<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\07514792577\46blogName\75PLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75BLUE\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://electofgod.blogspot.com/\46vt\0753757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

10.02.2006

Anti-KJV crusader James White strikes out again...



I was reading James "anti-KJV" White's blog and came across this passage:

"A person with money becomes a little god, shaping and making his own reality, his own future, or so he thinks. It is that kind of love of money that is a root, (not the root as the KJV puts it) of all sorts of evil."

The little swipe at the KJV. The passage in question is 1 Timothy 6:10. So I did some research to see if the KJV truly is a mistranslation here. (Because frankly on the surface it's one of those that makes you think it would be hard to defend the KJV.) I found this page:

The guy even uses James White as a foil for explaining the KJV rendering of that verse. It turns out there is no article ('the' or 'a') before root in that verse, and the putting there of one is not only wholly legitimate but the one the KJV put there was not without precedent and legitimacy as a rendering. Read a little bit of the guy's explanation and you see how much deception comes out of the anti-KJV camp...

They seem to have adopted the Muslim's approach that lying to Christians is OK if it is done to further their cause...

These self-identified Calvinists who push the corrupt, new age, Alexandrian, Roman Catholic, devil manuscripts are solely in the Reformed camp to do just that. The devil knows, and his followers know, that they can do a thousand times more damage to the Kingdom of God by pushing the corrupt manuscripts onto unknowing Christians than they can by attacking sound doctrine (it just buys them time, though, until their inevitable destruction in eternal hellfire). So they have no problem espousing Calvinist doctrine. It's their cover to do what they are really in the camp of believers to do: insert the devil's manuscripts. Scratch these types and you find Roman Catholics under the surface. When they get 'heated' they can't help themselves but to sound like Roman devil-priests, which has been documented in James White's case ("People who aren't specialists shouldn't have opinions about the manuscripts")...

49 Comments:

Blogger James White said...

I have responded to your libelous post here:

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1558

I ask that you document where I have ever said, "Christians who are not ordained clerics shouldn't have opinions about the manuscripts" You put it in quotes, and I demand you document where I have ever said this. If you cannot document those exact words, you will post a retraction with apology. Thank you.

And if you have the courage of your conviction, sir, you will call the DL tomorrow, toll-free, at 877-753-3341, and we will talk about the text of 1 Timothy 6:10 in the original language, and we can discuss the textual critical issues as well. And, if you wish, you can explain why someone such as myself is doomed to perdition. I'm sure my audience would like to come to understand that idea.

James White
www.aomin.org

October 2, 2006 at 3:46 PM  
Blogger BlackCalvinist said...

I'd like to see that documented too. I've been reading and following most of your KJV related comments since way before I was a Calvinist and I've never heard you say anything like that.

October 2, 2006 at 4:19 PM  
Blogger jigawatt said...

I agree with Dr. White and blackcalvinist. Please give a reference for the quote in question.

October 2, 2006 at 4:42 PM  
Blogger Calvinist Gadfly said...

Given that I grew up KJVO (20 years), it is these KJVO sites that remind me of my previous enslaved Tradition.

I look foward to hearing you defend your KJV tradition on the Dividing Line Radio Show tomorrow, as well as your explanation for libel against an elder of God's people.

Alan

October 2, 2006 at 4:58 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

I'm sure it goes without saying, but God has said:

16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
(Exodus 20:16, KJV)

Perhaps you will be able to show how you are not a false witness...

-Supraman

October 2, 2006 at 5:06 PM  
Blogger Mike-e said...

I can't believe how slanderous this guy is! Want to disagree with James White? Cool! But if you are going to disagree, then PLEASE do so in accordance with 2 Tim. 2:23-26. There's no use in name calling. Be nice. Be respectful. Disagree firmly. And please leave your personal attacks at the door! Oh, and i'll be listening to the DL and awaiting your apology.

Godbless

ApologistX

October 2, 2006 at 6:00 PM  
Blogger Jeff Jones said...

c.t.,

I don't understand what the use is of having an infallible, final, and inviolable translation of the Bible if you aren't going to bother following what it says.

