Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

[robycop3]

Anti-Alexandrian:t 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...

Then, by whose authority, other than KJ's, did the AV translators make a new BV different from all those preceding it?

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

And only a CLUELESS idiot would try to answer a straight, simple, direct question with a boatload of spin. At least you DID answer correctly, albeit with some unprovable opinion added.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

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

The question did not read like that....And your feeble attempt at spin-docktoring has been answered many,many times before.

 

[David J]

Well Anti-A then answer it right here. Also tell me why the AV changed some standard readings. Come on now, I have not seen an answer! Go ahead and start typing. You seem to have a lot of time spreading the KJVO disease, now let's see your typing skills at work.

Oh and by the way, it's perfectly fine for Erasmus to be a RC but you stand against RCism? Go figure..lol..a little spin just for fun!

Why is the text put together by a RC so important? Are you saying that this RC was used by God in some special way? Or are you saying that your tradition out weights facts kinda like what the RCC says about scripture. Since you have no scripture to prove KJVOism then you most certainly line up with the RCC in theology.

Anyway,is it A OK for your founding father Benjamin Wilkinson to be a 7 th Day Adventist?

Hey, show me where the perfect word for word bible was before 1611. It can not be the Geneva Bible because it does not line up with the 1611 KJV. Maybe it can't be the 1611 KJV because does not line up with the 1762-1769 KJV. OR MAYBE it's the NKJV! Yes, that might be the perfect word for word preserved bible for the English speaking world!!!! Who knows that "special" preservation that occured in 1611(or was it 1762, or 1769, or 1853) might have occured when the NKJV was put together!

My oh my don't KJVOist love word games and posting insults!

Furthermore KJVO history books are a joke.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Only an idiot would try to trip up someone with such amaturish nonsense...

Methinketh that thou shouldest peek into the looking-glass, O Alex.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
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

The Eclectic Text follows the UBS text. The UBS follows the N/A Text. The N/A Text follows the Nestles Text. The Nestles Text follows the W/H Text. Most modern versions follows them. Cardinal Martini is a Roman Catholic, then ask yourself why modern versions got his Catholic idea? They derived from them for translating from the corrupted Greek Texts to English "modern" bibles. These modern versions follows Catholic's idea from the philosophers in Alexandrian.

What did they do? Violate with 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (KJV)!!!!!! Violate with 2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV)!!!!

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
The Eclectic Text follows the UBS text.

<sigh> Askjo, I am beginning to think you are either a troll just pulling our chains, or you are a kid about 11 years old with serious developmental challenges (that is the new, modern, politically correct term for what we used to call "mentally retarded").

"Eclectic" means "from many sources." The TR is an eclectic text. The KJV is an eclectic translation. UBS is less eclectic than most texts, following, as it does, mostly two texts, Aleph and B.

The UBS follows the N/A Text.

UBS4 and NA27 are the same text except for punctuation, casing, and some differences in spelling. They were published separately because they are intended for different uses. Those different uses necessitated different critical apparatuses. UBS was designed to be used by translators to translate new bibles, and NA was published for scholars and textual critics so it has much more information on textual variants than UBS, although UBS, when it has information, often has more.

The N/A Text follows the Nestles Text.

Duh! The "N" in NA stands for Nestle, as in Eberhard and Erwin Nestle! The "A" stands for "Aland" as in Kurt and Barbara Aland! Eberhard Nestle produced the first truly critical apparatus which was edited and improved by his son Erwin. In the 1950s the Alands got involved as editors and the text became knows as "Nestle/Aland" or NA.

The Nestles Text follows the W/H Text.

Nope. It departs significantly from the text of Westcott and Hort. In fact, the latest UBS/NA text is farther from WH than ever.

Cardinal Martini is a Roman Catholic,

Very good, Askjo! I'll bet that's why they call him "Cardinal!"

 

[Dr. Bob]

skan - be careful not to call anyone names or use words like "developmentally challenged" that would hard to understand . . .

BTW, thanks for the specific answers to help straighten out the confusion over terms like N/A.

