The Answer Book

I haven't read that book, but I have one like it entitled "The King James Only Controversy." It is an objective look at the controversy in general, looking from both sides of the issue. Pretty in-depth, but very interesting.

 

You can read Sam gipp´s "Answer Book" on line.
Just click here

Be blessed.

Alex

 

I have the book and refer to it frequently. Good book.

 

Gipp's book has been tersely reviewed at: http://post1.com/home/amarillo/heresy.htm

the Alma Mater bit's a real hooter

 

The following is a quotation from Sam Gipp's book. I whole-heartedly agree with his position on the King James Bible.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_61.asp

 

Gipp's analogy is a little dated, isn't it? I mean really, this sounds like a scene out of one of those 1950's motorcycle movies. And what does the "hippie" culture have to do with bible translation?

 

Not hard to understand, MVers attack God's perfect word everyday claiming there is no perfect word, but they themselves never come out with a perfect Bible. If they have all this knowledge of MSS, greek, hebrew, latin, etc., etc., etc., please give us a perfect Bible. One standard and not 200.

 

Jesus is Lord said:

You can read Sam gipp´s "Answer Book" on line. . . .

and

Be blessed.

Decisions, decisions.

 

This is a lie Homebound... not simply a mistake or a false statement but a lie. You have been corrected before but have failed to respond accordingly. The ONLY definition of perfect that can be applied to a translation is: "complete; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind."

No English translation can ever meet the definition that KJVO's demand: "a perfect likeness; a perfect work." By definition it cannot be a perfect likeness of the originals. And unless you believe the KJV translators were either perfect or directly inspired by God, their work was subject to their human fallibility.

The NKJV, NASB, Geneva, and possibly others are all are "perfect" in that they have ALL that is requisite to their kind.

You may disagree. You will be wrong but that is your prerogative. But you may never truthfully say that all non-KJVO's do not believe they have a perfect Bible.

If God did not choose to give and identify perfect facsimiles of the original mss then who do you think you are to demand that we do? Much more, who do you think you are to demand that God give one single perfectly worded translation when He never promised it and history aptly demonstrates that He didn't do it?

 

It takes an asinine brain to fail to see there is no need to assume the 'perfection' of any one Bible translation, as it is illogical to assume there is one perfect church and one perfect pope. People do sell themselves out to all 3 of these ideas, or there would not be so much caterwalling about them.

 

So, if I follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in my life and preach a perfect sermon (giving all of the right words in the right manner) then I must have been "either [already] perfect or directly inspired by God." If you say that it can't be done and all of our work is subject to human fallibility, then you denying the basic teaching of the scriptures regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Read John 16:13 in the King James Bible.

This a big assumption that is often repeated but never proven to be true. What if God did and you missed it?

 

The KJB,of course!

Simple,the KJB is a Christ honoring Bible;all others(you know,the ones from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts)take away the Blood,deny the virgin birth,ect..

We have and still do;its the KJB.

 

The KJB,of course!</font>[/QUOTE]What?? The original writings were in Greek. The KJV is in English. Therefore, the KJV cannot be the perfect facsimile of the original writings. I know that didn't miss many people here, but apparently it did you.

Simple,the KJB is a Christ honoring Bible;all others(you know,the ones from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts)take away the Blood,deny the virgin birth,ect..</font>[/QUOTE]As many times as the charge has been made, it has never been shown to be true. Each time it is repeated, we show from the cold hard evidence that this statement is a lie. When you read the MVs, you will find a strong and vibrant doctrine of Christ, the virgin birth, the blood, etc. This is simply untrue. Again, most people know this because they have studied it. Apparently it passed you right by.

We have and still do;its the KJB. </font>[/QUOTE][/quote]How do you know this, since you admit that you don't have the originals to compare to???????

Obviously, this simple problem has also passed you by. The KJV is not the perfect facsimile. You do not have one.

 

Simple,the KJB is a Christ honoring Bible;all others(you know,the ones from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts)take away the Blood,deny the virgin birth,ect..

Matthew 1:25 (NASB)-- "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Matthew1:25 (ESV)-- "but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

Matthew 1:25 {NKJV)-- "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS."

Matthew 1:25 (YLT)-- and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus."

Matthew 1:25 (NIV)-- "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

Hebrews 9:12 (NASB)-- "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

Hebrews 9:12 (ESV)-- "he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood thus securing an eternal redemption."

Hebrews 9:12-- "Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

Hebrews 9:12 (yLT)-- "neither through blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, did enter in once into the holy places, age-during redemption having obtained;"

Hebrews 9:12 (NIV)-- "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."

"MV-neverist" :"...all others(you know,the ones from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts)take away the Blood,deny the virgin birth..."

Yes or No --- Is "MV-neverist" a liar?

 

There is one perfect Church - the body of Christ.
There is one perfect Pope - the Lord Jesus Christ.
Your usage of the word 'asinine' evidently demonstrates your lack of respect for Christ and His Church.

 

I would say that whenever the term "first born" is left out of the verse that there is a definite change in doctrine. Mary had more children after Jesus was born.

 

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Jesus was the first born. If she was virgin there were obviously no other children. Thus, when Jesus was born, he was the first born. See, wasn't that easy?

Neal