Why I "rant-n-rave" so much...

By the way Rippon, just to add to your commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, the apostle states there that God is "not willing that any should perish." Notice that word any. Now, if God is not willing that any of the usward should perish, and His counsel shall stand and He shall do all His pleasure, I must conclude that none of the usward shall perish. Now, if the usward is every single man in existence, then we have problems because none of mankind will perish, putting the bible at odds with itself where it states that some shall be cast into eternal hell. But, if the usward is the elect, as you have pointed out, then we have no problem at all.

It's kind of funny in a way that some will use this text to fight against particular redemption when this text actually proves particular redemption.

 

That's not the isue at all. some people can go on preferring their particular brand of KJV. The issue is when some folks want to declare that the KJV (in whatever incarnation) is the only real Word of God etc.

Have you ever read other English translations to see for yourself that that is the case?

The TR (in any of its 30-odd forms) is considered inferior by most conservative Evangelical and Reformed scholars.

Please define what that means.

The Revision groups at that time were the cream of the crop most likely. But they used the Tyndale NT's wording most of the time. ( They also followed Tyndale's Old Testament work for the most part also -- the books he was able to translate before his suffocation and burning.)The Revision groups were not that original.

The KJV teams were not necessarily the best of all time. Today's translators have so much more available knowlege at their disposal.

Because you don't know what you're talking about quite frankly. Many people who are against the KJVO movement like the KJV very much -- some even use it as their primary text -- I don't.

So you don't think the KJV revisers used textual criticism?! You are quite mistaken.

I answered these concerns of yours earlier. You have a lot of very mistaken notions.

 

On this particular subject we are in agreement.

 

Yes, I have read other english translations. I find them all wanting.

You know, I don't really want to start a debate on this today, but I don't care what most evangelicals consider to be better. Most evangelicals don't have a good understanding of biblical concepts either.

To say that the translators of today are better is just to show ignorance on the subject. The KJV translation team was far more scholarly than what we produce today, although we may have more information immediately at our fingertips due to technology. That's like saying that today's baptist preachers are more scholarly than John Gill.

Again I have to ask, why is it such a concern if I use the KJV as my exclusive text?

 

The wicked aren't predestinated to eternal hell. They were already in that condemnation, God simply left them there. The saints, however, were pulled from a state of condemnation to a state of having life everlasting by God.

You say, what is the point of preaching? In your estimation, preaching must only be to save people from hell (I will of course deny that it does that). So, once saved (in your estimation of the idea) one can then go his own way and never hear another sermon? If you object to that then I say that you have your answer. People need to hear the word of God in order to be reproved, corrected, and instructed in righteousness. They need to hear in order to understand how they were saved from hell and what all God has done for them and shall yet do for them. Why? So they can serve God better, have comfort here in this present world, and praise God in a manner befitting Him.

 

The elect are elected before the foundation of the world. They don't become elected.

Hyper-Arminianism is Pelagianism. The opposite of hyper-Calvinism is Arminianism.

I do not think the Truth is always in the middle. That's not the way to arrive at truthfulness.

However, Calvinism is biblically balanced. It is not on the fringes.

Well thank you. But feed on the Word of God directly. If you do so you wouldn't fall prey to doctrinal confusion.

 

Hummm.

I can tell you this for a fact.Most of the modern day Bible versions agree a whole lot with the Jehovah`s Witness so-called NWT Bible,there based upon the same manuscripts.I really would like to see someone take all the old hymns and update all the language and see what it sounds like when sung.Its pitiful.Fact is there is a Conspiracy against the Bible to change it one word at a time until the final New World Order bible comes out.Romes Jesuit order is behind the deception and I have a file in my documents that I can post to prove it to you Anti-KJV brethren.

In Jesus.:godisgood:

Steven.

Also

Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this,they were glad,and glorified the word of the Lord:and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

Thank God I was elected to believe.

 

Welllldoggy....

