Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

[David J]

No one wants to play your Alexadrian games..You have no final authority and you want others to sink to your level..Get a life!!

Typical KJVO response. No time to answer hard questions but all the time in the world to spread KJVOism...sigh!

What authority do KJVOist like Riplinger,Ruckman, Gipp, Cloud, etc.. use to call my NASB a perverted bible? Furthermore on what authority does KJVOism rest upon? Apparently there is no final authority in the KJVO camp since they can not answer these hard questions. I don't expect any answers simply because KJVOist can not answer without double standards.

One question that I would like to add is which KJV is the final authority?

 

[gb93433]

I took a seminary course on Satanism and the occult. That class included the new age. I have read several books on the new age and still cannot figure out why Riplinger labels the MV's as from the new age. I still have yet to hear any reasons tying the MV's to the new age. They state their opinion, but when asked have no answers. From what I have seen they are nothing more than liars. With no answers their words are without substance.

Anybody have any reasons to support tying the MV's to the New Age?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I took a seminary course on Satanism and the occult. That class included the new age. I have read several books on the new age and still cannot figure out why Riplinger labels the MV's as from the new age. I still have yet to hear any reasons tying the MV's to the new age. They state their opinion, but when asked have no answers. From what I have seen they are nothing more than liars. With no answers their words are without substance.

Anybody have any reasons to support tying the MV's to the New Age?

Interesting.
I listened to one sermon from my
former pastor about New Age. I know more
than Doctor Riplinger, Secretary to God,
about the subject of New Age.

Brother gb93433: recommend you learn how
to spell "non sequitor" immediately and
without delay. I predict You will be using the
term soon.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by gb93433:
What did they say that was wrong and that you would agree with Riplinger on?

What are your thoughts about Gail Riplinger's substance, if you call it that?

What you wrote earlier is nothing of substance. Give me the entire quote in its context. I hope you are not being like Riplinger and trying to build a case based on quotes out of context and prooftexting. You noticed that several on the panel accused her of not telling the truth.

I am NOT a Riplingerite!!!!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:

Brother gb93433: recommend you learn how
to spell "non sequitor" immediately and
without delay. I predict You will be using the
term soon.

[/QB]

It would probably save me a lot of time.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Slambo:
No one wants to play your Alexadrian games..You have no final authority and you want others to sink to your level..Get a life!!

Agree!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
What did they say that was wrong and that you would agree with Riplinger on?

I am NOT a Riplingerite!!!!

</font>[/QUOTE]What did they say that you would disagree with?

 

[Askjo]

Skan asked: From which Greek text is the NKJV New Testament text translated?

Pastor Bob answered: It is basically the same text as the King James Version. It is the Greek text of Erasmus as popularized and slightly modified by Stephanus and Beza.

Skan said: Yep. Not the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus.

Skan, you contradict yourself! You lie again! Go to look at the website where I found. Click here: The Nkjv Greek-english Interlinear New Testament

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Skan asked: From which Greek text is the NKJV New Testament text translated?

Pastor Bob answered: It is basically the same text as the King James Version. It is the Greek text of Erasmus as popularized and slightly modified by Stephanus and Beza.

Skan said: Yep. Not the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus.

Skan, you contradict yourself! You lie again! Go to look at the website where I found. Click here: The Nkjv Greek-english Interlinear New Testament

So, you take the word of some unlearned advertisers and editorialists over the NKJV translators themselves. Sorry, but I'll believe the primary sources over your secondary sources anytime.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Nope. The KJV does not translate the word twice in the NT. Hebrews 5:11 is one of those times.

I guess I'm missing something here. As far as I can see, the KJV does translate logos in Hebrews 5:11.

Heb 5:11 Of &lt;peri&gt; whom &lt;hos&gt; we &lt;hemin&gt; have &lt;logos&gt; many things &lt;polus&gt; to say &lt;logos&gt;, and &lt;kai&gt; hard &lt;dusermeneutos&gt; to be uttered &lt;lego&gt;, seeing &lt;epei&gt; ye are &lt;ginomai&gt; dull &lt;nothros&gt; of hearing &lt;akoe&gt;.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Skan is correct on the Heb 5:11. Pastor Bob, where is "logos" translated? Even in your diagram the phrase "the word" (logos) is missing.

