Own a genuine 1611 KJV...

Steve K, I will just say this for now:

Many of the KJVO people of today are notorious for using half-quotes, statements taken from out of their context and other means to "prove" people are not believers and might even be people into some kind of satan worship.

Gail Riplinger is one such example. Now, we can examine her statements and check the actual citing she uses only to find that she purposely twisted facts. Now, when others do the same thing, their "documentation" might be legitimate but twisted to prove a point. Therefore, mere documentation is not enough. It has to be credible documentation.

Now, I am not a historical brain on this issue like some people in this forum, but I am not ignorant. I believe what I do about the word because of my interpretation of the so-called preservation texts. I hope you understand what I am saying. I have theological differences.

 

Read Riplingers "New AGe Bible Versions". All of the references are there. The proof is documented.Read Ruckmans paperback "niv documentation of apostasy." Read Gipps "the answer book". Read Grady's "Final authority".Read Mickey Carters "Things that are different are not the same." Read "Last words of saints and sinners" Read Ruckmans "King James onlyism vs. scholarship onlyism." These books are loaded with documented proof of what I say.Of course you probably won't read them but there is the list.

 

Kal El what about the direct quotes from Wescott and Hort and one of their own sons wrote aletter confirming this.

 

Absolutely predictable Brian. All of the material in those books unless otherwise noted is documented.They leave no doubt about what was behind the making of the new versions. Bill Grady's book Final Authority tears to shreds all the foundation the modern versions are built on.

 

Steve K, I happened to be typing an example of untrustworthy scholarship using Gail Riplinger when apparently you were typing also.

New Age Bible Versions is one of the worst out there. I am speaking about the footnote and documentation use. I do disagree with her theological conclusion also.

I would suggest either searching past discussion on Westcott and Hort or staring another thread. This one is clearly off the subject.

 

We are discussing modern version and KIng James aren't we?

 

After only a few weeks of study Hort had this to say about the Textus Receptus"Think of that VILE Textus Receptus leaning onlate MSS."
Wescott wrote"No one now ,I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis,for example,give a literal history-I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."
Had enough Brian?He doesn't believe in the creation the way God documented it.How could anyone use a version he supports when he tears apart the first three chapters.It is intereesting to note that chapter three is where Satan said "Yea hath God said?"

 

Brian ;Final authority chapter 14

 

Steve, Brian probably means the do actual footnote. We believe you that your quote comes from the books you listed. The verification process checks the original source.

 

I find it hard to believe that footnotes matter to someone who prefers an niv.Have you ever read the footnotes in there? Open the book"Final authority "like I did and look at chapter 14 you will see the official quote for yourself.I have stated all along it is not a manuscript or translator issue. It is a heart issue.I stand by that.For proof read the threads on KJV vs niv and you will hear modern version promoters say "there is no proof" "you have given no proof" when proof is staring them in the face.

 

Steve, just listen to yourself for a second. We are asking for the original source so that we can verify it. Don't dodge the issue. We will look into it.

People of both sides claim historic accuracy. If you don't check it out, then it is a matter of who you want to believe. If you and me did not check the sources, then your final authority is not the bible but whoever you believe accurately represents history. The same would be true of me.

I used to be KJVO. I am convinced that the KJVO texts about preservation do not mean what the KJVO group says they mean. I even used the KJV to come to my conclusions. I then went to the historical study and believe differently than you.

So, I used the KJV to arrive at my position. I have found that the historical evidence to be against what you are saying.

Btw, does anyone know of any translation that is based exclusively on the work of Westcott and Hort?

- a friend

 

Quote from Hort in the Final Authority pg237
"I am very fer from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolatry...I have been persuaded for many years that Mary -worship and"Jesus " worship have very much in common in their causes and their results"
Is that what you MV users believe? Wescott and Hort did!

 

You said you had half of the books I listed. Which ones do you have?We can get references from there. Have a nice day

 

I have often heard that the RV(1881) was from the W&H text..

 

Steve K. I am also KJV and I read no other but if you are going to debate do it is a christian brotherly manner!... Because these brethren read other version and prefer them why get hot under the collar just read yours and let it go at that!

I won't even debate you and I am strictly KJV with reasons you wouldn't understand or believe!... I'm of the Primitive Baptist brethren and we are not of your camp!... Thank God!... Brother Glen