Calvary Baptist Seminary: A Plea for Realism: The Version Debate Lives On

[RPittman] Inanity of inanities … all is inanity … this too is inanity. Perhaps you ought to have read the first paragraph of my post that you sniped out of the quote. Do you know what sarcasm is? BTW, who is Dr. Huss. I don’t believe that I mentioned or alluded to him.

Dr. Huss is the fellow who wrote the blog used in the OP.

RPittman, your MO on this site has become increasingly clear. When pressed to answer clear, specific questions, you often do one of the following:

1. Attack the proponents of the other position.
2. Simply assert that the other position is based on rationalism and therefore false.
3. Say that you don’t have time to answer questions or fully explain your position.

I am afraid that I may have inadvertently sent SI into a tailspin towards the frivolity of facebook.

You see, I “liked” Greg’s post:

[Greg Long] RPittman, your MO on this site has become increasingly clear. When pressed to answer clear, specific questions, you often do one of the following:

1. Attack the proponents of the other position.
2. Simply assert that the other position is based on rationalism and therefore false.
3. Say that you don’t have time to answer questions or fully explain your position.

That’s a very facebookish thing to do.

So when you see people updating SI with what they had for breakfast; and 140 character posts, you can blame me.

[RPittman]

[Matthew Richards]

[RPittman] Although KJVOers have the reputation of trying to force their views on others, the other side is equally guilty. It seems that many MV‘ers feel that they must win over the KJVO folks to justify their own position.

I have never seen or heard of an “MVer” destroying KJVs, calling them “false bibles”, or claiming that the KJV was not God’s Word. On the other hand I have seen and heard all of those things from KJVOs regarding all other English translations. The very nature of the argument is that most KJVers believe that they have a perfect translation and all others are found wanting. The “MVers” believe that there are multiple versions that are God’s Word. The “MVers” are not equally guilty here. The “MVers” are just concerned about unorthodox error infecting the church—I hope they win over as many KJVOs as possible!

Matthew Richards

This is inanity. It is easy to find more excesses on the other side than one’s own. You are using extreme cases and your experience is evidently limited or you are blind to the foibles of the MV‘ers. No more needs to be said. This is an unbalanced view.

Bro. Pittman,

Few more questions for you:

Is the NIV God’s Word? Is the ESV God’s Word? Is the KJV God’s Word? Is the NASB God’s Word? Do you believe that there are any mistakes in the KJV 1769? What about KJV 1611?

Matthew

[Forrest] I am afraid that I may have inadvertently sent SI into a tailspin towards the frivolity of facebook.

You see, I “liked” Greg’s post:

[Greg Long] RPittman, your MO on this site has become increasingly clear. When pressed to answer clear, specific questions, you often do one of the following:

1. Attack the proponents of the other position.
2. Simply assert that the other position is based on rationalism and therefore false.
3. Say that you don’t have time to answer questions or fully explain your position.

That’s a very facebookish thing to do.

So when you see people updating SI with what they had for breakfast; and 140 character posts, you can blame me.

I just liked your post liking my post.

[RPittman] Would you like for me to fold my tent and steal away like an Arab or would you prefer that I stay and debate with the limitations that I face? If you want it to be just the choir patting one another on the back, I can leave with no loss to me. Perhaps some would like for SI to become a mutual admiration society. If so, just say the word. :bigsmile:

No one is asking for a mutual admiration society. We can’t have sharpening without sparks, and we can’t have sparks without some opposition. However, for the opposing point of view to be worth considering (or a sharpening influence), it has to have valid points to consider of its own, not simply an assertion that the other side’s arguments are based on a paradigm you don’t personally accept, or just a restatement that you are right without any proof or dealing with the arguments of the other side. If your entire opposing argument consists of “You are wrong, but I don’t have the time to explain why and I won’t argue using your methods,” then maybe taking your ball and going home would be a better use of your time and ours.

[RP] then I suggest you listen to D. A. Carson’s audio segments dealing with Post-modernism. These are available at Gospel Coalition (http://thegospelcoalition.org/). He basically says the same thing.

And yet, somehow, he is not KJVO and wrote http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Version-Debate-Realism/dp/0801024277] an anti-KJVO book years ago.

So if he is saying “basicallly the same thing” as RPittman about “rationalistic epistemology” it would seem that the subject has no relevance to the KJV debate.

(Yes, I’m many posts behind, but couldn’t leave that unsaid)