I guess ignorance is bliss.

 

Most modern versions are not based on W&H. And versions that were such as the English Revised Version have no common ground with the NWT. Your "facts" are fictional.

You don't have any tinfoil caps do you?

Being against the KJVO mentality is not = to being anti-KJV.

 

Rome has there own Bibles, there called the Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rhiems, New American Bible etc. A great many modern translations are multi-denominational Protestant groups. Rome has nothing to do with them.

As far as conspiracies are concerned, MV's are quite transparent and your also free to NOT use them or use a combo of several. I can get the base texts for free and check them myself.

 

You say Rome does not have nothing to do with them.How do you know Rome does not have nothing to do with them?

I found this interesting.

Did Rome Give Us The Bible?
　
By Dr. Ken Matto

For many years the Roman Catholic Church has insisted that they are the ones who gave us the Bible. Protestants have continually rejected the idea that the Bible came through the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant rejection of this idea would have been totally valid until 1881 but since 1881, the Protestant church has thrown out the real Bible, the King James Bible, and have accepted and defended the Roman Catholic Bible. This is a hard pill to swallow but truth is truth which can be rejected but not denied.
All modern versions from the Revised Version of 1881 forward to today have Roman Catholic Manuscripts for their underlying authority. Let us look at the two primary manuscripts which are touted as “The Oldest and Best.”

The Vaticanus Manuscript (B)
The word “Vatican” in Latin means “Hill of Divination.” (Deu 18:10 KJV) There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, The Vaticanus manuscript was found in the Vatican library in 1481. It was rejected by the King James Translators because it was very corrupt and unreliable. The following portions of Scripture are missing from the Vaticanus: Genesis 1:1-31; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus); Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation. These were intentional omissions because the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing. In the Gospels it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. These omissions were intentional since there was room left on pages to write these in. The Vaticanus manuscript was written on expensive Vellum and was in good condition when found which means that the missing areas were not due to missing sections but intentional omission.

The Sinaiticus Manuscript (a) Aleph
The major characteristic of this manuscript is that it is a literary mess. There are mistakes, erasures, sentences written on top of other sentences plus many words are omitted. It contains nearly all the New Testament, the Apocryphal Books plus two other false books, “The Shepherd of Hermes” and “The Epistle of Barnabas.” Every page contains corrections and revisions by at least ten different people. Corrections on the manuscript were made as late as the sixth or seventh century A.D. With so many revisions and corrections done to this manuscript, it made it totally worthless. It was found in a garbage can in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf. The manuscript was so bad, the monks were going to burn the manuscript just for heat. It too omits Mark 16:9-20.

“On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” --- Dean Burgon

As you can plainly see the Vaticanus was found in the library at the Vatican in 1481 and the Sinaiticus was discovered in a garbage can in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf. This monastery is the one which has human skulls piled 7 feet high in a large room and even the complete skeleton of a monk is attached to a door. A very satanic setting.

So we see that both of the underlying manuscripts of the modern versions were both from Roman Catholic locations. Dean Burgon comments on the state of these two manuscripts:

“The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices [Sinaiticus and Vaticanus] is not a question of opinion but of fact. ... In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vaticanus) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. ... they are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant ... [exhibiting] the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with” (Burgon, True Or False? pp. 77-78).

Now is that the only evidence that the modern versions are Roman Catholic? The answer is no because another major factor is the editors of these Greek manuscripts. The two major editors of these manuscripts were Westcott and Hort. Both of them were Roman Catholics.

Mariolatry
(1) “After leaving the Monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill…Fortunately, we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneeling-place, and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours.”

(2) “It is smaller than I expected, and the colouring is less rich, but in expression it is perfect. The face of the virgin is unspeakably beautiful. I looked till the lip seemed to tremble with intensity of feeling---of feeling simply, for it would be impossible to say whether it be awe or joy or hope---humanity shrinking before the divine, or swelling with its conscious possession. It is enough that there is deep, intensely deep, emotion such as the mother of the Lord may have had.”

