Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by skanwmatos:
You said, regarding the NKJV adding the word "God" to Acts 7:5

Did I said, "God forbid" on this verse? </font>[/QUOTE]No. And neither did I! 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! Your double standard has been exposed! Proverbs 11:1 "A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight."

 

[robycop3]

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)

 

[robycop3]

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!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by robycop3:

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

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

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by David J:
Askjo:

Since the AV1611 and 1762/1769 KJV do not agree do you have the same problems with this as you do with the NKJV not agreeing 100% with the 1762/1769 KJV?

If you are going on a word count then you might should start with the first AV1611 and compare it to the 1762/1769 KJV. Now then keep in mind that if it's ok for the 1762/1769 KJV to "change" words etc... then why complain about the NKJV updated and sticking closer to the TR etc...?

David J.

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

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Askjo:The Old KJV and the New KJV disagree each other 2,000 times! How would you say "SAME" thing?

Same as the KJVO says he uses only the 1611 KJV while quoting from a 1769 edition.

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.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by 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.

Name one and give the verse.

 

[Trotter]

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

 

[David J]

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.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Changing 'he' or 'him' to God, Moses, Jesus, or whomever does not constitute a doctrinal change.

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.

Numbers 1:20 "were able to" is not in any Hebrew manuscript or text and is not in italics in the KJV.

The same is true for verses 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, and 40, "were able to" is not in any Hebrew manuscript or text and is not in italics in the KJV.

And verse 45, "were able to" is not in any Hebrew manuscript or text and is not in italics in the KJV.

And that is just one chapter! It looks like the KJVOs are going to have a lot of trouble explaining this one away!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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

I see the questions still are not answered .

 

[Dr. Bob]

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

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

 

[robycop3]

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.

 

[robycop3]

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?

 

[robycop3]

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!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
Our Educational Minister told that Joke last week in church---- I think you stole it from him.

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.

 

[Phillip]

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

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
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?

But the words "the image of" are in italics in the KJV indicating the translators added the words for clarification. The same is not true in the verses I posted. One of the complaints KJVOs often make against the NKJV is that the NKJV adds words without putting them in italics. I have demonstrated that the KJV does exactly the same thing.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Trotter:
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

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."

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Take away "God" -- you said no doctrine?

Please post the verses from the NKJV which remove "God" from the bible.

Remove "Lord" -- you said no doctrine?

Please post the verses from the NKJV which remove "Lord" from the bible.

Take away "Blood" -- you said no doctrine of Salvation?

Please post the verses from the NKJV which take away the blood of Christ.

Change or add any doctrines -- You denied these doctrines, do you?

Please post where the NKJV denies these doctrines or that anyone on this forum has denied these doctrines.

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

I am no fan of Dan Wallace, but can you show where any doctrine is missing from any modern version used by fundamentalists or evangelicals? Or are you just blowing and blustering again?