Gospel in MV's #2

[TC]

Without degrading into personal attacks and the like, would those that claim that MV's water down the Gospel of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be so kind as to give their evidence. I don't want hear such simplicities as: if it is not the KJV, then it's wrong. Please stick to facts when discussing the scriptures.

 

[AVL1984]

You might have a hard time getting any kjVERSION Onlies to reply to this, TC.

AVL1984

 

[Ed Edwards]

Just marking the topic so i'll gat an e-mail,
in the rare event that someone will answer.
More likely, all the other threads will
close at five pages and someone will make
add inappropriate material here

 

[DeclareHim]

Still no answer yet. Oh well looks like you stumped them TC. Good job

1cross+3nails=4given

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Still no answer yet. Oh well looks like you stumped them TC. Good job

1cross+3nails=4given

I like your trailer
Brother DeclareHilm!

 

[DeclareHim]

Thanks

 

[TC]

Still no answer? I guess a cat has their tongues.

 

[robycop3]

This is yet another question the KJVOs just will NOT answer, thinking their "silence" is some kind of reply.

They admitted to JESUS that they were sinners when they came to Him, so why won't they admit to their fellow man, who has no authority over them, that they were wrong, when PROVEN wrong?

 

[Trotter]

TC,

I am glad that you started this thread...my attampt was without disclaimers and met an extremely quick end.

I have to agre with Roby, though. KJVO's make the claims, but cannot back them up.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[AV Defender]

Knocking the Lord out of His incarnation in First Timothy 3:16 SHOULD be e'nuff evedence...

But then again,accepting facts and common sense have never been strong attributes of polyversionist abroad..

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-KJV people can ask for evidence and when they receive it they claim its "insufficent".
Since you seem to want a reply to tear into shreds and then congradulate yourselves on your "briliance" I will post one tomorrow. You will undoubtedly attack the authors I use as reference(as usual) but ill get a good laugh over the fallcies you will use to dispute it. Let me tell you that it is SO funny the sheer variety of excuses the anti-KJV crowd uses.

In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

[Trotter]

Actually, Thumper, this is about a thread that was started before, but was shut down because of personal attacks instead of debate. The original posts was:

The following was part of a post in a differnet forum here on the BaptistBoard.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...it is important if they use the KJV or not because other versions can change what you have to do to get saved.

What I want to know is this: HOW?

How do the modern versions (a.k.a. not KJV) change what it takes to be saved?

Anyone care to fill me in?

In Christ,
Trotter</font>[/QUOTE]Does the quote look familiar? It is what you wrote in a thread in the Music Ministry forum.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Link to thread, sixth post down&lt;&lt;&lt;

So, do you have an answer as to how the modern versions change what it takes to be saved? I mean, since you are the one who originally said it, I figure you might have a straight answer? Hmm?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Ed Edwards]

AV Defender: "Knocking the Lord out of His incarnation
in First Timothy 3:16 SHOULD be e'nuff evedence... "

I note the likely chance that no body will listen to the
"evedence" -- some might listen to the "evidence"

I do not find where the translation of
First Timothy 3:16 has knocked "the Lord out of
His incarnation"; I find a lack of education in some
parties that don't understand about basics of the
English Language like the meaning of pronouns and
the nouns they represent.

Again, I note that the AV=authorized version pertains
NOT to many printings of the KJV1769. Yes the original KJV1769 was
authorized by the Church of England (CoE), but from 1776 to
1783 the 13 colonies were at war with England -- they typed
"authorized" in their books they printed in the USofA, but they
were NOT authorized versions and the crown of England was not
paid a dime. In short, most KJV1769s that we have today were
NOT authorized versions. Thus AV is NOT true of the
main Bible generally called the KJB (King James Bible)
by KNVOs (King James Version Onliests).

Praise Iesus!

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-KJV people...

And it never ceases to amaze me how the KJVO crowd can never understand the difference betweek anti-KJV and anti-KJVO. The KJV is one of my favorite versions - I love it! But yet I have come to understand that there are other translations of the Bible, and I accept their value also. So what does that make me, Thumper? I don't intend to confuse you more than you already are, but there really are those of us who love the KJV along with other translations.

 

[Trotter]

Now, there you go, Keith, making sense. You know better than that.

But you are not alone in being amazed at how the KJVOnlies are quick to claim that anyone who opposes the lie of their belief is anti-KJV. Which, of course, is hogwash.

I love the KJV, and I do use it (as an equal among many) in my study. But the KJV is nothing more than a translation of the Scriptures, and that's it.

It would be like me deciding that only a 1986 Ford Taurus is an actual car, and that any other car is simply a perversion and a corruption of the purity of the Most Holy Automobile (notice the capitalization? Just like you-know-who's...).

