Bright Future of Independent Baptists.

In fact, Dr. Hills was a reformed theologian who James White used in one of the chapters of his King James Only Controversy book. That was from the mid 90's.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
Jimmyjammer said:
You could read his book.
Click to expand...

I have read his book. His "logic of faith" is nothing but KJV-only circular reasoning, albeit more polite than the usual.
 
Jimmyjammer said:
In fact, Dr. Hills was a reformed theologian who James White used in one of the chapters of his King James Only Controversy book. That was from the mid 90's.
Click to expand...

So you should be able to tell us what White had to say about him, right? Or do you still expect everyone else to do your homework for you?
 
Ransom said:
Jimmyjammer said:
In fact, Dr. Hills was a reformed theologian who James White used in one of the chapters of his King James Only Controversy book. That was from the mid 90's.
Click to expand...

So you should be able to tell us what White had to say about him, right? Or do you still expect everyone else to do your homework for you?
Click to expand...
He was using him as a category of KJVO defenders. In the same chapter, he also used Riplinger and Ruckman, Ruckman being the extreme end of KJVO.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
Jimmyjammer said:
He was using him as a category of KJVO defenders.
Click to expand...
Oh really. You don't say. [rolls eyes]

What does White say about Hills that proves you read more than the chapter titles? For someone who whines a lot about people not reading your links, you don't display an awful lot of understanding of the material you supposedly read.

But then, you're the clown who told me I can't trust what I read on the Internet after I cited the Bible . . .
 
You can't trust EVERYTHING that you read on the Internet. By all means, link some useful information.

The link that I provided from kjvtoday is quite useful about the church fathers and their quotes about the comma. I'd encourage you to fact check it. I did and it is accurate. The only one that you'd dispute is the Tertullian quote but it is very easily understood. I'm not digging that one back up.

In White's book, he was stressing that Hills wasn't in the more radical camps of KJVO. White was pointing out Hills' belief that preservation of the NT wasn't miraculous but providential. Hills believed that the KJV translators were not "inspired" but "God guided". White also pointed out that Hills' stressed that you need faith to believe in the preservation of scripture.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
You and your camp keep bringing up circular arguments. It's the usual strategy of the modern textual critic crowd of when combating all of the KJVO defenders.

You don't realize that you're guilty of the same circular reasoning. Howbeit, you're circle is much larger and transcendental. The Darwinians, Muslims and others are accusing you of the same logic. The difference is that I don't deny it.

Atheists don't believe Jesus even existed. We have historical records that he did. I'm sure you've read at least some of Josephus' work. I have it on my bookshelf. But they believe that all of it was fabricated. There were the accounts of Tacticus, Lucian and others. But they question every bit of it, very much like you question the evidence that I have presented. Accusing Hills of circular reasoning is no different.

A good historical example of what I'm saying is Justin Martyr's report of the squashing by Hadrian's general at the Rebellion under Bar-Cochba in 135 AD. Between this event and the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, you have an undeniable fulfillment of Jesus' words of what would happen not only to Jerusalem, but the villages that rejected him. 985 villages and 50 fortresses were absolutely leveled. A half of a million Jews that survived were sold into slavery. Now, do we believe that it all happened because Justin Martyr documented it and Tertullian mentioned it? No. Our Lord gave a pretty good account of it beforehand and that settles it.

At the end of the day, being a true Christian takes faith. That very faith is the evidence of what we believe.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews:11:1

Matthew Henry once said:

"Faith proves to the mind, the reality of things that cannot be seen by the bodily eye."

God promised to preserve his words:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalm:12:6
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm:12:7

Edward Hills stressed that the scriptures were handed down from generation to generation. And my logical conclusion is that Greek manuscript evidence from the 4th and 5th centuries is irrelevant, especially with a sample size of two. [emoji848]

Older is not always better, especially when you're trusting a region of the world that had been so heavily influenced by guys like Arius. That's why the Athanasian creed was written in the first place. They were attempting to make the Nicene creed stronger.

But Christianity is circular. I'm not trying to hide it like your crowd is.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
There?s the abuse of Psalm 12 again!
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised to hear that one again. Like I said, you're arguments are 20 years old.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
They are MUCH older than 20 years ago...

The Bible never changes meaning

The KJVO stole an early 1900s Seventh Day Adventist?s understanding of the passage about 20 years ago.
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
They are MUCH older than 20 years ago...

The Bible never changes meaning
Click to expand...
I see. You're going to accuse me of the Benjamin Wilkinson/ JJ Ray/ David Fuller claim.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
Since you know the origins, why do you continue to misuse the Scrupture?
 
I simply believe that God preserved his words. I'm not making it any more than that like Ruckman.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
You believe God only preserved His words in 1611, in a single English text form.

Something absolutely foreign to what King David meant.
 
Please explain how David meant that the KJV would be the pure, preserved words.
 
The honorable Rev. FSSL said:
Please explain how David meant that the KJV would be the pure, preserved words.
Click to expand...
We'll talk when you put the strawman away.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 
No straw man.

Either David meant that the KJV would be the preserved words of God, or he didn?t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top