Stupid KJVO tricks.

Why did you lie? I did not say the KJV is WRONG!!!

You are right because "saying" (logos) 50 times is NOUN, not VERB!!!!! Sorry, you are 100% wrong. The NKJV removed "communication" (noun).

KJV - Matt. 5:37 But let your communication (NOUN) be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

New KJV - Matt. 5:37 But let your "Yes' be "Yes,' and your "No,' "No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

Compare to NIV:

NIV - Matthew 5:37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

But the problem is that these 3 Greek texts had "logos" (noun). Why did New KJV NOT follow its Greek text? Remove? Yes! You denied it.

The KJV follows the TR:

The TR Greek - Matthew 5:37 estw de o logoV umwn nai nai ou ou to de perisson toutwn ek tou ponhrou estin.

The New KJV follows the MT/Byz:

The MT/Byz - Matthew 5:37 estw de o logoV umwn nai nai ou ou to de perisson toutwn ek tou ponhrou estin.

The W/H text - Matthew 5:37 estw de o logoV umwn nai nai ou ou to de perisson toutwn ek tou ponhrou estin.

All of these Greek Texts agreed each other.

Sorry, you are WRONG!

[ May 01, 2004, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

 

Nah, not the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh never read his Bible, but I guess you may be right as a secondary source since he did it as a result of what happened at Waco.

 

double post. I guess that was the KJV's fault since I was saved after reading it. (After all it is a good Bible regardless of what you other guys think. )

 

22. It is OK to be KJV Only. . .er preferred, just as long as you admit to the preposterous-ness of the idea that God could ever get a translation right. (AKA, you are right if you agree with us!)

23. God can preserve the perfect cannon of 66 books but not the words that make up those books.

23b. We can hold to an absolutely perfect closed cannon without one verse of scripture to back it up, but not to the absolute perfect preservation of words.

24. Only a word for word translation would be perfect. (AKA Sophomoric Translation Methods Onlyism, or STMOs.)

25. KJVOs must have a verse that says, "Thou shalt only trust the KJV!" God forbid that MVers provide the same evidence for their position. A position that is "right" needs no scripture, only "wrong" positions must have scriptural support.

26. God preserves things by letting them run down and then leaving final authority to the whims of anyone with a Strong's Concordance or an Amplified (Multiple Choice) Version.

27. The KJV translators were baby-baptizing buffoons who couldn't translate their way out of a pineapple papaya papyrus.

28. There are lots of mistakes in every Bible!

(My favorite! If everybody knows about them then why doesn't someone correct them?)


29. God did not promise to preserve his words. ( Ay Caramba!)

30. We believe in the verbal, plenary thingamajigs. (AKA the Labrador principle - "Get me a Labrador and I'll retrieve it! . . . Have you got a Labrador? . . . Know where you can get a Labrador? . . . Then Shaddap!")

I love you guys!

Lacy

 

OK, Lacy, time to go to bed. You are getting a little punchy.

 

"Saying" is a gerund.


gerund (jerend)
n.
Gram.
1 in Latin, a verbal noun in the singular of all cases but the nominative, used to indicate continuing or generalized action (Ex.: probandi in onus probandi, the burden of proving)
2 in other languages, any of various forms analogous of this; specif., an English verbal noun ending in -ing that has all the uses of the noun but retains certain syntactic characteristics of the verb, such as the ability to take an object or an adverbial modifier (Ex.: playing in Playing golf is his only exercise)

 

No, you did.

Correct, you are right.

Noun!!! logos!!!

Not logos!!! What Greek word for "saying" (verb)?

You are wrong to say:

The NKJV never follows the TR. It follows the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text.

If these Greek texts has "logos" (noun), please show me the NKJV follows "logos" on Matthew 5:37 - Where?

They are verb, not logos!!!!! What Greek word for saying (verb)?

They are noun and logos!!!!

