School Paper

How "scholarly"? Are we talking high school, or a Master's degree at a seminary?

I have put together several articles aimed more at the "casual" seeker at:

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly

Also, a great book that will really help you in your research is this one, where the author explains the origins and differences between the KJV and modern versions (mostly the NIV and NASB):

The King James Only Controversy

 

enjoy shelling the woods, fr textual to translational issues ...

http://truth.iscool.net

 

Why are they against the KJV?

 

To be "anti-KJVO" is different than being "anti-KJV." But you already knew that, didn't you???

 

They aren't. They're against KJV-onlyism.

 

The fact, that you can't agrue, is that James White is a not scholar.

 

This website is against the KJV. Why?

 

This website is against the KJV. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Please see my earlier post. Then again, you already knew that, didn't you?

 

Lea, here is a site that has the differences between the two. http://www.fbcsayville.com/dif.html

 

Ah yes: the faulty numerology used to justify the King James Version.....

 

Websites are here:

ANOTHER BIBLE ~ ANOTHER GOSPEL
Are the "Oldest" Manuscripts really the Best?
Why Trust King James?

History of the Controversy, The Faith Principle
Bible Versions

Fighting Back!
THEOLOGICAL HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
Textual Theory Examined

King James Version Defended
Forever Settled - A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible

Christian resources

The Bible For Today -- Excellent information

That's all for your research.

 

Ah yes: the faulty numerology used to justify the King James Version..... </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, Baptist in Richmond the chart comparing four
Bible versions is found dozens of places
on the web including:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_translations.htm

These sites are not useful for petagological
reasons, being just KJBO propaganda.


----------------------------------


Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible and
yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
bible versions trying to prove that
they all stated the same thing.
In the middle you used King James Bibles
from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
make it look like they were all different.
The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
as well as your quotes from modern versions.
So laugh all you want to because
I am banning you from our board.

/name surpressed/

-----------------------------------

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

----------------------------------

Here are some of the lies and implied lies
of KJVOs (not all KJBOs tell all the lies)

1. There are verses missing from the MVs
(fact: the verses are missing from some
of the Greek source material, probably
verses that were added by copiests)

2. There are words missing from the MVs
(fact: the words are not in the Greek
source material but were added along the
way or were added to the KJV)

3. The MVs are translated from poor
Greek sources (fact: many MVs document
the variance of the sources, many KJBOs
distain such documentation)

4. The KJB is the KJV1611.
(fact: The KJB is the KJV1769)

This is how i first found out about the
KJBO conspiracy. I went to visit the
Bible museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas.
I bought a zerox copy of a page of
a KJV1611 Bible. I thought i'd check on
the internet (it was the early 1990s)
and see if i could find maybe a reprint
of the old KJV1611. I put in KJV, 1611,
even AUTHORIZE VERSION. That is when i
found out the KJB Onlyists do NOT use
the KJV1611.

5. The KJB is the Authorized Version
and the version was authorized by God
(fact: the Authorized Version authorized
by King James is the KJV1611.
The KJV1769 was not authorized by
King James, and was not authorized by
God)

6. I know more things to put in here off
my head than i have time to put it down.

 

This website is against the KJV. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]easy. cos u can't read.

 

praytell, what meaneth petagological?

cldn't find it at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=petagological

 

Can't I read? How would I answer here?

 

No wonder you couldn't find it, I think it was a typo.

The correct spelling probably is "pedagogical", which relates to teaching or education.

Rob

[ September 23, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

No wonder you couldn't find it, I think it was a typo.

The correct spelling probably is "pedagogical", which relates to teaching or education.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly So. I was looking
a the correctly spelled world when i typed

Petagological became
Pe D ological?
Can you spell "butter fingers" there ed?

 

No wonder you couldn't find it, I think it was a typo.

The correct spelling probably is "pedagogical", which relates to teaching or education.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly So. I was looking
a the correctly spelled world when i typed

Petagological became
Pe D ological?
Can you spell "butter fingers" there ed?

</font>[/QUOTE]As always, I Thessalonians 1:2 to you, Brother Ed.