Non-KJBO lies

A reminder, Askjo:

AV 1611's marginal note for Isaiah 14:12, "Lucifer":

"or, O day starre"

"And I will give him the morning star"

 

Removed nothing? Mis-Information! The History disagrees with you. Today I disagree with you. Let me give you, for example, some passages concerning Jesus' name. Matthew 4:23 has "Jesus." Massive MSS contained Jesus. 2 MSS supporting MVs contained "Jesus." This 2 MSS were 2 of massive MSS supporting the KJV. Another passage is Matthew 4:12 has "Jesus." Another 2 different MSS supporting MVs contained "Jesus." This 2 MSS were 2 of massive MSS supporting the KJV. That is not what I said. That is what Manuscript evidences said.

That is MVs supporters' idea of saying.

 

Askjo said:

The History disagrees with you.

I care not whether revisionist, KJV-only pseudo-history disagrees with me.

Today I disagree with you.

And I care even less if you disagree with me. Who are you?

[incomprehensible gibberish apparently having something to do with the gospel of Matthew and the word "Jesus" ignored]

 

You disagree with manuscript evidence, not KJV-only pseudo-history.

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

Here the Morning Sar is a metaphor
for the King of Babylon.
The King of Babylon is a type of Satan.

Satan is different from the Morning Star.
A metaphor takes some elements of
(in this case the Morning Star) and compares
them to another object (in this case the
King of Babylon directly and Satan directly).
Satan is different from the Morning Star.

In Revelation 22:16 Jesus, the Christ, is
compared metaphorically to the Morning Star.
Jesus is NOT the same as the Morning Star.
Satan is NOT the same as the Morning Star.
Jesus is not the same as Satan
(nor are Jesus & Satan brothers as in
Mormonism).

The Morning Star is the planet Venus
when it preceeds the Sun rising.
The Day Star is the planet Venus when
it can be seen during the daytime
(as it can about 1/4 of the time (if
you have a clear sky) if you know where to
look. The Evening Star is the planet
Venus when it is visable after the Sun sets.

Jesus is not the Morning Star.
Satan is not the Morning Star.

I told before how the Morning Star can
be a metaphor for Jesus.
I told before how the Morning Star can
be a metaphor for Satan.

A stuck record is a metaphor for
Ed trying to describe Bible metaphors.
The translators of the King James Version
knew all about metaphors, especially
metaphors used in the Bible. Jesus
used a special use of metaphors called
the Parable to teach great eternal truths.

 

Do KJVOist ever read anything in full context?

OK for all you KJVOist who have not read the NASB(I'll use the NASB because it is what I use, I'm sure that the NASB will be condemned by KJVOist like the NIV in these examples) concerning Isaiah 14

PLEASE READ THIS IN FULL CONTEXT

12 “How you have fallen from heaven,

O star of the morning, son of the dawn!

You have been cut down to the earth,

You who have weakened the nations!

13 “But you said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God,

And I will sit on the mount of assembly

In the recesses of the north.

14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.’

15 “Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.

When read in context the NASB is very clear in the verse. This is not refering to Jesus Christ. Keep reading this over and over until it sinks in. Notice the wording etc...

Now let's look at Revelation 22:16

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with £all. Amen.


The NASB is very clear in this passage.

How can any KJVO read the above in context and honestly say that there is confusion in MV's like the NASB when it comes to the Morning Star in both Isa and Rev?

 

Because Satan was a CHERUB(Ezekiel 28:14),not a star........That's HOW!!

 

Why should they?

Some KJVOist claim thier King James Bible (KJB)
is the Authroized Version (AV) KJV 1611.
In fact, they use the American rip-off of the
reauthorized version KJV1769 edition.
Recall that from 1775-81 the 13 Colonies
(later USofA) were at war with the British
Crown, the crown was the sponsor of the KJV1769
(and the earlier KJV1762). In the 13 colonies
there were any number of printing presses set
up to make copies of the Bible.
In direct definace of the British Crown,
the epitath AUTHORIZED VERSION was placed
on the Bible thus printed, even though
sometimes the KJV1762 was used, sometimes
the KJV1769, sometimes a mix, sometimes
something altogether different.
Because some of these are still in print,
i like to call them collectively "KJV1769".
But it isn't the authorized version (AV).

So "AV1611" is NOT TRUE for many KJVO.

ut I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ

 

--------------------------------------------------
KJV translators of the High Commission Court (one an "archbishop") and King James atrocities:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The brutality of some of the punishments issued by this court are shocking. The example of the treatment of one Puritan preacher, Alexander Leighton, in 1628 or 1629 illustrates this brutality. For writing a book that condemned the institution of bishops as "antiChristian and satanic," the High Commission Court issued a warrant for him...was tied to a stake and received thirty-six stripes with a heavy cord upon his naked back; he was placed in the pillory for two hours in November's frost and snow; he was branded in the face, had his nose spit and his ears cut off, and was condemned to life imprisonment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/rick/influence.html

HankD
--------------------------------------------------


This is your proof? You have got to be kidding me. This? It might do you well to do some research on your own, rather than rely upon Rick Norris for your information. Are you aware that the KJB translators were not only Anglican? Were you aware that many of them were Puritan and Calvinists? Oh, but you neglect to show that information, huh? Where are the quotes of the KJB translators to show their apostate and heretical views or involvement in secret societies? Their disregard and disdain for the word of God, the scriptures? I can do this for you. Here you all are. Compare the Preface for the KJB from the translators, to that of the Preface for the ERV by its translators, and notice the GREAT DIFFERENCE between the two:


http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm


now compare to:


http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervpreface.html


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle again displays her gross ignorance of reality:

Are you aware that the KJB translators were not only Anglican? Were you aware that many of them were Puritan and Calvinists?

