Apostasy and Modern English Bible Versions

See Jim, this is one of the reasons I am glad that you are around! You'd better be careful though or you'll be lumped right in with us .

Although, as you know, I, as your brother, am NOT on the "MV" side of the issue .

Good night to all.

 

I know Roger.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Carlaimpinge: Robycop3,

Your rhetoric is ridiculous. I haven't AVOIDED anything OR anyone on this board concerning the King James Bible. You EASILY found it, didn't you?

Yep...on your site. But what I HAVEN'T found is your justification for subscribing to the KJVO myth.

Facts. That is EXACTLY what I was speaking about as is visibly manifested by my posts. I responded to the NONSENSE put out by others.

Actually, you BOOSTED the nonsense, which is the man-made KJVO myth. Its origin has been easily traced, and it's not from Scripture.

So you KNOW the King James Bible IS NOT the word of God?

Never said that...please cut-n-paste any post of mine from any board where I say the KJV is NOT the WOG...or be labeled a liar by everyone else here.


I seriously doubt that, and that you could prove it by anything from your mind. Are you going to prove that MULTI-TEXT ANYISM is the truth? I doubt that too.

Actually, the proof is SCRIPTURAL. In your KJV, please compare Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7-8 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21. They don't match, do they? If you care to holler at JESUS for using an incorrect version......

The answer to your last question was contained in my last statement on the previous post.

Actually, your "answer" could read, "I'm clueless, so lemme throw in this 'Holy Spirit' thingie to get the hounds off my trail..."

You haven't proved anything as of yet. I STATED WHAT THE HOLY SCRIPTURES said about itself, which you then EVADED, to give your snub of the King James Bible, which you say that you believe.

But you haven't stated one valid reason why you or anyone else should be KJVO, except by personal preference. You cannot give one TECHNICAL reason to be KJVO, except you've fallen for the garbage printed by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST(Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson), and spread by two less-than-honest authors(J.J.Ray, Dr. D.O.Fuller)and expanded by some modern dishonest, tale-telling authors such as Gail Riplinger, and by crackpots such as Dr. Peter Ruckman. And yes, I use the KJV among other versions, but I'm NOT confined to it or any other one version...AND NEITHER IS GOD.

Wild man wild.

Yes, KJVO is.

Roby, you're in YOUR LITTLE WORLD of "attack mode". The Holy Scriptures have been, are, and shall be in MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE son. You're just babbling.

The babble is trying to defend a false doctrine ABOUT Scripture which is NOT FOUND in Scripture. Jesus rebuked some Pharisees for committing like offenses, adding man-made doctrines to the word of God.

If you're going to challenge what I believe, you're going to have to deal with the VERSES which I present. Your "thoughts, ideas, and beliefs" won't work.

And neither will your verses. There's not the slightest hint of support for any one-versionism found in any of them, KJVO or NIVO, or whatever.

Everything that I said about the scriptures was contained in the scriptures.

Only there's not one scintilla of EVIDENCE in them defending any one-versionism idea.

The KJV and several other English Bible versions "peacefully co-existed" for quite awhile with no problems until MAN MADE SOME PROBLEMS. It is the KJVO who has brought the accusations against the later versions, so the "burden of proof" lies with the KJVO to PROVE his/her theory that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there. So far, the KJVO camp has failed miserably; the sum of their "evidence pool" is ZERO. The subject of this thread is apostasy and the MVs. Again, the KJVOs' evidence is ZERO.

 

Frank Betz: You'll see that roby has to have things spelled out exactly in Scripture for him to believe. Applied theology through basic interpretation goes nowhere with this man. If you give him Scripture that completely supports the inerrent,,infallible, inspired Word of God, he will argue "But that doesn't say the KJB is the only Bible..." or so on.

BUUZZ!

How many times have I said that there's not even the SLIGHTEST HINT of Scripture supporting the KJVO myth? Dozens of times! And how many KJVOs have proven me wrong? NONE!

