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

Natters, you defend Westcott and IGNORE the warning by the Word of God.

 

More likely he would be ignoring the Word of God if he didn't rebuke another Christian for distorting what the man actually said.

 

Askjo, I defend Westcott because I have read his writings and I know they line up with the word of God. You have not read his writings, you have simply echoed some quotes that were deliberately yanked out-of-context to make Westcott appear he was saying something he wasn't. I've explained this to you MANY times before, I've proven it to you MANY times before. Yet you continue to bury your head in the sand and repeat the same old lies as if we've never heard them before and as if we've never proven to you that you are simple wrong. Why are you so unable to deal with this HONESTLY?

Until you can look up a quote for yourself in Westcott's writings, I suggest you give it a rest.

 

Ok, what Westcott wrote is what you read here:

Westcott quoted: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three Capters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history -- I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did."

What does this quotation from him mean to you?

 

Why are you changing the subject Askjo?

Why don't you explain why you used a false distortion of Westcott's words before moving on to something else?

When you employed a dishonest tactic, the focus ceased to be Westcott and began to be you. Are you going to demonstrate Christian integrity and admit that the info you posted earlier was not true or are you going to attempt a cover up?

 

Askjo, do you even read my posts?

First, have you personally looked this quote up in his writings?

Second, you and I have discussed this exact quote at least twice in the past on this forum.

Third, I have absolutely no intention of going through a whole bunch of research and homework for your benefit, when you show absolutely no signs that you will actually even pay attention to, let alone remember, the reponse.

I will gladly address this quote for the third time if you will at least prove to me you're capable of carrying on a reasonable conversation and do your share of the homework. I'm tired of this game, Askjo. Prove to me you can be honest enough to deal with this, or else I'm not going to waste my time doing your homework for you.

 

Natters, please answer to my new question, What does this quotation from him mean to you?

 

Why should I answer your questions, when you ignore all of mine?

I will gladly address this quote for the third time if you will at least prove to me you're capable of carrying on a reasonable conversation and do your share of the homework.

 

You defend Westcott and read his writings, but you are incapable to answer my question concerning Westcott's quotation. BYE!

 

I am very capable of answering your questions. I already have the answer typed up, ready to post. I will post it as soon as you show me you can actually carry on a discussion, by answering some of my earlier questions and comments. If anyone is incapable of answering questions, it appears to be you. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

Askjo, Please answer my post. What does it mean to you when someone dishonestly quotes someone's words out of context or copies someone else who has done it then refuses to repent and stop?

Even if Westcott were the most godless man in history you would not be justified in intentionally misquoting him in order to assassinate his character.

The issue is no longer whether Westcott had errant views or not but rather whether you are being honest about his views.

 

Ok, good boy! Please answer my question, what does this question from him mean to you?

 

I will post it as soon as you show me you can actually carry on a discussion, by answering some of my earlier questions and comments. If anyone is incapable of answering questions, it appears to be you. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

Askjo, Please answer my post. What does it mean to you when someone dishonestly quotes someone's words out of context or copies someone else who has done it then refuses to repent and stop?

Even if Westcott were the most godless man in history you would not be justified in intentionally misquoting him in order to assassinate his character.

The issue is no longer whether Westcott had errant views or not but rather whether you are being honest about his views. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, you know the difference between the KJV/TR onlyists and W-H/MV onlyists concerning Westcott. Most W-H/MV onlyists believe that Westcott was a Christian. Most KJV/TR onlyists believe that Westcott was not a Christian. Why did they disagree each other concerning him?

 

So? The issue was whether the MVs mentioned supported the deity of Christ for which I gave the standard "proof-text" passage for the deity of Christ - John 1:1.

Which is word-for-word the same as the KJV thereby destroying the theory that the above mentioned MVs do not support the deity of Christ.

HankD

 

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?

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]For example: Matthew 4:12; 6:33, 8:29; 15:30 have "Jesus." Modern versions omitted "Jesus." The KJV has "Jesus" on these verses.

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]For example: Matthew 4:12; 6:33, 8:29; 15:30 have "Jesus." Modern versions omitted "Jesus." The KJV has "Jesus" on these verses. </font>[/QUOTE]Your research is spurious at best.

Mt. 4:12

(NASU 95) Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee

(NIV) When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee.

 

Av1611jim: "If the KJV rendering of this verse is acceptable then why not the rest of the Book?"

Tee hee. You are mixing KJVOisms with truth to make
yourself look a tad silly. It is the KJVO-folk who
say things like: "If there is one and only one
error in a Bible, then the whole Bible is contaminated."

The truth is: no Bible is free of all oopses yet all
the faithful Bibles are STILL INERRANT.

Here is an unfaithful Bible:
1 John 1:1 (NWT = New World Translation):
In (the) beginning the Word was, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

There is certainly no reason to translate "theos" one
time as "God" and another time as "a god". Totally
unreliable as a transaltion. This is one example of
what disqualifies the NWT as being an unfaithful
translation; this one example does NOT make the NWT
an unfaithful translation.

I'm very disappointed in this topic.
There are people here (i'm not allowed to say
who) that have not read the book they are talking
about. In fact, hardly anybody is talking about
books anymore???

Tee Hee, i predict that someone who doesn't bother to read
the entirity of my posts will make a fool
of themselves by jumping all over my case about what
i said: "faithful Bibles". In fact, i use to just rapidly
say "all Bibles", but out of deference to other users
of the board who knew about the NWT (I hadn't seen it
up to that time) i now say "all faithful translations
of the Bible are inerrant".