Scroll back 3 or 4 posts.Originally posted by HomeBound:
I didn't go anywhere. I just got sidetracked. Maybe I missed it, but I thought that BrianT was going to scan a quote from a book and then Riplinger's misquote?

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!
Scroll back 3 or 4 posts.Originally posted by HomeBound:
I didn't go anywhere. I just got sidetracked. Maybe I missed it, but I thought that BrianT was going to scan a quote from a book and then Riplinger's misquote?
OH NO!! The Apostle John is now suspect!!Another: on page 318, she says "Liberty University's Dean Norman Geisler adds: 'We should be particularly wary when someone refers to Jesus Christ as "the Christ" . . . '",
I take it this thread has been abandoned? I provided what you asked for near the bottom on page 12, more than 10 days ago, and this is the second time I've pointed it out.Originally posted by HomeBound:
I'm looking for what BrainT said that he could do, scan two documents from two different authors, one actual quote and Riplinger's misquote found in her book.
The theory of ALL the threads in the Version Forum are summarized by Dante:Originally posted by BrianT:
I take it this thread has been abandoned?
I take it this thread has been abandoned? I provided what you asked for near the bottom on page 12, more than 10 days ago, and this is the second time I've pointed it out. </font>[/QUOTE]I saw your post on page 12 when you post it. If I understand it correctly, you scanned a page from Westcott and highlighted different things, but I never saw the scan from Riplinger's book. I don't have a copy of her book yet so that is why I asked for a scanned copy of her misquoted what they said. Understand?Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
I'm looking for what BrainT said that he could do, scan two documents from two different authors, one actual quote and Riplinger's misquote found in her book.
Come on, Homebound, give me a break! Earlier in the thread I gave you a link where you can download Riplinger's book ( http://www.tegarttech.com/kjv/nabv.zip ), so a "scan" from Riplinger's book isn't necessary when you can look it up any of the Riplinger quotes yourself. Are you saying the things we are discussing don't count because you haven't seen an "scan" of actual paper, instead of a screen shot of the electronic version???? Please. Maybe next you'll say that the scans don't count, and that you'll actually have to hold both books in your hand. And then maybe you won't even accept that, because you won't have a guarantee that the books themselves aren't clever forgeries.Originally posted by HomeBound:
I saw your post on page 12 when you post it. If I understand it correctly, you scanned a page from Westcott and highlighted different things, but I never saw the scan from Riplinger's book.
No. That's it. Why is it unacceptable?Originally posted by HomeBound:
I downloaded the zip file and opened it up in DOS, in a small window. Is there another download that is better.
I don't have a problem with it either, I thought what I already gave you was sufficient, as it would be for anyone else. My copy of Riplinger's book has been lent out and I won't be able to get it back for some time, but for now I can take screen shots of the electronic version for you:If I was trying to disprove someone and I had a copy of the two pieces of material in question and you asked me to scan something, I would have know problem with that.
OH....MY....GOODNESS.Sure, he used the pronouns he and his, but even we refer to the Earth as "she."
This would be absolutely laughable were it not so tragic. You have seen the black and white evidence that Riplinger is a liar but you still willing to folow her. There is no way that a reasonable person can read these pages and come to your conclusion. The lengths to which you will go to ignore truth is truly sad ... You don't have to agree with Westcott's position but at least be honest enough to see the plain truth in black and white before you.Originally posted by HomeBound:
So as you have already assumed, I agree with Riplinger, Westcott only saw the Devil as a "power of evil" and I would bet that Hort did too.
what? u found a genitival phrase n declare that u found a WMD?Originally posted by HomeBound:
Westcott said that this is StJohn's teaching on the "powers of evil" and I believe that he only recognized the Devil as just that, a power of evil, not a real person. Sure, he used the pronouns he and his, but even we refer to the Earth as "she." So as you have already assumed, I agree with Riplinger, Westcott only saw the Devil as a "power of evil" and I would bet that Hort did too.
Show them a word in the Bible and and be prepared to hear all of the reasons why it is probably mistranslated.Originally posted by LarryN:
Sometimes there's just no convincing KJVOers with actual facts.
Show a hardcore KJVOer a photo of a blue sky and you're apt to have them argue that it's orange.
Show them a giraffe, and be prepared to hear all of the reasons why it can only be an elephant.
Don't generalize too much. I oppose you on KJVO issues but definitely oppose Johnv on creation issues including the interpretation of what "leviathan" was.Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Show them a huge animal that has inpenetrable scales and breaths fire and be prepared to hear all of the reasons why it can only be a crocodile. (Oh wait, that's you guys.) Nevermind
Lacy![]()