I could not disagree with your KJVO position more. But let's assume it is true for a moment:

In the AV, does not Ephesians 4:15 command you to speak the truth in love?

What about your comments above is either truthful or loving? It looks to me that you're parroting well-worn KJVO assertions that have been proven wrong again and again, not for the edification of the man you disagree with but simply (and sinfully) to either excite the KJVO cheering section or to try to get a notch in your apostate hunting knife.

It is possible to refute error without being hateful. If apologetics (even in the service of a flawed cause!) is what you see as your calling, I suggest you go back to the AV and read it again.

You owe James White a retraction and an apology. You don't have to change your views to do that -- but if you persist in slandering others in this manner, I wonder what the point is of believing the KJV is the Word of God at all, if you don't plan to follow it.

October 2, 2006 at 6:55 PM  
Blogger Rick Beckman said...

Textual variants aside, I'd simply like to know how money is the root of all evil, as the KJV puts it, if that translation is to be defended.

How was money in view when Adam & Eve ate of the tree of knowledge? How was money in view when Satan was tempting Christ with bread? How was money in view when Daniel was forbidden to pray?

Either money is the root of all evil, or it isn't; if it isn't, then the KJV translation stands to be corrected at this point. If it is, was Adam or Eve holding the purse in the garden and what type of currency was in use?

Unsnatchingly Christ's,
Rick

October 2, 2006 at 7:03 PM  
Blogger Brandon Addison said...

tc,

Many times in disputes people's errors need to be pointed out. Many times people engage in unGodly dialogue and do not truly represent Scripture. If you were to state that Dr. White was wrong about his statement and began to provide documentation regarding the text that would be one thing.

You deceided to use an ad hominem argument against Dr. White without ever touching on the text of 1 Timothy. Dr. White has gotten along fine with many people the he has debated and disagreed with. Look even at the Crossan and Shabir Ally debates. Both men walked away with a great respect for Dr. White because of his loving attitude. Dr. White was not upset at the fact that they disagreed(though it would be prefered that they did believe), this allows for dialogue.

Disagreement is not the issue here, it is the way in which you did not extened love to your brother. You do not have to retract your position regarding 1 Timothy but I believe that it is obvious sir that you need to re-evaluate the way that you attacked someone who confesses Christ. I encourage you to repent and and seek reconciliation with Dr. White.

October 2, 2006 at 10:36 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Oh, little Westscott and Hort followers, aren't we sensitive on this subject?

Look at this post on White's blog:

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1294&catid=6

I was writing as mdries. Now look at this sentence in the midst of the email he quotes:

"By the way, your recent statement that only specialists should have opinions regarding manuscript issues was very Roman Catholic of you, hence my opening above [I had called him devil-priest]."

Notice White didn't take exception to me saying that in the real time of the exchange. That's because he knew he stated it. Whether it was on the Puritan Board or his own site I don't recall, but he did state it. Since time has passed now he thinks he can get away with denying saying such a thing. He's a dishonest boy.

Ah, you've all been exposed! You hold to the devil's manuscripts. And since this shows your lack of discernment and since you are as vain and prideful as the devil you won't ever back down! You'll defend the devil's corrupt manuscripts to the grave. You desperately demonize anybody who exposes your precious Roman Catholic manuscripts (kind of like Counter-Reformation Jesuits used to demonize the Reformers -- "Calvin confessed to a priest he was a bugger! yes, and that he had a demon in him! The priest wrote a book about it!")

I said it before, if any of you devil's water-boys had tried to push your corrupt manuscripts on a Calvin back in the day he'd have pinned a note on your collar (figuring you were somewhat challenged mentally) and buy you safe passage home...to the Vatican. Where your corrupt manuscripts come from.