 

[Phillip]

I do notice an interesting trend. Many of the KJVo will simply point to a link and say: "The answers are on that page."

It makes me wonder if they can think for themselves or just blindly take the word of somebody like David Cloud?

It seems that they are incapable of even reading the material and providing an answer in their own words. That also makes me wonder if they can understand what they read on the KJVo propaganda pages, or are they simply believing it because they think it is right and say: "Here, take this as the answer to your question---I can't understand it myself (although I believe it wholeheartedly), but it will straighten you non-KJVos out!"

 

[robycop3]

Anti-Alexandrianquoting robycop3)KJVOs: Why don't you answer the simple question, "Where was the word of God IN ENGLISH before 1611?"


The question did not read like that....And your feeble attempt at spin-docktoring has been answered many,many times before.

I asked that question "in English" long before the question in this thread came up. There haven't been any straight answers from any KJVO yet.

 

[gb93433]

You can either take a look at both sides of the fence and decide which is better or you you can be satisfied to know what is only on one side.

 

[Phillip]

Askjo, we may disagree on things, but I appreciate the fact that you ARE providing answers that can be used to debate. Whether or not we agree on the answers or other issues is less of a problem when both sides are willing to at least make an attempt to provide a direct answer to a question.

That is more than I can say for Mr. Anti-A; I do not understand why he refuses to answer a simple question by bouncing all around it.

I agree with David J., why can't you just simply answer the question Anti-A, or if you don't want to, at least point to a thread where you HAVE answered the question?

I am beginning to believe the non-KJVos are right and that maybe you don't have any answers. Prove us wrong----okay?

 

[Trotter]

Don't hold your breath, Phillip. Surely you have been around long enough to know that you can't get answers out of a KJVO! Lots of spin, lots of misdirection, lots of smoke and mirrors...but no answers.

You know, I get so tired of the same canned responses, copied and pasted from the same tired KJVO sites. Hey, can't any of you KJVOnlyists at least think on your own???

I thank God that I was not indoctrinated into the KJVO spiel. I was not raised on any bible version, and have learned to love the many different flavors of God's word. And, you know what, I have never regretted it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Phillip]

I hear you Trotter; I was giving a little credit there when Askjo finally did come across with an answer or two. Not that the answers are new, he did finally state (earlier) which Bibles he felt were the correct Bibles before 1611. Although he was challenged pretty hard on it, I thought I would give him that much credit in hopes that he will continue to be forth-coming.

Anti-A hasn't answered any of the questions put forth to him. I was hoping he might see that Askjo was answering and might try to answer a few difficult questions. I am beginning to think that Anti-A doesn't have any answers or is afraid to post what he does know because deep in his heart, he knows that they are wrong.

I agree with you on not being indoctrinated. I went through a period (about two weeks), when I read my first half way decent KJVo book (I can't remember who it was, but it stuck to what few facts they had instead of fighting) and I actually considered the proposition until it didn't make sense. As I said, it only took about two weeks (about the length of time to read the book) for me to consider the option.

I honestly tried to give the author the benefit of the doubt because this was before I had even HEARD of a KJVo. But, it just didn't hold water. Its not scriptural, nor does it fit with any logical explanation.

The entire fallacy is rooted in these questions that started this thread that cannot be answered. If we could get some real answers, it would be interesting to consider them. I just don't think there ARE any real answers.

It all boils down to what Michelle kept telling us. "Well, the Lord told me that, so you better believe it or I'll be praying that you finally figure it out before its too late." I know she didn't say that exactly, but that is the drift she was giving us. All emotion, no scripture or logic. What little scripture they have (in Psalms) is not understood.

It is sad that people will believe such things not rooted in truth. The sad fact is that the KJVo group I have seen will spend more time fighting an MV than anything else. Besides the fact that they feel that we are all missing the boat of truth.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
UBS4 and NA27

Which is most accurate? UBS1 or UBS2 or UBS3 or UBS4???? NA1 or NA2 or NA3 .... NA15 ... NA20 .... NA26 ... NA27???? Someday they would be UBS25 and NA100.

