Through His Blood

[rsr]

After three pages we've moved to apostasy and "almost a heretick."

We can only go up from here.

Not.

POR, do you have any idea what you're talking about when you say ONE manuscript omits the phrase?

BTW, AVL: POR didn't imply you're almost a heretic; he said it outright.

 

[AVL1984]

I know RSR, but I was trying to give Ralph the benefit of the doubt, again. He still has not answered the question about the chapter negating the blood of Christ. It doesn't. I don't look for a fruitful response from Ralph in this matter.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is quite clear from God's preserved word that Paul did not say "through his blood" in Colossians 1. Some overzealous scribes added to the word of God.

Adding to the word of God is wrong, even if the addition is correct doctrine. God gave us his word as he saw fit, and it is not up to anyone to add to it, and especially not up to POR to pretend like he can defend additions with impunity. It would be better just to go with what God said.

 

[Bro. James]

Over zealous scribes--

Yes, indeed, probably the same ones who did not translate "baptizo"(immerse), "ecclesia"(assembly), and "pascha" was translated "Easter" instead of "passover" in the book of Acts. "Angelos" would have been better translated "messenger" in many places.

The Word of God is still without divine error--God cannot make a mistake. Man can and does make errors quite often.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Pastor Larry]

YOu are right James. The word of God is without error. No doubt, there are places in every version that could be better translated, but God's word remains the powerful sword that accomplishes His work.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Please, now that you've implied I'm almost a heretick, prove your assertion. I have in NO WAY contradicted the scriptures, and I am really tired of your implications that I and others have. It is your teachings of KJVonlyism doctrine and the twisting of scriptures in other areas that is truly shameful. Why do you imply that I use the MV's as my Bible of choice, just as you implied that I was divorced in the other thread? I think you need to pull yourself together, Ralph. You might find you're messing with the wrong person. Plus, now since you've brought it up, PROVE that it is "OMITTED".

Again, I want to clarify to you that I have attacked nothing but the militancy of the false teachers of the KJVo "doctrine". They have nothing to back up this doctrine, nor will they ever.

Uh, so WHO are you more than anyone else? I see you've been real busy polishing your halo!

The Word of God just isn't proof enuf for you, is it?

I stand on the infallable, inerrant, inspired and PRESERVED Word of God, you seem to stand anywhere and everywhere you decide for yourself by YOUR opinion what the Word is, and is not. Seems that equates YOUR word with the Word of God? NOT!

Time you people learn not to "monkey" with the Bible, butt (billy goat language, some of yall will take some time to figure that one out, but you'll finally get it)..... you'll simply keep PROVING evolution to be true.... Hey! Hey! Yall are the Monkies! And people say you monkey around, you're too busy arguing, to find anyplace to settle down!

 

[AVL1984]

Continue to show us your intelligence, or lack thereof, Ralph.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Ralph, I have never stated that I didn't believe God could preserve His Word. Please prove where I have stated that God has not preserved His Word. You can't, because I haven't. I would expect an apology, but I know that would be too much to get from you.
Again, I also see that you've avoided pointing out how the chapter omits the blood, as it doesn't.

Oh, ok, so you're demanding an apology, well for what it's worth.... But you cannot decide which version is the Bible, so you think all the ones you'll approve are the Bible, so that places the ability only upon yourself as the one who preserves what you think the Bible is, and you are then placing yourself in the WRONG position and lording over the Bible, so really, and you'll see, I don't have any reason to apologize, but you still have time to change and correct your erroneous concepts.

I'm rerally having a problem, especially now, to see you as any authority, except your own.

 

[AVL1984]

Again, an unsubstantive post from Ralph, and continued avoidance of the questions asked, along with lies about myself. Ralph, you'll have a lot to give account for...I pity you.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Continue to show us your intelligence, or lack thereof, Ralph.

That IS an attack. And THAT also places you in the role of the Greeks. It's no wonder no one can give you a hint of rational thinking, it's not UP too your level of Inter- I know-it-all, and I'll-tell-it-all-agence.

If you really want to "compete", intellectually, be forewarned, you're dealing with the antics of the lunatick mind, so you don't have a chance, except maybe the snowball's chance... And then you have exposed your carnality, AGAIN.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Again, an unsubstantive post from Ralph, and continued avoidance of the questions asked, along with lies about myself. Ralph, you'll have a lot to give account for...I pity you.

Save your "pity", I sincerely DOUBT you even know the meaning of the word, you're posts are not even slightly showing any real pity, just self-righteousness and pitiful intellectual abilities.

 

[AVL1984]

If you want to keep libeling me, maybe you'd like to talk to my attorney. SERIOUS, RALPH.

 

[AVL1984]

Ralph, you've officially reached "TROLL STATUS"

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by rsr:
After three pages we've moved to apostasy and "almost a heretick."

We can only go up from here.

Not.

POR, do you have any idea what you're talking about when you say ONE manuscript omits the phrase?

BTW, AVL: POR didn't imply you're almost a heretic; he said it outright.

You are VERY perceptive, but you are still WRONG.

What do ye do with the "reknowned" rsv? Was it mss that omits the phrase? Or is it intentionally lEFT OUT?

You decide, you ARE THE authority, not!

 

[natters]

I can feel the love....

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
If you want to keep libeling me, maybe you'd like to talk to my attorney. SERIOUS, RALPH.

Bring it on bigboy, and we'll just have the Baptist Board subpeona ready!

No one is libeling you, just putting you to the grindstone, Brother.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Ralph, you've officially reached "TROLL STATUS"

You've "officially" reached JUDGE status, self-appointed judge status.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by natters:
I can feel the love....

Sure you can! It's just your definition and the obvious..... well, typical.

Now, just what do you people do with your typology?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It is quite clear from God's preserved word that Paul did not say "through his blood" in Colossians 1. Some overzealous scribes added to the word of God.

Adding to the word of God is wrong, even if the addition is correct doctrine. God gave us his word as he saw fit, and it is not up to anyone to add to it, and especially not up to POR to pretend like he can defend additions with impunity. It would be better just to go with what God said.

And you were there when they "did this", weren't you?

No one added the principle to God's Word, and the MSS have been correctlty translated, it's yall's arrogance that denies the evidence, that has been proven countless times.

It amazes me how yall have appointed yourselves as the magistrates over the Word of God and that without ALL the MSS available to the KJB translators, ERROR!!!!

 

[AVL1984]

You've got it right...KJV translators errors.