Sorry, boys and girls, this is just too serious and foundational a matter. The devil has been corrupting the Word of God from the Garden. His greatest triumphant was springing Satanicus/Vaticanus on a sleeping Christendom in the 19th century -- no shots fired. The only problem is: you can't fool God's elect. We know the voice of the Shepherd. And we know God's Word is preserved supernaturally. Yeah, we're innocents like that. We actually believe what the Bible says. And when you push 'bibles' that delete the Word of God and change it and corrupt it a thousand different ways (ongoing corruption, by the way) we kind of take exception to it. Yeah, I know it's difficult to take when you are being out-flanked on your right. But that's going to happen when you're carrying water for the devil, no matter what you self-identify as...

October 3, 2006 at 1:48 AM  
Blogger Mike-e said...

"Notice White didn't take exception to me saying that in the real time of the exchange. That's because he knew he stated it. Whether it was on the Puritan Board or his own site I don't recall, but he did state it. Since time has passed now he thinks he can get away with denying saying such a thing. He's a dishonest boy. "

Translation: "Because Dr. White didn't respond to every single Ad Hominem that I threw at him, this means that he must have said everything I accused him of saying."

Incredible! Is is possible that you have absolutely no evidence to document your citation? And does calling us the "Devil's water boys" have anything to do with 1 Tim. 6:10? Why not deal with the issue at hand?

Oh, and one more thing. You said,

"You desperately demonize anybody who exposes your precious Roman Catholic manuscripts

Ok. Maybe i'm way off on this here. But....wasn't the TR collated by a Roman Catholic priest? Just a thought.

October 3, 2006 at 2:29 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

History is also a problem with the champions of the devil's manuscripts. Erasmus lived prior to the Reformation. So with that little fact in our possession we can then look to see what his views were in the context of his times: and he was rather more godly in his views (regarding the corruption of Rome and regarding the Word of God and so on) than the run of priests of his day. Look it up. If you have any interest in truth.

You have to fear only God to get wisdom. Don't fear man, and the opinions of man. Be bold in finding the truth. Wisdom loves those who seek her. Seek her.

October 3, 2006 at 2:43 AM  
Blogger beretta said...

This is a very simple matter for a very simple person. - The blogger here attributed the following quotation to James White: "Christians who are not ordained clerics shouldn't have opinions about the manuscripts."

Defend your accusation, or apologise in all humility. This is one kind of evil for sure, but I can't see how it was cause by the love of money (unless someone pays you to slander the brethren). Your own conduct undermines your defence of the KJV rendering of this verse.

October 3, 2006 at 3:31 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>Defend your accusation, or apologise

Wet little boys are always demanding an apology. And Muslims...

By the way, you have to accuse me of editing White's blog. A conspiracy claim that wouldn't be beyond you corrupt manuscript championers, in my experience. The post is there today. I wrote: "By the way, your recent statement that only specialists should have opinions regarding manuscript issues was very Roman Catholic of you,"

By the way - your recent statement.

Now, writing that back then it is kind of obvious he had made the recent statement? To anyone with good will towards truth. And he knew it too. Which is why he was silent...

October 3, 2006 at 3:48 AM  
Blogger Jeff Jones said...

Do you know your history at all?

"Erasmus lived prior to the Reformation."

I did look it up, like you said. You should have followed your own advice. Erasmus was contemporary with the Reformation. This is the same Erasmus who defended the Roman position on the freedom of the will against Luther! Or who did you think Luther wrote "Bondage of the Will" against? Erasmus stayed in the Catholic fold despite his misgivings, and fought against Luther's stress on sola gratia. In his dedication to a new edition of the treatise of Algerus, he reaffirmed his belief in the Catholic view of the presence of Christ in the elements of the Mass. So whether his views were a product of his time or not, he stayed on the Catholic side when he clearly had a choice - and defended it. To say he was Catholic is historically and theologically accurate.

And while the first edition of the TR was published in 1516 - the year before the 95 Theses - I don't believe that the KJV is based on that edition. It's a later edition, if I recall correctly, that was published during the Reformation (yes, if this is new to you, there were several editions and corrections to the TR; Erasmus didn't see it as perfect, either).

So Mike-e is right - Erasmus was a Catholic priest.