A literal Greek-to-English would be

"Concerning &lt;peri&gt;
"whom" &lt;ou&gt; (Melchi-zedek from previous verse)
"our word" &lt;ho logos&gt;
"is" [understood verb]
"much" &lt;polus&gt;
"and" &lt;kai&gt;
"difficult in interpretation" &lt;dusepmaneutos&gt;
"to speak" &lt;legein&gt;

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Skan asked: From which Greek text is the NKJV New Testament text translated?

Pastor Bob answered: It is basically the same text as the King James Version. It is the Greek text of Erasmus as popularized and slightly modified by Stephanus and Beza.

Skan said: Yep. Not the Majority Text. The Textus Receptus.

Skan, you contradict yourself! You lie again! Go to look at the website where I found. Click here: The Nkjv Greek-english Interlinear New Testament

I thought Farstad mentioned on the Ankerberg show that the NKJV was translated from the same text as the KJV, the TR.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Skan, you contradict yourself! You lie again! Go to look at the website where I found.

No matter how many times you tell the same lie, it will never be true. "The editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament." You can lie, and lie, and lie, and lie but the fact remains the same. The NKJV is based on the traditional text, the Textus Receptus.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
No matter how many times you tell the same lie, it will never be true. "The editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament." You can lie, and lie, and lie, and lie but the fact remains the same. The NKJV is based on the traditional text, the Textus Receptus.

Amen, Brother Skanwmatos -- Preach it!

I love this forum and have found no problems,
but rather christian unity and love
of and for one another! Certainly a pillar
of this forum is our dear Brother Skanwmatos.
May all God's best blessing full and rich
be unto Brother Skanwmatos this day,
and unto his family and unto his ministry. Amen.

 

[robycop3]

Slambo:No one wants to play your Alexadrian games..You have no final authority and you want others to sink to your level..Get a life!!

Have you been reading the hooey of another KJVO member of this group and are now parroting one of his pet chants?

We don't doubt WHO your final authority is-JESUS CHRIST, same as He is OUR final authority. What we reject is WHAT you say your final authority is-ONLY the KJV, and none other, and that you say we who use other versions along w/the KJV have no final authority. This statement is based upon utter nonsense, not Scripture, and has been PROVEN to be a LIE.

For the final WRITTEN authority to be ONLY the KJV, we must have a directive whom "THE" Final Authority, JESUS. The "who" is always greater than the "what", and here JESUS is the "who" & the KJV is the "what". Please provide us with SCRIPTURE telling us to use the KJV only, or be proven wrong.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
No matter how many times you tell the same lie, it will never be true. "The editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament." You can lie, and lie, and lie, and lie but the fact remains the same. The NKJV is based on the traditional text, the Textus Receptus.

Agree with this website where I found?

"The first Greek Interlinear New Testament to feature the New King James Version along with a word-for-word English translation of the Majority Text."

 

[skanwmatos]

Because somebody published an interliner which is different from the text used by the NKJV translators does not make that text the text they followed in their translation!

I have an interlinear, "The Interlinear Greek - English New Testament" by Alfred Marshall. The title page reads, "The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation . . . also a marginal text of The Authorized Version of King James."

Now, Askjo, are you dumb enough to say the KJV is translated from the Nestles Text because somebody published an interlinear that is KJV and the Nestles Text? Well, if not, how can you be dumb enough to claim that just because somebody published an interlinear with the Majority text beside the NKJV text that it proves something which you know is a lie?

I have posted the quote, word for word, from the Preface to the NKJV which says they followed the traditional text. Why do you keep telling the same lie over and over and over again even after you have been exposed as a liar and everybody on the forum knows you are lying?

 

[Lacy Evans]

This sounds fun!

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
1. Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

1. Where is the word of God now?

2. What Hebrew word is translated "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 in the KJV and is the Hebrew singular, dual, or plural?

2. What does the original autograph say? That's your standard you bad old Autographadolater. What does it say? Get me a labrador and I'll retrieve it?

3. If the NKJV is wrong to not translate "logos" in Matthew 5:37 is the KJV equally wrong for not translating "logos" in Hebrews 5:11?

No. (And by the way a whale is a fish!)

4. From which Greek text is the NKJV New Testament text translated??

I have a Illongo New Testament translated directly from the KJV. It is pretty "reliable". If there is a question, defer to the KJV.

