interesting info

the time will come when they won't endure SOUND doctrine ...

that's a half-truth. MVs base their translations on ALL available, incl. the TR.

does Nverist have a prob w the TR too?

 

I was a machinist for more than 20 years. It used to tickle me to death to have some engineer, with no experience, come to the shop floor and try to tell us how to machine a certain piece of metal.

It is obvious that the KJVonlist here have no idea what they are talking about. You can train a parrot to speak words, that does not mean the bird understands what he is saying.

 

what a GREAT analogy! i got to wondering why i was blushing over some of their statements--now i know

 

From which of the Greek texts did these modern versions derive? Will you answer for me, please. </font>[/QUOTE]Most of them use the UBS text as their basis, but as any honest person can see by looking at the footnotes, they take into account the entire corpus of textual data. So what?? That means absolutely nothing except that the translators were conscientious enough to be honest with the data that God has preserved for us.

 

I think I'm going to be sick What a load of slop!! </font>[/QUOTE]You think I am trying to get you to give you up your KJV??? You are sorely deluded. I don't care what version you use. I do care about the truth and when you and others like you keep defaming the truth about God's word with your own false notions, I will give responding. If that makes you sick, then it says an awful lot about you.

Virtually no one today uses the WH text for anything but comparison. The text used is generally the UBS text, but as I said, all texts and all textual evidence is taken into account, something that honest translation requires.

 

From which of the Greek texts did these modern versions derive? Will you answer for me, please. </font>[/QUOTE]Most of them use the UBS text as their basis, but as any honest person can see by looking at the footnotes, they take into account the entire corpus of textual data. So what?? That means absolutely nothing except that the translators were conscientious enough to be honest with the data that God has preserved for us. </font>[/QUOTE]I see, you did NOT answer my questions. You do not know which one of 5 Greek Texts did modern versions derive from? Not only UBS, but Nestle text, Nestle/Aland text, Eclectic texts and W/H text -- where modern versions were derived. If you can answer them for me, Come on! My reason for asking you these questions is that I want to know if you know or not. If you do not know these questions, I already know them.

You said, "most of them use the UBS text.." NIV? NASB? TEV? NWT? LB? Which? Please answer!

 

So is it your assertion that any person or denomination that practices infant baptism is ungodly?

I never realized that differences in interpretation are automatically tantamount to ungodliness.

 

So is it your assertion that any person or denomination that practices infant baptism is ungodly?

I never realized that differences in interpretation are automatically tantamount to ungodliness. </font>[/QUOTE]Do most Baptist preachers believe in infant baptism?

 

You missed a part of the whole truth that Nverist and I already know.

 

The Baptist Distinctives require a believer's baptism, so no. One cannot be baptized in a Baptist church unless you're able to comprehend salvation, and assert that you have been saved.

However, this is a Baptist interpretation. Other denominations interpret the rules of baptism differently. It's not a biblical requirement to be baptized if you're saved. But you cannot be a Baptist unless you've been baptized after becoming a believer.

Baptist does not equate to all of Christianity, and vice versa.

 

NO Baptist preacher believes in infant baptism. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change... salvation....

Baptist Articles of Faith:
VII. Baptism
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.

Diane

 

I do not think you care about the truth because I see, you defend modern versions as likewise as most Catholics are interested in killing the KJV. Can a believer and an unbeliever walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3) Can they walk together except they be agreed on modern versions, textual criticism, doctrines of the Bible, and many?

Which modern versions were derived from the W/H text? The W/H text is still selling among many Christians bookstores. I saw it there.

 

Which KJV onlyist? How many groups of KJV onlyists do you know?

 

You missed a part of the whole truth that Nverist and I already know. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]n what might that "part of the whole truth" be?

 

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that I can't fellowship with another believer unless we are in complete agreement about every theological point? If so, why are we all here?

 

No, Baptists don't believe in infant baptism.

Baptism is a public profession of faith that is done after salvation. Infant baptism is different than believers baptism in a few ways.

We do have a type of ceremony for infants though. It's called baby dedication. But it has to do with the parents commitment to raising the children in the church not atonement for original sin of the child.

 

ASKJO/DR. BOB/MV-NEVERIST
First of all, I demand that a Graemlin with a flamethrower and a sword is added to the roster especially for occasions such as this one.

Second, no Roman Catholic with the possible exception of a handful nutcases (all born in the US) is interested in harming the KJV. The church of Rome does not CARE. The KJV controversy is literally beneath their notice.

Third, of the 4 New Testament translations in common use in the Netherlands not one is based on W/H.
2 are TR, 1 is UBS and 1 uses the text created by the L'ecole Biblique. None used 1 edition of the New Testament text exclusively and neither did the KJV.
The USA isn't any different. W/H hasn't been used as the main text in a serious Bible translation for at least 70 years.

 

Which KJV onlyist? How many groups of KJV onlyists do you know? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I was saved in a church that was as militant as you or anyone else on this board concerning this man-made doctrine. As I grew older and studied this doctrine for myself, I was able to see the just how ridiculous it was. Now, I would not even step foot in any church that teaches this false doctrine. This is one reason that I would be hesitant to attend any IFB church.

 

Then open your eyes. I answered your question plainly. Most of them use the UBS text although I cannot speak for all. The difference between teh UBS and NA text is mostly in the matter of the textual apparatus.

As I have pointed out, you do not know what you are talking about. You are simply not telling the truth.

You don't even know anything about Greek texts. You are parroting some information that you have heard. I have already demonstrated how woefully ignorant (i.e., unknowledgeable) you are about Greek texts. You do not even know what's out there. You most likely cannot read a word from any of them. So you have no standing to come in here and talk about Greek texts.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would not be asking this question. As I said, the NIV and NASB use all the manuscript evidence. So while their basis is essentially teh UBS text, they take into account all of it. As for the TEV, NWT, and LB, I don't even have a copy except on my computer. I don't read them. I don't care. They are not good translations.

You need to get your head out of the sand and start learning. Every time you post, you show how much you do not know. You should be embarrassed. Unfortunately with your type, you quite often never quit talking long enough to realize that you have no idea what you are talking about. As I have previously said, I have a lot of patience with people who are willing to learn. I get less and less patient the more that someone shows that they are arrogant and unteachable. I get sick and tired of people who abuse the truth as you do. If you love truth then you need to immediately cease your false teaching.