The Sound of Silence

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Once more,we ask for PROOF.

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.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
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.

This from an "only"? That IS funny, AA.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Once more,we ask for PROOF.

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]No, you HAVEN'T given ONE PEEP of PROOF. For PROOF, you must show us that the ONLY THE KJV is correct, and that the later versions are all INCORRECT. If & when you can do that, you'll have provided PROOF.

BTW, are you deeper in Listerine than I am in Kool-Aid? Regardless of the flavor, which one is better to SWALLOW??

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
OK.The Bible(KJB) is silent concerning Alexandria as being associated with the word of God;Antioch,however,is;read Acts 13.The KJB comes from Antiochan manuscripts.Also,God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him,as per john 16:13;Proverbs 22:17-21;1st Corinthians 2:9-13.

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.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

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

Yes.Very good...

. Hence, the KJV cannot be the sole authoritative Word of God for all English speaking people

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???

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

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

It seems your position has shifted some recently.

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

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.

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).

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

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???

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
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.

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.

 

[HankD]

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???

But A-A,

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

HankD

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

It seems your position has shifted some recently.

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...

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.

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???

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

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..

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

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

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

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

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

But A-A,

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

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".

 

[Charles Meadows]

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!)

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What foundation did these MVs have?

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.

 

[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".

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

 

[Dr. Bob]

We are all baptists here, right?

One group of manuscripts was preserved in the Eastern Orthodox or Byzantine monasteries. Since they spoke Greek there (and still do) the number of those manuscripts are legion.

Another group of manuscripts was preserved in the Western Orthodox or Catholic monateries (St Helens, Vatican et al). Since Latin and the Vulgate replaced Greek early, few copies were tucked away and for the most part, long forgotten.

So we baptists are dependent upon two different groups with whom to even associate with today today would be considered anathema.

The false dichotomy that one group is somehow "good" and the other somehow "evil" is a farce.

And racist?

And bigotted?

We ought to thank God for His preservation using Eastern and Western Catholics so that we Baptists might have God's Word.

 

[HankD]

I agree (FWIW).

HankD

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> But A-A,

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

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.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TC:
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.

Apollos went OUT of Alexandria to Ephesus.

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.

Did God send Paul to Alexandria?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Our Lord Jesus was in Alexandria. Lived in Egypt you know. He never made it to Antioch.

Paul ended Acts in Rome and remained there. Barnabas was sent to Antioch. He found his buddy Saul (NOT sent to Antioch) and took him along.

How on earth does Alexandria v Antioch (the cities) have THING ONE to do with Versions?? There is a leap of logic.

Paul was in Rome. Therefore he endorses the Vulgate! Gimme a break!

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Askjo:

Apollos went OUT of Alexandria to Ephesus.

The Alex mss came [b[OUT[/b] of Alexandria also.

Did God send Paul to Alexandria?

Does it matter? What's the significance?NONE!

He didn't send Paul to Ethiopia, either.

This is a typical Onlyist sideshow. Faced with a total lack of evidence, as I mentioned at the start of this thread, the Onlyist attempts to steer the conversation away from this glaring lack of evidence. It simply amazes me that some people whom I assume to be devout Baptists of at least normal intelligence can cling to such a totally-discredited doctrine as KJVO.

 

[Servent]

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.