-
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!
Non-KJBO lies
- Thread starter RaptureReady
- Start date
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Not, "Who???" But, "What???"
Answer: The man-made lie that is known as "King James Version Onlyism"
And, yes, " King James Verion Only "is the cancer of Christianity.
I mean, hey, you all are the ones causing all the division around here. Do we who hold to the notion that God has given us many valid translations condemn those of you who hold to the King James alone? NO! But you and your like routinely condemn us who do not bow to the KJV.
In Christ,
Trotter
When you read the Bible if you do not understand some verses contradicting each other, how would you understand what the Bible said between these verses?
The NIV omitted 1 John 5:7 because its Greek text following the W/H text where an unitarian rejected this verse. The KJV did not add a part of Jude 1:25. These MVS added it because the NU text added it and omitted "wise."
As He has. Your pious phrases notwithstanding, the Spirit of God has led me to reject you as being a proclaimer of a false teaching, error, schism and doctrinal perversion.
You have been shown time and again the error of your way and have not repented. If you were a member of my church, you would be called for discipline and turned over to Satan if you failed to heed the Word.
But you will continue to post (I'm sure) and try to subvert the truth, all the while quoting verses and proclaiming that the KJV (whichever revision YOU accept as "perfect") is the only way of salvation.
Get thee behind me.
[Note: there is NO smiley face in this post. I am sick every day at the perversion of truth and find it not anything but sad.]
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Sorry, Askjo, your statement is incorrect.
There is a surce text variation in 1 John 5:7.
It is the Latin Vulgate that contains the extra
phrases NOT THE GREEK SOURCE.
The translators of the KJV decided that
the Latin Vulgate was more correct.
The translators of the KJV used higher
criticism to determine what was right.
Do we trust these Baptist bahishing,
baby baptizers (BBBBpt) to do this kind of work?
There is no way for your know that the
translator of the Latin Vulgate was a
unitarian???
Originally posted by LarryN:
For approximately the 573rd time- would you provide even one example of how any MV attacks the Deity of Jesus. If you won't, then why not cease making this spurious accusation once and for all.
ASKJO:356 false doctrinal passages and errors in WH text, UBS and NA text are affected in MVs.
Can you prove these aren't corrections of errors in other mss? after all, the "Alex" mss are generally older than the "Byz" mss, so if the Byz mss have more material, there's a strong possibility it coulda been ADDED.
For approximately the 573rd time- would you provide even one example of how any MV attacks the Deity of Jesus. If you won't, then why not cease making this spurious accusation once and for all.
ASKJO:356 false doctrinal passages and errors in WH text, UBS and NA text are affected in MVs.
Can you prove these aren't corrections of errors in other mss? after all, the "Alex" mss are generally older than the "Byz" mss, so if the Byz mss have more material, there's a strong possibility it coulda been ADDED.
No version deletes this important truth. Distortion! Michelle refers to Col. 1:14.
KJV
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
NIV
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NASB
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
ESV
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Where is Jesus' Blood on Col. 1:14 in MVs? Show Michelle, please!
Distortion again! I checked MVs on Eph. 4:32. They did not say anything about the blood.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Natters, Michelle is right. W/H were heretics and apostates in old time. Also Dr. Metzger and others today. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!
These charges against W/H
are not viable. It is unkind to bring
such baseless charges against our Brothers
in Christ.
Interesting enough, one of the false
charges against Westot and Hort is that
they are devil worshiping Pagans.
The "devil worshiper" and "Pagan"
definitions preclude that one can be both.
"Corrupt the word of God" is as NOT SAME as "peddling the word of God." I researched and still write 11 pages concerning 2 Cor. 2:17. I found massive information favoring "corrupt" than "peddle." You need to look at Will Kinney's answer on 2 Cor. 2:17 in his website and find "Many which Corrupt the word of God." Will wrote 4 pages on 2 Cor. 2:17. His essay on this subject is very excellent.Originally posted by Orvie:
2 Cor 2:17 ESV Yeah, go to those KJVO sites, and see for yourself the peddling! i.e. "Don't trust those MV's...only buy the KJV, from us"
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
You believe Will Kinney over the
King James Bible, the King James Version 1611 Edition?
If call you out publicly I.A.W. (in accordance
with) 2 Thess 3:14-16.
The KJB clearly says (yet you deny the
written word of God in your own Bible):
II.Corinthians II.17 (IJV1611):
For wee are not as many which
||corrupt the word of God: but as of
sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of
God speake we in Christ.
sidenote: || Or, deale deceitfully with.
II.Corinthians II.17 (IJV1611alt):
For wee are not as many which
deale deceitfully with the word of God: but as of
sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of
God speake we in Christ.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Askjo:
"Corrupt the word of God" is as NOT SAME as "peddling the word of God." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now they are not the same.
In 1611 they mean the same.
The most most similiar in 1611 and 2004
is "peddling the word of God."