Wanna prove me wrong? Then simply post some Scripture that supports KJVO by implication...or by any means whatsoever. Surely a rocket scientist such as yourself can prove this lil ole steelworker wrong.

The final truth concerning the Bible?

WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE IS, AND WHAT IT ISN'T; THEY'RE STILL GUESSING, and that due to the limited definition of Greek.

The KJVO is guessing. He reaches blindfolded into a hat & hopes he doesn't pull out a skunk.

They will say, "I love the King James Bible", but then they attack it to try and approve their moderb versions.

When we point out the PROVEN BOOBOOS in the KJV, you make fumbling attempts to explain them away, attempts which fool no one.

When we point out that their attempts are too closely likened to "serpentology", they whine and cry and run to the LIBERAL moderators who, no doubt, are also against the KJB. [Roll Eyes]

Have I asked any moderator for one thing? I can just about guarantee that Roger snipped your attacks upon Bibles entirely upon his own volition, with no prompting from anyone. And if you care to scope out the archives, he's snipped material from posts of mine in the past.

Something ya gotta remember...the moderators are NOT gonna allow outright namecalling attacks upon ANY BV. While they allow pointing out faults in them, I.E."Slew & hanged in the KJV's Acts 5:30, NIV leaves out Jesus'blood", etc. they're NOT gonna allow "perversion, apostate version, Satan's bible", etc.

Thank You for your stand carlaimpinge

Birds of a feather flock together, whether they be eagles or cuckoos.

 

quoterobycop3)Right...and the very same GOD who caised/ allowed Elizabethan English to come into being and who presented His word in it, STILL presents His word in CURRENT English, which He's caused/allowed to come into being.

Frank Betz: Nope, not true, God is never deceived as it is found in your golden calf, <attack on the Bible deleted>. neither is God equated with the antics and attributes of the wicked in your <attack on the Bible deleted>.

What an erudite answer to my post which you quoted! Evidently you must think God retired in 1611 & no longer supervises & supplies his word, nor supervises the languages He made. Care to try to prove God turned His back on English after 1611? Try for once to deal with what you quoted from me instead of going out on Cloud 9.

 

Frank Betz: Everytime you apporve of a modern version, it is only through attacking the KJB, and since you've deleted what I said, maybe you too should use lower case "B" instead.

The "attacks" upon the KJV are brought on by the KJVOs who incorrectly say it's technically perfect. We point out the imperfections. Every version has'em. But every valid version is perfect...perfect for GOD'S INTENDED USE for each of'em.

Before ya ask...a valid version is one which follows its sources closely, such as the KJV and NASV. Such versions as the NWT are not valid because they frequently depart from any known Scriptural mss in many places.

Just look at nearly any topic started by Dr. Bob.

You equate those two versions with the Bible, you err. That is a blatant attack on the KJB.

Those 2 versions ARE Bibles, whether they meet YOUR approval or not.

I have only observed one moderator in this forum that doesn't attack the KJB: "Pastor Bob", but I didn't call him a liberal either.

Every mod here uses the KJV. Roger is definitely "KJV by personal preference" and seldom quotes scripture from any other version except for a special purpose. Dr. Bob quotes from several versions, including the KJV. However, I don't believe ANY of the mods are hobbled by the KJVO myth.

The evidences are for public access in the archives, maybe you need to research?

That's a two-edged sword, Bro.

 

Frank Betz: Preservation and conservation are synonyms: KJB and nkjv are only synonymous in two likenesses, though they contain much the same material, they are not excatly the same, but they do hold the common letter k and j.

Betcha ya didn't know that, among the KJV, Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus, no two of 'em match in any possible combination.

 

Frank Betz: Oh? So you think this is a debate? I'm not debating, I am proclaiming, you are debating, debate is a sin.

Call it what you want; you're arguing for your point and opposing ours...and that's a DEBATE. You ARE participating...so if WE'RE sinning, so are YOU! A debate is a regulated argument between two matched sides, and while Paul mentions debates, it's not necessarily a sin. Do you not debate with people to whom you're witnessing? Is THAT a sin, to present the GOSPEL in the face of their arguments against it?