So now you owe him an apology as well, given the vitriol in your response to him based on that error.

October 3, 2006 at 6:14 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

The point in contention was not was Erasmus a Roman Catholic priest (sheesh).

Erasmus was 51 when Luther picked up the hammer. In those days that was like being 91.

Erasmus was a child of the 15th century. He was not 'contempory' with the Reformation. Not even geographically.

But that the early reformers sought to recruit him and use his stature, and felt that they could, tells you something about him anyway. And certainly it doesn't tell you that he was a typical corrupt Romanist priest of his day.

The Holy Spirit was using Erasmus for a rather important task, as well. He didn't need to jump into the Reformation battles. He was already playing a foundational role in bringing back light to a world submerged in Romanist darkness...

October 3, 2006 at 6:27 AM  
Blogger sdp said...

Sir, the tone in your writing sounds very Ruckmanish. I used to be KJVO. The reasons that I am now not KJVO are many, but one of them is the hate I hear coming from the main advocates.
Do you witness to people in this same tone of voice?
Do you deny the salvation of all Christians who were not saved reading the KJV? (That would be a big list.)
What about the people in other countries getting saved? (non-english speaking countries) Their Bibles were not transated from the KJV.
I thank God for people like James White. I don't have to agree with everything he says, but he always conducts himself in a way that brings glory to God's name. The same can not be said for KJVO advocates.

October 3, 2006 at 7:47 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Steve, how can you write such a dumb litany? I know you've been set straight on each of these canards and dumb statements in the past (if you've debated these issues at all). Yet you keep spewing it out. That's a sign of hardening.

And who cares what you used to be? You sound like former charismatics who feel burned by their experience who now state "God doesn't communicate with believers except through his Word and anybody who says different is a dumb Benny Hinn charismatic!!"

And why do you judge spiritual things by the behaviour of humans? If you're a Calvinist, how would you react to the statement: "Calvinists I've encountered are mean, therefore TULIP is false."

Also, look how dishonest it is when White (and his followers) continue to say it is KJV-onlyism they are being confronted with and not an accusation that the manuscripts that underlie their modern versions are corrupt. White CAN'T admit this is what is in contention, because he then has to defend the devil rather than enable himself to attack a strawman. He's wicked soul. He knows exactly what he's doing, and the fact that he continues it over and over after having been publically confronted on it over and over shows he's hardened on the issue.

October 3, 2006 at 8:19 AM  
Blogger geoffrobinson said...

Genetic logical fallacy.

It doesn't matter who collated the manuscripts.

October 3, 2006 at 8:24 AM  
Blogger SavedFromWhat said...

You all should check this out too:

http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2006/10/email-exchange-with-james-white-march.html

I am not sure that this fellow is serious.

October 3, 2006 at 8:27 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Dead serious. One of the sure marks of regeneration is not 'good language' and 'not angering people.' It is a high valuation for and instinctive defending of the Word of God. When your Westcott and Hort defile the Word of God you're damn well right I will confront, if not their dead souls, their followers who continue their evil work. The pure and whole Word of God is the most precious possession of fallen humanity. When it is attacked and defiled so blatantly God's elect WILL confront the evil, whether the lukewarm man-fearers like it or not.

October 3, 2006 at 8:41 AM  
Blogger Elias said...

Hey Cats Tongue, you need to document where you took this quote from or loose credibility.

"Christians who are not ordained clerics shouldn't have opinions about the manuscripts"

October 3, 2006 at 9:37 AM  
Blogger Brandon Addison said...

ct

You were rebuked on the PB and were banned from it. Your other brothers here have noticed your poor attitude and demeaning spirit towards Dr. White, there has not been one positive comment to your statements.

This does not invalidate the things that you have said, but it certainly causes us to look at them in a different light. Many people, other than Dr. White (and even KJV-O on the PB) have rebuked you for your behavior. You need to repent of your actions and un-Christlike attitude

October 3, 2006 at 9:38 AM  
Blogger sdp said...

"how can you write such a dumb litany?"
"canards and dumb statements"
"He's wicked soul."

