Search results

really....REALLY??? I don't believe there are any. (even though I know that there are those...maybe yourself included...that will attempt to convince me that there are). Over the years...I have never encountered or heard of even ONE supposed mistake in the KJV that could not be suitably...

So Who Is To Say..... So who is to say that the use of these "terms" is more correct by those in "theological circles" as opposed to the original definitions of the terms as found in the "dictionaries". Where do the "theologians" get THEIR definitions from? Or do they just invent them as...

Back At Ya..... I would ask you the same question (see the embolded parts of your post above) in regard to the group or groups of "scholars" or translations you feel are best. I have said before that BOTH positions are based more on OPINIONS formed after examining the available manuscript...

Well...Alright Then...Thanks! SN...I'll just say thank you for "taking up the cause" and answering E-7's messed up teachings. I had a moment of clarity the other day that produced the questions I asked but it sometimes takes me longer to enter the debate and go toe-to-toe on the responses...

Doesn't Really Matter... ITL...I've seen stuff like this before and don't really put much stock in it. Why should we trust such conjecture when the AV 1611 (which King James put his stamp of approval upon ) was clear in its condemnation of such activity or behaviour? If the King was as queer...

Thanks.... RSR....thanks for the clarification on that...I had forgotten about Murdock's link to Zondervan as well. Either way...whether it is a publishing license or a copyright...it is ALL about money to them and it puts $$$$ in Rupert's smutty hands which may in turn finance some of his...

We Don't...... Sighhhh...I guess we just have to take ITL's word for it and believe everything that is said in those weblinks. Oh well....I guess their word is as good as anybody's. Sighhhh! It HAS to be true...it's on the Internet!:rolleyes: Bro.Greg:saint:

Easy Answer To THAT! Easy answer...and not at all funny....they dedicated it (unwittingly) to their god.....SATAN. Sad but true. The blind leading the blind.:tear: Bro.Greg:saint:

Consider if you will.... Now.....can you show me ANY chapter/verse in ANY Original language or ANY version/translation that justifies or demonstrates your (apparently)private definition of the words "inerrant" or "infallible". That is a fair question since it is the SAME ONE that is tossed at...

YES....Funny! Now THAT is funny!:laugh: Bro.Greg:type:

That is just rumour...not proven That is an oft-repeated rumour....but I have never actually SEEN or READ those letters. I know the anti-KJV crowd just loves that one...that would also put them in agreement with the radical pro-Gay crowd as well. I certainly don't give them ANY credence at...

By definition.... Infallible...lets see here...the definition..From Noah Websters 1828 Dictionary: INFAL'LIBLE, a. [L. fallo.] 1. Not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons. No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative...

That IS Of Course..... That is, of course, what every believer that is a KJVonlyist already believes....and what we see happening today in regard to this debate is precisely what would happen. In this world there will always be light and darkness, truth and error, and those of every stripe...

Do You Believe..... evangelist-7....A few questions for you..... 1)Do you believe that a person who has been genuinely saved can ever lose that salvation? (We can neither earn nor deserve it) 2)Do you believe that the consecration/sanctification of a believer is a "progressive" work...or a...

Hummmmm...... Hummmm...stock in the company???? Wouldn't "the company" be Ruppert Murdock...who also owns Fox News and a host of pornographic holdings? Imagine that...a guy like him OWNING the copyright for a book that is purported to be the Word of God? Say it ain't so! Last I heard he...

And Again... Just a reminder.....Things that are different ARE NOT the same. Bro.Greg:saint:

Just so you'll know..... I'm not IFB....I attend an SBC church....and yes...I can make a thoughtful. PARTICULARLY logical, exegetical case for my position as a KJVO adherent and as a dispensationalist, a pre-millenialist, etc., etc.. It has been done many times in other sections of this board...

And my response to that is.................................................:type: by the way....believe (a word I am quite fond of) is correctly spelled with an "ie"...not "ei". I will however stand by my previous post. Have a nice day bro.Luke. Bro.Greg:saint:

Impressive Bro.Heir Now THAT was a truly IMPRESSIVE POST Bro. Heir.....particularly the two paragraphs I bolded above. They are a very CLEAR definition of REAL Gun Control. We can always hope the lame-brained politicians are actually reading this! Bro.Greg:laugh::thumbsup:

By The Way.... Just to let everybody know.....Cody's site is back up and running. He emailed me and told me they had some technical glitches with the server that had to be solved. All is well. I'm glad for him and now I have two good boards to enjoy. Interestingly, I used to be a member at...