P
psr.2
Guest
[snipped]
[ August 23, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
[ August 23, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
-
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!
Scriptural proof for...........
- Thread starter Anti-Alexandrian
- Start date
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Gee, the sheer stupidity in these here parts is really starting to become annoying.
And, to think, that I used to look forward to logging on and debating something of worth, or learning something. Now adays, it is nothing but sheer stupidity.
Oh, it has new names, since the old would not abide by the rules. But it is the same stupidity, alright.
In Christ,
Trotter
And, to think, that I used to look forward to logging on and debating something of worth, or learning something. Now adays, it is nothing but sheer stupidity.
Oh, it has new names, since the old would not abide by the rules. But it is the same stupidity, alright.
In Christ,
Trotter
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Gnome,Alaska????
Anyway,were nearly to the prescribed page limit,and still not one answer;go figure..
Anyway,were nearly to the prescribed page limit,and still not one answer;go figure..
Askjo said "Gnome, Alaska where you pointed at is your wrong answer to Alexandria, Egypt where A-A pointed at."
No, Gnome was my answer to you. And it's just as relevant to the discussion as any other city.
Askjo said "I did not see your post, yet."
Then perhaps you should try again. It's there.
AA said "Anyway,were nearly to the prescribed page limit,and still not one answer;go figure.."
As explained, no answer is needed because you do not understand when scriptural proof is and isn't required for something. If you did, you would not have asked the question in the first place. Scriptures are only required to support doctrinal positions. It is not our doctrinal position that Alexandrian manuscripts are "the word of God", just as it is not our doctrinal position that Gnome is in Alaska. We believe it to be true due to examination of various historical evidence, but we do not make it into a doctrine of the Christian faith. KJVO's on the other hand, have made KJV-onlyism into a doctrine - thus it is up to them to provide scripture, not us to provide scripture to the negative.
No, Gnome was my answer to you. And it's just as relevant to the discussion as any other city.
Askjo said "I did not see your post, yet."
Then perhaps you should try again. It's there.
AA said "Anyway,were nearly to the prescribed page limit,and still not one answer;go figure.."
As explained, no answer is needed because you do not understand when scriptural proof is and isn't required for something. If you did, you would not have asked the question in the first place. Scriptures are only required to support doctrinal positions. It is not our doctrinal position that Alexandrian manuscripts are "the word of God", just as it is not our doctrinal position that Gnome is in Alaska. We believe it to be true due to examination of various historical evidence, but we do not make it into a doctrine of the Christian faith. KJVO's on the other hand, have made KJV-onlyism into a doctrine - thus it is up to them to provide scripture, not us to provide scripture to the negative.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Why dont you answer the other points and then critisise, dont pick and choose what you can smart-mouth about and what you cant.Originally posted by DeclareHim:
WOW kjvbt you just proved that the ships they made in alexandria weren't that good. It doesn't ever say antioch made ships I see your point perfectly. Amazing. Your brilliant. we can't use mv's because alexandria didn't make good ships. Awesome never saw that before.
1cross+3nails=4given
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
This is the way a troll starts a topic, with lies.
This: "Seeing how the burden of proof seems to ALWAYS fall upon the Bible beleiver," seems to
imply that only KJVOs are Bible Believers.
In fact, your average Modern Version user
believes in their Bible. This is a deception
statement.
"As proof has been proven by Scripture that the word of God has it's "roots" in Antioch as per Acts 11 & 13,and can be found in reformation Bibles(based upon Syrian/Byzantine MSS.) in a multitude of languages."
A lie. No adequate proof wxists on this
Forum which shows that existing
manuscripts had their roots in Antioch.
Yes, Acts 11 & 13 do mention Syrian Antioch,
but there is no mention of
scripture being produced there in Antioch.
Starting with untrue statements is trolling.
Trolling is prohibited in this Forum.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I am waiting for page five to close this thread as well.
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Well, Michelle, might I add that YOU personally have refused to provide proof in any of the previous threads. All you basically have done is proclaim the KJV as the only word of God in the English, which is incorrect. There are no proof texts that state that every single word of God would be preserved in one version. The MV's DO NOT take away or change the Word of God, as you assert. Why? Because, they are true to their underlying manuscripts, just as the KJV is to it's underlying manuscripts. You really need to prove what you're saying instead of just spouting off as if you have received some divine revelation or edict from God. You're saying so doesn't make it so.
Jude 1:3 tells Christians to earnestly contend for the faith. When you demean, belittle Christians who use other versions by calling them Bible changers, and that is what you've done, you cast doubt on their faith, their salvation, and their holiness before a living God. That is sin, and it's a shame you are so blinded by the cultish KJVO mindset.
AVL1984
