Restored Texts and Question God's Words

Askjo: //Well, Polycarp used the TR because he received it from John the Apostle. When Polycarp was a martyr, his TR was destroyed. Likewise William Tyndale and his Bible. The TR went back to the 1st Century. That is how we get the Bible. If the TR was not there, we would NOT get the true Bible.//

Again, the TRs were the text received by the KJV translators.
using 'Polycarp' and 'TR' is a double untruth.
That should be 'TRs'. But Polycharp never saw, let alone
'used' the TRs.

BTW, if dying for the translation is good,
why don't you use the Tyndale English Translation?

 

Preach on Ed. I always considered one version of the Textus Receptus as being a reverse engineered text--reverse engineered from none other than the KJV itself.

Unless I am totally off-base, the TR is not the only text used by the KJV.

It even used the Latin Vulgate (Catholic) to fill in a few blanks, along with the Bishop's, Geneva and other versions of the era.

It was nothing more than an MV of 1611. If it is God's only Word in English then God did not have an "only" Word in English prior to 1611. Simple logic.

 

Can you trace the TR back to the apostles?

NO, you cant, and neither can Waite. He is just claiming it is so, then doing EXACTLY what you do...ignoring any question regarding it.

You cant expect us to take anything you say as accurate when you you are as dishonest as this.

 

You called me, "liar" -- You attacked me. Shame on you. </font>[/QUOTE]Could it be that the information you shared is inaccurate? See my response to your post.

 

Please explain the difference between YOUR statement, and those of Joseph Smith.

You will not, you will ignore this like you do every other error brought up in your false claims, and you will spread another lie.

Just proves that your statements are coming from the exact same spirit at his. YOU may be saved, but your information is straight from Satan.

 

Yet another uplifting thread arguing over this issue!

FTR, the two preceeding posts immediately before this one were not on the BB when I started to type, but appeared between my posting and proof-reading, so neither of you feel 'attacked', here. Anyone else feel free!

Ed

 

The BB has some of the most carnal and inflamatory exchanges among brothers I have ever seen, and as such it is becoming more and more difficult to participate.

 

Except you refuse to provide any evidence for your position.

Didnt the KJV attack the word of God? It is your position that the Word of God was availible to English people before 1611, so why did the KJV attack that Word of God by changing it?

The above will be another in a long like of evaded rebuttals to KJVO. Plase, Askjo, at least make your evasion conherent.

I might have a coronary at 27 if you actually respond honestly.

 

Askjo:Did I attack modern versions? No, you misread what I said. Read carefully:

Since Philip snipped the objectionable material, I won't repeat it. But I won't hesitate to say it applies to the KJV with equal weight. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I think you have latched onto the Catholic interpretation of history my friend. It seems I recall that Henry wanted a annulment because he beleived that his marriage was in violation of the Scriptures.

A.F.

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

At 27 I would have been right in there with you D.D..
At 37 I was still hot as a firecracker.
At 47 I thank God that he has more patience than I had 20 years before.

A.F.