-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
NKJV - 'splain somethin' to me
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
What's the matter mv "defenders"? Does the truth hurt you that bad?
Why not just get right then so that you no longer have this problem?
Oh yeah, that's tight, you don't want an authority other then your own selves.
Shame. Such a shame.
And the lies... oh the lies that spew forth from you as lies that have come straight out of the very pits of hell.
Dr. Bob, if you ahd the ability to actually read and comprehend a post, you would see that my comment to Ed was not an attack on his picture (but I can understand why you would need to make the lie that you have and thus offend me, but it's ok, I can forgive you), but on his attacking the word of God. I did reference his pick and find it utterly demonic to attack the word of God with a pic of a person who has a smile on their face.
As for your gray hair, perhaps if I had a full head of hair and was as arrogant as the average mv "defender" (such as yourself), then I would poke fun at it. Of course that would mean that I forget everything I was taught growing up. As for your bowtie, I personally prefer to not wear one, but I have read your reasons for why you do. I have no problem with that. In fact, in a different thread I made a comment about you looking Presidential, which was meant as a compliment.
But why should we expect anything other then lies and slander and attack from the mv "defenders"? I know I can't think of any reason.
Jim
Why not just get right then so that you no longer have this problem?
Oh yeah, that's tight, you don't want an authority other then your own selves.
Shame. Such a shame.
And the lies... oh the lies that spew forth from you as lies that have come straight out of the very pits of hell.
Dr. Bob, if you ahd the ability to actually read and comprehend a post, you would see that my comment to Ed was not an attack on his picture (but I can understand why you would need to make the lie that you have and thus offend me, but it's ok, I can forgive you), but on his attacking the word of God. I did reference his pick and find it utterly demonic to attack the word of God with a pic of a person who has a smile on their face.
As for your gray hair, perhaps if I had a full head of hair and was as arrogant as the average mv "defender" (such as yourself), then I would poke fun at it. Of course that would mean that I forget everything I was taught growing up. As for your bowtie, I personally prefer to not wear one, but I have read your reasons for why you do. I have no problem with that. In fact, in a different thread I made a comment about you looking Presidential, which was meant as a compliment.
But why should we expect anything other then lies and slander and attack from the mv "defenders"? I know I can't think of any reason.
Jim
Another question, and maybe this should be in a different thread, why is it that mv "defenders" can not use their own standards to prove their claims about the perversions they love being the inspired and preserved word of God? Why do they all tuck tail unless forced out?
Oh yeah, because they are following a man made fairy tale that has no basis in truth at all.
Jim
Oh yeah, because they are following a man made fairy tale that has no basis in truth at all.
Jim
Let's see, we have mv "defenders' being exposed for the myth lovers that they are... this should mean that their knight in no armour (Dr. Bob) should be about to lock this thread as he done several times before when his fellow myth worshippers were being exposed.
Such actions Dr. Bob do nothing to prove your view as true, they only prove how utterly wrong it is.
Jim
Such actions Dr. Bob do nothing to prove your view as true, they only prove how utterly wrong it is.
Jim
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Interesting description of a "shun".
OF course, shuns work best if they are
not announced
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
" ... tongue-in-cheek ... " - you stinker,
i took your servious
Speaking of "thee"s and "thou"s:
Some carismateics say thaty pray in
unknown tongues a special "private
prayer language". Well, among the
non-carismatic, i've seen some KJV-preferred who
pray in public in what must be
a private prayer language complete with
lot's of "thee"s and "thou"s.
Having looked at all the silent "e"s in the
original spelling KJV1611,
I automatically put in lots of
silente "e"ze into thiere prayere.
i took your servious
Speaking of "thee"s and "thou"s:
Some carismateics say thaty pray in
unknown tongues a special "private
prayer language". Well, among the
non-carismatic, i've seen some KJV-preferred who
pray in public in what must be
a private prayer language complete with
lot's of "thee"s and "thou"s.
Having looked at all the silent "e"s in the
original spelling KJV1611,
I automatically put in lots of
silente "e"ze into thiere prayere.
Gotta admit that Jim is one funny guy. Makes me chuckle seeing how his brain works as he talks to himself.
There is a psychological name for that type of paronoia, but I can't recall it offhand.
Ed and I agreed that shutting htis thread would be foolish when Jim is doing such a good job of parody of some of the 'only' sect.
Funny stuff.