(3) I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and results.

Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 1
(1) Page 81
(2) Page 183

(3) Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 81 - This was a letter written to Westcott on October 17, 1865.

The bill of goods these two Roman Catholics sold Christians was that they were just going to update the language of the King James Bible and when they got behind closed doors they switched manuscripts with the Roman Catholic Manuscripts which were pieced together by Tischendorf. The Hort-Westcott primary Greek manuscripts were Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Let us bring the Greek manuscripts to today. The Hort and Westcott manuscripts are found today in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, the latest being the fourth revision and the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which has had 27 revisions. Both of these underlie all the modern versions which means they are derivatives of the Roman Catholic manuscripts of Hort and Westcott.
On the editorial committees of each one is a man named Carlo Montini. Carlo Montini is a Jesuit Cardinal. This means that not only are the manuscripts Roman Catholic, there was even a Roman Catholic Jesuit on the Greek committees of both the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies. This means that Rome has been heavily involved in the modern version movement since these manuscripts underlie all the modern versions.

Summary
I want to make this summary clear and big that if you use any modern version, then you must agree with Rome, that they gave you the Bible. The evidence is overwhelming! It is very hypocritical for any Christian who uses a modern version to criticize the Catholic Church while they use and promote Roman Catholic modern versions.

What about the King James Bible?
The King James Bible has never been infected with Roman Catholicism. In fact, those who held to the true Scriptures, which were the forerunner of the King James Bible, during the middle ages were heavily persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. Satan had used them to attempt to annihilate the true manuscript line from Antioch which remained untouched by Rome and Alexandria. One such group which was the guardian of the true Scriptures through the middle ages was the Waldensians. Their history goes back to about 120 A.D. and they were heavily persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church but the Lord brought them through it and along with them the preserved manuscripts which eventually came to be known as our King James Version.

It is a crying shame that so many Christians gave their lives for the true Bible now found in the King James Version and today’s deluded Christians defend and promote the very Bible that Rome gave us while eliminating the King James Bible which has the blood of many Christians attached to it. It is also a fact that the majority of Christians have lost the ability to think and refuse to ask questions as to why so many verses are truncated and omitted in the Roman Catholic Versions they so happily use.

Final Summary
1) If you use a modern version, then Rome gave you your Bible.

2) If you use the King James, then you are using the Bible God gave you without
any manuscript corruptions.

 

You know, someone believing this tripe would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

I could bring up, "Which King James?" since there are several, and what's that old mantra..."Things that are different are not the same."

I could bring up the absolute factual vacuum in which your post exists: No evidence of "Rome giving you all modern Bibles." (But hey...if someone is going to use av1611.org, and worse, for sources...what more can be expected?

I could bring up that the 1611 KJV included...gasp...the Apocrypha! Of course, that wasn't "given" to us by Rome...it was a lease with an option to buy.

I could bring up the stunning ignorance of Biblical scholarship and archaeological/literary support for the assertions above...but as I said earlier, this isn't about factual accuracy...this is about pushing an unBiblical agenda that damages the faith.

Have fun with your crusade. If you get a chance, ask God if it honors Him. If you bother to listen, you might be a bit dismayed at His response.

Or...you can keep up fighting the wrong bad guys...:tear:

 

Would you define "tripe" and relate how a section of pig intestines has somehow been transformed into words?

"mantra", that tells it all! :tonofbricks:

Why not just use your king james and some crdible resource materials that don't deny etymological support for the spiritual meanings of words in relation to what the Bible tells us.

Some people know why it was found in the middle of the version and some don't.

Hmmmm? Believing God inspired His word for all ages is now "unBiblical"?:tear:

So by your rreasoning, anyone who believes they have the words of God in the KJV are "bad guys"?

Talk about damaging the faith? How does one damage that which iniates with God and is in His power? I know satan tries this, but to no avail when one placews their faith in Christ.