 

Not my fault! Internet and this BB because I copied the Greek verse from the Internet and pasted it on this BB, but I saw "logos on the Intenet. After I copied it, I pasted it on this BB. I saw changed spelling from "logoS" to logoN. I puzzled!

The TR Greek Text: Matthew 28:15 oi de labonteV ta arguria epoihsan wV edidacqhsan kai diefhmisqh o logoV outoV para ioudaioiV mecri thV shmeron Notice logon here. I saw logos in the Internet and after I copied it, I pasted it here -- changed spelling "logos" to "logon." It should be logos.

Heb 5:11 TR peri ou poluv hmin o logov kai dusermhneutov legein epei nwyroi gegonate taiv akoaiv. </font>[/QUOTE]"to say" (logos) is the act of speaking, speech.

[ May 02, 2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

 

In 2004 one can still purchase a KJV of the Bible with Apocrypha at...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=510022&sourceid=1500000000000000040820


HankD

 

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.. </font>[/QUOTE]If it was for HISTORICAL reference only don't you think in all the cover pages and notes about the Bible that it was say so SOMEWHERE in the Bibles---any of them?

NOWHERE, does it refer to the Apocrypha, even in the main Biblical cover-pages that make descriptions of what is included in the book that the Apocrypha is not part of scripture--it is not seperated from scripture, it is included right there between the Old and New Testaments with absolutely NO reference that it is NOT scripture.

I HAVE these Bibles Anti-Alexandrian, if you can show me ONE single page or reference ANYWHERE in these BIBLES where it even HINTS that the Apocrypha is NOT scripture, then I will believe what you say. Otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about because you are basing what you are saying on KJVo literature, not the Bibles that I own.

 

This may be true Skan, but it does NOT take away the fact that every single Bible that I own printed between 1612 and 1850 all contain the apocrypha and there is absolutely NOTHING in any of these books that indicates that it is NOT scritpure. These are "mainstream" printings (or I wouldn't have them.) True, Bibles were printed without it, but these were not Catholic Bibles and I have a WHOLE stack of them, not to include the two I mentioned in another stream and the German Martin Luther edition (it is the only one that I cannot say the apocrypha is marked specially because I can't read German.) But, the others have ABSOLUTELY NO indication in any of the introductions or scriptural references that the apocrypha is NOT scriptural. The two I referred to were printed in America in 1817 and 1850 (I believe). They BOTH contains a LOT of introductory material and study material--but, sadly, NONE say anything to even HINT the Apocrypha is NOT part of the scripture.

I am not talking about what England states, what councils state, or anybody else, I am talking about mainstream printed Bibles that were printed for protestants right here in the United States.

 

Anti_Alexandrian:Stupid Alexandrian "sect" tricks:

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

A Bible authorized by a king full of shady tricks & written by Neo-catholic Baptist haters is the word of God. Can not God use anyone for anything?

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

All VALID Bibles ARE.

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

True. There's a difference between direct INSPIRATION and INFLUENCE.


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

He wasn't oversupplied, that's for sure. He had to copy & translate the last 6 verses of Revelation from the RCC Latin Vulgate. If he weren't aa catholic, he wouldn't've known those verses existed.


5."There was no Textus Receptus untill 1633"

Ritht. There were umpteen of them, not just one.


6."No translation is inspired."

Right. influenced, yes; inspired, no.


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

EVERY new BV has been criticized by someone somewhere. What's new?


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

YOU tell US.

9."Your worshiping a Book."

The adulation some show for the KJV is almost unnatural. You cannot deny it.


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

Correct.


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

Who uses Elizabethan English in everyday speech?

But I disagree it causes cults, etc.


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

Rather, "Where was the WOG IN ENGLISH before 1611?


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

No tricks-in most cases, true statements and legitimate questions that arose from a modern myth created from the writings of a SDA.

 

Ya mean my maps and concordance aint in-spired? What about my name whats in-graved on the front cover? They done de-stroyed my faith.

Lacy

 

Lacy, I bet your name in da Book o' Life is inspired. I wouldn't worry too much about it on the front o' the Bible.