• 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!

Non-KJBO lies

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
2 Cor 2:17 ESV Yeah, go to those KJVO sites, and see for yourself the peddling! i.e. "Don't trust those MV's...only buy the KJV, from us" :rolleyes:
laugh.gif
"Corrupt the word of God" is as NOT SAME as "peddling the word of God." I researched and still write 11 pages concerning 2 Cor. 2:17. I found massive information favoring "corrupt" than "peddle." You need to look at Will Kinney's answer on 2 Cor. 2:17 in his website and find "Many which Corrupt the word of God." Will wrote 4 pages on 2 Cor. 2:17. His essay on this subject is very excellent. </font>[/QUOTE]***yawn***
I do not care what the preconceived notions of Will K might be. The word is, kapeleuo, from kapelos which means, "an inn-keeper, a petty retailer, esp of wine, a huskster, peddler" (W.E.Vine)..."to do anything for sordid, personal advantage" Doesn't the Geneva use the word, "merchandise" here?
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
[qb]
The NIV missing 1 John 5:7 or the KJV missing half of Jude 1:25 does not make me question my relationship with Christ.
The NIV omitted 1 John 5:7 because its Greek text following the W/H text where an unitarian rejected this verse.
</font>
Sorry, Askjo, your statement is incorrect. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you know that an unitarian worked with Westcott and Hort and produced their NEW Greek text?
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by robycop3:
Originally posted by LarryN:
For approximately the 573rd time- would you provide even one example of how any MV attacks the Deity of Jesus. If you won't, then why not cease making this spurious accusation once and for all.


ASKJO:356 false doctrinal passages and errors in WH text, UBS and NA text are affected in MVs.

Can you prove these aren't corrections of errors in other mss? after all, the "Alex" mss are generally older than the "Byz" mss, so if the Byz mss have more material, there's a strong possibility it coulda been ADDED.
2 Cor. 11:31, for example, has "Christ." More than 25 MSS supported "Christ." Less than 10 MSS removed "Christ."

Another example is Roman 5:8 having "Jesus": more than 23 MSS supported "Jesus." Less than 8 MSS removed "Jesus."

Alexandrian MSS and Byzantine MSS? Ok, I learned that those readings among any MSS supported the KJV than MVs.
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Ransom:
&gt; Where is Jesus' Blood on Col. 1:14 in MVs?

Keep reading to verse 20, and stop bearing false witness against the word of Almighty God. Shame on you!
Some MSS contained "through his blood" on Col. 1:14. MVs removed this phrase because they rejected these MSS. Funny, one manuscript supporting MVs has this phrase, "through his blood." Why did MVs reject one manuscript supporting MVs? :rolleyes: :confused:
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Orvie:
The word is, kapeleuo, from kapelos which means, "an inn-keeper, a petty retailer, esp of wine, a huskster, peddler" (W.E.Vine)..."to do anything for sordid, personal advantage" Doesn't the Geneva use the word, "merchandise" here?
You are right, but you missed what W.E. Vine explained more.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
First to update the language to contemporary, every day English... just like the originals that God gave were in the every day language of people at that time.
Update? Mis-Information! They are updated to omit, add and change any words in MVs.</font>[/QUOTE] Askjo, This is an incredibly idiotic contention on your part.

First, MV's are updated to contemporary language. Regardless of our opinions on the value of the KJV to the church today, it is not the language we speak.

Second, MV's are based on original language texts with reference to prior translations. They haven't omitted or added anything. All of these translations were new translations when published just like the KJV was when it was published.

The KJV is not the original and therefore not the standard by which to judge whether a newer or older version has added or omitted text.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Second, they are to be as accurate to the originals as possible- correcting previous renderings where the textual evidence indicates changes should be made.
Accurate? These MVs are 1% accurate textual evidence.
Both the NKJV and Revised Version were intended to be updates of the KJV.
updates to the KJV? Mis-Information! No, they did not. </font>[/QUOTE]
Prove it Askjo. Both versions started out with this stated purpose. Both also said that they would update language and show respect to recent discoveries of original language evidence.

You might want to check facts before making a fool of yourself so repeatedly.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> However both committees took the opportunity to correct things they thought were poorly translated. For instance the NKJV rightly calls the Holy Spirit a "Him" at Romans 8:16 where the KJV calls Him an "it".
poor translated? Him or it? Mis-Information! I heard that repeatedly. Will Kinney gave his comment in his website. </font>[/QUOTE] Will Kinney is not my final authority. Is he yours?

The scripture makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is a person. Calling a person an "it" is an insult.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have absolutely no doubt that the NASB, NKJV, and KJV are all reliable versions of God's Word.
all reliable versions? Mis-Information! These MVs disagree each other, even that they and the KJV disagree each other. </font>[/QUOTE] Mis-information!!! You have been challenged repeatedly to show a doctrine or teaching that is present in the KJV but missing in MV's. Your failure to do so demonstrates your claim here to be nothing but deception.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> God perfectly (completely) preserved His Word.
Word? Mis-Information! Psalm 12:6-7 said God preserved His wordS </font>[/QUOTE]You paint yourself into a corner with that argument Askjo. Of course your complete disregard for logic and truth won't allow you to see much less admit it.

If it is "words" that are preserved then the words of the original and only the words of the original can be considered scripture. This is THE ONLY logical conclusion from your contentions no matter how you try and contort the facts.

