Reward for KJBOism: Sharp arrows of the Mighty n Coals of Juniper?

Ps 120: 3 What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou
false tongue? 4 Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper.

is the evidence of KJBOists' being given to lying compelling so far?

it's exhausting going over the same false accusations thread after thread--it's almost a game to some--hurl a wild accusation, get exposed, (sometimes retract, sometimes not), think of another wild accusation ... ad nauseum.

perhaps it's time to dig out the biblical protocols ... sharp arrows of the mighty ...

 

o where do i begin?

messages to KJBOs on just 3 pages of 1 thread of this board include:

> No, it is not at all "well known." In fact, all the evidence we have tells us the opposite: that every known Greek, versional, and patristic source from before the 4th C. was NON-Byzantine. Even Chrysostom's text was only 40.5% Byzantine, and he was the first Father to use a Byzantine text.

> I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Both the Tyndale Bible (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1560) were translated from the same basic text as the KJV. And English was as much as "set language" in 1534 and 1560 as it was in 1611.

> Not only is it not fine, it is a lie. We have given proof, time and time again. Your side gives none.

> I am not naturalistic. That is a lie. I am supernaturalistic, moreso that you are. I am firmly committed to truth. And yes, you should always be willing to verify your claims. This "You wouldn't believe it anyway" is usually the cry of someone who cannot show what they are talking about. It is the cry of someone who is dishonest and doesn't want to face that fact.

> Now face the fact and prove that you are not dishonest. We already caught one of your cronies in an out and out lie this morning. As it stands now, you have said enough things that are not true that you have no credibility whatsoever. It is time for you to back up what you say with evidence. Your word is not good enough.

> This is a riot. It shows the absolute dishonesty and fraud yet again of this side. Note the following. Erasmus died in 1536 (for proof see: Erasmus ). How did a man who died in 1536 have access to a version published in 1582??

> It is outright and utter dishonesty to say that he had access to a version that was not published until more than 40 years later. Outright and utter dishonesty.

> But it shows that some people have no regard for the truth. They will say whatever they want becuase their minds are corrupted by false teaching. Is it really too much to ask for simple honesty?? It is from this crowd, as we have seen time and time again.

> I have for the past 7 years or so and what you suggest is not what I have found to be true. Since I don't have formal education on the various facets of this argument, I read and consider arguments based on their alignment with scripture, their documentation, their integrity, and their logical consistency (or lack thereof). When I find someone building on a false premise, I discount their arguments immediately no matter how attractive or reasonable their conclusions sound. That's why I am no longer KJVO.

> You have yet to prove even a single one of them ungodly much less to impugn the whole group. You are bearing false witness by making charges for which you have assumed guilt rather than proven it.

> Which of course is not a fact. Lower textual criticism separated from higher criticism very early on and was a significant dividing line in "The Fundamentals" by Torrey et al.

> As I stated elsewhere, once someone demonstrates that they are operating from false premises, I reject their conclusions regardless of how good they might sound

> You are mistaken about "no bodily resurrection" in the NASB, which is clearly taught in the preceding verse -- ... And you are mistaken about "no believing in Christ" in the NASB, since it is implied in Jn. 6:47 and clearly taught in the preceding verses -- ... So your claim that the NASB "perverts doctrine" is false.


> Look here, another KJV-only "goof....Erasmus couldn't have "sent it back." He never had Vaticanus in his possession. He relied on a correspondent, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, to supply him with readings

> I think you meant to say, you got caught in a very silly lie.

> This is very typical of the shoddy, and oftentimes dishonest approach of the KJVOs. They do not care about facts and truth; they only care about ramrodding their position. This was a fact that was very easy to check. Chances are, you got this "fact" from someone else, and rather than checking out, you simply believed a false teacher. That is how this KJVO blight spreads ... people don't think, they don't study, they just repeat stuff.

> These are lies that keep getting repeated that have been refuted by Ken Barker. People who say this show either their dishonesty or their lack of diligence in study of the issues

> Where?? Many people keep saying this but no one can come up with an instance of it. What a sham ... lots of accusations but no beef ...

> You have listened to men who are saying untrue things.

> Archangel has shown several instances where Sola Scriptura was wrong concerning an MV perverting doctrine.

> This non-sense is probably either made up (a lie) or indiscriminately quoted from someone else who made it up (also a lie).

> Grady is a known liar who has put his lies in print and he contradicts the evidence of the NKJV and the testimony of those who are committed to truth.

> You lie again because there is no NASV> There never was

> Yet another out and out lie. I never said they were the same text. Listen to what I said: From Oct 29 at 9:38 (I think that is the time): The reality that the UBS/NA texts (they are different texts by the way)

what does the bible say abt brothers that walk disorderly, i.e. r blatantly disobedient? what abt "an heretick" who doesn't give a hoot after 2-3 admonitions?