And how do I know that the 1986 Taurus is the only pure and true automobile? Why, the designers and enigeers were the best trained and most mechanically-inclined, being born and bred in automobile facilities, with a much deeper and broader knowledge of the working of internal combustion engines and electrical schematics than any "modern day" so-called engineer.

But then I could drive a 1993 Taurus, and if questioned why I was not driving a 1986 model, I could just say that it is a revision, to correct assembly-line errors and trim defects. That way, I could move up to newer models by claiming that each is but a revivion of the older one.

And, of course, we all know that ANYTHING that comes out of Japan cannot be pure. Why, they bombed Pearl Harbor, and are pagan to the core! No, the Japanese just couldn't have the one and only pure automobile. Why, they are even assembling corrupted vehicles in Korea now, and are spewing them forth right here in the United States.

Can you believe that I actually saw a Methodist minister driving down the street in a Pontiac? A Pontiac, of all things. Doesn't he know that those engineers over at GM are nothing but drunks and thieves? Why, how could he even call himself a driver, behind the wheel of such a rag of a perversion?

Yes, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the line of reasoning is the same, or should I say the lack thereof?

What is truly amazing to me is that this is even an issue to have to be argued. But, then, the stident shouts of the ignorant tend to drown out the reasoned arguements of those who actually know the truth.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by AV Defender:
Knocking the Lord out of His incarnation in First Timothy 3:16 SHOULD be e'nuff evedence...

But then again,accepting facts and common sense have never been strong attributes of polyversionist abroad..

Please, prove that he was "knocked out of His incarnation" in I Tim 3:16. : I'd like to see your logic. You've posted that the MV's do, now prove it. Don't be the typical kjVERSION poster who won't back up his/her post with proof.

AVL1984

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-KJV people can ask for evidence and when they receive it they claim its "insufficent".
Since you seem to want a reply to tear into shreds and then congradulate yourselves on your "briliance" I will post one tomorrow. You will undoubtedly attack the authors I use as reference(as usual) but ill get a good laugh over the fallcies you will use to dispute it. Let me tell you that it is SO funny the sheer variety of excuses the anti-KJV crowd uses.

In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

Your proof on most things so far, KJVBT has been insufficient, not really thought out, done in haste, and has not been in line with Scriptures, but rather with a host of writers who ARE questionable. I'm glad I'm not your teacher, because your dissertation on the NIV was horribly inaccurate, and was inflammatory at nearly every turn. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt because of your age, but I'm not making that mistake again. You need to mature some, friend, and learn more than what you THINK you know.

AVL1984

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Keith M:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
It never ceases to amaze me how the anti-KJV people...

And it never ceases to amaze me how the KJVO crowd can never understand the difference betweek anti-KJV and anti-KJVO. The KJV is one of my favorite versions - I love it! But yet I have come to understand that there are other translations of the Bible, and I accept their value also. So what does that make me, Thumper? I don't intend to confuse you more than you already are, but there really are those of us who love the KJV along with other translations. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly Keith. I am KJV preferred, but I will not stand for other attacking MV's that are valuable and usable in the Lords work and are accurate. Intentional misrepresentation by the kjVERSION ONLY'S of the MV's has made a bad name for anyone who uses the KJV, and that truly is a shame. Now some are painting with too wide a brush, including us in their petty attacks on the MV's. This is unacceptable.

AVL1984

 

[TC]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
... Since you seem to want a reply to tear into shreds and then congradulate yourselves on your "briliance" I will post one tomorrow. You will undoubtedly attack the authors I use as reference(as usual) but ill get a good laugh over the fallcies you will use to dispute it. Let me tell you that it is SO funny the sheer variety of excuses the anti-KJV crowd uses.

In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

If you mean me, you bear false witness - as I have not ever answered one of your posts. I use to be rabid KJVO via Chick and Riplinger. Their claims don't add up to the truth. I have a tape the ripper made for the prophecy club. She lies within about 5 minutes and doesn't stop until the end. She claimed that she got saved reading the verse where Jesus tells the pharisees "You are of your father, the devil." And that she couldn't have gotten saved reading a MV because none of them have that phrase in them. I read the MV's in question and every single one of them had that exact phrase in it. Riplinger lied.

After that, I began to to check out her claims and I found that she's full of bolonga - she constantly misrepresents what people say to suit her own agenda.

 

[AVL1984]

What is funny TC is that many in the KJVO camp will not even use Riplinger (sp). I asked several of them why, and they gave the same reason you did. I have found her to be lacking, and as one who used to be KJVO and now KJV preferred, I can attest to the fact that she is far from honest in her "scholarship".

AVL1984