If that's your "take, then "I" am proclaiming...proclaiming that the KJVO myth is false doctrine not found in Scripture, and your claim of apostasy in every valid MV is also totally false.

If I were to debate you, I would first play your little games bysaying your "burden": is to prove that no moderator has a bias against the KJB.

By saying such, you place the ball in YOUR court, and assume the burden of proof.

Your rules may be as you have thaty authority to delete what you call attacks, but you aklso disqualify yourself by attacks through sarcasm.

Haint no mod sed YOUSE caint be sarcastic...but be reddy ta GIT as well as dish out...

Deal falsely througn sarcasm? You're creating a false balance and bearing a false witness. But I guess that too isn't spelled out in your mv's, but it is in the KJB. No wonder you keep standing for false versions of the Bible.

You've hollered about false versions of the Bible? OK, let's take JUST ONE MV...the NKJV. Now, prove it's false. If ya can, we can move to another. try to build your case one block at a time.

But remember...just saying, "It aint the KJV" isn't any PROOF. "It departs from the Hebrew" aint no proof.Ya gotta prove that the NKJV is false by its own lack of merit. Have at it, chum!

 

quote:Originally posted by C4K:
Since the archives so clearly bear the burden, you should have no problem finding one example, my brother.

By making such a charge you placed the burden of proof on yourself. Surely you won't deny my the right of "innocent until proven guilty."

Frank Betz: The statement has been made, it is your responsibility to prove your innocense, unless of course you are admitting your guilt? But in this realm of apostates, I won't expect much.

By YOUR premise, I could bring a cop with me and point to you, & say, "Arrest him for being ugly in a public place" & you'd be looking through bars that same hour. Under every system of law civilized man has ever had, INCLUDING THAT OF THE ISRAELIS, ESTABLISHED BY GOD, the ACCUSER must prove his case, and until then, the accused is presumed innocent. So, by the universal rules of justice, it's up to YOU to prove your accusation against C4K. YOU made the accusation; YOU must PROVE it or you will have proven yourself a liar.

Let's deal with your stuff one case at a time. If you can successfully sustain your above accusation, we can move on to the next one. If not, well.........

 

Frank Betz: Larry, I, as a conservative, having every freedom deemed to me by the Creator to call you a liberal.

In studying law while I was a cop, I was shown a conviction of a man who clubbed another for calling him an "SOB". The Ohio Supreme Court let the conviction stand, their opinion in part stating, " because he called you an SOB does NOT automatically make your mother a B.

So, call all the names you like, within the rules. That does NOT make them true. Without the slightest PROOF, you only make yourself look worse.

I voted for Bush twice, hate the ACLU & almost everything it stands for, vote "No" on every tax levy on the ballot, and am Sola Scriptura. Does that make me conservative?

I am a union member, and shop steward on my shift, and will not hesitate to clash with management if I believe they're violating our contract. Does that make me liberal?

You like to wave your gun, but it's been loaded with nothing but spitballs so far. Your track record of PROVING WHAT YOU'VE SAID is abysmal to put it mildly.

C4K, no discussion about the Bible in English can omit the KJB, else you're only discussing commentaries, labeled as versions.

If the discussion is about only the ESV and NASV, it certainly CAN omit the KJV, NIV, King George Version, or any other. The KJV isn't "the" Bible; it's just a version among others.


That is why you demand the KJB be referred to as the "KJV" for version. Thus "KJV" is in itself an attack on the KJB.

Please post any proof for such a charge. I say "KJV" because that's exactly what the KJV is...a VERSION. Wanna try to prove that statement wrong? ya aint done so hot at proving anything else, so ya might as well flop at this one also.

Not "grasping at straws" just picking needles out of the haystack.

Moew like porcupine quills outta yer own gluteus maximus.

