Another ridiculous strawman by a KJVO to keep from having to come up with a provable answer.Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Redemption the most "important" doctrine? Hmmmm? I thought the Holiness of God is the first and foremost! Second would be so closely linked is His Righteousness, redemption at best 3rd.
But then the advo's of mv's do tend to get things out of "order"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Changes in the Doctrine of Redemption
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
That's a BIG "IF" to be so subjective, Phillip, besides, in what circumstance is redemption w/o being "through the blood"? It ain't. So the KJB translators are again correct!
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Another ridiculous strawman by a KJVO to keep from having to come up with a provable answer. </font>[/QUOTE]Nothing "straw" about it, I responded to a statement and now you seem to try and deny me that privilege?Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Redemption the most "important" doctrine? Hmmmm? I thought the Holiness of God is the first and foremost! Second would be so closely linked is His Righteousness, redemption at best 3rd.
But then the advo's of mv's do tend to get things out of "order"
I refuse to be under that authority, nor do I grant you that right.
If any version omits, "through the blood" where redemption is concerned, then the KJVO has every right to object to that version!
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Tony, you don't have the original text, and the KJB translators even had MSS that are no longer available today for you to be justified in your assumption. You seem to try and limit them to the TR of 1550, talking about a "straw-man"!
Ralph,
Wake up man. Try to comprehend what I said. I simply said the translators were correct in their translation of the Greek Text they used. They state they used the Stephens Greek Text (RT). They did not come up with their own view of what should be in this verse, they translated what they had before them. No straw man here except in your mind.
Bro Tony
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
I don't have to "prove" anything< I have the Word of God
Not only what eveybody else responded; but think about the fact that whenever there was a manuscript argument, the King James translators would check out the Vulgate. The King James was NOT a new translation when you consider its close kin folks of the Geneva and Bishops, but the KJVO cannot say these Bibles are accurate because the KJV would have not been needed to replace them, but there is NO doubt the KJV translators relied heavily on them to form a "base" for their translation since so many verses are identical.Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
Tony, you don't have the original text, and the KJB translators even had MSS that are no longer available today for you to be justified in your assumption. You seem to try and limit them to the TR of 1550, talking about a "straw-man"!
POR: "and the KJB translators even had MSS that are no longer available today"
And which MSS did they have that we don't have today, Ralph? Name just one.
Answer: There are *no* "lost MSS" used by the KJV translators that have been reported anywhere over the past 400+ years. Basically this is another KJVO myth created to suggest some sort of superior evidence possessed by the KJV translators that is now "lost" and no longer accessible.
On the contrary, we not only *know* which MSS in Greek and Latin were available to the KJV translators in Oxford and Cambridge (they are still there today, and I have seen some of them), we also know precisely which printed Greek TR and Latin Vulgate editions were available to them.
Nothing has been "lost", and the burden of proof resides on those making such claims.
And which MSS did they have that we don't have today, Ralph? Name just one.
Answer: There are *no* "lost MSS" used by the KJV translators that have been reported anywhere over the past 400+ years. Basically this is another KJVO myth created to suggest some sort of superior evidence possessed by the KJV translators that is now "lost" and no longer accessible.
On the contrary, we not only *know* which MSS in Greek and Latin were available to the KJV translators in Oxford and Cambridge (they are still there today, and I have seen some of them), we also know precisely which printed Greek TR and Latin Vulgate editions were available to them.
Nothing has been "lost", and the burden of proof resides on those making such claims.
Man, you can't argue with that kind of logic and proof. It is time to close down this whole forum. Ralph just put the death nail in all other arguments.
Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Well, Bro Tony, its just another hijacked thread. Now we are discussing whether the KJV is inspired again, rather than comparing doctrinal change to Redemption.
The threads seem to be quite interesting, right up until a KJVO comes along and starts spouting translational inspiration.
I want to see if he breaks the board rules and says my NASB is not the Word of God.
If he does, it will probably be time to end the thread; since we have a lot of posts and no proof of doctrinal change.
There is no "if". They did follow the TR. This indisputable. Your continuing to deny it does not change the fact.
Secondly, read your own post. They are "footnotes" they express facts concerning other manuscripts, nothing more nothing less. Again, speaks a great deal of the integrity of the translators and their desire for the readers to have important information so they would not come up with some insane theology of one version only when they saw minor differences in the different manuscripts. OH NO, wait a minute, they are too late.
Bro Tony
Terry_Herrington
New Member
It's not the Bible I am afraid of or even the small differences. It's those who claim to be conservative who are practicing atheists. They don't witness and they don't disciple people. That is the majority sitting in the pews on Sunday.
There's the gospel according to Matthew.
There's the gospel according to Mark.
There's the gospel according to Luke.
There's the gospel according to John and then there's the gospel according to you. </font>[/QUOTE]I must question why you addressed these comments to me? Do you think that I am a "practicing atheist?" Also, if these comments are addressed to me, what would make you think that my Christianity is confined to "sitting in the pews on Sunday?"
<edited as in quoted post> </font>[/QUOTE]This surprises me coming from you Askjo, do you realize that you have violated the rules of this board? Yes, I think you do.
4000 infected words based on WHAT another translation? A 400 year old translation at that?
[ October 12, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
It seems this is the modus operandi of the KJVOist. I believe it continues to happen because they cannot deal with the issue from a clear Scriptural standpoint. I doubt he will give you a direct answer to your question, it is not in them to do it.
Back to the thread's question, we are still waiting for someone to show that the MV's teach a different doctrine of salvation than does the KJV.
Bro Tony
It's not the Bible I am afraid of or even the small differences. It's those who claim to be conservative who are practicing atheists. They don't witness and they don't disciple people. That is the majority sitting in the pews on Sunday.
There's the gospel according to Matthew.
There's the gospel according to Mark.
There's the gospel according to Luke.
There's the gospel according to John and then there's the gospel according to you. </font>[/QUOTE]I must question why you addressed these comments to me? Do you think that I am a "practicing atheist?" Also, if these comments are addressed to me, what would make you think that my Christianity is confined to "sitting in the pews on Sunday?" </font>[/QUOTE]Terry, all I can say is "there you go again". Make yourself the victim. I see enough of that every day.
He was simply saying that the issue he described was a much more important issue to worry about than a few word changes that have YET to be proven to change doctrine.