Question between 2 sides.

This Verse does not support your argument in any way shape or form.

 

Once again, here you go with the "Church Age" angle.

 

Ah! The Word of God refutes you. Look at Acts 11:26. What does this verse say? </font>[/QUOTE]It says that disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. It does not say that Paul called them that. All you really have to do is read.

 

"neither/or" sound like "lukewarm." Will God vomit you if you prefer lukewarm rather than one of 2 sides? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Is there no limit on how you guys are willing to twist and distort the scripture?

This goes well beyond interpretation... you are in fact adding to God's Word in violation to Revelations 22 if you think that someone is among the "lukewarm" of Revelation 3 because they refuse to side with a particular mss family.

The context couldn't be clearer. The condemnation has to do with spiritual apathy, not Bible versions.

 

This Verse does not support your argument in any way shape or form. </font>[/QUOTE]Please show me a verse concerning the word, "Christians." Please be honest! </font>[/QUOTE]Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.


1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

These are the only three occurrences of the word "Christian" in the Bible. Paul neither said them nor wrote them.

 

Here we go, bible verses about Alexandria:

1. Ac 18:24 (nKJV):
Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born
at Alexandria, an eloquent man
and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.



And this is very interesting also:

Matthew 2:5 (nKJV):
and was there until the death of Herod, that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
"Out of Egypt I called My Son."

Tradition has it that Joseph, Mary,
and Jesus sayed in Alexandria, Egypt.
So God called His Son, Jesus, out
of Alexandria, Egypt.
But, this was before the scribes
started their bad copies of the Bible

 

Is honesty something you truly desire?

First of all, the accusation still stands: the verse you quote has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the Antioch/Alexandria debate.

Secondly, this willful misrepresentation clearly shows that your arguments lack substance. The Verse in Acts that you quote doesn't address the subject of this thread. I might add that you are the one who started this thread, and have somehow decided to take us on this tangent. What does any Verse with the word "Christian" do to support any contention you have made?

Thirdly, you are the one who refers to the "Church Age" and its faulty timeline, which also provides no support for your argument.

Once again, you have totally failed to convince anyone that KJV-Onlyism is sound Biblical Doctrine. I will ask you once again: give me one Verse to support the total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word. The bottom line: God didn't need King James.

And just think: I actually use the REAL Authorised Version.

 

Once again: go back and read the Verse in II Timothy you cited, and pay close attention to "right dividing the Word of Truth."

 

Brother ScottJ: Christian martyr numbers
come from page 502, THE ALMANAC OF THE
CHRISTIAN WORLD, 1991-1992 EDITION
(1990, Tyndal House).

That page also says:
"Source: Reproduced with permission,
from OUR GLOVE AQND HOW TO REACH IT by
David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson.
Copyright 1990 by the Foriegn Mission
Board of ther Southern Baptist Convention
Published by New Hope, Birminham, AL.
Data Source: World Evangelism Data Base."

I've searched from the World Evangelism
Data Base on-line with no useful data
(for free, one might could buy it?)

 

Did the Bible tell you something between Anitoch and Alexandrian?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it says "Manuscripts that haveth their origin in Antioch should be the only ones thou shalt consider when thou doest any sort of textual criticism of the Biblical manuscripts. Alexandrian manuscripts, because of the controversial doctrines that cometh from the area in the 4th and later centuries, must needs be outright rejected because of 'guilty by association' and also because it shall be of mighty help to thee, to makest thou look like thou art most wise, applying some really fancy Biblical interpretational principles, because the term 'Chrisian' was first used of blessed saints from Antioch. Oh yeah, maketh sure thou doest not forget that in addition to 'guity by association' of the Spirit, thou hast 'non sequitur' of righteousness, 'straw man' of truth, and 'begging the question' of faith at thy disposal; use these mighty spiritual weapons as oft as thou does desire, especially when thou hast been trapped by the oppositions of logic falsely so called."

That passage is from 1 Peter 6:10-15, but apparently the KJV deleted it!.

 

Dear Askjo,

While we might agree on certain planes, I think you are a little harsh with the innuendo toward others.

Personally I don't see the point about the use of the word "christian" in the Scripture as a yardstick to measure spirituality.

There is an olde saying "you'll get more honey bees with nectar than with vinegar".

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

HankD