KJBOs place Alexandrian MSS on par with DaVinciCode Gnostic filth

Actually, you're just guessing again, Mr. Correa, same as your fave source of cutting/pasting, Terry Watkins, does.

 

Rev. Lowery:KJV is an exact translation of the original texts from there original languages into English

No, it isn't exact; let's start with "God forbid" from the Greek "me ginomai" for openers.

the NASB and other MV's are variations on the KJV.

No, they're separate translations.

 

Did you study this before promoting it?

Do you have a scriptural basis for being KJVO?

FTR, the KJV is not an "exact translation". It is largely formal equivalency. However, there are places like the use of "God forbid" in Romans where it uses dynamic equivalency.

Further, it was not translated from the original texts. It was translated from a text originally collated by Erasmus in the 1500's. It did not exist prior to then. Erasmus relied on a few NT mss that were roughly representative of the Byzantine family, the Latin Vulgate, and his own brilliant, yet human (and RCC influenced), mind.

 

Returning to OP, was there any link found between Da Vinci Code and Alexandrian Texts?
Even though it might be a glimpse of it, it may be interesting if I know about such link.
The problem with this type of debate is that we go astray from what OP implied in the beginning.

What I can clearly say is that the Deity of Jesus Christ is weakened in Alexandiran texts in such verses as :

1 Tim 3:16, Eph 3:9, John 3:13.


I believe "ALL" scripture in 2 Tim 3:15-17 means ALL the words of the scripture(of the genuine Bible), and doesn't mean any translation will be OK, because there are serious warnings against any perversion of His Words as we read Rev 22:18-19 and other verses.

 

I agree. The mansucript Joseph posted a picture of is the word of God. Thank you for finally admiting that. </font>[/QUOTE]you are welcome! but prove that the NASB is! Not contains; but is! just a tought! </font>[/QUOTE]Okay - prove that the the KJV is, not contains: but is! Just a thought! </font>[/QUOTE]OK the Argument that you have made and that the Modernist have made is not wether the the KJV is the Word of God. As yourself and TCassidy and DDand so on! I will say though on the other hand on that statement that the burden of proof is for you and the Modernists to prove Not the KJVO! What you and the Modernist Ask With all do respect is to prove that MV's Are the Word of God which they have Not! Sounds retorical dosent it? They may contain it or may have it some here and some there? but they say it has curruptions or pollution caused by questionable MSS! Now nowhere does it say in Scripture that we are to Use the KJVO! But it does say that we are to Live By Every Word of God! If MV's are missing Scripture then they are a Brick short of a load and therefore Are NOT The WORD of GOD. Only Partiality is not the whole ENCHILADA! OLE TORO!

 

Actually, you're just guessing again, Mr. Correa, same as your fave source of cutting/pasting, Terry Watkins, does. </font>[/QUOTE]The only cutting and Pastin I will be doing from Now on is coming from Hebrews 4:12! You yourself and Modernists alike have all said that the KJB IS THE WORD OF GOD! YES or NO? Now the Burden OF PROOF is that the MV's ARE OR CONTAIN, "The Word of GOD! Remember we have been offering a Polluted sacrifice up to God According to Malachi 1:4-9, and God will not Accept it! I have alot to repent about; but this Joel Olstein Phsycology isn't getting it! I'm no Educator; I'm A HELL, FIRE ,and DAMNATION! Preacher! With a Mandate from Our Savior to Win the Lost At any Cost! We have to preach the WHOLE Council of GOD And to Be Honest we Cannot do that with A Version that has Mark 16:16 missing from it!

 

Because the KJV says so. Any bible that is able to make you wise unto salvation is called "scripture" and said to be "inspired" according to 2 Timothy 3:15-17. "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

The KJV says that any bible that is able to make you wise unto salvation is "holy scripture."

The difference between you and me is that I believe the bible and you say the bible is lying. </font>[/QUOTE]Even the Satanic Bible? Ithink NOT!

 

I have to ask you; Were you disagreeing with me in the Rev 17:8 post or did you get the impression that I was just Agreeing with you about We cant be wrong and right at the same time? as DD and TCassidy claim to have said?

 

The KJV says that any bible that is able to make you wise unto salvation is "holy scripture." It did not say any Bible it said ALL Scripture! So then I have a KJB and there fore have the Whole council of God! The NASB dosent because it is missing Scripture and therefor cannot be the Whole council now can it? It cant a BIBLE now can it? But if you insist I wont debate you since you so say that you preach out of the Word of God: But what I am hearing you say is that you have to have a NIV to understand it?

 

Erwin Lutzer was on Ankerberg last night talking about some of these issues. Apparently the show from last week discussed the links between the Gnostic gospels and the Da Vinci Code. Of course those are entirely different documents than the Alexandrian mss... but with all the false teaching being spewed by KJVO's about the Alexandrian texts being gnostic, there is a significant possibility that some ignorant person has made an inference based on numerous lies.

 

Erwin Lutzer was on Ankerberg last night talking about some of these issues. Apparently the show from last week discussed the links between the Gnostic gospels and the Da Vinci Code. Of course those are entirely different documents than the Alexandrian mss... but with all the false teaching being spewed by KJVO's about the Alexandrian texts being gnostic, there is a significant possibility that some ignorant person has made an inference based on numerous lies. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah the Devil!

 

There You Go More proof! Separate! Amen to that!

 

There You Go More proof! Separate! Amen to that! </font>[/QUOTE]Mr. Correa, your goofy responses aren't doing your cause a bit of good.

Not one quark of PROOF one is better than the other. Just more guesswork.

And you see Dr. Khoo or someone speaking for him called that Alex ms. GOD'S WORD. Otherwise, his whole article is a rerun of the same tired ole long-disproven KJVO propaganda.

Please look up the Greek 'me' and 'ginomai' in any good Greek-English lexicon or concordance & tell us how anyone could translate those 2 words together as "God forbid".

 

Erwin Lutzer was on Ankerberg last night talking about some of these issues. Apparently the show from last week discussed the links between the Gnostic gospels and the Da Vinci Code. Of course those are entirely different documents than the Alexandrian mss... but with all the false teaching being spewed by KJVO's about the Alexandrian texts being gnostic, there is a significant possibility that some ignorant person has made an inference based on numerous lies. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah the Devil! </font>[/QUOTE]....influencing the KJVOs.

 

I don't know about the Alexandrian texts, but "The Message" is as close to gnostic as it gets.

http://www.seekgod.ca/msgdoctrine2.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/msgdoctrine3.htm


yowza

 

BTW, anyone see the shows about the Da Vinci code on the Discovery Channel late last night? Its supporters admitted that no serious scholar has ever found any support for such a code, nor found any evidence that Leo ever belonged to any gnostic org.

An earlier show debunked the notion that the old Merovingian line of kings was descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, again pointing out that not one trace of Scriptural evidence nor from any secular writings from that time link Jesus with MM in any way besides that which Scripture says. The idea that they were married only came much later, most likely from a pagan source trying to discredit Christianity.

The Alex mss were here long before Leo was born. Any "connection" or similarities between the Alex mss & Leo's work is purely coincidental.

 

That may be what you think but that is not what it says. It says πασα γραφη. "Every Scripture." It never mentions "words." </font>[/QUOTE]All Scripture refers to the WRITTEN Words.

 

To get into this ruckmanite/modern version argument...:

Which is the word of God?

Any of you ruckmanites wish to answer this?

bet you can't.

-TheWinDork