KJVO

Ad hominem, I'm no fan of NIV, and i prefer the byz to the W/h, but those arguments have no basis in the discussion of textual issues.

 

Steve, TWICE I have provided the evidence that completely refutes your (and Riplinger's) claim! When are you going to address it?

Ransom has already provided the evidence that refutes your first claim, and you have not provided the quotes and page numbers so we can verify the other claim. Why not? I am working to obtain a copy of the "Life and Letters", but it may take a while.

Instead, why not try to address the recent comments about the definition of "FINAL" authority and the questions about correcting it?

 

Brian,you did?I don't remember.Oh that's your line,sorry.No you proved nothing but your opinion is different than mine. You cannot refute those references.They are public info documented from the very words of the men in question.Grady ate their lunch when he printed the letters between them and others and their invovlement in Mary worship and the occult.All of the kings horses and all of the kings men cannot put their reputation back together again.

 

You are not a fan of the niv?why? please be specific.

 

All the above They are from the same English text..

 

Well, i use it for study, but they take too many liberties (in my opinion) with the text like genetives and such. I'm not a fan of that level of D.E. because it places more emphasis on the receptor lang. than the original lang. I see the TNIV as the disturbing natural outgrowth of their translation philosophy. But i don't have problems with people who like it. among the modern versions i like NASB, ESV, NKJV for study, along with the greek. but i still use the KJV daily as my usual bible.
reuben

 

All the above They are from the same English text..</font>[/QUOTE]thanks for the answer, but what i hear you saying is that spelling errors are not errors. if that's what you mean then is it possible for the originals to have had these errors?
reuben
in other words is the KJV 1850 on the same level as the originals?

 

quote;Even if W/H worshiped the devil, what is the significance?
I will not even address that as I don't believe you can be serious.

 

All the above They are from the same English text..</font>[/QUOTE]How can both be "FINAL" if you admit they are different, one correcting the other? Again, this question has to do with the basic definition of simple English words.

 

well, theologically speaking we were all children of wrath before we were saved. Whether we realized it or not the devil was our master and we served him. Now are you telling me that every scribe was saved who worked on the text that led up to the kjv? no way so many catholics and eastern orthodox were involved. All i'm saying is that it doesn't matter if the scribes, or the copiests, or W/H were saved. I Tim 3:16 Inspiration is not the process as my KJV would have me think, but Inspiration refers to THE PRODUCT. This is straight from every conservative systematic theology you could think of. God's blessing is on the words in spite of the men.
reuben

 

The words W/H were involved with are proved to be corrupt throught their theology.Hence I cling to the perfect word of God The KING JAMES BIBLE.

 

Do you mean their Anglican theology?

 

I don't remember! Oh that's your line. Pity

 

Brian where is your proof? I want documented references for what you say so I can verify!Or do you have the only surviving copy of the originals?

 

Hey did either of you guys work for the defence during the Clinton hearings? Most of your defence of people proved to be heretics and Satanist has the same ring to it. Well was it really....or just something that sounde like something that was interpreted as something....that well uh INNOCENT I SAY HE'S INNOCENT! Well the truth came out in the end and so it will again.

 

My proof of what?

 

hmm short term memory disfunction Brian?

 

No, I am just asking about what specifically you want me to provide references for. I have made several posts lately, and I am simply asking you to identify which one you are referring to.

 

quote;Do you mean their Anglican theology?
this one will do for starters.Remember documented!verifiable! But then they will only be true if you say they are true right?