--With every post you prove our point.

" And why do you judge spiritual things by the behaviour of humans?"

--I'm not judging you, or your spirituality. (I'm not even judging your Salvation.) that's between you and God. But, outward appearances and the way things are said do matter.

"If you're a Calvinist, how would you react to the statement: "Calvinists I've encountered are mean, therefore TULIP is false." "

--I would refute this false statement in a Godly way. I would not tell them that they are Devils going straight to hell for their beliefs.

I'm not a Scholar or a debater. I'm just a blue collar worker telling you what I believe to be true.

October 3, 2006 at 9:40 AM  
Blogger Kevin Rhyne said...

>>When your Westcott and Hort defile the Word of God you're damn well right I will confront, if not their dead souls, their followers who continue their evil work. >>

Is there something in the KJV that gives the "elect" of God the right to sin with impunity? Do you not fear that your repeated lack of gentleness, meekness, kindness and love is a sign of your own "hardening"? Tread lightly, CT, on how you "defend" your mere opinion...you also will one day have to give an account to Christ the King.

October 3, 2006 at 9:42 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Right. Christ the King whom you defile and spit on by championing the defilement and mutilation of His Word.

God's name in any of your mouths is disingenuous mocking of God. Defend His Word before you invoke His name against those who defend His Word.

Admit that you've been taken in by devils, first of all.

October 3, 2006 at 9:46 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>You were rebuked on the PB and were banned from it.

I was ultimately banned from that forum for confronting Federal Visionists and theonomists, of which that forum is crawling with, including many of the moderators. They were looking for any reason to ban me, and taking on the corrupt manuscripts in non-lukewarm language just provided them that excuse.

October 3, 2006 at 9:53 AM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

You said, "One of the sure marks of regeneration is not 'good language' and 'not angering people.'"

Really? Perhaps Paul was mistaken when he wrote to the Colossians:

" 5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. 8But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth."
(Colossians 3:5-8, KJV)

Or, maybe the Author of Proverbs had your language and love for instigation when it was written,

"1A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger."
(Proverbs 15:1, KJV)

Both good language and a desire to not anger people are marks of obedience to God, and thus are indeed marks of regeneration...

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 10:47 AM  
Blogger SavedFromWhat said...

Your redefining of terms is incredible. You've painted this picture of yourself as this champion of Christianity while at the same time practicing the very opposite of what the bible teaches. You call insults and rude behavior "non-lukewarm language", that is ridiculous. You are attributing good to that which is evil and then have the audacity to claim that the KJVO controversy is a discernment issue. Please answer this one question: HAVE YOU READ DR. WHITES The King James Only Controversy?

If YES: then please deal with what he says in the book and do not fall back on rhetoric.

Saved

October 3, 2006 at 10:51 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Listen, devil. You accuse like a cleric of the Roman Beast. Language is relative. Any language I use against your devil manuscript will come across as 'filthy communication' to you. The truth itself is like a knife.

You currently have no discernment to know what is filthy language and what isn't. The language in the modern versions is filthy, perverted language because it pretends to be the Word of God and is the words of the devil.

Again, when you don't know when the devil has you by the throat you won't know what the apostle Paul means when he talks of bad language.

I'm accused of 'bad language' by all Village of Morality Christians all across the web. It's your first and only defense when you're being exposed, and it's hollow. Do you really think God cares more if you say fuck than if you mutilate his Word? If that's a hard call for you you have problems...

October 3, 2006 at 11:01 AM  
Blogger Brandon Addison said...

You were rebuked and banned from people on the PB who shared your convictions on the KJV-O issue. Regardless what issue you believe got you banned, the point is this, your rhetoric is reprehensible and everyone can see it. Even the people that agree with your stance acknowledge that you are in no way shape or form acting in love.

Just in case you forgot, here is a link to the PB when you were so rude to Dr. White as people from your own position agree. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17211&page=2

You need to repent from your sinful attitude sir.

