Apostasy and Modern English Bible Versions

Satan is ALIVE as well, and is still "preserving" his words through the CORRUPTION of God's. Ya'll didn't forget that, did ya? There is the APOSTASY relative to bible translations.

(Gen.3, 2 Cor.2, 4, 2 Thess.2)

 

Psalm 145: The notes in the NET Bible are a very dangerous deception of Satan.



carlaimpinge: There is the APOSTASY relative to bible translations.

 

Satan is ALIVE as well, and is still "preserving" his words through the CORRUPTION of God's. Ya'll didn't forget that, did ya? There is the APOSTASY relative to bible translations.

Oh now this is bad news! So then are the Books of the Apocrypha the work of Satan? Did Satan slip these books into the 1611? Why did the 1611 KJV include these “extra” books that have prayers to the dead etc...? So I guess we should mark the KJV as suspect to some satanic conspiracy that started in 1611.

The marginal notes in the AV1611 are deadly! Yes they reference other manuscripts and cause us to question the scriptures showing us alternate readings! Avoid the KJV!

Did God make many mistakes in 1611 only to keep correcting them over and over until 1762/1769/1873?

Why are my questions being avoided by KJVOist?

If the KJV is the perfect English bible then why did God not get it right the first time around?

Why do you say AV1611 and use a 1762 or 1769? Is this not telling a lie?

KJVOism is laughable at best! KJVOism can not exist without double standards and blind-eye tactics. Distortions, dishonesty and ignoring facts are all KJVOism has to offer.

What did God say about darkness and dishonesty?

1 John 1:5-10 (NASB)

5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

 

Distortions, dishonesty and ignoring facts are all KJVOism has to offer.

That and being a laughingstock.

 

The problem there is that no translation in use was made from a single "perfect" manuscript. The TR did not exist in the unique form used by the KJV translators until early textual critics created and refined it.

The challenge for you is to "name that manuscript" and demonstrate that it has a perfect lineage back to the inspired autographs.

Your belief isn't based on the Bible. God never promised you a word for word facsimile of the originals. He promised that His Word would be preserved... not the lettering of the originals.

 

No guess work involved...God seen fit to show us in Acts that the Antiochan MSS are the word of God..

Thank God!! </font>[/QUOTE]No two of which match each other perfectly. Your argument is still wrong.

 

Correct!

Amen!

Amen to that!

 

When Westcott and Hort were unbelievers, why did they defend their NEW version namely, ERV against the KJV? Explain.

 

Agree!

 

That is what the foundation is.

Let God be true!

David Cloud explains concerning the scholarship in his website.

That is what the Ruckmanites believe.

Amen!

 

It appears that Al Pacino didn't get the only role for the Devil's Advocate.

Note how the man FLIPPANTLY "circumvented" the TRUTH of the statement, which can be FOUND in "any" version.

Here's a question. Did the STATEMENT concern anything about the King James Bible? No, it didn't. It contained a FACT OF BIBLICAL TRUTH, which was EVADED by "one" of a pack of rabid dogs who ATTACK the King James Bible, even though that biblical truth is found therein.

The disputers, rejectors, and unbelievers of the Holy Scriptures have tell tale attitudes which APPEAR in stark contrast to believers.

John 8, 1 Thess.2

 

Psalm 145:3: "In English, the KJV is the inspired Word of God."

I believe that: In English, the KJVs are a inspired Word of God.
I have three different paper KJVs in the shelves over my
computer desk:

1. the KJV1611
2. the KJV1769
3. the KJV1873

I have two of them electronically:

1. the KJV1611
2. the KJV1769

There are multiple KJVs that are the inspired written Word
of God. There are multiple other English inspired written
Words of God. There is but one Living Word of God, Messiah
Iesus. (Note the spelling 'Iesus" comes from the KJV1611 Edition).

 

Askjo: When Westcott and Hort were unbelievers, why did they defend their NEW version namely, ERV against the KJV? Explain.

Because they believed they were right, same as the KJVOs do, and also as the KJVOs can't, they couldn't justify their stuff, either.

 

Psalm145 3: In English, the KJV is the inspired Word of God. I do not mean that the English words were given by inspiration of God in the same way as the original Hebrew and Greek words were given.

