Stupid KJVO tricks.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by skanwmatos, May 1, 2004.

  1. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, folks, you heard it here first! Askjo says the KJV is wrong over 50 times in the New Testament alone!

    The Greek word "logos" is used 330 times in the New Testament. Of those 330 times it is used it is translated "word" 218 times and Word 7 times.

    However, it is also translated "saying" 50 times! Askjo says that is wrong! Askjo says the KJV is wrong all 50 times it translates the word "logos" as "saying."

    Oh, by the way, "logos" is also translated "speech" 8 times in the KJV and it is, now pay attention, it is not translated twice! So, Askjo says the KJV is wrong 50 times and Will says the KJV is wrong 52 times! The 50 times "logos" is translated "saying" and twice it is not translated!

    I think we should send this to Dave Letterman. His "Stupid Pet Tricks" were really funny. Can you imagine the laughs he will get with "Stupid KJVO Tricks?"
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man, if we were to catalog all the tricks, double speak, and loaded questions the KJVO use, we'd ocerload the servers!

    Just another example of willful ignorance.

    Sad.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Trotter -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    Recall this topic here at Baptist Board?

    Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles
     
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stupid Alexandrian "sect" tricks:

    1."bibles" from mss. compiled by Gnostics and Philosophers from Alexadria,Egypt are the word of God."

    2".All "bibles" are equally the word of God."

    3."Inspiration applies ONLY to the original autographs."


    4."Erasmus had only a few late middle age MSS. to work with."


    5."There was no Textus Receptus untill 1633"


    6."No translation is inspired."


    7."People criticized the KJB when it was introduced,therefore the nasb,niv,rsv,ect.,are just as good."


    8."Many nations did not have a KJB before 1700:What did they do!?"

    9."Your worshiping a Book."


    10."The 'oldest and best' texts read........A better reading would be......"


    11."The KJB is confusing and difficult to understand and causes 'cults and sects'."


    12."Where was the word of God before 1611?"


    This is just a small amount of the most aped "STUPID Alexandrian tricks" from the world's oldest "sect"..
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Anti-Alexandrian you should have discussed what preceded the Greek manuscripts? You didn't mention anything about that.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting, you have different groups
    of MV users all mixed and confused together.
    Remember, God is not the author of confusion
    (us MV users can missquote scritpure also [​IMG] )


    the Inerrancy rational Poll

    FIRST: 44% - #3. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs 44% (41)

    SECOND: 23% - #1 The Bible is inerrant on all doctrinal issues 12% (11)
    #2 The Bible is inerrant on all issues: doctrinal, historic, and scientific 11% (10)

    THIRD: 11 % - #10 The Bible is inerrant in all English translations 11% (10)
    LAST: KJVO

    You appear to be surrounded by MV users
    and are lashing out in all directions.

    Here, let me help you get organized.
    BTW, it is also unfair to call all these
    groups by your last name :(
    BTW, you spelled "your" when you should
    have spelled "you're".

    [​IMG]
     
  7. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your only problem is that I have never said any of those things, but Askjo said exactly what I quoted! See the difference? I can post what he said but you have to make up fiction and claim we believe it. Typical KJVO.
     
  8. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    It get sad when we have to hire a MV user
    to help the KJVO figure out how to present
    their arugment :D

    Stupid Alexandrian "sect"ONE tricks:
    (autograph only inerrant):

    3."Inspiration applies ONLY to the original autographs."
    6."No translation is inspired."
    9."Your worshiping a Book."
    11."The KJB is confusing and difficult to understand and causes 'cults and sects'."


    Stupid Alexandrian "sect"TWO tricks:
    (all KJVs are inerrant)

    1."bibles" from mss. compiled by Gnostics and Philosophers from Alexadria,Egypt are the word of God."
    8."Many nations did not have a KJB before 1700:What did they do!?"
    12."Where was the word of God before 1611?"


    Stupid Alexandrian "sect"THREE tricks:
    (all MVs are inerrant)

    2".All "bibles" are equally the word of God."
    4."Erasmus had only a few late middle age MSS. to work with."
    5."There was no Textus Receptus untill 1633"
    7."People criticized the KJB when it was introduced,therefore the nasb,niv,rsv,ect.,are just as good."
    10."The 'oldest and best' texts read.....A better reading would be....