The "N" in NA stands for Nestle, as in Eberhard and Erwin Nestle! The "A" stands for "Aland" as in Kurt and Barbara Aland! Eberhard Nestle produced the first truly critical apparatus which was edited and improved by his son Erwin. In the 1950s the Alands got involved as editors and the text became knows as "Nestle/Aland" or NA.

I already know what NA is.

Nope. It departs significantly from the text of Westcott and Hort. In fact, the latest UBS/NA text is farther from WH than ever.

Many verses are missing there. SAME verses!!!!

I am beginning to think you are either a troll just pulling our chains, or you are a kid about 11 years old with serious developmental challenges (that is the new, modern, politically correct term for what we used to call "mentally retarded").

You have nasty attitude toward me. You are immature.

"Eclectic" means "from many sources." The TR is an eclectic text. The KJV is an eclectic translation. UBS is less eclectic than most texts, following, as it does, mostly two texts, Aleph and B.

You misunderstand what I talked about the corrupted Greek texts that modern versions are based.

Nope. It departs significantly from the text of Westcott and Hort. In fact, the latest UBS/NA text is farther from WH than ever.

Many missing verses!!!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Askjo, we may disagree on things, but I appreciate the fact that you ARE providing answers that can be used to debate. Whether or not we agree on the answers or other issues is less of a problem when both sides are willing to at least make an attempt to provide a direct answer to a question.

If I say something here, I would see the negative comments -- pointing off. I asked them before. They did not answer my "pointed" questions, but they answered unbelievably and vaguely. Should I answer back to your questions?

If anyone disagree with me, explain something in regard of what I talked about -- no vague answers! When anyone asked questions, I answered to their questions "arguably."

If you want my answers toward your question, I have limited answers or nothing to say due to my limited sources what I have at home. I do not have anything, then I have NOTHING to say. I have small sources, then I answers shortly. I have LOT of sources, then I answer a LOT. If I disagree with you, I sometimes have NOTHING to answer because foolish questions are unneccessary to be answered.

I typed slowly then I prefer to limit my answers. That's why I have small answers oftenly. If I am skillful with my hands on keyboard, I would maybe explain longly.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Which is most accurate? UBS1 or UBS2 or UBS3 or UBS4???? NA1 or NA2 or NA3 .... NA15 ... NA20 .... NA26 ... NA27???? Someday they would be UBS25 and NA100.

Which is more accurate, TR-1516, TR-1519, TR-1522E, TR-1522X, TR-1527, TR-1535, TR-1546, TR-1549, TR-1550, TR-1551, TR-1565, TR-1574, TR-1582, TR-1590, TR-1598, TR-1600, TR-1602, TR-1603, TR-1604, TR-1624, TR-1633, TR-1644, TR-1655, TR-1666, TR-1678, TR-1894, TR-1898, TR-1902? Will they have a TR-100 some day?

Also, which KJV is more accurate, 1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1619, 1629, 1631, 1638, 1653, 1716, 1743, 1762, 1769, 1792, 1795, 1807, 1873, 1925? And will they have a KJV 1982? Oh, wait! They already do! It is called the NKJV!

Many verses are missing there. SAME verses!

Compared to what?

You misunderstand what I talked about the corrupted Greek texts that modern versions are based.

I can only understand you when you make sense. You don't seem to understand what "eclectic" means.

Many missing verses!!!

Compared to what?

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:If I say something here, I would see the negative comments -- pointing off. I asked them before. They did not answer my "pointed" questions, but they answered unbelievably and vaguely. Should I answer back to your questions?

Can't speak for Philip or anyone else, but if I've ever failed to answer any legit question you've asked me, I apologize in advance and ask you to point them out so I can correct my error and answer.

If anyone disagree with me, explain something in regard of what I talked about -- no vague answers! When anyone asked questions, I answered to their questions "arguably."

We've often presented undeniable facts proving the KJVO myth wrong & have been answered with a book of excuses.

If you want my answers toward your question, I have limited answers or nothing to say due to my limited sources what I have at home.

But questions are asked of YOU because of something YOU'VE said.


I do not have anything, then I have NOTHING to say. I have small sources, then I answers shortly. I have LOT of sources, then I answer a LOT.