 

Frank Betz: I could go on, but this is truly a waste of redeemable time, only becuase you will never admit your apostasies

First, ya hafta prove they're apostasies. You aint proven SQUAT so far...all ya done so far is bark into the wind.

 

Frank Betz: Final: modern versions promote apsotasy,"KJVO" is the apostates attempt to demoralize conservatives

Wrong, as usual.

First, you haven't proven ONE QUARK of your alleged "apostasy"; second, KJVO is an acronym for "King James Version Only", the false doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version. It's simply a short way to express this doctrine, same as "Holy Trinity" is a shortcut to referring to God The Father, God The Son, and God the Holy Spirit w/o having to write out all those names.

"Frank's PROOFS have been weighed in the balance and found WANTING."

 

AV1611 Jim:

I do NOT lump you nor Lacy Evans with those KJVOs who talk the talk but can't walk the walk one step. While I believe you're both KJVO by PERSONAL PREFERENCE, there's nothing wrong with THAT...in fact, that's the ONLY legit reason to be KJVO.

But neither of you have posted such ridiculous codwallop as we've seen in this thread. A certain gent in particular has shown abysmal ignorance by making accusations w/o proof and stating that it's the accusee's burden to disprove the allegations. This is against GOD'S justice system. Why does he think Jesus is gonna have the "White Throne" judgment? It will be for Him to *PROVE* His accusations against those who die in sin. JESUS HIMSELF will PROVE every accusation He's made against anyone, who has not come to Him for forgiveness while in this life.

The point is, it's incumbent upon the accuser(plaintiff) to PROVE his allegations against those he/she accuses(defendant). That's the way GOD does it, and we, as Christians and Baptists, should certainly follow HIS example.

 

Robycop3,

You have lost your mind. Any statement made by anyone is answered by a "vicious" PUN of response against anyone who believes the King James Bible IS the word of God. I can play that game also, but I don't have the time. Don't tell me what I believe.

The facts are these, which you missed.

I gave the TRANSMISSION of scripture from the scriptures themselves. The King James Bible IS the scriptures, ACCORDING TO YOU. What are you yapping at me about stupid IF I believe that?

Only? No fellow. WHERE DID I SAY THE SCRIPTURES WERE ONLY THE KING JAMES BIBLE?

The Scriptures were here LONG BEFORE the King James Bible, <personal attack deleted per BB rules>.

Whose "worried" about labels WHEN you can't even READ or REMEMBER your own posts?

Who doesn't know that Greek doesn't match Hebrew IN ENGLISH? What YOU "skipped" in your MAD RUSH to get to the King James Believer is that I SAID Satan, along with his ministers, helped by SPIRITS, has corrupted God's words by FALSE WRITINGS.

There's the OTHER TEXTS.

Yes, all your answers are about as "rational" as the one you formulated for me through your mental ambiguity.

Man, you are way off base. Who thinks God is confined to the King James Bible? Not me. Valid and technical? I deal with SCRIPTURAL REASONS which have been given. Truth is the truth NO MATTER from where it comes. (Baalam was a false prophet, but he SPOKE THE WORDS OF GOD.) The King James Bible IS the word of God and that is the TRUTH. (That's what you said YOU BELIEVE.)

You JUMPED ACROSS what I said concerning babbling, which identified what I believed FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, which you say that you believe. You then continue in a DEMENTED RAGE against a man who believes the Bible which YOU PROFESS to believe is the Holy Scriptures.

Stumps have more intelligence. Roby, I'm sure that you'll do nothing more than MOUTH OFF again.

You poor soul. My FIRST POST on this thread concerned APOSTASY and OTHER WRITINGS which CONTRADICT the truth. They are purported by false teachers. Ya'll boys are "way too anxious" to DOGPACK ATTACK any person who believes the Bible.

You failed miserably to produce anything SCRIPTURAL on this thread in REFUTATION of what I believe and teach FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

[ June 02, 2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I think we've had enough. The personal attacks and name calling here require that this off-topic thread be closed.