Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Mar 5, 2004.

  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

    I'm going to encode and Catalogue all
    the double standards of King James
    version Only (KJVO)ests. The inputs that
    are welcome are new examples of
    KJVO doubles, help catagorizing
    the doubles, etc. Thank you in advance
    for your help.

    100 - The Hebrew source

    200 - The Greek source

    300 - Other sources

    400 - The translator(s)

    500 - the editions

    600 - the margin notes

    700 - TBD

    800 - TBD

    900 - TBD

    1000 - [​IMG]
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    ?????????????
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    xxx. It is alright for the KJV to use
    lower case "spirit" but MVs must
    use upper case "Holy Spirit".

    Humm, doesn't fit into my schema???
     
  4. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not misleading in the slightest for the KJV reader to have to read "tried to" into the "did flatter" in Psalm 78:36, but the NASV is of course really, really misleading because "tried to" has to be read into the "deceived".

    Don't know where that one fits in your system....but there it is.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got a place: 703 [​IMG]

    700 - translation, the results

    --701 - It is alright for the KJV to use
    lower case "spirit" but MVs must
    use upper case "Holy Spirit".

    -- 702 - It is alright for the KJV to call
    Joseph the father of Jesus, but the MV cannot do that.

    --703 - It is not misleading in the slightest for the KJV reader to have to read "tried to" into the "did flatter" in Psalm 78:36, but the NASV is of course really, really misleading because "tried to" has to be read into the "deceived".

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed said: -- 702 - It is alright for the KJV to call Joseph the father of Jesus, but the MV cannot do that.

    Please show me where.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    S.Iohn VI:42 (KJV1611):

    And they said, Is not this Iesus
    the sonne of Ioseph, whose father and
    mother we know? How is it then
    that hee sayth, I came down from
    heaun?


    [​IMG]
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    --704 - You can call the Holy Ghost "it" in the KJV;
    but you dare not call the Holy Spirit "it" in an MV.
     
  9. Kidz-4-HIM

    Kidz-4-HIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey! read it in the context and you will see that it was the JEWS that were claiming that Joseph was His father. Not God or Jesus!
    John 6:41-42 KJV
    The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
    And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you:

    --705 - In the KJV you can understand that some things
    in the KJV are the opinion of ungodly folk and ungodly
    entities. In the MV everything has to be the saying of God
    Almighty.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is panning out to be a good night [​IMG]

    --706 The HOly Spirit can reveal truths from a KJV
    but not from a MV.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Kidz-4-Him:Ed said: -- 702 - It is alright for the KJV to call Joseph the father of Jesus, but the MV cannot do that.

    Please show me where.


    Luke 2:43, NIV

    Luke 2:48, KJV
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    --601 - the margin notes in the KJV
    are of Devine origin; the margin notes
    in the MV are of demonic origin.
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

    ------------------------------
    000 - Generic Double Standards

    --001 - Readin an MV offends God;
    reading a KJV does not.

    --002 - Only KJVOs have the right to understand the KJB. Deluded MV people don't undertand how to

    read anything, especially MVs.

    ---003 - "It is written" in the KJBs indicate it is God's written word of truth. "It is written" in

    the MVs is a preverse trick of Satan.

    100 - The sources

    200 - TBD

    300 - TDB

    400 - The translator(s)

    500 - the editions
    --501 - The KJV has editions,
    the MVs have versions

    600 - the margin notes

    --601 - the margin notes in the KJV
    are of Devine origin; the margin notes
    in the MV are of demonic origin

    700 - translation, the results

    --701 - It is alright for the KJV to use
    lower case "spirit" but MVs must
    use upper case "Holy Spirit".

    --702 - It is alright for the KJV to call
    Joseph the father of Jesus, but the MV cannot do that.

    --703 - It is not misleading in the slightest for the KJV reader to have to read "tried to" into the

    "did flatter" in Psalm 78:36, but the NASV is of course really, really misleading because "tried to"

    has to be read into the "deceived".

    --704 - You can call the Holy Ghost "it" in the KJV;
    but you dare not call the Holy Spirit "it" in an MV.

    --705 - In the KJV you can understand that some things
    in the KJV are the opinion of ungodly folk and ungodly
    entities. In the MV everything has to be the saying of God
    Almighty.

    --706 The HOly Spirit can reveal truths from a KJV
    but not from a MV.

    --707 - Textual criticism in the KJV book of Revelation strengthens the KJBs. Textual criticism in

    the MVs are flawed.

    --708 - It is Godly for the KJB to add Revelation 1:11 to the text. It is devilish for the MV to

    take Revelation 1:11 away from the text.

    800 - the authors

    --801 - NEW AGE VERSIONS is the inerrant word of God And Riplinger (G.A. Riplinger). It is the result
    of a through life-time study of MVs by Priestess Gail Riplinger.

    900 - TBD
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    ---004 - Believing the KJV is the written word of GOd is an act of faith. Believing an MV is the written word of God is an act of doubt.
     
  16. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed - I do believe you are enjoying yourself.

    Dan - I know that I'm enjoying what you are writing!
     
  17. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I hope this is permanently preserved! [​IMG]

    Karen
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    THAT one is a classic, Ed. Nails the coffin lid on the sect for sure.

    Not one iota of evidence or proof that the AV is the "only" Word. Just accept it like you did Jesus. (That is blasphemy, btw).
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ed - where does "things that are not the same are different" fit in?

    There are 5000 minor changes (spelling) and about 150 major changes (entire words and phrases) in a typical KJV1769 Oxford or 1762 Cambridge revision from the AV1611. But those changes don't count.

    Yet an MV "must" be bad because THEY change the words from sacred AV1611.
     
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And "KJV" must always be capitalized, while "mv" must never be capitalized.

    And what about AV is GOOD to use the Latin Vulgate as it source in Revelation, an appeal to church fathers . . . but that same Vulgate and same church fathers are evil Alexandrian types.

    And speaking of that, the MV's come from Alexandria, which is Egypt, which is always evil and a type of sin and bad (contrasted to the Byzantine Catholic texts from Syria). Of course, JESUS came from Egypt after being saved from Herod there, and never even went to Syria, but . . .

    Now you got me thinking.
     

Share This Page

Loading...