October 3, 2006 at 11:09 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Actually, we were playing bad cop, good cop over there. I opened up the field for the good cop pro-traditional text types over there. I take the fall, I don't mind. They later had a poll - anonymous voting - on what people on the forum considered their favorite translation, and the King James Version won. When people get the facts their conscience awakens. They may not become hardcore like me, but they no longer are the easy victims of sophistry and propaganda...

I need, though, to extricate myself from this current melee. The internet is crazy. If people want to read mutilated Bibles, then so be it. It's not a hellfire issue...

I engage in hyperbole on this issue... I don't really think you're all devils. Really... Dishonest, in some cases, yes; sophistic, sure... Duped, yeah... But bound for hellfire because you read the NIV/NASB/ESV et al? No... Just at some point find out what is missing or changed. Do yourself a favor...

October 3, 2006 at 12:04 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

Touched a nerve, did I? No, wait, I take that back. The Holy Spirit touched a nerve, and it is He that brings conviction of blatant sin - like that which you have shown to all.

I once tried to defend such language, but the Scriptures are plain. You even deny the text you cling to the authority to instruct you on how you are to speak to others. That you would use language that is as filthy as the "F" word in any context is an affront to God. Hear the Holy Spirit through Paul -

"29Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Ephesians 5
1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks."
(Ephesians 4:29-5:4, KJV)

Your posts and comments are filled with that which is identified in Scripture as corrupt communication, bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, evil speaking, filthiness and foolish talking. Paul says this behavior grieves the Holy Spirt.

Stop grieving the Spirit. Do what Scripture commands: use good and edifying speech...language full of grace, tenderheartedness, forgiveness and thanksgiving, for those are pleasing to the Lord, C.T.

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 12:04 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

supraman, this topic was gone over with 600 people vs. me when Mark Driscoll was accused of using 'bad language' and I defended it on a popular internet site (I don't know about Driscol re emerging church and all that, I just defended one thing he's written and was being taken to tast over). I know all the verses regarding language. I also know there is empty bad language and there is meaningful bad language. There is also language that will always be considered negative because it is saying something people don't want to hear. There are many possibilities. But the moralists take such things in a formalistic way, and there's no disuading them, so be it.

October 3, 2006 at 12:11 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T,

So you then believe that the language you are using in discussing this issue is identifiable by the terms Paul uses? The way you speak of and to those you disagree with can be considered "good and edifying speech...language full of grace, tenderheartedness, forgiveness and thanksgiving"? Far from being a "moralist", I am simply letting Scripture describe the attributes of Godly language. You have to ask yourself, as I did, "Is my language marked by attributes that glorify God or by those things that should "not be once named among you"? I don't claim perfection in this matter, but I recognize God's right to define how I should communicate to others...even those I strongly disagree with.

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 12:25 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

I'll give you this: I'd feel better physically if I didn't use such language. I do get conscience-stricken regarding it and have remorse, even though it's for dramatic purposes and all that. I can make the same points using more diplomatic language, but people do need shocks adminstered to them on this subject. I'll post some useful links to sites where people use more diplomatic language.

October 3, 2006 at 12:25 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

It is a difficult path to walk, to try to warn others whom you are convinced are not speaking in accord with Scripture strongly, and yet, without improper language...but it can be done. As a bit of personal insight, I have been meeting every Sunday afternoon with Jehovah's Witnesses for the last seven months. During that time I have strongly condemned their teachings, yet without resorting to...how shall I put it?..easier, more spiteful language. God is gracious, and He delivers us even from our own mouths.

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 12:30 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

supraman, you're making the assumption my language isn't intentional, or is out-of-control. I use the language I do to shock. People need to be shocked. And there is truth in the langauge I use as well. Else it wouldn't shock. The reaction happens because the shock, or sting, is real. Whited sepulchre or lukewarm language doesn't do anything but allow people to remain comfortable in their conceits. People don't like being called a devil, but you know what? when you champion the devil's manuscripts you're being a devil. And the word stings because they know there is truth in what is being said. Their conscience stings them as much as the words. They're vulnerable on the issue, and they know it, so when you zing them where their vulnerable they react with a massive outrage. Too bad. Stop being vulnerable maybe. Give up your championing of corrupt manuscripts.

