King James Version Only...?

[HIM]

I'm not as lenient, having understood the attempted corruptions by the higher critics, and their corrupt Critical Text based on corrupt un-documented Greek manuscripts.

Undocumented Greek text? Why do you say that? Please explain.

 

[HIM]

I have never advocated for King James Only. I’m being blasted on another thread for liking the NKJV and NIV

The Text group they are derived from should of stayed in the waste basket they were taken from. There is a reason they were there. But The NET is not a good translation of even them. It paraphrases too much.

 

[HIM]

Isn’t it great that even though the Trinity is a closed issue on the forum now we can still find things to argue about

Closed issue?

 

[RLT63]

The Text group they are derived from should have stayed in the waste basket they were taken from. There is a reason they were there. But The NET is not a good translation of even them. It paraphrases too much.

I like the notes in the NET full notes edition.

 

[RLT63]

Closed issue?

Yeah. It’s in the forum rules

 

[RLT63]

The Text group they are derived from should of stayed in the waste basket they were taken from. There is a reason they were there. But The NET is not a good translation of even them. It paraphrases too much.

The NKJV is not based on the Critical Text

 

[RLT63]

Wrong. I first got into reading the Bible when my wife gave me this hardcover Devotional Bible NKJV.

It broke up each day of the with the following 5 sections:

1. OT
2. Pslams
3. Proverbs
4. NT
5. Modern application of one of the verses from above.

The modern stories were great. After just a couple of weeks, I realized the NKJV is unreadable. I continued to use the book to guide by reading plan and read the modern application stories. However, as soon as my CEV and NLT translation's arrived, I started reading those immediately.

I can see how you would have trouble with comprehension

 

[HIM]

The NKJV is not based on the Critical Text

They used it.

 

[RLT63]

Yes. Yes, I did direct my question to you.



Denial. How many other translations did you write 46-pages apologizing for?



I’m not judging you, just your idolatry … still haven’t answered my A or B question. This reveals the truth, the truth of your idolatry.

This post really gets under my skin. You accuse me of idolatry despite my praise of newer versions and my rejection of KJV only. You are just like the JWs. You think you are the only one who is right

 

[RLT63]

They used it.

For the footnotes

 

[HIM]

Yeah. It’s in the forum rules

Sad

For the footnotes

Right so thereby placing it as an option to consider. The other issue for some but not for me is the text they used to translate the OT.

 

[RLT63]

Sad

Right so thereby placing it as an option to consider. The other issue for some but not for me is the text they used to translate the OT.

I understand the opposition to the Critical Text but I have no problem with making comparisons

 

[HIM]

I understand the opposition to the Critical Text but I have no problem with making comparisons

Me either. I compare the Byzantine and Alexandrian Text all the time when considering the grammar. But for most it is a stumbling block. They think it does not matter. Either is fine or the Critical Text is better. As was said above. It should have been left in the waste basket it was found in. It was there for a reason.

 

[RLT63]

Me either. I compare the Byzantine and Alexandrian Text all the time when considering the grammar. But for most it is a stumbling block. They think it does not matter. Either is fine or the Critical Text is better. As was said above. It should have been left in the waste basket it was found in. It was there for a reason.

This article admits part of Codex Sinaiticus was found in the trash. What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Wrangler]

You accuse me of idolatry despite my praise of newer versions and my rejection of KJV only.

The proof of your idolatry is in repeatedly not answering my question.

There would be no hesitation among readers of other translations that the answer is not to foist their preferred translation on people over bringing people to Christ. I don't think you'd know what idolatry is if it came up and bit you on your KJV/NKJV preferring behind.

In your many attempts to discredit other translations, you have revealed your profound ignorance of the Bible and the God of the Bible, e.g., God does kill children and babies when it suits him. This notion of doctrinal supremacy over the actual word of God is common among KJV idolators.

