100% or 95-98%?

No one bashed anyone. Besides, if you haven't noticed, my post total is 11. I do not waste a lot of time on the websites, I'm busy putting action to my words! I merely subscribed to here b/c someone was speaking ignorant and I wanted to add my two cents.
My point was, post summaries. That's all.

 

By the way (this probably should be in a different topic) why is it that folks in their ignorance assume that someone that works in youth can only minister to youth. I'm thankful to be in a church where my ministry is not limited to teens, although that is my central focus. Hate to break it to ya, I've been told by "older" Pastors that young guys can't do anything for the Lord except babysit teens, that's ludicrous! I'd much rather be involved in ministry that rack up 1000+ posts, not accomplishing anything!

 

As are the rest of us.

So?

That's your opinion.

 

You complain about other pre-judging you and then go and do it to someone else that you do not even know - nice. Have a good day.

 

No judging going on here. If you put on a scale the amount of time that you post on a website on one side and the amount of "ministry" on the other, which would win?

ANd no, that wasn't my opinion, others have already agreed. If I wanted to read a college thesis, I'd go to the library.

I challenge your motives and your fruit. That's all.

 

No one is forcing your free will here to read all the posts, are they? If you want to respond in one line, then the response would probably be not worth reading. When dealing with important doctrine, there are times when more than usual has to be said to ensure that all of the facts are made clear. When it comes to the Bible, and versions, etc, this is a subject that needs deep study which in turn will produce deep responses. There is no need to complain about it, or get bitter.

 

My # of post average to less than 2 a day. You have 22 in less than one day. If you keep it up you will pass me up in no time at all.

Pot meet Kettle g'day

 

BTW, Loving, what's YOUR take on the subject of this thread?

 

Then WHY all the "ado" about the bogus(as proven by Scripture) pre-Christian LXX??? I mean after all,it is a translation...

And I have given Scripture(AV)that PROVES that the Edomites(which Herod was) worshiped Ishtar and that Easter(Ishtar,Asteroth,et al) was contemparary with Herod;and that Easter is correct in the word of God:the KJB..

Why all the fuss over those men??

What of ALL of the other verses that show preservation? Do you put their word over the Bible(AV)?

Dont confuse the reformation MSS with the Egyptian forgeries!

The "oldest and best"(which are neither) disagree in THOUSANDS of places in the gospels ALONE!! And not to mention the Arian rendering of John 1:18 to boot..

What sayeth ye about that sir?

No scriptural backing??

Well,a careful study in the book of Acts will show(to those who aren't blinded by pre conceived notions)that the word of God has it's roots in Antioch...Period.Where is the Scriptural support for Egypt and Scripture???

Where did Paul get the word of God he took on his missionary trips??? I'll give ya a hint,it twernt Egypt!!

Nowhere to be found..

I was thinking more like "steaming pile"..

 

Oh brother, another kjvo droning on and on. Here is the real solution to your little conumdrum.

The earliest manuscripts are 100% the word of God. The TR, and its prize and joy, the KJV, is more like 103% the word of God. I wish those anglicans didn't add to the perfect word of God.

 

What makes you think I'm KJBO??

Are you saying Arius' heresey of John 1:18 is to be counted as 100% "valid"??!!

Can you justify your Egypt/Scripture doctrine?

 

There is no "Arius' heresy" in John 1:18. There is only Arian misinterpretation. Jesus is begotten, and Jesus is God. There is only one God. This is orthodox Trinitarianism.

 

You know if Egypt is so bad then why did God use Egypt so greatly in the scriptures Anti-A?

John 1:14-18 (NASB 1995)
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John testified* about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' "
16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Arian at John 1:18? Did you read the message in context or just look at one word and your KJVO lights go off?

Oh but what here is a problem for ya since you referred to Acts:

Acts 5:30 (KJV)
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Slew and hung? Was Christ killed first then hung on the cross? Hummm?

Or should it be:

Acts 5:30 (NKJV)
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

Now this is what really happened! I guess the KJV does have errors after all Anti-A.


You have yet to answer my question about the AV1611 marginal notes referring to the LXX and the AV1611's alternate readings.

I seemed to miss that careful study in the books of Acts. Would you please direct me to where it says KJV, the perfect word would be completed in 1611or better yet 1769 since KJVOist do not use the real 1611, etc...

Many thanks in advance!

Your brother in the Lord,

 

quote:No, it doesn't; God didn't make the translations...He allowed MEN to make'em.

aNTI_aLEXANDRIAN: Then WHY all the "ado" about the bogus(as proven by Scripture) pre-Christian LXX??? I mean after all,it is a translation...

NOT proven bigus by Scripture; in fact, most likely CONFIRMED, as the Apostles' OT quotes largely match the LXX. And those same AV translators whom you give so much credit for using superior texts both used translations from it AND credited its making to Ptolemy Philadelph, of the 200s BC. And in another post we gave five examples of OT translations in the KJV that match the LXX and not the masoretic Text...as well as the MOST NOTABLE of them...Isaiah 7:14. The hebrew reads 'almah', a young virtuous Jewish woman, either a virgin or a newlywed, while the LXX reads, 'PARTHENOS', which means nothing else bit 'virgin', as the KJV reads.


quote: And the KJV has PROVEN BOOBOOS, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

And I have given Scripture(AV)that PROVES that the Edomites(which Herod was) worshiped Ishtar and that Easter(Ishtar,Asteroth,et al) was contemparary with Herod;and that Easter is correct in the word of God:the KJB..