Seems you have NOTHING when asked to justify the KJVO myth.


If I disagree with you, I sometimes have NOTHING to answer because foolish questions are unneccessary to be answered.

I reckon you deem anything you CAN'T answer as foolish. After all, you DO sometimes need an excuse for being clueless in trying to defend the KJVO myth.

I typed slowly then I prefer to limit my answers. That's why I have small answers oftenly. If I am skillful with my hands on keyboard, I would maybe explain longly.

I reckon it takes more time to invent an answer than it does to "speak" from knowledge. KJVOism is a doctrine invented by man, and requires further invention to stay afloat.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Which is more accurate, TR-1516, TR-1519, TR-1522E, TR-1522X, TR-1527, TR-1535, TR-1546, TR-1549, TR-1550, TR-1551, TR-1565, TR-1574, TR-1582, TR-1590, TR-1598, TR-1600, TR-1602, TR-1603, TR-1604, TR-1624, TR-1633, TR-1644, TR-1655, TR-1666, TR-1678, TR-1894, TR-1898, TR-1902? Will they have a TR-100 some day?

I talked about the UBS. You did NOT answer on this. UBS is NOT TR!!!! One UBS -- updated 4 times!!! One NA updated 27 times!!!

Also, which KJV is more accurate, 1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1619, 1629, 1631, 1638, 1653, 1716, 1743, 1762, 1769, 1792, 1795, 1807, 1873, 1925? And will they have a KJV 1982? Oh, wait! They already do! It is called the NKJV!

The KJV was revised 4 times (first was 1611 and last was 1769). The NKJV was NOT update of the old KJV!!!!

Compared to what?

You know them, don't you? If you are incapable to know what these missing verses are, then you are an unqualified scholar.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I talked about the UBS. You did NOT answer on this. UBS is NOT TR!!!! One UBS -- updated 4 times!!! One NA updated 27 times!

One TR updated 28 times.

The KJV was revised 4 times (first was 1611 and last was 1769.

Oh, really? What about the others I listed? I can show you were they are different from the 1611 and different from each other. If that is not an "update" what is it?

You know them, don't you? If you are incapable to know what these missing verses are, then you are an unqualified scholar.

Duh! Missing compared to what? Why is it you can't seem to understand a simple question?

 

[av1611jim]

My, My ,My,:
(sing-song) my bible's better than yours is, my bible's better than yours, my bible's better cuz' its got kennel ration, my bible's better than yours.
That is what BOTH sides of this thread sound like to me. Here is my stand.
I am KJVO #4, but you know what? I don't care what Bible YOU choose to use, as long as YOU are winning souls for Jesus and not SHOWING OFF HOW SMART YOU ARE/AREN'T by how well you can tell the other side off!
Shame on you both.
Any by-stander on the street would look at this exchange, shake his head and walk away muttering, "If THAT'S christian, you can KEEP it!"
Now, one side says you are propagating a myth, the other says no you are, no you, no you, no you, and on it goes, ad infinitum.
I wonder why this forum even exists. If it were a matter of salvation as in Calvin/Arminius, I could understand but this is nonsense in my opinion. And yes to you fellers who will jump and quote me from other threads, I fell for it a few times myself until God said, "Jim, do you realize how much that kind of endless disputing brings a reproach on my Son, whom you claim died for you?"
All I can say is this.
Do you have a conviction that there is only one pure Bible? Good. Keep it to yourself and go win souls with it.
Do you have a conviction that God can and does use any Bible or even tracts, (which are no Bibles)? Good. Keep it to yourself and go win souls with your many Bibles.
Isn't that the Christian thing to do? All this idiotic bantering and name calling only raises strife and does not help to further the Gospel. And you both, (sides) called each other "idiots".
Again Shame on you. This debate is not healthy. For after all is said and done, each of you will walk away from this thing telling OTHERS how stupid the other one is, but you STILL will not have won this thing nor won a single soul to Jesus this way.
""""Jim gets off his soap box, picks it up, and walks away looking for a lost sinner"""""

Jim