There is a psychological name for that type of paronoia, but I can't recall it offhand.
Ed and I agreed that shutting htis thread would be foolish when Jim is doing such a good job of parody of some of the 'only' sect.
Funny stuff.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Probably was the answer to
the psychology 104 chapter six where i
missed that one question and made the test a "B" instead of an "A".
Meanwhile, I was using my nKJV apace,
the one with the New Schofield notes
in them. But in Sunday School class
one Sunday i spilled some coffee on
1 Corinthians chapter 13. The whole
rest of the Bible from there on was ruined.
That was when i switched to
a KJV1769 edition Bible with Tim LaHaye's
notes in it.
I know you hypocrites and liars hate me. It's more then obvious. Doesn't matter, I still love ya and pray for ya.
I just think it's comical how the mv "defenders" tend to cry against the truth about them being exposed while they engage in name calling. Usually it's done while they complain about "name calling" coming from the Bible beleivers.
Oh well, what can you expect from Bible and bibles doubters who have their own selves as their sole authority? It's the mv "defenders" who rest on their own selves who are the self righteous ones here and who seek to bind others to their fables, and are all too blind to see the obvious.
Oh well.
I'd ask ya all again to actually provide facts for your claims, but your track record of .000% tells us that youo are all unable to provide anything other then selfish opinion.
I'll keep praying for ya though.
Jim
I just think it's comical how the mv "defenders" tend to cry against the truth about them being exposed while they engage in name calling. Usually it's done while they complain about "name calling" coming from the Bible beleivers.
Oh well, what can you expect from Bible and bibles doubters who have their own selves as their sole authority? It's the mv "defenders" who rest on their own selves who are the self righteous ones here and who seek to bind others to their fables, and are all too blind to see the obvious.
Oh well.
I'd ask ya all again to actually provide facts for your claims, but your track record of .000% tells us that youo are all unable to provide anything other then selfish opinion.
I'll keep praying for ya though.
Jim
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Anyone else notice the irony?
Ok, It's my turn.
Ed, I'd be honored to call you a friend. Picture and all lol.
Jim, people like you spewing out hatred is one reason I come out of the KJVO sect. I used to be a staunch KJVO until I saw the truth.
I was standing around defending an book with a bunch of guys wielding pitchforks.
How can someone say they love God and be so full of hatred. If the KJVO would spend more time reading the KJV instead of liars they would have their eyes opened.
Both the KJV and the NKJV are God's word. They are just translations of greek and Hebrew copies of copies that go back to the originals.
JIm asked, "Another question, and maybe this should be in a different thread, why is it that mv "defenders" can not use their own standards to prove their claims "
We MV users (notice I didn't say ONLYISTS) don't stoop to the uneducated level of onlyist. We are not out to prove the KJV is not God's word. Just that KJVO is a false doctrine. The same would go for a MVO. Both onlyist stands would be sin. Actually we use the same standard on a MV that we use on the KJV. And the result is both are the Word of God.
Ed, I'd be honored to call you a friend. Picture and all lol.
Jim, people like you spewing out hatred is one reason I come out of the KJVO sect. I used to be a staunch KJVO until I saw the truth.
I was standing around defending an book with a bunch of guys wielding pitchforks.
How can someone say they love God and be so full of hatred. If the KJVO would spend more time reading the KJV instead of liars they would have their eyes opened.
Both the KJV and the NKJV are God's word. They are just translations of greek and Hebrew copies of copies that go back to the originals.
JIm asked, "Another question, and maybe this should be in a different thread, why is it that mv "defenders" can not use their own standards to prove their claims "
We MV users (notice I didn't say ONLYISTS) don't stoop to the uneducated level of onlyist. We are not out to prove the KJV is not God's word. Just that KJVO is a false doctrine. The same would go for a MVO. Both onlyist stands would be sin. Actually we use the same standard on a MV that we use on the KJV. And the result is both are the Word of God.
Pharisee, you call MV advocates liars, and then say you love us. Here's our evidence of God's Word in the MV's: read 1 Cor 14:9. It's secondary application..."words easy to be understood"
Methinketh thou wouldest rejected the KJV:kjb in 1611, b/c it was a MV. Whether you like it or not, you have exalted the AV translators to prophets , although you reject their preface to the AV, where they said what we say...in contradiction to what you say. I guess you are of the view that when the translators wrote their preface they were mere men, but the actual translation:they went to another realm of ***Theopnuestos*** (sorry if I misspelled it). What's this silliness about "sole authority"? name ONE PLACE where the Bible says anything about the KJV. Your sole authority is Tradition...and Anglican "Prophets".
