Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

You can't prove that Westcott was a Christian.

 

He answered your question, Askjo, now he has asked you some questions. If you want somebody to believe like you do, you have to give them a reason to. As of now, there is no hard-evidence for your point-of-view. Answer the questions so that we can move on. Please.............

 

"You can't prove that Westcott was a Christian." by Askjo

Askjo,
No one but God knows the heart of man. We are not to be like the Pharisee and the publician. We are not to assume that just because someone may have aa bad doctrine etc... that they may be lost. Luther had some ideas that I reject, but I will not even question his love for the Lord. This is the type of stuff that I can not stand coming from the KJVO camp. Just because someone uses something other than a KJV does not mean that we are lesser Christians or that we have a relationship with Christ that is at a distance. You can not prove that Westcott was lost or if he was saved. That my friend is God's business not ours. Our business is to present the plan of salvation to the world. These KJVO conspiracy theories really make it hard to present the true gospel simple because many KJVOist want to jump to conclusions about MV's and MV users. Where I live arrogant KJVOist go door to door hurting peoples feelings and questioning their faith because they use MV's.(How do I know this? I was a member of a local KJVO church that did this.)

Let's not get away from the question at hand. These stall tactics are all that you seem to have.

I love the Lord. I use a NASB, KJV, KJ21,NIV,Geneva, and I reference a NKJV often. Does this make you wonder about me? You see, these types of silly questions only fuel the fire that lost people have against us who love the Lord.

As a brother in the Lord, I am again asking you to provide proof of your NKJV claims. I'm asking you to provide proof that the NKJV only contains the Word of God. Which TR is perfect? The AV1611 is different from the current KJV, does this mean that the current KJV only contains the Word of God? The KJV does not 100% follow the TR, does this mean that the KJV only contains the Word of God? The Geneva Bible does not line up 100% with the KJV, does this mean it only contains the Word of God?

Please respect the Word of God and stop posting links slandering the precious Word of my Lord Jesus Christ. If you slander the NKJV then what about the Geneva Bible? Do you slander that which came before your 1762/1769 KJV? Would you slander the KJ21 or TMB? One thing that I admire about this board is that the Word of God is to be respected. So once please post the references about the NKJV.

I do not fellowship with Ruckman, Riplinger,Gipp, and Waite because these people openly lie and slander the Word. According to the bible these people have been rebuked and they continue in thier lies and deceptions dividing the brethern; therefore we are not to fellowship with them BUT we are to warn the brethern about them. So please post on this board your reasons in full context and show me where the NKJV changes doctrines.

If you will not do this then respect the Word of God and stop slandering it.

In Christ,
David J. Horn

 

He gave you an honest answer. Now we are waiting for your honest answers. I know this is not an interactive chat site, but if you can respond, you can answer a question now and then. I ask you again......with a "please".

 

You can't prove that Westcott was a Christian. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you prove that even half of the KJV1611 translators were Christians? Can we see the proof?

 

Do you deny that God inpired His Word in the autographs? Do you deny that God preserve His inspired Word in the apographs?

Will K. and I agree that it was singular, but you said plural.

I answered it in other post. Skan, you and I disagreed with that.

If not Beza text, what Greek Text did the NKJV follow?

Click here: WAS THE 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WE HAVE TODAY?

 

Asjo,
LOL, David Cloud as a defense! Please, I've been waiting 8 months on Cloud to answer a question I had about Acts 5:30 and Jude 1:25. If you notice Cloud does not hold the current KJV to the same standards that he hold the KJ21 or KJV as compared to the AV1611. One must wonder why KJVOist abondoned the AV1611.

How many changes are made before it's considered bad? Notice that Cloud never gives us a full listing of those changes. Why? Because if he did then his house on sand would be washed away by truth.

"There were ONLY 136 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words." Cloud

The KJV:

Galatians 5:9,"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Hummm, seems a little leaven is in the current KJV! Yet again KJVOist double standards shine bright for all to see!

In all honesty, you have proven that all you want to play is the question game. You have went from Ruckman Knights to Cloud as a defense! I don't have time for this. I consider myself done with this subject since you have yet to provide proof.

In Christ,
David J. Horn

 

"Many people imply that the KING JAMES BIBLE is completely changed from what they had in 1611, that there are THOUSANDS of differences. You tell them about the MERE 136 CHANGES OF SUBSTANCE plus 285 MINOR CHANGES OF FORM ONLY"

Quote from link above.

Sooooo, explain somethin' to me. How do you have a 100% preserved Word-for-word Bible after 1769 and it has 136 changes? What was the 100%word-for-word preserved book from 1611 to 1769?

Or does the one we have today have 136 errors and it was preserved since 1611 since all the KJVo's still call it the AV1611?

Either we have 100% preservation of individual words and phrases or we don't. Which KJV is it?

 

Please answer this, Askjo: WHERE WAS THE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH BEFORE 1611?

 

That article was quite simplisitic. Howevere he did admit to changes in the KJV over the years though. So the original was not the preserved text as the KJVO's suggest.

 

I researched on Westcott and Hort and learned that they were unbelievers. That is sad that they are in Hell now.

That is good.

Your choice!

The NKJV included non-TR -- 40%!!!

Did I say perfect?

Or you will tremble at His word?

Respected? I do not think so. If respected, I did not see their testimony in regard of the Word of God.

Not all of them.

Reject 2 Cor. 2:17?

Asking me REPEATEDLY. You missed my answers somewhere in this BB.

I respect the Word of God and DEFEND IT!!!!

 

Miss my answer a while ago?

 

THis site says:

"Thus you're talking about ONLY 136 REAL CHANGES out of 791,328 words."

What is different is NOT the same.
What is not the same IS different.

Check also this thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1411.html?

 

I have never made any claim one way or another. But if that is the criteria, I can prove you are a Christian either.

 

Do you deny that God inpired His Word in the autographs? Do you deny that God preserve His inspired Word in the apographs?</font>[/QUOTE]Askjo again refuses to answer the question.

Will K. and I agree that it was singular, but you said plural.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you and Will are both wrong, which is understandable for neither one of you can read Hebrew. And it is a dual.

I answered it in other post. Skan, you and I disagreed with that.?</font>[/QUOTE] You simply said "No." Would you care to try to defend that answer in view of the obvious double standard you have employed?

</font>[/QUOTE]The TR.

And once again Askjo refuses to answer the question.

 

Ditto, King James who commissioned and the Anglo-Catholic clergy and scholars who translated the AV.

HankD

 

Skan asked,

I answered,

Skan said:

You denied the autographs and the apographs were there before 1611.

Skan asked:

I answered,

Skan said,

Which TR?

Skan asked:

Skan said:

I already answered it, but you rejected it.

 

Round and round the BaptistBoard Askjo evades the question...Everybody sing!!!

Get real, man. If you can't (or won't) give a straight answer, then be honest enough to say so. If you actually did give an answer, post what thread and page (you don't even have to make a link...we'll do the leg work).

As for the condition of Wescott's and Hort's souls, what does that have to do with the issue at hand, hmm? Most, if not all, of the translators of the 1611 were as lost as a goose in a snowstorm, as was the king who commissioned it. Unless Anglo-Catholics are right, in which case we're all going to hell...

Enough of the song and dance. Either put up, or shut up.

In Christ,
Trotter