Questions for KJV critics

How about Eph. 1:7 in MVs? Boy, those MVs did a bad job of 'removing' the blood of Christ!

Try again, Steve. The blood of Christ is in the MVs.

Neal

 

Once... just once. Show the proof that the KJV is equivalent to the originals. Show the proof that MV's deliberately or accidentally remove a doctrine. None of us are looking for proof that the MV's are different in wording than the KJV. We already know and accept that fact.

But what makes the KJV the standard by which other translations are to be judged? The only authority you have cited for this premise is human- either yourself or others... others whose credibility has been proven nil.

[ January 29, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

As far as know there is no way to prove this seeng that there ARE no originals;however,MANY MV's have made the claim in the prefaces to be closest & true to the originals.Just one problem,how can they make this claim having NEVER seen the ORIGINALS;someone is not being truthful here..

[ January 29, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

As far as know there is no way to prove this seeng that there ARE no originals;however,MANY MV's have made the claim in the prefaces to be closest & true to the originals.Just one problem,how can they make this claim having NEVER seen the ORIGINALS;someone is not being truthful here..</font>[/QUOTE]It can be done by the same method that we use to convict murderers with enough certainty to sentence them to death. The evidence is considered and the verdict is rendered. The judge and jury can never go back and observe the "original" crime. They have to rely on witnesses and evidence.

So whether you think the MT/TR side has more evidence or the CT side has more evidence is academic... the outcome is the very same doctrines.

 

Indeed! On one side you have people accepting the evidence providentially preserved to prove the text of the Bible thus enabling them to say "this translation is close to the originals". On the other side you have people ignoring or denying the evidence then declaring that the KJV is the exact equivalent of the originals with no proof at all.... not altogether difficult to see who is denying the truth.

[ January 29, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

So what? King James was a bisexual fornicator.

 

HELLO??? Hey you guys who say that MVs take out the blood of Christ, what about Ephesians 1:7? Do you just ignore it?

You made a claim and I showed you were false. Care to retract your assertion?

Neal

 

How about col 1:20 ... were these people really that inept or are you chasing a straw man? The proof that refutes you have been offered so many times. You have been shown to be wrong on history, on quoting others, on theology, on interpretation, etc. Everything you have tried has been refuted. How long till you wake up?

 

But such proof fades
into oblivion. Nobody even knows who were
the people behind the text of the KJV1873.
Interesting, nobody knows who the anonymous
KJV1873. Yep, it is hard to document
anonymous persons.

 

Yep, the New King James Bible (nKJV)
see details at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000682

 

Then why does MV's make God out to be a liar in Heb 3:16?,in Mark 1:2 why is Isaiah being quoted when the quote is from Malichi,and why are the MV's making a sinner out of Jesus by removing"without a cause from Matt 5:22?? Oh, I forgot,it is perfectly godly to remove or alter verses or parts of verses that they dont understand or don't like,or falls under Hebrews 4:12,just as long as the basic doctrine is somewhere in the text then it's OK....

[ January 29, 2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Proverbs 12:1 (KJV1769)

Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge:
but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Item corrected to observe common
rules of written expression:

Ed unless you have nail prints in your
hands that I don't know about you are
not my God. If you do not like my posts
then don't read them. I don't like yours
and so I don't read them. I don't tell
you what to post and you don't tell me.

Item edited to correct correction

[ January 30, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Probably demolishing
another strawman.

 

To the KJVonlyest,
You people are the best advertisment in the world for the support of the MV's. Your continued hate filled speech shows, perhaps, that the KJV should be avoided at all cost.

Also, since you have posted the same thing over and over, you have made your point. It is obvious that most people here do not agree with you. Since this is the case, why don't you leave and start a KJV only board? That way you will not be bothered with this continued attack, as many of you claim is the case on this board. And we will not be bothered with this endless argument.

 

They didn't. I don't know what you are talking about.

Because Isaiah is considered the chief prophet and quotes from the prophets can be attributed to Isaiah

They aren't ... they didn't remove anything. The "without a cause" most likely wasn't there. It is clear that anger is not always sin. Long before that verse was in Scripture, God was angry with his people. Paul admits the possibility of righteous anger in Eph 4. The existence of an unlikely phrase does not substantiate the sinfulness of Jesus. Jesus was perfect, as the MVs teach.

Once again your objections proved to be based on faulty conclusions not drawn from the truth about Scripture.

 

Try proofs that are not lies about people or distortions of their quotes. Every item of proof you have presented was refuted. Every one! You have been shown that those you trust for your information are both liars and heretics yet you continue to follow them. Read the KJV and see what it says about folks who follow false teachers.

Yes. I will. However when you quote authors whose quotes of others are taken out of context for the sole intent of misrepresentation, any lover of truth must reject those quotations. When such a method becomes standard practice for an author such as Gipp, Riplinger, and others, the author must also be rejected as untrustworthy.

No. We saw what you posted but found it completely lacking therefore it does not qualify as proof.

What we are interested in is honestly handled evidence, truthfully presented that can stand the scrutiny of verification. You simply haven't presented anything closely resembling this.

[ January 30, 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

You pro MV users talk like you expect someone to believe you!

Physician, heal thyself.

How many times do you have to be shown proof!

Just once.

You are in every thread spreading your untruth and when someone shows you the truth you deny ever seeing it.

Physician, heal thyself.