October 3, 2006 at 1:55 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

I was making no assumptions on whether the language you use was/is intentional (though, admittedly, I was hoping it was a misplaced application of passion). The fact that it is intentional on your part is not a badge of honor. And, contrary to your thoughts on the matter, people are not shocked by the statements you make regarding the TR, they are shocked that someone, professing Christianity, would not only use non-edifying language, but that you would then justify it for "shock value". Moreover, the use of such language grieves the Holy Spirit, and cannot be condoned in any sense. That is why I am "jolted". There is no reason in those words, and as such, there can be no reasoning with someone who uses them. Don't be that person. You disqualify yourself through such statements.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit, who is the One Who illuminates the darkened minds of men, cannot speak to men without the "shocking" language you demand? That is not the Spirit of God revealed in Scripture...

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 2:33 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

You don't understand what shock means. Shock value is not a shock. Shock value is empty. A shock can only shock if it has truth in it and it convicts, against one's best defenses and self-justifications.

October 3, 2006 at 2:47 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

These are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Nowhere does God say that we should use such language toward one another...

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 2:52 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>These are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Nowhere does God say that we should use such language toward one another...

There is no Christ if His Word is defiled beyond recognition, which is happening currently with versions based on the corrupt and ever-changing and becoming more and more corrupt manuscripts. We learn of Christ from His Word. The devil has wanted to do something about this since the Garden. He began to have real success in the 19th century, and his followers have been gleefully carrying on the work ever since. No, you can't hide behind language like 'brothers and sisters in Christ' while you at the same time defile and mutilate His Word...

October 3, 2006 at 3:06 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

So those who do not utilize Bible versions based on the TR are not saved?

Assuming that they are not...Do you grieve the Holy Spirit using shocking language to unbelievers?

October 3, 2006 at 3:16 PM  
Blogger Supraman said...

C.T.,

Never mind...Thank you for your time. May God bless you with the clarity that only comes through His Word.

- Supraman

October 3, 2006 at 3:22 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

>So those who do not utilize Bible versions based on the TR are not saved?

You made exactly zero progress in your time here. But when you are in the position of defending cartoonishly corrupt manuscripts you really have to hold on to these ridiculous strawmen, don't you?

It really is a 'stench of hell on your very being' thing to be playing with the defiling of the Word of God. You can always come away from it. You certainly know enough to know better...

October 3, 2006 at 3:54 PM  
Blogger Ransom said...

Has c.t. chosen to bear false witness against James White? Why, by his own logic, that just proves c.t. is motivated by his sinful love of money. :)

October 5, 2006 at 11:07 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

What's confused you all from the beginning is White has proven himself in past exchanges to not rate any kind of serious treatment. Whether email, blog, or forum, at this point I merely do satire on him. He's a juvenile personality to begin with, but on the manuscripts issue he's the exact equivalent of a Roman Catholic apologist: no sophistry, no propaganda, no pure mendacity is off-limits. So when he says "Only specialists should have opinions about the manuscripts" and I paraphase "Only ordained clerics should have opinions about the manuscripts" both represent his Roman priest-like stated view.

It's interesting that White can be turned into a small pile of burning carbon by his opponents, and shown to be mendacious and sophistic to the nth degree, and his admirers just have no problem with any of that, because the campaign in your minds is sound. Pushing the corrupt manuscripts is a cause that transcends all standards of truth and behaviour. It is, as I stated, exactly like the Muslim approach that says it is OK to lie to 'infidels' if it furthers the progress of Islam.

October 5, 2006 at 11:36 PM  
Blogger Keith said...

CT is either joking or mentally ill.

November 20, 2007 at 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll fight in the foxhole with c.t. any day. The rest of you, stay out of the army. The enemy would have you running to his arms.

It is refreshing to see a man so passionate for the Word of God today!

December 9, 2009 at 2:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home