Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

Philip:Our Educational Minister told that Joke last week in church---- I think you stole it from him.

Actually, I saw it about 6 or 7 years ago on a TV show.

I saw "The KJV is the SCUBA Bible-Divers weights" on some long-forgotten website in the '90s.

Maybe your EM stole it from one of my old posts in a forum long ago & far away?!?

Tell him not to worry-I wouldn't sue a fellow BBIC.(LOL)

 

Skanwmatosto Askjo) I am asking you to show me the word "God" in the Hebrew or Greek. You bluster and blow because YOU CAN'T DO IT!

Skan, I've asked HUNDREDS of KJVOs that VERY SAME QUESTION, and NOT ONE has ever given a plausible answer nor admitted he/she was wrong or had been using a double standard.

I know it gets old repeating the same things over and over to such stubborn, unlearned people, but I remember that we don't know when a new Christian, a lost person seeking Christ, or one not knowledgeable about BVs - or a KJVO actually beginning to see through the falsehoods of the KJVO myth may read what we write. It's for THEIR sake that I keep plugging away at the man-made KJVO myth. I hope YOU stick with it also!

 

Sue him, I don't care. I've got a lawyer who would just love to take the case.

 

The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines. The NKJV does that.

 

The Old KJV and the 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines. The Old KJV and 1982 KJV are not same because the 1982 KJV affects any doctrines.

 

Yeah, I'd like to see that myself.

Changing 'he' or 'him' to God, Moses, Jesus, or whomever does not constitute a doctrinal change.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Askjo,
Please give me the doctrines that the NKJV changed in FULL context. I guess it's kinda like the NIV taking out the blood? I would love to see this list where the NKJV attacks doctrine. No list means no truth in your statements, sorry but that is the way that I see it.

Actually the KJV did change one doctrine:

"14. Thou fhalt commit adultry" a.k.a The Wicked Bible!

LOL, speaking of printing blunders that seemed to be a problem for the perfect preserved text. Seems like if the KJV was to be perfect then the printers would have gotten some divine protection as well.(I thought I would point this out just for fun!)

David J.

 

Thought I'd pop back in, hadn't been here in a few days.

I see the questions still are not answered .

 

Askjo:The Old KJV and the 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines. The Old KJV and 1982 KJV are not same because the 1982 KJV affects any doctrines.

Examples of doctrinal changes, please?

And BTW, the NKJV is not the KJV. It's a newer translation.

 

Skanwmatos:I agree. If adding words to the KJV which are not in the Hebrew or Greek is "changing doctrine" then the KJV "changes doctrine" more than any other bible!

Numbers 1:3 "are able to" is not in any Hebrew manuscript or text and is not in italics in the KJV........

Shoot, they aint never got past "the image of" in Romans 11:4 yet, after all these years! Do ya really expect'em to do any better with HEBREW?

 

Christ4Kildare:I see the questions still are not answered

If you're waiting for any KJVO to give a direct answer to any simple, basic question, you're in for a LO-O-O-O-ng wait! I've been waiting for 20 years!

 

Let me remind you that I send a humor email to 5,000 of my closest friends every day! Methinks he might be on my list!!

Divers lust = mermaids, of course </font>[/QUOTE]We have a good lawyer that attends my church, he would take THAT lawsuit for free.

 

....not that we're tired of the guys jokes or anything.

 

Take away "God" -- you said no doctrine? Remove "Lord" -- you said no doctrine? Take away "Blood" -- you said no doctrine of Salvation? Change or add any doctrines -- You denied these doctrines, do you?

You sound like that "Daniel Wallace denied that doctrine is affected in modern versions."