Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

[gb93433]

If it looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk and walks like a skunk. You know what the KJVO myth is. It is a skunk with no answers.

All their answers are in their faith which is unintelligible. It needs an interpretation which none provide.

Where are their answers?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by skanwmatos:
1. Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

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]I call your two answers interrogatives. Don’t you. So you are at least one short of "all."

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Am I reading this right?

136 errors that had to be corrected? Sounds perfect to me. NOT!

Bob, please explain about 136 errors.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Hank,

My KJB doesn't have any symbols of the trinity of God, and if it did, I would be quick to find one that didn't. Your excuses for them, will not stand at the judgement seat of Christ. This is all I have to say on the matter. Again, all I hear from all of you is EXCUSES for those things the Lord tells us to separate from. IT is between you and the Lord Jesus Christ now, for you all have been warned.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

***yawn*** Sweet Michelle, I think you might have a beam in thine eye.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
You denied the autographs and the apographs were there before 1611.

You are a liar. I have never denied the autographa nor the apographa. But you still have not answered the question. "Where was the perfect, pure word of God before 1611?"

Which TR?

So you finally are willing to admit you were not telling the truth when you claimed the NKJV was translated from the Majority Text?

I already answered it, but you rejected it.

You are lying again. You have never answered any of the questions posed above regarding changes in the KJV from 1611 to 1769.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Am I reading this right?

136 errors that had to be corrected? Sounds perfect to me. NOT!

what happened to those "jots and tittles" from 1611 to 1769? **poof**

 

[robycop3]

Michelle:My KJB doesn't have any symbols of the trinity of God, and if it did, I would be quick to find one that didn't.

I see you have no comment about Mr. Sun on the cover of a genuine AV 1611, the edition your KJV was derived from. But that's OK - IT'S THE KJV! The KJV's allowed, by the double standard of the KJVOismist, to do what the others aren't allowed to do. Several OJ suppliers salute the AV publisher for inventing Mr. Sun & making him legit by placing him on the cover of a Bible.


Your excuses for them, will not stand at the judgement seat of Christ.

But Mr. Sun on the AV 1611 WILL stand, right?


This is all I have to say on the matter. Again, all I hear from all of you is EXCUSES for those things the Lord tells us to separate from.

Please show us some SCRIPTURE even HINTING God tells us to avoid Bibles with a symbol on the cover.


IT is between you and the Lord Jesus Christ now, for you all have been warned.

WARNED?

Actually, we've been treated to a clueless sideshow, completely devoid of any supporting facts.

BTW, Michelle, you've said you're NOT a KJVO. What other version(s) do you recommend besides the KJV?

 

[Askjo]

Skan asked:

Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

"Where was the perfect, pure word of God before 1611?"

You contradict yourself here! Can't God perfectly inspire His Word in the autographs? Can't God perfectly prerserve His Word in the apographs?

Skan said:

So you finally are willing to admit you were not telling the truth when you claimed the NKJV was translated from the Majority Text?

You said the KJV and the NKJV follow the same Greek text. The Hodges-Farsated MT that the NKJV was based is the TR that the KJV was never based!!!! The NKJV's TR is 1881 Scrivener Text. The KJV's TR is the Beza's 1598 Greek Text.

Skan said:

You have never answered any of the questions posed above regarding changes in the KJV from 1611 to 1769.

I answered:

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

This site answered your question. You missed my answer.

Skan said:

You are lying again.

That means YOU!

Skan quoted:

You are a liar. I have never denied the autographa nor the apographa.

Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

You contradict yourself here!!! You are a liar!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
You contradict yourself here! Can't God perfectly inspire His Word in the autographs? Can't God perfectly prerserve His Word in the apographs?

Once again Askjo cannot answer the very simple question, "Where was the pure word of God prior to 1611?"

The Hodges-Farstad MT that the NKJV was based is the TR that the KJV was never based!

No, Askjo. The Majority Text according to Hodges and Farstad is not the TR. It is the MT. Do you see the difference? TR is a "T" (tee) followed by an "R" (arrh) and the MT is an "M" (em) followed by a "T" (tee). Got it now?

The NKJV's TR is 1881 Scrivener Text. The KJV's TR is the Beza's 1598 Greek Text.

Wrong again. The KJV departs from Beza's Greek New Testament in over 1,000 places, but agrees with the Scrivener TR word for word. Oh, and, by the way, the date for Scrivener's NT is 1894, not 1881. 1881 is the date for the Westcott Hort text and the publication of the English Revised Version.

I answered: Click here:

The site you chose did not answer any of the questions, and neither did you.

You missed my answer.

You didn't answer. There was nothing to miss.

You contradict yourself here!

Were you born an idiot or did you have to practice a lot?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Once again Askjo cannot answer the very simple question, "Where was the pure word of God prior to 1611?"

It was all over Europe in the form of the Geneva,1605-1865 Valera,Italian Diodati,French Olivetan,and a multitude of Anti-Alexandrian,anti-Catholic,Anti-Gnostic-Philosopher,Anti Westcott,Anti-Hort,Reformation texts based Bibles;that's where...

Only an idiot would try to trip up someone with such amaturish nonsense...

 

[gb93433]

If one claims the English KJV to be the perfect preserved Word of God then that makes all others a fraud. There have been KJVO's on this board who make such outrageous claims. The question is just trying to get them to think about the ridiculousness of their position.