I believe the "anti kjvo" mentality does more harm to those who are most like the Bereans when it comes to understanding the Bible.

I believe we should be busy about telling others Jesus Saves! rather than whipping our hobbyhorse to death

I believe this anti kjvo mentality originated from the devil as a detraction from telling others about Jesus.

I'll tell others about Jesus and how He saves, [personal attack snipped]

 

You know the devil loves attacking our blessed Saviours nail pierced hands.

The prophecy below is about our Saviour.

And one shall say unto him,what are these wounds in thine hands?Then he shall answer,Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Zechariah 13:6 KJ AV

Other bibles come up with some wild ideas from chest,back etc.Anything to attack the nail prints in our Saviours hands for us.I would say these bibles spew a false prophecy when they say anything other than wounds in thine hands.One false prophecy will let you know the messenger is a false prophet.Look in your bible and see what it says because its an important prophecy.The pre-kjv english translations refer to the wounded hands of our Saviour and one post KJV which agrees with the KJV over 90% which is the Lamsa English Bible.

Praise God I have His Word from cover to cover.{AV KJ}

In Jesus.

Steven.

 

I would like an explanation of that as well. Wounds on His back??

 

The message ask where did you get that black eye.He will say I ran into a door knob at a friends house or closeto that.This is a bad attack on our precious Saviours nail scared hands and a prophecy that has not come to pass.I would be concerned when these bibles are doing this.The Lamsa Bible says wounds in thine hands and it was Translated from Aramic.Scary.

God bless you.

Steven.

 

Time and space fail me. But here are a couple: Isaiah 40:3-11; 49:5-6; Is. 50:5-7; And of course, Isaiah 52-53:12, the great theological statement of the reasons for the death of Jesus Christ. Then there is Daniel 7 and 9 (about the Return of Christ), And Zechariah-Zechariah 12:10, and Zechariah 13:6-7. These are truly amazing, and reflect the Divine intention to bring His Son into the world that “the world through Him might be saved,” and then for Him to return as King of Kings.



This verse is about Christ.The Message is saying Christ was a lying prophet.My God have mercy.



The MESSAGE What heresy.

4-6"On the Big Day, the lying prophets will be publicly exposed and humiliated. Then they'll wish they'd never swindled people with their 'visions.' No more masquerading in prophet clothes. But they'll deny they've even heard of such things: 'Me, a prophet? Not me. I'm a farmer—grew up on the farm.' And if someone says, 'And so where did you get that black eye?' they'll say, 'I ran into a door at a friend's house.'



New International Version (©1984)

If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body?' he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'
New American Standard Bible (©1995)

"And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will say, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

"When someone asks him, 'What are these scars on your chest?' he will answer, 'I was hurt at my friend's house.'

King James Bible

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

American King James Version

And one shall say to him, What are these wounds in your hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

American Standard Version

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds between thine arms? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Bible in Basic English

And if anyone says to him, What are these wounds between your hands? then he will say, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Douay-Rheims Bible

And they shall say to him: What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands? And he shall say: With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me.

Darby Bible Translation

And one shall say unto him, What are those wounds in thy hands? And he will say, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

English Revised Version

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds between thine arms? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Webster's Bible Translation

And one shall say to him, What are these wounds in thy hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

World English Bible

One will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will answer, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

Young's Literal Translation

And one hath said unto him, 'What are these wounds in thy hands?' And he hath said, 'Because I was smitten at home by my lovers.'


Geneva Study Bible

And one shall say to him, What are these {h} wounds in thy hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

 

I am old enough to remember when KJVO started to make inroads into IFB churches. Now THAT was a demonic detraction- still is.

There wouldn't be any need for arguments if folks would just mind their own cotton-pickin' business and use whatever Bible version they choose to instead of wasting time trying to prove why "MY Bible is God's Word and yours isn't."

And guess who started that argument.....