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about this for stupid "Alexandrian tricks".

    1) Saying that a Bible is 100% inspired and "word perfect", but only after you get rid of one entire section out of three.

    2) Continuing to print these uninspired books as if they are part of scripture all the way through the 1850's as the majority of printings of the translation that you think is word-for-word inspired.

    3) Saying that the translators never intended for it to be considered as scripture when it is between the Old and New Testaments and not marked in any special way except the name of the section on the first page.
     
  10. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gorsh, bro Phillip, you and i auto [​IMG] go
    over to KJVO. They need our help bad ...

    [​IMG]
     
  11. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, you're right 'bout one thing...y'all do need help! hahaha [​IMG] (sorry, couldn't resist...tho't this was the game room) :D
     
  12. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now you gotta laugh!!!!

    Splain somthing to me there hot-shot,why are you aping the same old baloney and then not making mention of the FACT that the Apocrypha was in both testaments in the "oldest and best" unicals as inspired scripture?!?!?!?!

    The Apocrypha was never in any reformation text..

    You know this!!!
     
  13. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Apocrypha was not accepted by the early church as canon, but was accepted by the RCC as such.

    The KJV was translated by Anglican scholars, just a short step from the RCC.

    Hmmm...is there some connection?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then why does it show up in every single KJV that I own that was printed in the 1700's and early 1800's. These are NOT Catholic Bibles, there is a difference in the order and way the books are named.

    Every single KJV that I have either owned or reviewed between 1612 and 1850 contain the apocrypha as part of the scriptures with no designation that they are not part of the canon.

    Do you consider the AV1611 a "reformation text"?
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cute Granny. You're on my list anyway ever since I found out you weren't even old enough to be my mother. :D [​IMG]
     
  16. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The sad part is that I honestly think we could do a better argument for them than they do for themselves. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    12b. "Where was the [perfect]word of God [which we believe has never existed anyway] before 1611?"

    Man what a poignant argument!

    13. All Bibles are inspired. No translations are inspired.

    I've heard better arguments coming from a bird out of the front of a clock

    14. If it doesn't make sense TO ME, then it must be a bad translation.

    15. King James was a QUEER! The translators were Baptist-killers. Westcott and Hort were Bible toting, soul-winning, holy-living, "really smart", saints of God!

    16. KJVOers talk double speak. MVers can use the same tactics but have full diplomatic immunity because they are right.

    17. Things that are very very very very slightly different are the same as things that are incredibly, enormously, exponentially different.

    (Also known as: Because a '66 Corvette doesn't have original spark plugs, that means that a Yugo is a Corvette.)

    18. KJVO's worship a book because they think the KJV is perfect. MVers DON'T worship a book because they think only the autographs were perfect. (autograph-olatry?)

    19. KJVO's are responsible for Waco, Guiana, Ruby Ridge, the Oklahoma bombing, 911, WWII, and the Vietnam Conflict.

    20. KJV-onlyism is divisive. Carpet color is not.

    21. KJV-onlyist are foolish, heretical, divisive, ignorant, backward, idiotic, and its proponents are too subjective to debate properly!


    This is fun!

    Lacy
     
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's for h-i-s-t-o-r-i-c-a-l reference only,like Scofield's notes for example;neither did the KJB translators consider it scripture and neither was it in the reformation(Byzantine) texts..
     
  19. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gee, Lacy, you're pretty good at this!

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  20. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on, Phillip. We don't need to stretch the truth in order to expose the fallacy of KJVOism.
    You are, of course, referring to the Apocrypha.
    Actually the first KJV printed without the Apocrypha was published in 1613. In 1615 Archbishop George Abbot (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1611 to 1633) forbade the printing of Bibles without the Apocrypha. But starting in 1629 many editions of the KJV were printed without the Apocrypha anyway. No KJV was printed in England containing the Apocrypha after 1655.
    The 39 Articles of Religion, the official doctrinal statement of the Church of England, which all the translators had to agree with to be on the committees, states the Apocrypha is not canonical. It was removed from its traditional place as part of the Old Testament and segregated between the Old and New Testaments indicating the translators believed it not to be a part of either testament and non-canonical.
     

Share This Page

Loading...