Uh . . . the Puritans were Calvinist Anglicans . . . that's what a Puritan was, by definition.

 

The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord!

 

The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox.

And the neat thing about water is, it's awfully wet.

Isn't tautology fun?

 

The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord! </font>[/QUOTE]It would be interesting to note if they believed the Bible before 1611, since according to many KJVO's, the Bible wasn't perfect yet. " Did the Anglican translators believe an imperfect Bible?"

 

What about David(pre-meditated murderer),Moses(murder),and others? Were they disqualified to receive inspiration??? If not,why not? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I never said anything about sinless perfection being a qualifier.

God spoke to and through David. He was specially set aside by God through Samuel the prophet. His writings contain prophecies that have been fulfilled- especially messianic prophecies.

God spoke to and through Moses. He appeared to Moses in physical form. He performed miracles and gave true prophecy. God chose him out of all mankind to give His law through.

There is also no doubt about the position of David and Moses with God. Both were affirmed by the NT as holy men of old and prophets.

The KJV translators still don't qualify.

 

You call me "idiot." </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. I called your contention idiotic because it fails immediately on logical scrutiny.

 

The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord!

Too bad the KJVO Camp claims AV1611 but they use a revised and updated KJV. Seems that the modern KJVO Camp does not truly praise the 1611 KJV.

When a KJVOist claims to be AV1611 and uses a KJV other than an AV1611 it is a KJVO lie. No if's and's or but's about the KJVO deception about uplifting the AV1611.

Askjo do you use a real AV1611?

 

If they are updated to contemporary language, I checked many verses in modern versions and found out about these verses that I looked for, and noticed these verses that are missed, added or nonsense. </font>[/QUOTE] No. You found that there are minor differences between MV's and the KJV because there are minor differences in the textual evidence for the Bible. The KJV is not the standard by which we judge the quality of a Bible.

Untrue! I researched them and found out about them. Original language texts? Only 45 MSS (1% MSS supporting MVs). You quoted, "They haven't omitted or added anything." Incorrect! I have lists of MSS containing any verses in the Bible. They did omitted or added too many times.</font>[/QUOTE] This is simply a false statement Askjo. MV's are not exclusively based on the Alexandrian text type. Even versions like the NASB favor the Byzantine over the Alexandrian occasionally.

Even if MV's were only based on 45 mss, that would be at least 35 more than the KJV is based on... and the MV mss would be about 1000 years older.

Is your list comprehensive? Or, was it designed specifically to impugn God's Word as presented in MV's?

MVs are update to the WH text, not the KJV. The NKJV is the update to the MT and NU text - not the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE] MV's are not an update to the WH text. They are based on critical texts derived from similar methods to those used by WH. BTW, I tend to believe some of the critical text assumptions to be unsound.

The NKJV is actually more true to the TR than the KJV.

What's wrong with Will Kinney? He provided you his many excellent answers. </font>[/QUOTE] Will Kinney is an extremely deceptive individual. He is subtle and is one of the worst at saying "Yea, hath God said...". Like the Nazi propagandists, he skips proving his premise allowing him to build an "impressive" case on a false foundation. Only a fool would accept an argument without determining the proof of the premise.

He like you makes the a priori assumption that the KJV is the standard. That makes proving that other versions are different from the KJV fairly easy. What he never addresses is why anyone should accept the KJV as the standard when God has providentially preserved so much evidence for the words He originally inspired.

What I said BTW is that Will Kinney is not my final authority. He is not God. He does not speak God's Word when he spouts these supposed proofs.

Well, you call me idiot. I would say, "It is me." Am I a thing? Look up a dictionary. What does it say about "it"? I am not an idiot. </font>[/QUOTE]Nothing you posted has anything to do with calling the Holy Spirit an "it".

You need to check your facts, not to mention your English. When you say "It is me." "It" does not refer to you specifically but rather the thing you are equating your self with.

Example:
"Who took the cookie?"
"It was me."

"It" refers not to you but to the ungendered object of the question. "me" refers to you.

 

--------------------------------------------------
I told before how the Morning Star can
be a metaphor for Jesus.
I told before how the Morning Star can
be a metaphor for Satan.

--------------------------------------------------

And I SHOWED before how Jesus Christ said: I am... THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR and I give you THE MORNING STAR. Something is VERY WRONG with the NIV and it's translators for choosing to replace LUCIFER with MORNING STAR. This shows their lack of spiritual discernment, and disregard for the common person to understand God's word WITHOUT confusion and doubt. They have subtely blasphemed our Lord Jesus Christ. And you condone and justify this? Shame on you.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Oh Michelle you're back. You must have forgotten my question.

Which KJV is perfect?
A) 1611
B) 1762
C) 1769
D) Other (please explain)

 

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV is not the standard by which we judge the quality of a Bible.
--------------------------------------------------


For us English speaking believers it is and has been that standard to which to judge ALL OTHER versions thereafter, claiming to be the HOLY BIBLE.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle