The Sound of Silence

I gave you all the proof you need;your problem is,your so deep in the kool-aid that you dont know what flavor it is. </font>[/QUOTE]You gave nothing of the sort. You wrote: "The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory." That is an assertion, and not proof. Why don't you either show us point-by-point your proof, or else recant your position.

 

Then, by your own words, the source text is what defines validity, not the ultimate end product. Hence, any biblical translation that faithfully sticks to the Antiochan manuscripts is as much the Word of God as the KJV. Hence, the KJV cannot be the sole authoritative Word of God for all English speaking people.

By your own words, then, version-onlyism, as far as translations are concerned, is wrong.

 

Yes.Very good...

It's not;the Geneva or the Great Bible is just as much the word of God;the KJB is the distilation of said Bibles;it has yet to be replaced.


You see,you and your ilk "label" Bible believers as "KJVO" to take the attention away from your own Bible agnosticism.

1)The KJB and it's predecessors,come from the Antiochan manuscripts of the Protestant reformation;FACT....


2)Any ofthe 200+ conflicting "bibles" from the 1881 bible of the month club come from inferior,corrupted manuscripts that ever fell out of a dumpster(Sinaiticus),or was endorsed by the RCC(Vaticanus;Revelation 17).

Therefore,there IS two lines of Bibles;one line from Protestant manuscripts,and the other from dark age Jesuit manuscripts;which side are you on???

 

It seems your position has shifted some recently.

Not completely... and that my friend is a fact. Once again, some passages in the KJV do not come from Antiochian mss but rather from the Latin tradition with little or no Greek support.

(Ignoring all of the lies and distortions in this clip) The NKJV is a translation of the TR.

So you commit the fallacy of limited alternatives and we are supposed to be impressed?

My answer is NEITHER. I am on the side of the mss God providentially preserved... which is all of them.

 

The following bible translations are all based on the Textus Receptus:

Analytical-Literal Translation
King James Version
New King James Version
Literal Translation
Modern King James Version
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation

Note that some of these are called "modern versions" by KJVO's. Since you assert that only Bibles faithful to the TR are truly God' word, then you must include these as well.

You realize, however, that, if this is your assertion, that you are not KJVO. The belief that only certain sources are valid for translation is certainly allowable biblically, imo. This is NOT a stance I take issue with. I do, however, take issue with the stance that only one specific English translation is the true Word of God (be it the KJV, NIV, or any V). But by your own words, this is not your stance. Hence, you're not KJVO.

 

But A-A,

1 John 5:7 comes from this "dark age" Roman Catholic mss (The Vulgate) in all the English Bibles.

HankD

 

No,it has not.I have ALWAYS held this position,it is people like you that assign the COP OUT of "KJVO" to take attention away from the BAO heresy...

1)Im not your "friend".


2)The Old Latin did IN FACT come from manuscripts from Antioch.


3)Since when does a manuscript have to be Greek to be used in a translation?? Who makes up these rules anyway???

Yes,but it comes from Scriveners TR--I read this in an old NKJV--that has variations from the W&H Greek text.Therefore,it is only from the TR in part...Find a old NKJV and look it up for yourself..

Who cares?? I'm not out to impress anyone,I'm just showing how bankrupt the BAO position is..

You just keep believing that;it CANNOT be both lines,stop riding the fence...

 

That is a lie..That passage came from the Old Latin;Jerome had to take it from the O-L to complete his "bible".

 

Hey guys...

Think for a minute. How can anyone PROVE the superiority of one version. We can suggest that one is better based on several lines of evidence such as muanuscripts, number of copies, human ambitions behind production of various translation etc... But how can you PROVE it short of a directive in scripture about a version (which does not exist)?

( Hint Hint - you can't!)

 

The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26). </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! Correct!

That's why God did not allow Paul to travel to Alexandria. The people at Antioch where Paul visited were called, "Christians." </font>[/QUOTE]Acts 18:24-25
Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John.

Well, lookie here. God says something good about someone from Alexandria. Obviously, God was at work there as well as Antioch. Many people like to make glowing statements about Antioch and condemning statements about Alexandria. However, the historical record shows that Antioch had its share of heresies as well.

 

While it's true that many of the Old Itala mss contain 1 John 5:7, what I said is not really a lie, the KJV translators used the Latin Vulgate - Proof : They included the RCC Apocrypha in their "Bible" and some Vulgate readings in the English text including 1 John 5:7 because the Old Itala (OI) mss are VERY unreliable. Some times the order of the verses (5:7 and 8) are reversed in the OI, sometimes words were added, some times words were taken away from the Comma in the OI, and some left it out competely.

Personally I believe God used the Vulgate to preserve 1 John 5:7 in its perfect form (except for the obvious definite articles, Latin doesn't have the definite article).

HankD

 

I agree (FWIW).

HankD

 

That is a lie..That passage came from the Old Latin;Jerome had to take it from the O-L to complete his "bible". </font>[/QUOTE]Everyone who disagrees with you is a lier, right?

It would not matter if you were telling the truth about the KJV, which you aren't. The spirit of your posts show just how much in the dark you truly are. You contradict yourself and don't even realize it. First you and your "ilk" as you like to put it claim that every word of the KJV is specifically the exact Word that God says is any particular instance. Then you turn around and say the the Geneva bible, although with different words than the KJV is also the pure Word of God. Then, to top it off, when you are called on this you are unable to see your own contradiction.

 

Apollos went OUT of Alexandria to Ephesus.

Did God send Paul to Alexandria?

 

That's why God did not allow Paul to travel to Alexandria. The people at Antioch where Paul visited were called, "Christians." [/qb][/QUOTE]

ASKJO, if you go back to your KJV, and look at Acts 11:26 it say's "and the disciples were called chistians first in Antioch." Not the people at Antioch.