5. If the KJV has not been changed since 1611, other than to correct printer's errors and typos, why does Genesis 8:13 read "one" in the 1611 and "first" in the 1769? Or change "fourescore yeere" to "eightieth year?" Or change "God" to "LORD" in 2 Chronicles 28:11? Or "children" to "men" in Ezra 2:22? Or "God" to "LORD" in Isaiah 49:13? Or change "amongst" to "among" 36 times? Or "Apollo" to "Apollos" twice? Or "lift" to "lifted" 50 times? And "hand" to "hands" twice, and "hands" to "hand" once? And "helps in governments" to "helps, governments" in 1 Corinthians 12:28? And "the Lord" to "his Lord" in John 15:20? Or "the Lord" to "our Lord" in 2 Thess 2:14?

Are you finished? Oh yeah, you just about are! Now let's do the changes between the 1769 and the NIV? Hey Mr Moderator, just how much space does this web site have anyway?

Any KJVOs what to give it a try? Time to put up or shut up!

It's time to stop building straw men for us to whack at while you sit back and smugly congratulate yourself for your wit.

Love lacy

PS Dd I answer your questions? They were rhetorical right? I could have sworn they were rhetorical.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Because somebody published an interliner which is different from the text used by the NKJV translators does not make that text the text they followed in their translation!

I have an interlinear, "The Interlinear Greek - English New Testament" by Alfred Marshall. The title page reads, "The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation . . . also a marginal text of The Authorized Version of King James."

Now, Askjo, are you dumb enough to say the KJV is translated from the Nestles Text because somebody published an interlinear that is KJV and the Nestles Text? Well, if not, how can you be dumb enough to claim that just because somebody published an interlinear with the Majority text beside the NKJV text that it proves something which you know is a lie?

I have posted the quote, word for word, from the Preface to the NKJV which says they followed the traditional text. Why do you keep telling the same lie over and over and over again even after you have been exposed as a liar and everybody on the forum knows you are lying?

If you believe that the NKJV was based on the TR, it is a critical edition TR.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
This sounds fun! </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by skanwmatos:
1. Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

1. Where is the word of God now?</font>[/QUOTE]Lacy can't answer question #1.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2. What Hebrew word is translated "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 in the KJV and is the Hebrew singular, dual, or plural?

2. What does the original autograph say? That's your standard you bad old Autographadolater. What does it say? Get me a labrador and I'll retrieve it?</font>[/QUOTE]Lacy can't answer question #2.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />3. If the NKJV is wrong to not translate "logos" in Matthew 5:37 is the KJV equally wrong for not translating "logos" in Hebrews 5:11?

No. (And by the way a whale is a fish!)</font>[/QUOTE]Lacy finally answers a question, but his answer is so ambivalent as to be meaningless. He seems to have asserted the old "KJVO Double Standard." The NKJV is wrong for doing exactly the same thing the KJV does!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />4. From which Greek text is the NKJV New Testament text translated??

I have a Illongo New Testament translated directly from the KJV. It is pretty "reliable". If there is a question, defer to the KJV.</font>[/QUOTE]Lacy can't answer question #4.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />5. If the KJV has not been changed since 1611, other than to correct printer's errors and typos, why does Genesis 8:13 read "one" in the 1611 and "first" in the 1769? Or change "fourescore yeere" to "eightieth year?" Or change "God" to "LORD" in 2 Chronicles 28:11? Or "children" to "men" in Ezra 2:22? Or "God" to "LORD" in Isaiah 49:13? Or change "amongst" to "among" 36 times? Or "Apollo" to "Apollos" twice? Or "lift" to "lifted" 50 times? And "hand" to "hands" twice, and "hands" to "hand" once? And "helps in governments" to "helps, governments" in 1 Corinthians 12:28? And "the Lord" to "his Lord" in John 15:20? Or "the Lord" to "our Lord" in 2 Thess 2:14?

Are you finished? Oh yeah, you just about are! Now let's do the changes between the 1769 and the NIV? Hey Mr Moderator, just how much space does this web site have anyway?</font>[/QUOTE]Lacy can't answer question #5.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Any KJVOs what to give it a try? Time to put up or shut up!

It's time to stop building straw men for us to whack at while you sit back and smugly congratulate yourself for your wit.</font>[/QUOTE]Lacy engages in the tired old KJVO double standard. Any question he can't answer is a "straw man." It is interesting that he seems to believe his position is so weak that even a straw man can demolish it!

PS Dd I answer your questions?

No.

They were rhetorical right?

No. You not only can't answer the questions, you don't know what rhetorical means or you are incapbable of recognizing a rhetorical question. Typical KJVO.

I could have sworn they were rhetorical.

I am not surprised. You can't answer simple questions so you bluster and blow, huff and puff, knowing that even the straw man can blow your house down!