It is just trying to expose their amaturish nonsense...

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
It was all over Europe in the form of the Geneva,1605-1865 Valera,Italian Diodati,French Olivetan,and a multitude of Anti-Alexandrian,anti-Catholic,Anti-Gnostic-Philosopher,Anti Westcott,Anti-Hort,Reformation texts based Bibles;that's where...

Only an idiot would try to trip up someone with such amaturish nonsense...

Wonderful! Finally, an attempt to answer. Now let me ask a clarification question. If the above bibles you mentioned are the "pure word of God" what do you do with the places in those bibles where they disagree with the KJV? Say, for instance, the Valera. The Valera, in Mark 1:2 say, "Como está escrito en Isaías el profeta: . . . " That reading agrees with the pro-Alexandrian, pro-Catholic, pro-Gnostic-Philosopher, pro Westcott, pro-Hort, anti-Reformation texts and manuscripts (as you call them), not to mention the ERV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc., ect., etc (in other words those dreaded "Modern Versions"). So, is the Valera really the preserved, pure word of God?

I could post differences between the KJV and the other bibles you mentioned, but one example will suffice for now. Which is your "final authority" when they differ? And, if they differ, can they all really be "pure" and "preserved?"

 

[Trotter]

Skan, you are truly full of wonders. And I thank God that you are His side, 'cause I wouldn't want to have to face of with you on this subject. Keep up the fight, brother, and we'll be right beside you.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
The site you chose did not answer any of the questions, and neither did you.

You - Idiot !

Skan quoted:

Or change "amongst" to "among" 36 times?

Or "lift" to "lifted" 50 times?

The sites did answered your question. Let it said: "There were ONLY 136 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words. The others were only 285 MINOR CHANGES OF FORM ONLY. Of these 285 MINOR CHANGES, there are 214 VERY MINOR CHANGES such as 'towards' for 'toward'; 'burnt' for 'burned'; 'amongst' for 'among'; 'lift' for 'lifted'; and 'you' for 'ye.' These kinds of changes represent 214 out of the 285 minor changes of form only."

Skan said: You didn't answer. There was nothing to miss.

You missed again!

 

[David J]

I'm wondering if this post will reach 500+! With all this dodging, spin, evading, name calling, and answering questions with questions our local KJVOist are doing it may just go on and on for months!

I have yet to see one answer to the original questions. I have yet to see any answers from the KJVOist that does not need a double standard in order to work.

David Cloud is a joke! What about "Thing that are different are not the same"??????? So then it's ok to change the AV1611!

I guess since Fuller hide the fact that a 7th Day Adventist started the modernism known as KJVOism that it's ok to distort the facts. So according the the early KJVO fathers, telling lies is A OK in order to make KJVOism work.

Hey Anti-A! Are you against Erasmus since he was a pope loving Roman Catholic? Oh and yes, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic. You are so Anti that I figured you are Anti-RCC also! You seem to be anti-answer and pro-name call. You seem to be very Anti-history as well considering that you post shows that you know very little about the Reformation and bible history. I'm sure that the cultist Wilkinson, Ruckman, and crew have brain washed you very well.

I said that I was done posting in this thread but this is really amusing to read. LOL

No wonder KJVOist are looked upon as unlearned men! They certianly DO NOT KNOW CHURCH history!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
The sites did answered your question. Let it said:

I know what the sites say, but they don't answer the question. If the present incarnation of the KJV is different from the AV1611 (and the sites admit there are differences), which one is the "perfectly preserved, pure word of God?" If it was the 1611, then are you saying the present incarnation is not the "perfectly preserved, pure word of God?" Or, if the present incarnation is correct are you then saying the AV1611 is not the "perfectly preserved, pure word of God?"

You missed again!

There was nothing to miss. You refused to answer, again!

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Hey Anti-A! Are you against Erasmus since he was a pope loving Roman Catholic?

No..I could really care less if he was or not..All I know is that his MSS. and Bibles from them are banned by the RCC.

You are so Anti that I figured you are Anti-RCC also!

Yes I am! As well as Anti-Alexandrian.But since you decided to open up that can of worms,what about Cardinal Martini being behind the mms. underlying the so called "bibles" of today???

And to top that off,none of the mss. that his "eminence" used were banned by the RCC;but in FACT are used by the RCC even until this very day!!! Those mss. are Vaticanus(Rev 17:9) and Sinaiticus(Galatians 4:24,25)!!!

No wonder KJVOist are looked upon as unlearned men! They certianly DO NOT KNOW CHURCH history!

I'm sorry but are blatanly ignorant of Church history!!!

That's the same thing the RCC said about the Waldenses and their like..

Better check your facts before you embarrass yourself any further...

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
But since you decided to open up that can of worms, what about Cardinal Martini being behind the mms. underlying the so called "bibles" of today???

Are you getting your "facts" from Askjo? Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini had nothing to do with the manuscripts underlying any of the modern versions. Cardinal Martini was one of the editors of the United Bible Society's (UBS) Greek New Testament. You do know the difference between a manuscript and a text, don't you?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

You do know the difference between a manuscript and a text, don't you?

Yes I do..

He may not have been in Alexandria with the Philosophers and Gnostics,but he chose their mss. for UBS's Greek text....

 

[robycop3]

KJVOs: Why don't you answer the simple question, "Where was the word of God IN ENGLISH before 1611?"