Then exactly what DO you mean? Can you PROVE the KJV is inspired and no other English version is? We're anxiously awaiting your evidence.

When the inspired Hebrew and Greek words are properly carried over into any language, those words can be called the inspired Words of God in that language because they are derived from the exact words which God gave.

But howdya know God is limited to JUST ONE VERSION? And since no two manuscripts are alike, howdya know WHICH ONE is the "official" one?

The translators of the KJV were not prophets or apostles. The special revelation of Scripture ceased when the last apostle wrote the last word in the last Book of the Bible.

Glad ya realize that.

See David Cloud's article, What About Ruckman?

Cloud both defends and criticizes Ruckman, but Cloud is a KJVO and we've learned to expect doubletalk from them.

Still avoiding the "seven church ages" thingie, I see. Why not simply admit it's false, that we all make mistakes, and that was one of yours, and that you're dumping it as of now?

 

Carlaimpinge: It appears that Al Pacino didn't get the only role for the Devil's Advocate.

Note how the man FLIPPANTLY "circumvented" the TRUTH of the statement, which can be FOUND in "any" version.

Actually, he was quite right.

Here's a question. Did the STATEMENT concern anything about the King James Bible? No, it didn't. It contained a FACT OF BIBLICAL TRUTH, which was EVADED by "one" of a pack of rabid dogs who ATTACK the King James Bible, even though that biblical truth is found therein.

Remember that a "dog" has a much-better nose than you do, and is able to "smell" truth from error. Woof, woof!

The disputers, rejectors, and unbelievers of the Holy Scriptures have tell tale attitudes which APPEAR in stark contrast to believers.

Yes, the KJVOs do. They add to God's word, pushing an idea found nowhere in Scripture, while deliberately avoiding those Scriptures which shoot down their myth.

John 8, 1 Thess.2

A careful reading of these chapters reveals nothing about Bible versions.

Carl, I see from your site that you're KJVO. How can you justify believing that myth without any Scriptural support from the KJV itself?

 

I agree with all of this.

However, you previously implied that perfect preservation applied to words (I suppose in the original languages). So please name the MS that is perfect and demonstrate how you came to that conclusion.

Remember, the TR is not a MS. It is the collation of a handful of incomplete and differing mss made by a Roman Catholic scholar.

Cloud is not a trustworthy source for information on versions. For instance, he claimed Phillip Mauro as an early advocate of his (Cloud's) position on the Bible. Mauro wasn't. He simply came to disagree with the theories on textual criticism introduced around the turn of the 20th century. Early on, he seemed to approve of them.

 

Robycop3,

Yes, he was right flippant.

You're wrong on all counts, according to the Scriptures.

Dogs. (2 Peter 2, Rev.22)

The passages (John 8, 1 Thess.2) deal with THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES, the words of God, and those who do. That's WHAT I said. I said nothing about versions.

There's that AVOIDANCE you are speaking of.

Myth? It is no myth to believe that God's words, the Holy Scriptures are his REVELATION to mankind through God's COMMUNICATION of language. (Gen.3,11, 2 Peter 1, 2 Tim.3)

The revelation INCLUDES inspiration, publication, preservation, purification, translation, identification, and illumination. ALL of those points are CONTAINED in the HOLY SCRIPTURES themselves, which SPEAK of it's own TRANSMISSION to others.

It's real simple when you just believe the Bible, without trying to refute what you don't like about another's belief in the Bible.

 

Absolutely. The Bible doesn't address versions directly and never comes close to endorsing only the KJV.

That isn't where KJVOnlyism stops though. It says that "these words constitute God's Word while these do not" based on nothing more than what boils down to an arbitrary choice.

Please cite any scriptural or valid historical proof that indicates that this applies to only the KJV or the TR but not other versions.

That is a more accurate accusation against KJVO's. There is NO scriptural proof that the KJV or TR was chosen by God. There is NO historical proof that either is the culmination of perfect preservation.

So upon what basis do KJVO's condemn other Bible versions and those who use them?

I have yet to see anyone here say that the KJV was not God's Word or call it a perversion, Satan's tool, a corrupt version, etc, etc.

So it is you all, not us, that try to "refute" our belief in the Bible.