Jim,
Old buddy, old pal, old friend, new Bible hater.
Here is a little information about the "authorized version" out of the (gasp) secular book "The Book, A History of the Bible" by Christopher De Hamel.
Chapter 10 is devoted to the English and American Bible Industry. I will throw out a few quotes under the fair copyright laws:
"First, of all, the term 'Authorized' has no real historical validity. The book was dedicated to King James I, who had initiated the translation, but no legal or royal endorsement was conferred on the text itself. The privilege was associated with the printers, not the text itself. The privilege was associated with the printers, not the text. The royal privilege for printing Bibles goes back to the sixteenth century. In 1589, Queen Elizabeth had granted an exclusive patent for the publishing of Bibles in English to Christopher Barker. In a Bible printed in London that year, Barker first calls himself the printer to the Queen. This right was inherited by his son, Robert Barker (d. 1645), who is described on the title-page of the original Authorized Version in 1611 as 'Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie'. When monopolies were abolished in England in 1623, an exception was made for royal grants of the sole right to print certain books."
I won't print any more, but it is fascinating reading and this is definitely NOT the only place this information is available. "Authorized" means "Authorized by the King to PRINT". It has NOTHING to do with the "TEXT".
This is the reason it was no longer called the Authorized Version when rebellious Americans started printing the Bible without the permission of the King of England. They just retained the name King James Bible.
True history of the Bible, its printing history is quite fascinating.
The next chapter in the book is "Missionary Bibles", in other words, Bibles printed in different languages, such as for the American Indian tribes. It also would go against your grain, Jim.
Old buddy, old pal, old friend, new Bible hater.
Here is a little information about the "authorized version" out of the (gasp) secular book "The Book, A History of the Bible" by Christopher De Hamel.
Chapter 10 is devoted to the English and American Bible Industry. I will throw out a few quotes under the fair copyright laws:
"First, of all, the term 'Authorized' has no real historical validity. The book was dedicated to King James I, who had initiated the translation, but no legal or royal endorsement was conferred on the text itself. The privilege was associated with the printers, not the text itself. The privilege was associated with the printers, not the text. The royal privilege for printing Bibles goes back to the sixteenth century. In 1589, Queen Elizabeth had granted an exclusive patent for the publishing of Bibles in English to Christopher Barker. In a Bible printed in London that year, Barker first calls himself the printer to the Queen. This right was inherited by his son, Robert Barker (d. 1645), who is described on the title-page of the original Authorized Version in 1611 as 'Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie'. When monopolies were abolished in England in 1623, an exception was made for royal grants of the sole right to print certain books."
I won't print any more, but it is fascinating reading and this is definitely NOT the only place this information is available. "Authorized" means "Authorized by the King to PRINT". It has NOTHING to do with the "TEXT".
This is the reason it was no longer called the Authorized Version when rebellious Americans started printing the Bible without the permission of the King of England. They just retained the name King James Bible.
True history of the Bible, its printing history is quite fascinating.
The next chapter in the book is "Missionary Bibles", in other words, Bibles printed in different languages, such as for the American Indian tribes. It also would go against your grain, Jim.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
Jim,
Exactly why do you call those of us who do not ascribe to the KJV alone as "MV defenders"? I haven't seen anyone try to promote any modern version over the KJV, have you?
And why do you also call us "truth haters" when we LOVE the truth? Or is it because we spurn your home-spun doctrine of KJVOnly?
Oh, and tell me, exactly what is the 'MV myth' that I partake of? You haven't explained that one, and I really have no idea what it is.
Does the truth hurt you that bad?
You actually posted some? Where? I must have missed it...
Oh yeah, that's tight, you don't want an authority other then your own selves.
Actually, I look to the word of God. And I use several different translations, in order to get a feel of the texture of a given passage. And I go to the original languages (I don't know them, but I have works by those that do
). And that is the authority I use.
But why should we expect anything other then lies and slander and attack from the mv "defenders"? I know I can't think of any reason.
Substitute 'rabid KJVOnlyists' for 'MV defenders'. Thanks for the thought, Jim.
why is it that mv "defenders" can not use their own standards to prove their claims about the perversions they love being the inspired and preserved word of God?
