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!
Removed nothing? Mis-Information! The History disagrees with you. Today I disagree with you. Let me give you, for example, some passages concerning Jesus' name. Matthew 4:23 has "Jesus." Massive MSS contained Jesus. 2 MSS supporting MVs contained "Jesus." This 2 MSS were 2 of massive MSS supporting the KJV. Another passage is Matthew 4:12 has "Jesus." Another 2 different MSS supporting MVs contained "Jesus." This 2 MSS were 2 of massive MSS supporting the KJV. That is not what I said. That is what Manuscript evidences said.Originally posted by Ransom:
If they did not translate from those manuscripts, they "removed" nothing. Rather, they translated honestly what was there and not what some people on the lunatic fringe say should be there.
That is MVs supporters' idea of saying.Stop bearing false witness against the Word of God. It is a shame and a reproach on Christ's good name to see his supposed disciples lie like this.
You disagree with manuscript evidence, not KJV-only pseudo-history.Originally posted by Ransom:
I care not whether revisionist, KJV-only pseudo-history disagrees with me.
Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!Originally posted by robycop3:
A reminder, Askjo:
AV 1611's marginal note for Isaiah 14:12, "Lucifer":
"or, O day starre"
"And I will give him the morning star"
Because Satan was a CHERUB(Ezekiel 28:14),not a star........That's HOW!!How can any KJVO read the above in context and honestly say that there is confusion in MV's like the NASB when it comes to the Morning Star in both Isa and Rev?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should they?Originally posted by David J:
Do KJVOist ever read anything in full context?
The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord!Originally posted by Ransom:
Michelle again displays her gross ignorance of reality:
Are you aware that the KJB translators were not only Anglican? Were you aware that many of them were Puritan and Calvinists?
Uh . . . the Puritans were Calvinist Anglicans . . . that's what a Puritan was, by definition.
The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord! </font>[/QUOTE]It would be interesting to note if they believed the Bible before 1611, since according to many KJVO's, the Bible wasn't perfect yet. " Did the Anglican translators believe an imperfect Bible?"Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
Michelle again displays her gross ignorance of reality:
Are you aware that the KJB translators were not only Anglican? Were you aware that many of them were Puritan and Calvinists?
Uh . . . the Puritans were Calvinist Anglicans . . . that's what a Puritan was, by definition.
What about David(pre-meditated murderer),Moses(murder),and others? Were they disqualified to receive inspiration??? If not,why not? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I never said anything about sinless perfection being a qualifier.Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Proof has been posted that demonstrates that they were not qualifed to receive inspiration, were not theologically sound, and persecuted true believers.
You call me "idiot." </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. I called your contention idiotic because it fails immediately on logical scrutiny.Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Askjo, This is an incredibly idiotic contention on your part.
If they are updated to contemporary language, I checked many verses in modern versions and found out about these verses that I looked for, and noticed these verses that are missed, added or nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE] No. You found that there are minor differences between MV's and the KJV because there are minor differences in the textual evidence for the Bible. The KJV is not the standard by which we judge the quality of a Bible.Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> First, MV's are updated to contemporary language.
Untrue! I researched them and found out about them. Original language texts? Only 45 MSS (1% MSS supporting MVs). You quoted, "They haven't omitted or added anything." Incorrect! I have lists of MSS containing any verses in the Bible. They did omitted or added too many times.</font>[/QUOTE] This is simply a false statement Askjo. MV's are not exclusively based on the Alexandrian text type. Even versions like the NASB favor the Byzantine over the Alexandrian occasionally.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Second, MV's are based on original language texts with reference to prior translations. They haven't omitted or added anything. All of these translations were new translations when published just like the KJV was when it was published.
MVs are update to the WH text, not the KJV. The NKJV is the update to the MT and NU text - not the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE] MV's are not an update to the WH text. They are based on critical texts derived from similar methods to those used by WH. BTW, I tend to believe some of the critical text assumptions to be unsound.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Prove it
What's wrong with Will Kinney? He provided you his many excellent answers. </font>[/QUOTE] Will Kinney is an extremely deceptive individual. He is subtle and is one of the worst at saying "Yea, hath God said...". Like the Nazi propagandists, he skips proving his premise allowing him to build an "impressive" case on a false foundation. Only a fool would accept an argument without determining the proof of the premise.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Will Kinney is not my final authority. Is he yours?
Well, you call me idiot. I would say, "It is me." Am I a thing? Look up a dictionary. What does it say about "it"? I am not an idiot. </font>[/QUOTE]Nothing you posted has anything to do with calling the Holy Spirit an "it".</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The scripture makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is a person. Calling a person an "it" is an insult.