Link to Dr. Wilkinson's book!

Roby,

Somewhere I have a copy of a book by a guy named David Cimino that I acquired back in the 70's and IIRC he pretty much quotes Wilkinson. I'll have to dig through boxes and find it and compare.

 

Why try to send a train down a dirt road to make your point?

I've stuck with the KJV primarilly due to its prose and excellent way of saying things.

I haven't read much on any "KJVO" author and really don't care to.

I have other versions but I always revert back to the KJV.

Why not stop all your ranting and raving giving so much air-time to cultists and go win somebody to Jesus instead of whining about versions and your being like some one with an obsessive personally disorder just might get a rest.:sleeping_2:

Actually, I see you doing your "side" as doing the body of Christ just as much if not more harm than you claim the "KJVO" does. At least you're doing your side more harm.

 

The pot is calling the kettle black again.

 

In Roby's defense, the KJVO doctrine is a divisive doctrine that only hinders the work of Christ.

It does need to be refuted but it can also take up too much time in refutation.

 

Oh, yeah dale, I can see just where having the word of God in a form of a language which is expressly accurate does alot of harm to the body of Christ and is divisive:sleep:

The only divisiveness is when people depart from the word of God and endorse a multiplicity of versions as being just as accurate: sort of reminds me of a Toyota commercial I heard once.

"All the other guys compare their models to our Toyotas. Well, why not just buy a Toyota and be satisified.":sleep:

 

Response removed by me.

This post does not merit a reply!

Ed

 

You are very funny, Brother, and your response lacks fortitude.

I can accept other people having other versions, why is it the ones who do respond to those of us who stay with the KJV like this?

Talking about taking underhanded shots and being DIVISIVE!:tongue3:

 

All of Scripture, my Brother, and I don't need anybody's book to convince me of anything. I've got The Book!:thumbsup:

Why is it you come across so irrational?

 

I thought Ed Sutton's response was one of the most gentlemanly ones I have seen. In contrast, your response to Dale was not. For someone who preaches about love and forgiveness you sure don't exemplify it.

I can accept people using the KJV, why is it the ones who do respond to those of us who use many versions like this? (Whatever that means).

 

Oh really? In your post numbered 8, you said:"...when people depart from the Word of God and endorse a multiplicity of versions as being accurate."

You do not in-fact accept other people having other versions. You think the KJV (of whatever flavor -- thanks EdSutton) is the only Word of God. Other versions in your view are not -- they're just pretenders.

 

FTR, there was no humor intended, in any manner, in my post, only sadness. :tear:

If one has bothered to read my own posts, one will find that I have said multiple times that, among versions that are fairly easy to come by, I prefer one particular edition of the NKJV and one particular edition of the KJV. The key word here, is prefer. These two are based on the same identical texts, for both the OT and NT, with one exception. That is that the KJ-1611 and the several 'genuine' editions of the KJV that followed for the next 2 1/2 centuries, included the Apocrypha, which although I do not believe this to be inspired Scripture, the interest of historic accuracy, demands be included, where is the real difference??

In addition, the effective insistence that ONLY the KJV is the written word of God (with which assertion I also agree, if one leave off the "only" bit) and to the exclusion of others (by implication, if not by direct statement, and with which 'implied assertion' I disagree strongly) and that somehow the KJV translators were supernaturally guided above all others, is something I cannot and do not accept.

This very assertion also callously dismisses every version that preceded the KJV, as well, from the labors of Tyndale (who more than any other individual is responsible for the words of the KJV almost a century later), through Coverdale, Rogers, Whittingham, et al., in the attempt to cast aspersions on all the translators and versions which have since appeared, which I reject.

One can rightfully question the text(s) involved in any version, without hesitation.

One can question the actual translation of any portion, as well, as to the accuracy of said passage.

One does not have to slander the other translators or their motives, in order to do either.

Ed

 

except that the Book don't teach none of whatever u're selling concerning KJBOism.

o i take that back ... KJBOism has only proven that the snake hissin Yea hath God said is still at large. why is it non-KJBOists are affirming inspiration n inerrancy of the Words of God while KJBOists hiss loudly in the background?

answer's in the mirror.

 

Picking up offenses for others? Maybe you're called of God to judge?:love2:

I think you're linking me up with those you have so often replied to with the vile tongue, again.

face it, you're just another "martyr"


When one operates from his obsessive personality disorder he usually rants and raves about it until it becomes sickening. Not sickening to himself because he feeds upon it, but certainly to others and thus the "merited" responses.:tonofbricks:

 

Well, lots of "I"'s and "my" 's.

I have not slandered any translation.

Am I to now understand the NWT you have never slandered?

Actually I thin k it slanders the very word of God. Other versions offer misrepresentations in places while others even leave off whole passages.

The KJV is complete while others have less, thus why settle for less?

I have too much to do other than figure out which version I like best and try to decide if what one says is what the other says and where the info came from to decide if it's from the right source.

I'll stick with the KJV. I look at other versions often and always revert right back to the KJV.

I don't question the word of God in any translation, but I do take the time to define its words so I may allow the Spirit to enhance the reading for my benefit.

 

Are we unable to use cognitive abilities due to the obsessive rantings and ravings again?

 

It does appear interesting that you used more of the " "I"'s and "my" 's" in your own post than were used in the post to which you were 'responding'.

You might wish to check the definition of "slander".

Thus -

Does misrepresenting the textual basis of the NKJV count, here?

That would appear to fit the definition.

NWT? "Slandered"? No.

Described this as a version that was 'manufactured' to 'fit' the doctrines of 'the Watchtower' a.k.a. the Jehovah Witnesses? Yes, openly and often.

Well, it does appear that you do manage to find time to "look at other versions often" and post on the Baptist board, even though you are obviously a busy person, by your own claims.

Ed