The "words" of God can refer to the words God inspired. As I have demonstrated without any effort by KJVO's to refute, God qualified the men biblically to be receivers of direct inspiration. The KJV translators do not qualify. If this is what the supposed promise of Psalm 12 refers to then there are no valid translations... not even the KJV.

Words can also refer to "sayings" or utterances or revelations. This perfectly acceptable use of the plural of "word" allows that we can have translations that are every bit the "Word" of God without being made up of inspired words.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
The word is, kapeleuo, from kapelos which means, "an inn-keeper, a petty retailer, esp of wine, a huskster, peddler" (W.E.Vine)..."to do anything for sordid, personal advantage" Doesn't the Geneva use the word, "merchandise" here?
You are right, but you missed what W.E. Vine explained more. </font>[/QUOTE]What did Vine know?... He used the Revised Version and considered it a more accurate reflection of the original than the KJV. :eek:
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As for Psalm 12:7, the KJVOs totally ignore the translators' marginal note, conveniently left outta later editions. Therefore their argument that it refers to God's words is empty and wrong.
 

natters

New Member
Askjo said "If the NIV contradicts with 2 verses reflecting the morning star, God contradicts Himself."

No, God does not contradict himself. Instead, you misunderstand something.

Askjo said "Michelle is right. W/H were heretics and apostates in old time. Also Dr. Metzger and others today."

Then it should be a simple matter to demonstrate it. Accusation without evidence is slandar, which the Bible expressly and strongly speaks against - Psalm 101:5, Prov 10:18, Jer 6:28. I recommend that you study, pray and meditate upon these verses in the KJB.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Originally posted by RaptureReady:
Translators' marginal notes are note scripture.
Amen, Brother RaptureReady -- Preach it!
thumbs.gif


Too bad you had a Freduian slip :D

C4K: "Does that apply to MV's?"

No. Sister Pastor Gail A. Riplinger condemns
modern versions (MVs) for their translator
notes.

wave.gif
 

Ransom

Active Member
Askjo said:

Some MSS contained "through his blood" on Col. 1:14. MVs removed this phrase because they rejected these MSS.

If they did not translate from those manuscripts, they "removed" nothing. Rather, they translated honestly what was there and not what some people on the lunatic fringe say should be there.

Stop bearing false witness against the Word of God. It is a shame and a reproach on Christ's good name to see his supposed disciples lie like this.
 

natters

New Member
Askjo said "No version deletes this important truth. Distortion! Michelle refers to Col. 1:14."

Yes, Col 1:14 is an isolated textual issue. It does not mean a version deletes this important truth, simply because one single verse does not mention blood. That's my point with Eph 4:32 in the KJV - it as an isolated verse does not mention blood either, yet the KJV as a version had not deleted the important truth of the blood. Saying MVs delete the important truth of the blood because of the one isolated textual issue in Col 1:14 is like saying the KJV deletes the important truth of that Jesus is Lord because Jude 1:25 does not mention Jesus is Lord while the MVs do. If you believe other versions delete the importand truth of the blood, do you believe the KJV deletes the important truth of Jesus being Lord? Of course you don't, for that would be consistent.

To demonstrate that MVs do NOT delete the important truth of the blood of Jesus, I refer you to the following verses, all take from the NIV:


Matt 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Rom 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,I through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

1 Cor 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

1 Cor 11:25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Heb 9:12 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.
13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,

Heb 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

Heb 13:20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,

1 Pet 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

1 Pet 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

1 John 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Rev 7:14 I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Rev 12:11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.

The modern versions delete the important truth of his blood? MISINFORMATION!
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Bump to RR. I noticed you were back but had never responded to this.
Originally posted by RaptureReady:
Oh btw, I believe those italic words are inspired from God as well.
By virtue of what?

The KJV translators were not biblically qualified to receive direct inspiration.

The Bible (KJV and all others) sets forth qualifications for writers or authorizers of scripture. They are to be prophets, Apostles, and holy men of old.

There are several other means by which God validated the writings of a very select group as scripture: most of the writers of scripture performed miracles, many claimed that God spoke directly to/through them (by context it was in a special and tangible way rather than an impulse or sense of being led), the NT writers all witnessed the risen Christ and were taught by Him directly, several of the OT writers had a personal/physical encounter with God (Moses-Burning Bush, Abraham-Christophany, Samuel-being called in the night), many if not most of scripture's writers have fulfilled prophecies, the writings of these authors were recognized by the apostolic-first century church.

The KJV translators do not qualify biblically nor are they validated as inspired by any of the methods used by God in the Bible.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by RaptureReady:
Translators' marginal notes are note scripture.
How do you know? The KJV translators to whom you ascribe the office of inspired writers specifically put some of the notes in because they might be scripture.
 

Johnv

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
More accurate to the KJV? Mis-Information! It is false.

I never said the MKJV was more accurate to the KJV. I said it was more accurate to the KJV's source texts. (Since the KJV is a translation, and not a surce text, it should never be used as an authoritative tool for comparison).

Since you have never read it, nor compared it to the source texts, you are not qualified to make any determination of its accuracy.
 

Johnv

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
The KJV is the preserved Word of God because of the KJV superiority over to any MVs.
Translations cannot be "superior" over other translations in regards to authority. If you give any scriptural translation such, and in light of the fact that there is no scriptural support for such, you're fostering an unscriptural view.
 
Top