Question between 2 sides.

The Antiochan side.

 

Not a clue.

All I know is I'm standing with the Lord. Who cares 'bout da rest?

 

Why do I have to pick a side? Put all the textual evidence on the table.

 

I didn't know there was a side I must take. I wonder which side Jesus took? I would rather look at the text and its variants to determine what the text is. Perhaps you might know that even as the textual critics have made decisons they have listened to others and made a different decision later. This happeend at the seminary I attended with one of the professors and a group of students who took a look at the evidence. The evidence was sent to the group of textual critics and the change was made.

 

seems like He might've taken the LXX side in His synagogue reading in Luke 4.

i wonder what lessons KJBOs can draw from this!

 

Antioch.

But I'm not a radical.

I'm willing to listen and learn if my brothers will give me the same benefit and don't participate in character assassination of any one from either "side".


HankD

 

I stand on the side of the best reading for any given variant.

 

Antiochan.

Because in this paticular Church age(Revelation 3:14),we are told to choose sides(Revelation 3:15).

It has been many times;and the Alexandrian "side" has been found wanting.

 

Because in this paticular Church age(Revelation 3:14),we are told to choose sides(Revelation 3:15).</font>[/QUOTE]Laodicea? That's funny: I thought I was in Richmond.....

Most of us don't buy into the "Church Age" idea as the timeline is not valid.

 

I suppose that is true;most likley due to lack of following/believing 2 Tim 2:15(KJB).

 

I suppose that is true;most likley due to lack of following/believing 2 Tim 2:15(KJB). </font>[/QUOTE]......of which "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" would seem applicable in this particular case.

 

Dear Anti-Al

Please go back and read my post, its the 7th from the top.

HankD

 

I don't go for the 7-church-ages thing either, but thinking Rev 3:15 and 2 Tim 2:15 are about choosing between Alexandrian and Antiochian manuscripts is even more amusing.

 

Everything i know about BIBLE VERSIONS
I learned from Jack Chick's comic:
SABOTAGE?

Jack Chick said it,
I believe it,
And that settles it

I belong with those soul winnin' fools
in Antioch

 

Wait until these people research beyond
Jack Chick comics and find out that
Origen of Alexandria took what Jesus
said literally and had himself castrated
so he could serve Jesus better.

(Sorry, I can't quote
what Jesus said cause i can't
find an on-line bible cause my
internet service sucks. It is something like;
it is better to enter heaven lame
than go to hell with a leg.

 

I suppose that is true;most likley due to lack of following/believing 2 Tim 2:15(KJB). </font>[/QUOTE]More likely the opposite, such as actually taking Scripture in context.

 

Agreed!

 

Matthew 18:8-9 (KJV1769):

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend
thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee:
it is better for thee to enter into life
halt or maimed, rather than having two
hands or two feet to be cast into
everlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye offend thee,
pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
it is better for thee to enter into
life with one eye, rather than having
two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

 

Why would you divide the body of Christ?

There were faithful Christians in Antioch. There were faithful Christians in Alexandria. They united on several occasions to oppose unbiblical heresy.... come to think of it, here we are 1500+ years later and they are still united in their opposition to the unbiblical teaching of KJVOnlyism. Neither side left us a single manuscript that agrees exactly with the KJV translation demonstrating that it was not preserved from anything that came from Antioch or Alexandria- at least not by your narrow definition of preservation.

Try Brian's definition of preservation... on second thought I see your problem with doing that. If you accept his definition then things today other than the KJV can rightly be called the preserved Word of God. It seems you are trapped by the unreconcilable inconsistency in your argument. Namely, that word variants up until the KJV were OK but word variants since constitute perversion.

[ September 09, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]