That's funny, I thought that was what we have been doing since the get-go. I mean, looking to the manuscript evidence, agreeing to God preserving His word (albeit in more than one translation), looking back into history to see that men (even English speaking ones!) have used more than the King James translation. And no one said that the KJV wasn't inspired by God, because it is (just like the NKJV, NASB, CEV, NIV, etc).
Oh yeah, because they are following a man made fairy tale that has no basis in truth at all.
Jim, I thought you were for the KJVOnlyists...
I know you hypocrites and liars hate me.
I've been called that before, so n o skin off my nose. But, Jim, I don't hate you. I hate the man-made doctrine of KJVOnlyism that you are so dogmatic about. I love you, brother, and would gladly stand beside you for the Lord. I honestly believe you are a child of God, or you would not be so passionate about all this. Misguided you may be, but at least you are passionate about it.
Oh well. There I go, shooting off my big mouth. I mean, how dare I actually try to reason? I guess I like banging my head against large immovable objects...
In Christ,
Trotter
PS - Am I mistaken, or is it not stated in the rules of this forum that KJVOnlists may not refer to modern versions as 'perversions' or'demonic'? Just wondering...
Exactly why do you call those of us who do not ascribe to the KJV alone as "MV defenders"? I haven't seen anyone try to promote any modern version over the KJV, have you?
And why do you also call us "truth haters" when we LOVE the truth? Or is it because we spurn your home-spun doctrine of KJVOnly?
Oh, and tell me, exactly what is the 'MV myth' that I partake of? You haven't explained that one, and I really have no idea what it is.
Does the truth hurt you that bad?
You actually posted some? Where? I must have missed it...
Oh yeah, that's tight, you don't want an authority other then your own selves.
Actually, I look to the word of God. And I use several different translations, in order to get a feel of the texture of a given passage. And I go to the original languages (I don't know them, but I have works by those that do
But why should we expect anything other then lies and slander and attack from the mv "defenders"? I know I can't think of any reason.
Substitute 'rabid KJVOnlyists' for 'MV defenders'. Thanks for the thought, Jim.
why is it that mv "defenders" can not use their own standards to prove their claims about the perversions they love being the inspired and preserved word of God?
That's funny, I thought that was what we have been doing since the get-go. I mean, looking to the manuscript evidence, agreeing to God preserving His word (albeit in more than one translation), looking back into history to see that men (even English speaking ones!) have used more than the King James translation. And no one said that the KJV wasn't inspired by God, because it is (just like the NKJV, NASB, CEV, NIV, etc).
Oh yeah, because they are following a man made fairy tale that has no basis in truth at all.
Jim, I thought you were for the KJVOnlyists...
I know you hypocrites and liars hate me.
I've been called that before, so n o skin off my nose. But, Jim, I don't hate you. I hate the man-made doctrine of KJVOnlyism that you are so dogmatic about. I love you, brother, and would gladly stand beside you for the Lord. I honestly believe you are a child of God, or you would not be so passionate about all this. Misguided you may be, but at least you are passionate about it.
Oh well. There I go, shooting off my big mouth. I mean, how dare I actually try to reason? I guess I like banging my head against large immovable objects...
In Christ,
Trotter
PS - Am I mistaken, or is it not stated in the rules of this forum that KJVOnlists may not refer to modern versions as 'perversions' or'demonic'? Just wondering...
Boy did you hit the nail on the head Trotter. I thought that the rule was in place regarding calling MVs certain names...
I have a BUNCH of King James versions in my collection. Some printed way back and a quite a few printed in the 1800's. I have new ones. I LOVE the KJV and its beatiful language.
But, it is not the language I read, so for study, I must go to an MV, even though I still read a KJV a LOT.
Good post, Trotter!
I have a BUNCH of King James versions in my collection. Some printed way back and a quite a few printed in the 1800's. I have new ones. I LOVE the KJV and its beatiful language.
But, it is not the language I read, so for study, I must go to an MV, even though I still read a KJV a LOT.
Good post, Trotter!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Is anybody going to mention the
New King James Version (nKJV) again?
I'd like to quit getting an e-mail everytime
somebody posts some other stuff,
if nobody is going to mention the nKJV again.
New King James Version (nKJV) again?
I'd like to quit getting an e-mail everytime
somebody posts some other stuff,
if nobody is going to mention the nKJV again.