That ridiculous idea was shot down months ago. Please check the archives for my post, "Here Comes Peter Cottontail". History proves ishtar was NOT worshipped in that part of the world at that time, except as PALLAS ATHENE of the Greeks, or MINERVA of the Romans.


quote: If you're talking about Psalm 12:7, the AV translators themselves disagree with that recent, man-made interpretation of that verse.

Why all the fuss over those men??

Because the silly notion that the KJV's rendering of that verse refers to God's words is proven wrong by the very men who WROTE the AV.

What of ALL of the other verses that show preservation? Do you put their word over the Bible(AV)?

It's the KJVOs who offer such a silly case for Ps. 12:7. And I do NOT argue against preservation...I remind you and everyone else that there's NO SUPPORT for preservation in JUST ONE VERSION.


quote: PROVEN FACT: the Textus Receptus, its source manuscripts, and the KJV all disagree with one another. Try THAT one on for size, Mr. Betz.

Dont confuse the reformation MSS with the Egyptian forgeries!

I'm speaking of the material known to have been used by the AV translators.

The "oldest and best"(which are neither) disagree in THOUSANDS of places in the gospels ALONE!! And not to mention the Arian rendering of John 1:18 to boot..

What sayeth ye about that sir?

What sayeth I? POPPYCOCK, as I said earlier.

YOUR oldest and best mss disagree WITHIN THEMSELVES more than they disagree with other mss. Example...the four gospels, four differing versions of the same events. WHICH ONE SAYEST THOU IS CORRECT? "Things that are different are not the same."


quote: Actually, that would be the KJVO who relies upon a man-made myth, begun by a cult official, having no Scriptural backing, based mostly upon guesswork and fishing stories.

No scriptural backing??

Newp!

Well,a careful study in the book of Acts will show(to those who aren't blinded by pre conceived notions)that the word of God has it's roots in Antioch...Period.Where is the Scriptural support for Egypt and Scripture???

Actually, it has its roots in several places. Neither you nor I know from whence it came. The OT was preserved in Jerusalem and several other Jewish cities. The NT came from many of the churches established by JESUS thru the Apostles.

Where did Paul get the word of God he took on his missionary trips???

Form his fellow Apostles, and from his own writings. He was spreading the NEW COVENANT, not the old one.


I'll give ya a hint,it twernt Egypt!!

Nowhere to be found..

Pure guesswork. You've been listening to those two paragons of wisdom "Can't Answer..er..Happen" and "Ruckmanknight" again. Seems you'll believe any codwallop either of them spouts. Neither of them has the steroids to openly discuss their prevarications, so they use of gullible people like you to take the heat for them. Try dumping the KJVO "party line" & think for YOURSELF for a change.

 

I'm sorry,I must have missed your question..

It's a shame even the most amateurish Alexandrian puts so much stock in what man says instead of God!!

Way to skirt the issue!!!

It does not say KJB,KJV,or anything of the sort..Take off the blinders man!! The book of acts has the woG coming from Antioch;and as we all know(and many a Alexandrian lament)the KJB's textual basis is Antiochan..
NO EGYPT!

 

So your placing secular history over Scripture???
I'm sorry,but you will have to do better..

Scripture proves Ishtar was observed by the Edomites.Can you provide us with some secular quotes and such that would override Scripture??

But what about the verses that support preservation?

See anything about Egypt in their??

What make you think I believe that "JUST ONE VERSION" is the woG??

I'm just trying to get a verse,or even straight answer concerning the Egypt/Scripture iconoclasm!!!

They had every variant available to them that the "oldest and best"(which are neither) have to offer..

Translation:I haven't a leg to stand on..

And nary a one in Egypt!!! As per Scripture(AV).

Checkmate!!!!!!!

And you have yet to give me a fraction of a verse supporting your Egypt/Scripture heterodoxy..

 

Here is the verse showing that God's
witness to the English people(s) ends
in 1611AD

1 Corinthians 16:11 (KJV1611)
Let no man therefore despise him: ...

("Him" here, of course, refers to God's
Written Word, the Holy Bible.)

 

Hi, may I ask what you base this charge on? Are you saying that the reading "monogenes theos" is an Arian invention? Did you know when the heretic Arius lived? He was born in the year 250 A.D, and died in 336. Now, the Church father, Clement of Alexandria, who was born in 150, and died before Arius was even born (215), quoted this very reading that Arius wsa meant to be responsible for, a hundred years earlier.

I will grant one thing, that the support for both readings, "monogenes theos", and the common "monogenes huios", is equally strong, as the same Clement was also aware of the other reading, which would give a very early date for both readings.

Further, the Arians themselves used the reading "monogenes theos". On the use of "Monogenes", Arius went as far as to make it equivalent to "creation", something, of course the word is never used for. The Orthodox party also made the error to equate "monogenes" with "generation", and so used it in the Nicene Creed, in such phrases as "begoten out of the Father", and "begotton not created". Again, this would have required John to have used "monogennetos", wich does mean "only-begotten".

It is evident, that both the Arians, and the Orthodox Christian party of the time, were wrong in their use of "monogenes theos". As for which reading is the correct one in John 1:18, both the external evidence (the number of Church fathers who quote it, and Greek Mss, and ancient versions), and the internal evidence (especially with the phrase "in the bosom of the Father "), would support the reading "monogenes huios". I for one lean towards the reading "monogenes theos".

 

I meant Gnostic..