How about some book reviews of various books on Bible versions!

Thank you David J. My point exactly!

 

ASKJO;

Your ideas are much like what the Mormons did with their project to improve their image. If you talk about something long enough and hard enough people will begin to believe it. We may not be as learned as you but we do know enough to ask questions. Maybe I missed it but I have failed to see any answers from you.

 

Click: James White's book

Click: Answers to James R. White

 

Askjo, This is pretty typical David Cloud stuff. He may be more insidious than Ruckman. Ruckman is open and flagrant. Cloud is subtle. He mixes his deception with a good portion of truth.

White did deal primarily with the most radical elements of KJVOnlyism. For whatever reason, Cloud transformed this into a straw man that he could argue against- probably because he doesn't have a real, substanative response to the real points of White's books.

Cloud's article almost seems like he was offended at being overlooked by White.

As he is apt to do, Cloud drops names of people that favored or preferred the KJV or else questioned the critical text approach but would not agree with his peculiar stand. In particular, many if not most of his "King James Bible defenders" would not be opposed to correcting the TR or making new translations.

Interestingly, he mentions David Otis Fuller in the same list with Gary Zeolla, Zane Hodges, and Jay P Greene as King James Bible defenders. Greene helped translate other versions. Zeolla is anti-KJVO. Hodges developed a majority text in the Greek that Cloud condemns here: http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/majoritytext.htm.

These things should be enough to convince the objective reader of Cloud's subtle deception.

BTW, before you ask, I have tried to confront Cloud via e-mail about his use of Philip Mauro in this manner. Mauro early on bought into the W-H ideas then recanted and became a critic. By default, this left him with the TR and KJV. Cloud used him as a King James Bible defender... in a distortion of what the man actually said or wrote.

 

I suppose you do, when God is equated with the wicked, and then He is deceived in one of your other "favs".

 

Where is God equated with the wicked? I didn't see any reference to this.

 

Maybe he's referring to Isa 45:7.

 

Ok, I find some quotations, for example, from John Ankerberg's ahow.

Baker said, "And I believe there were millions of people who were looking for that type translation and they believe they found it in the NIV and I think on the human side, that's the main reason for its tremendous popularity."

Baker is incorrect because of NIV's 6500+ uninspired, unpreserved words. The NIV is not a translation, but paraphrase. How would God bless the NIV if the NIV twisted God's Words 6500 times?

Ankerberg said, "...the New King James, which is based on the SAME Greek text as the 1611,.."

Ankerberg's comment is absolutely incorrect because the New KJV uses the W-H text including the NU text.

Wallace said, "..is the Deity of Christ found in the NIV and NAS? Is it found in the New KJV? Is it found in the oild King James? Sure is Found everything in there."

Everything? No, Wallace is wrong because modern versions omitted the important names of the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament 200 times! Everything in the KJV is where you can find.

James White said, "...God has deemed it proper to commincate with man who gave His Word to inspired prophets and apostles."

That is James' theological ERROR! Nowhere in the Bible said that God INSPIRED His prophets and apostles. If they were inspired, were they perfect?

Wilkins said, "She focuses in on among other things Westcott and Hort. And these were fine men of the Church, fine Christian men, who together put together the text,.."

Were W-H "fine Christian men? No, Wilkins is wrong.

Westcott wrote, I REJECT THE WORD INFALLIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE"

Hort wrote, "I am NOT able to go as far as you in asserting THE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY of a CANONICAL WRITING."

If they rejected the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, how did you know that they were with the Lord?

If they rejected the verbal plenary inspiration, how did you know that they went with the Lord?

If they did not believe in Heaven, how did you know that they are in Heaven right now?

You see how wrong their quotations are.

 

Askjo, I've lost count of how many times I have proven all those statements of yours to be wrong and unfounded.

Instead of me repeating them yet again, just pretend I did. Then you respond with some barely intelligible gibberish, and then I provide concrete and complete documentation. You then respond that you "have a list". I ask to see it. You change the topic. I again ask to see it. You disappear from the conversation. OK, sound good? I just saved us both hours of regurgitation. Bring it up again in a month or two, and we'll do it yet again, just for old time's sake.

 

Natters,

Sort of like hitting your thumb with a hammer. It hurts, you yell and dance around,then, in a little while you pick up the same nail and take aim with the same hammer...

Ever see Groundhog Day?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

It takes lots less energy
than rationality. It takes lots less
intellegence than the truth.

 

Did he contradict himself?

 

Nope. He said, to misquote him: " ...
I reject the word infallibility ... "

What he said is that he rejected "infallibility"
for the better description
"THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH".

I believe with Brother Westcot:
my KJV1873) contains the absolute truth, the
blessed written word of God.
I believe with Brother Westcot:
my HCSB contains the absolute truth, the
blessed written word of God.

 

Where did you find those stats. In the search I did in the KJV it only found "Lord Jesus Christ" 81 times. Does that mean the KJV is missing it 119 times?

 

WOW! You called him a brother? Shame on you! How did you call him a brother if he denied the Biblical teaching such as Heaven, Hell or the Book of Genesis or whatsoever he rejected? I read what Westcott did NOT believe in the Bible. I refuse to call him a brother because of his unbelief.

 

WOW! You called him a brother? Shame on you! How did you call him a brother if he denied the Biblical teaching such as Heaven, Hell or the Book of Genesis or whatsoever he rejected? I read what Westcott did NOT believe in the Bible. I refuse to call him a brother because of his unbelief. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe Brother Westcott. I don't believe Brother Askjo, who has taken Brother Westcott completely out of context. Both are my brothers.

 

Shame on you!