Askjo, As much as I am absolutely sure that you are sincere in your delusion, please at least try to post something that in some way masquerades as proof.
The fact that you call a fellow Christian a name then go on simply to rest on the authority of nothing but your own unqualified opinion to call him "wrong" and "dishonest" is simply a further proof of the complete futility of your position on versions.
If you don't understand what the man believes then ask or read... disagreeing with you doesn't make him wrong... disagreeing with the facts would but you never cite any.
The KJV, An article by Daniel B. Wallace
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Jun 9, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
-
Askjo said:
I disagree with Daniel's articles. I realize that he is a naturalistic scholar because he denies the Biblical inspiration.
Daniel quoted: the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places.
Biblical inspiration is not limited to KJV inspiration, in English or any other language. -
-
If one believes David Cloud, a proven unreliable source of information on a broad spectrum of topics, one will get a skewed idea of reality.
I'd look for some factual and unbiased sources if it were me. -
-
Kind of reminds me of the stuff that dairy farmers shovel each day. -
And there is this continued lie that doctrines are affected. As many times as this charge has been made, there has been an utter failure to actually show these alleged changes. Why? If this doctrine has been changed, then you should be able to show it. But not one person has managed to show an actual doctrinal change. Telling, isn't it? It should be. -
Actually though Psalm 145:3 didn't say anything. He posted stuff that Cloud said. David Cloud has demonstrated that he is not a trustworthy source for information. In fact, he has demonstrated that he is willing to distort facts or even lie to support his contentions.
Cloud shouldn't be trusted by anyone, even KJVO's, until he repents and apologizes for past behavior. In a way, he is more insidious than Riplinger, Ruckman, Gipp, et al. They are obviously ridiculous. He is far more subtle and sucks in even some folks with a respectable degree of discernment. -
HankD
Page 2 of 2