators) about how bad my "attitude" is.
You want bad attitude? Take this forum and shove it in between a Catholic Bible like an Apocrypha.
Considering that I have been gone all weekend and today is really some of my first postings in about 4 days, and your very first response to me is sarcastic (after just telling someone else to "cut the sarcasm" in Post #81), I would say that my assumption on how you intend to respond was pretty accurate. But it does appear that with the accusation of "paranoid" you have joined the ranks of the other James White hooligans (some on this board such as Genevan Preacher) that have labeled me a "conspiracy theorist".
Here's a little bit more accuracy about your "activities": you are sympathizing more and more with those who purposely throw around false doctrine on this forum. Of all of the points I made toward Jeffrey, instead of dealing with the issues related to his attack on the KJV and support of modern version, you isolated one part of my comment to be sarcastic about whether or not you had the ability to read. And for the record, I never said you couldn't read (since you adamantly repeated it twice in 2 separate comments), even a 1st grader can read, but that doesn't mean they have enough comprehension to understand how many calories are in a bowl full of modern version soup.
You're right, I should have limited my admonition toward the people commenting that actually think they know something about the history of the KJV and modern version debates, as opposed to the people that commented who DO know what they're talking about.
It makes no difference how long the discussion lasted about Ruckman, that was not the ONLY thing I said "pay attention" to. I said that the thread was about how long the concept of King James Version Only preceded Ruckman, which has not so far been discussed at length (if at all). You even made the comment earlier on that you did not want to "derail the thread", and yet you did it any way. So you can stop being a hypocrite by telling me what can and can not be up for "discussion" on a "discussion board" when you admitted yourself that threads have a purpose of sticking to the point as per your response in Post #11.
Thus if this is how it's going to be from now on every time I post something, at least make sure your arguments and comments have a little bit more weight to them than this one did.
Now for Jeffrey, I'll ask you the same questions that James White keeps dodging about the Codex Sinaiticus:
1. If the correctors of Aleph are supposed to be 4th - 5th century, then explain how a 12th century Islamic prophecy is written in Arabic in the folio of Revelation chapter 7-8 in the footnote?
2. If the correctors of Aleph are 4th & 5th century, explain how 9th century miniscules were used in corrections (such as the uncial 'betas' used in Mark 2). Kind of hard to ascribe correctors to the 5th century when there is evidence of styles that were not in use until 400 years later.
3. Defend James White's assumption that Aleph was "in much usage" by the earlier churches when there are numerous folios that are written on pure white parchment (and free of any lemon or other whitening process).
I have about 20 more anomalies I could list, but those 3 are smoking guns against the Sinaiticus that James White has refused to answer from us for at least a year now. Why? Because the life of all your modern versions and the veracity of their textual criticism apparatus DEPENDS ON CODEX SINAITICUS, and if just one card falls out, the whole house of Sinaiticus crumbles.
And what's funny about James White is that he recently criticized a person for failing to show up on his radio show to debate Molinism (He's also made fun of Ergun Caner for failing to appear for a debate with him). However, White does not hold Constantine Tischendorf (the alleged founder of the Sinaiticus) to the same standard when Tishy failed to show up for a debate with Constantine Simonides who claimed authorship of the document that Tishy was trying to pass off as the oldest mss known to Christendom. Tishy had already once before accused Simonides of fraud when Simonides claimed to have a Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermes (which ironically was included in Tishy first edition of his Russian copy of the Sinaiticus) and then had to retract his statements and apologize to Simonides. When Simonides publicly challenged Tishy in all of the local media outlets, Tischendorf was a no-show on the day of the debate.
By the way, James White in his book on the KJVO Controversy had initially agreed with the commonly held story that Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus in a 'trash can'. It was not until later when this story was challenged that White altered his story to it being found bound in a red cloth carefully guarded by the monks at St. Catherine's. White is a professional liar that his boot licking followers don't pay attention to when he changes his stories.
And for the rest of you, pay attention to what the subject was about. It wasn't about Peter Ruckman but about the oft made claims by KJV haters that the KJVO position was started by Ruckman giving the impression that defense of the KJV is some new phenomena. The quote is simply posted to show that defense of the KJV preceded Peter Ruckman by a long shot.
I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist
I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
Dr. Elisha Weismann Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue. Thomas Morris posted the following quote […]
The issue went right over his head. The contention was about symbolism as it applied to mathematical equations, not the OBjects being numerated. Their initial rebuttal was that the measurements (i.e., mathematical equations) themselves were symbolic, and the point I am showing- which they've completely missed and reverted right back to circular reasoning- is that the equations given in Revelation are not neither symbolic nor allegorical. And since the mathematical equations have a literal meaning, it is impossible to conclude that the city is made up of humans because it doesn't 'add up'
What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it".
It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors.
This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right?
The ironic thing is that you claim to not want to be labeled, but always run to the defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology anytime that it is questioned, so you can take that pious sounding "it's based on Scripture" elsewhere. You chose to identify with an Independent Baptist KJVO forum when you signed up, and I'm pretty sure your information did not say, "I'm just following the Bible". No, you CHOSE to identify with Independent Baptists, either that, or you have deceitfully wormed your way into this forum. Since you likely will not admit to the latter, then if it's the former, it's rather convenient then for you isn't it, to get to pick and choose when you want to follow a label, and when you don't to follow one when said label gets trampled on by sound Biblical and logical arguments.
Furthermore, you cry about shunning labels and yet choose the screen name "COVENANTer" which identifies you with a specific system of theology.
Now all of the rhetoric you just posted is all fine and dandy if that's what you REALLY believed, but we both know that it goes further than just the simple surface bumper sticker slogans you post when you need to back up, regroup, attempt to get people to agree with you on levels of theology they accept first, and then make additional attempts later (preferably after I'm visibly offline) to try the sucker-punches again. Sorry, not while I'm watching
Anytime you care to answer my previous post feel free (or feel casually determined, doesn't matter to me).