Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by A&I, May 2, 2004.
Anyone see the Ankerberg TV show a few years ago when he had the KJO debate ?
Yes, they did. I watched it on TV in 1995 (?)
What was it about and what did you think?
I couldn't believe it I went to his site http://www.ankerberg.org/
Then hit Listen to radio programs scrolled down and its under Which English Translation of the Bible is best .There eight guys debating White is one of them .The guys their are for KJO only are pretty popular in the KJO camp i am sure many here know of them .
A&I - THANK YOU for the link. Am listening to these great men as I type! Is it GREAT!
Ha ha, I'm listening to the debate as I type. If I make a typo because of it, sorry
One just said that if your pastor uses other than the KJV1611 then he must leave the church or you must leave.
Why in the world do they use KJV1611? Have they even seen a 1611? I think this is a KJVo con game making people who are not well educated believe that the 1769 (or later) is just a 1611 with a few minor corrections. This is not accurate. It is a con job, in my book. Just as Michelle keeps saying her Bible is 400 years old when in reality her translation is about 130 years of age.
I recommend a book, "Foes of the King James Bible Refuted" by D. A. Waite and this book refuted "Which English Translation of the Bible."
[ May 02, 2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]
Hmmmm, there are some smart people on this show, but they seem quite outnumbered.
One mentions that Isaiah 40 uses dynamic equivalence in "Comfort ye my people" -- I'm trying to quote while I write, I hope I get this right.
One is working on a New International Reader's version. That is all we need another MV. In MV's I consider 400 years as modern. We have the KJV, its translations, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman, and a whole bunch.
Rev. Chambers says that every time a person comes to him confused he tells them to go get a real Bible the KJV and their life is straightened right out. hehe
I would like to see the documention on this.
Eight thousand four hundred something marginal texts in the KJV, according to the show. Interesting for those who don't like marginal notes trying to explain the Bible.
Is this grounds for splitting the church? (The main question of the show.)
This thread is on the show, so I thought I would listen and comment. Some are pretty smart, but the KJVo's don't sound like they base much on real scholarship. Just my opinion.
And how is this any different than what we get here on the Board?
My point exactly Brother Trotter.
Now, the same guy just said that the KJV translator (sic) had as many manuscripts availble as any MV translator.
"We need to get people back in the Word of God."
"All the talk about the KJV being hard to read make no sense to me."
"I believe there is "part" of the word of God in Modern translations."
"Lets quit putting more translations out and get the whole world a copy of the Bible." quotes from Rev. Chambers.
Does this sound familiar, too?
Tom Strouse was at Maranatha BBC shortly after I finished grad work there (about 1971 or so). MBBC hosted the Dean Burgeon Society and everyone was enamored with this "new" KJVonly doctrine.
MBBC even published a book on the primacy of the TR over the Majority Text and eclectic texts. But pulled way away from the movement as it formalized in the next decade. Dr. Strouse left.
For which I am thankful. Or Maranatha might have turned into Pensacola . .
Very interesting, thank you Dr. Bob.
What was so unfair about it? Because it was so one-sided against the KJVOs? THEY were the party that sailed a canoe against a battleship. It was no ambush-they knew exactly what they were getting into, a "battle" of KJVO myth, guesswork, imagination & emotion against the anti-KJVOism FACTS.
Unfair! </font>[/QUOTE]So you are saying that it is unfair to refute another's so called facts. The KJVO is representative of what I have heard many others say. Over and over the KJVO man had no facts. He speaks for himself.
What did you think of what the NAS translator said about Riplinger's book and how he quoted from an original source just to pick one point to start with. HE also mentioned about how their was not one case of credible evidence being quoted in context without misleading others. What is the name the Bible calls the person who misleads? Isn't it Satan. Sounds like Romans 2:1 is so true again of those misleading antagonists.
They probably didn't know what they were getting themselves into. They were ignorant of the facts and have been mislead. That has got to be tough to realize you have been misled.
I'm listening to the Ankerberg tapes as I type, and so far all I've heard is same ole-same ole. I've read several of Dr. Gipp's works, & while he's a fine writer, they remind me of what would happen if Emeril tried to make an omelet from a kumquat. Dr. Gipp merely places the same ole inaccurate KJVO garbage into a more colorful bag & places it into a newly-painted "dumpster".
I reckon that the KJVOs have long-ago run outta basic support excuses for their myth. All they can do now is attack the very newest versions.(And it aint all KJVOs that do THAT! There's been a few lulus lately!)
Ankerberg repeatedly asked Dr. Gipp where the perfect word of God was before 1611, & The Gipper repeatedly tried to avoid a direct answer. Have we ever seen this before?(Found in Part 2, 2nd series)
What I find shocking is that some veteran Christian educated people actually believe Riplinger's falsehoods!
The reason that I said "unfair" is that Strouse had 5 minutes to answer because they interrupted him many times.