slandering the Word of God

No, I don’t have a weight problem. Please get to know me better before questioning whether or not I’m “dull-witted”. Once you get to know me you can be sure of it.
I see no problem with turning to a scripture dealing with the Word of God and letting scripture define “corrupt” in scripture. Then when the issue of misspelling comes up, it’s a human mistake. “Deal-deceitfully with” is “corrupted” according to IICor. 2:17 and not a “mistake”.
Sorry, Ziggy. I didn’t read Timothy’s copy either, so can’t say it had any “mistakes”.

 

Plain ol'Ralph:
When we point out the mistranslations and the utter nonsensical use of mss that offer disharmony and multiple contradictions, and since many of the modern versions offer heretical passages, that is where satanic influences are exposed.

Actually, the satanic influence is the KJVO myth itself. I'm not saying that those who believe it are serving Satan, but they HAVE fallen for one of his deceptions. Now, while that deception cannot take anyone's salvation, it CAN make them less effective Christians and inhibit their work. I've seen some fine Christians worrying more about which BV I'm using than what I'm doing in Christ's name.

remember, the current KJVO myth originated from a cult official's book, was spread by two dishonest authors, and is prolonged today by newer authors who continue out of ignorance to sell the same ole garbage in a new bag, while a few of them such as Riplinger, are as dishonest as the first crew of authors, making deliberate misquotes, etc.

 

avjim: "I'll have to call you on this one, friend."

Actually, sorry, but I don't play KJVO word games. Just as equally, *you* "have no way of knowing" that Timothy's copies were *not* "corrupted" by minor scribal errors and therefore 100% equal to the autograph, and it is arrogant in the extreme to claim otherwise.

If those MSS were indeed Hebrew, copied under normal scribal practice, I would grant that the degree of accuracy would be quite high. On the other hand, if (as Diaspora Jews), Timothy's mother or grandmother had a *Greek* OT translation, the odds are then very great that at least *some* scribal errors were present in the MSS they had in hand.

>And, those that we do have could have been corrupted AFTER Timothy's time of about 50-60 A.D.

Just so much more typical KJVO nonsense, suggesting or claiming "perfect preservation" until 50-60 AD, but then corruption and no preservation until the "restoration" of perfection in 1611 and following. Homey don't play dat nonsense.

>you here seem to say then by default you are accusing Jesus of deception.

Totally false analogy, and more typical KJVO drivel. In context, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled" has *nothing* to do with any supposed "perfect" written *preservation* in any given manuscript, but rather with perfect *fulfillment* of that which had been originally revealed, and which *remains* preserved within the various manuscripts, *despite* any minor scribal failings that might occur.

Why do KJVOs always miss the point? Never mind....I know why...

 

Why do KJVOs always miss the point? Never mind....I know why...
-------------------------------------------------
Perhaps because obviously you were not so clear.

In His service;
Jim

BTW; What is the point of your labeling me KJVO? Is it for your (apparent) neeed for superiority or is it simply to incite trouble, or is it because you have bought the "party line"? Couldn't you have directed the question directly and said, "Jim, How did you miss my point?" When you use "always" you imply that I NEVER understand you. That sir is a great big leap in grandiosity on your part and an assumption not based in fact.
Have a great day Brother.
In His service...STILL
Jim

 

avjim: Couldn't you have directed the question directly and said, "Jim, How did you miss my point?"

Ok, Jim, how did you miss my point?

However, I was not addressing only you, but a number of KJVO advocates who have made claims similar to yours regarding the same passage and the MSS Timothy possessed or knew. In that sense, KJVOs "always seem to miss the point"; if you happen to weigh in on that same issue, the same point applies.

 

Amen Dr. Bob!

God will never use lies, distortions, and slander to promote His works!

KJVOism is a lie that is built upon deceptions and fear. Just take a look at the founding fathers:

Wilkinson- Cultist who started KJVOism in order to protect SDAism.

Ray- dishonest stole BW's work

Fuller- dishonest stole BW's work and quoted the cultic queen of SDAism while never telling the reader that she and BW was his source.

Ruckman- divorced pastor who promotes "advanced revelations". Ruckman also had visions of a 10 foot tall black lipped anti-christ who hangs out with little grey aliens. Ruckman also promotes a work based salvation in the Trib period. It would do the KJVOist well to read how Ruckman responds to his critics.

Coud- one of the nicer KJVOist but his works are full of error based upon Fuller's errors. Cloud will not stand up to other KJVOist but he is quick to slander no KJVOist.

Gipp- in the same boat as Ruckman

Chick- draws up some fantasy works. Has it ever occurred to Chick that Satan is not red with horns?

Riplinger- the prophetess of KJVOism! G(god) A(and) Riplinger claims that God wrote NABV and that she was the secretary. Kind of sounds like a cultic statement to me. She distorts and lies in her books so bad that it pains me to read her works.

Etc....

Now keep in mind that these are the shinning stars of KJVOism.


As a former <snipped> KJVO it strikes grief upon me to see anyone caught up in the man made modernism known as King James Onlyism.

[ December 16, 2004, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

AV1611Jim: I'll ask you the same question I asked another member, who showed utter cluelessness by refusing to answer:

If you're not KJVO, what other English version(s) do you recommend?

 

This is not true. David Cloud gave a critical review of Riplinger’s book and Riplinger lashed out. Mr. Cloud has been critical of Ruckman also. See D. Cloud’s web site for some of the gory details. It is very important to have documented evidence before accusing someone of slander.

 

I think we may be "pushing the envelope" here and lumping those of us who are strongly KJV preferred into the KJVO camp.

I would only recommend the KJV and the NKJV as major translations. I am started to get irritated by the implication that I am part of the KJVO movement because of my stand.

 

C4K, has anyone truly implicated you in this? I can't find it. Could you please point it out to me. No disrespect intended.

 

I consider myself to be OKJV because that is all I use - I am not KJVO because I don't epect everyone to have the same conviction, It has been claimed that one cannot be OKJV without being KJVO.

Unless I am part of the 1% acknowledged in this quote

 

Ah, I see. I truly did miss that quote. You know that I personally don't hold you as such. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I've seen you defend MV's, so in your particular case, I don't believe that would include you. Just my opinion, though.

 

You've never seen me defend any MV except the NKJV - I just wont attack a few of them.

 

Yes, better stated, C4K.

 

Dr. BobPost # 23470)But we will wait and see. Mind if I start a thread with your question? I'll give you credit


Dr. Bob...Feel free to start such a thread, & I don't care if you give me credit or not...I'm only about the umpteenth thousandth person who's asked this question umpteen thousand times.

Just don't ask me to hold my breath waiting for an honest answer...that would be tantamount to asking me to commit suicide.

 

C4K, would it be correct to actually call you TR preferred? It seems to me that with the two Bibles you use, the common thread is the TR.

I would not have a problem with someone being TR preferred.

 

Not even totally TR preferred, since there is no pure TR translation, but that would be a VERY close description of where I stand.