You confessed you used to be KJV only. I let you know the shadow of that remains. See above points. There is a rabid Atheist on these boards. Like you, he denies is true nature. He claims to really be merely a skeptic, an agnostic. Clearly, he had recognized it is easy to defend "I don't know" than " X is true." But God taught us it is not what people say that matters. It is by their fruit you shall know them. If this offends you, well, bless your heart.

 

[Wrangler]

the answer is B. Did you get that? The answer is B I haven’t used the ignore feature before but you are making me consider it,

Great! Good job. Good on you.

Why did it take so many promptings before you finally answered?

 

[RLT63]

The proof of your idolatry is in repeatedly not answering my question.

There would be no hesitation among readers of other translations that the answer is not to foist their preferred translation on people over bringing people to Christ. I don't think you'd know what idolatry is if it came up and bit you on your KJV/NKJV preferring behind.

In your many attempts to discredit other translations, you have revealed your profound ignorance of the Bible and the God of the Bible, e.g., God does kill children and babies when it suits him. This notion of doctrinal supremacy over the actual word of God is common among KJV idolators.

You confessed you used to be KJV only. I let you know the shadow of that remains. See above points. There is a rabid Atheist on these boards. Like you, he denies is true nature. He claims to really be merely a skeptic, an agnostic. Clearly, he had recognized it is easy to defend "I don't know" than " X is true." But God taught us it is not what people say that matters. It is by their fruit you shall know them. If this offends you, well, bless your heart.

I answered your question more than once. Take your opinion and shove it up your pompous backside. There is no being civil with you, you don’t respond in kind. I admitted you were right about some of what you said about children being killed but you ignore that and use what suits you. You are repeatedly dishonest in the way you cherry pick posts and twist them to attack those you disagree with. You will use any tactic to try to prove yourself right and you can’t understand there is more than one view that has merit. By their fruit you will know them? You are quoting my post,

 

[RLT63]

Great! Good job. Good on you.

Why did it take so many promptings before you finally answered?

I answered and you ignored it

 

[Wrangler]

I admitted you were right about some of what you said about children being killed but you ignore that and use what suits you.

Methinks you are giving yourself full credit for admitting the undeniable - only after coming to the party of truth, kicking and screaming. First, it was Numbers and a woman having to eat her words, then it was denying David's first son by Bethsheba, then it was denying God's command to kill the Amelakes (sp?), including children and infants.

After all this, you reluctantly admit only David.

What exactly am I ignoring?

You will use any tactic to try to prove yourself right and you can’t understand there is more than one view that has merit.

Projecting. This is precisely the position KJV-only folks have in regards to other translations that have different interpretations; they deny there is more than one view that has merit! Bravo. Well done sir.

I know you claim to no longer be KJV-only. But you are more stubbornly apologizing for the worst translation available in English today more than anyone else on these boards. Doesn't that tell you something? Probably not!

 

[RLT63]

Methinks you are giving yourself full credit for admitting the undeniable - only after coming to the party of truth, kicking and screaming. First, it was Numbers and a woman having to eat her words, then it was denying David's first son by Bethsheba, then it was denying God's command to kill the Amelakes (sp?), including children and infants.

After all this, you reluctantly admit only David.

What exactly am I ignoring?


Projecting. This is precisely the position KJV-only folks have in regards to other translations that have different interpretations; they deny there is more than one view that has merit! Bravo. Well done sir.

I know you claim to no longer be KJV-only. But you are more stubbornly apologizing for the worst translation available in English today more than anyone else on these boards. Doesn't that tell you something? Probably not!

I never denied God’s command to kill all Amekelites. More dishonesty. And you keep trying to link me to King James Onlyism. You must not understand what it is, I’m regularly attacked by people in that camp. For someone who has studied the Bible so much you sure don’t know much about being a Christian. I was correct about Numbers so I don’t know what your point is. The 2011 NIV created the controversy with its translation of Numbers 5:21. Don’t bother responding I’m done with you.