KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnthebaptist

New member
Martainmanhuntr

Now YOU are misrepresenting the facts of textual criticism. Textual Criticism today is called "higher criticism" because scholars today thingk they have divine intuition or something. Their guess is just as good or better than evidence in their opinion--that's "Higher criticism." Most of the their critical apparatus doesn't even have real citations. Back in Erasmus' day it was all evidence--the facts alone.

You need to take a course on Introduction to the New Testament. German Higher Criticism and textual criticism are to different things, Every seminarian knows that.Textual criticism is where they sift the evidience of the manuscripts and compare them to get back to the orginal word or phrase. They are not trying to discredit the Word of God, but through comparing the evidence, getting back to the original words.

German Higher Criticism starts on the premise of unbelief. These folks do not believe the supernatural in the Bible. They do not believe the miracles, they do not believe that God inspired the prophets to write about future events. So they say the prophets couldn't have known those things. So they say these writings had to be written at a later date. So they give later dates to most of the books of the Bible. They also fragment the Old Teatament and say this Chapter was written by the yahwistic writer and this chapter was written by the Elohistic writer and this chapter by the deutoromic writer and this chapter by the Priestly writer. But there premise is based on unbelief.

There are various degrees of this liberal theology that has being taught for the last several years.

Yout question if I am a Jehovah's witness is not worth answering. I will simply say as Bob Harrington
said years ago when some Jehovah witnesses came to his door. He responded, "I am a Jehovah witness also, the saved kind!

God Bless
John
 

Huldrych

New member
Rhetoric vs. Evidence

Rhetoric vs. Evidence

brandplucked said:
Hi Jt, the fact is, you do not believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Bible, so all your talk about "compassion" is a smokescreen for unbelief.
Cry "unbelief" all you want, Will, but the fact remains that you don't have enough evidence to demand belief in the Onlyist hypothesis of preservation, and with it, nothing to show that there is an inerrant Bible, much less prove it to be in the form of the KJV. Every post you have made on this thread so far shouts that Onlyism is mere fantasy.

Psalm 149:19-20 tells us God ONLY gave His words to the nation of Israel. Were they better than other people? No. They were stiffnecked and rebellious, but God gave them His perfect words, and to no one else.
"ONLY"--"And to no one else." Strange then, that you hold to a belief that holds the only perfect words of God to be found in a language Israel did not speak.

The English speaking people are no better than any others, but God knew beforehand how He was going to use English and American missiionaries carrying the King James Bible into other lands, and how the English language would become the universal language of the last centuries.
By the above quote, it sounds as if the whole purpose of missionary activity was to spread the King James Version. I guess, then, when we read about the "Kingdom of God" we need to be seeing "King(James Version)dom of God."

There are native Philipinos, native Chinese, Africans, Indians, and Koreans who are King James only believers. There is a huge Korean church that has translated the KJB into Korean, and there are some translation ministries who are still translating the King James Bible into foreign languages.
King James Onlyism is not "native" to any of these. Look into the history of any of the examples you cited, and somewhere outside influence came into play to ensnare them into Onlyism, whether it be by an Onlyist missionary or an Onlyist church stateside.

As I stated before, God holds us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. God has placed His perfect words into the English language in the King James Bible. That is where they are today and have been for almost 400 years. Other English bible versions have come and gone, but there is only one that remains strong and widely used by thousands upon thousands of Bible believers all over the world.
You still haven't proven them to be perfect. Merely claiming favor by virtue of age does not qualify the KJV as His perfect words. Were that the case, Luther would be considered before the KJV, and the Vulgate above both of them by the widest margin.

Jt, anybody who has brain waves can read through your rhetoric and see that you personally do not believe any Bible or any Text in any language is now the inerrant and complete words of God. That is your position and belief. Just admit it. It's not that hard to do.
The content of my discussions on this thread have presented hard evidence. If anyone is looking for rhetoric, all they have to do is find "brandplucked" under the author's name.

jth
 

Peter A V

New member
Luther Bible and Reformation Bibles

Luther Bible and Reformation Bibles

Huldrych said:
You started out in a huff, then smoothed out, even apologizing. I think that showed Christ.
Whenever I read the Bible for myself or during a service, or getting ready to preach or share myself, I usually use the Luther Bible. I'll give you some background on how I came to use that version.......
I'm also learning Norwegian .... I would love to get hold of an older Norwegian Bible when I get better with the language, and a facsimile of the Christian III Bible (Scriptures of the Danish Reformation) would be a dream to own. I'm waiting for word back from the Danske Bibelselskabet to see if such a thing exists.

As far as English versions go, I don't really read from English Bibles much anymore. When I am preparing something to share, I'll either use the KJV or the Jubilee Bible 2000 (which my missionary friend put together) to read from, but I also have a liking for the Geneva and Tyndale.

..... I'm sorry to end this on the note of that last paragraph, and I hope it doesn't stir up the strife that Peter AV did so well to extinguish. But I've said my piece about my love for the Bible, and my concerns over versions issues, so I'll stop here and let the next person write.

Thanks again for defusing the situation Peter. You have my respect for that.

jth
...............
Great post jth!I love to hear the heart of others and journeies with the LORD.You are in a very unique place in the LORD.May God richly bless you and keep you and make you a blessing.

As far as the KJV thing.Any person can use what they want.All I am saying,is why go with garbage,put out by heretics?
If it isn't KJV,then anything by the same Hebrew and Greek text base is more than fine,in my books.And I have no beef with you,for that.
Peter Fuhrman
 

robycop3

Member
No prob w/personal preference

No prob w/personal preference

Peter A V said:
...............
Great post jth!I love to hear the heart of others and journeies with the LORD.You are in a very unique place in the LORD.May God richly bless you and keep you and make you a blessing.

As far as the KJV thing.Any person can use what they want.All I am saying,is why go with garbage,put out by heretics?
If it isn't KJV,then anything by the same Hebrew and Greek text base is more than fine,in my books.And I have no beef with you,for that.
Peter Fuhrman

And i have no prob with someone's being KJVO by PERSONAL PREFERENCE, but any other reason is incorrect. And something PARTICULARLY wrong is to tell someone using another version that they're using the wrong Bible.
 

Huldrych

New member
Peter A V said:
...............
Great post jth!I love to hear the heart of others and journeies with the LORD.You are in a very unique place in the LORD.May God richly bless you and keep you and make you a blessing.

As far as the KJV thing.Any person can use what they want.All I am saying,is why go with garbage,put out by heretics?
If it isn't KJV,then anything by the same Hebrew and Greek text base is more than fine,in my books.And I have no beef with you,for that.
Peter Fuhrman

Well, I'm happy to have shared that with you, and I'm glad the matter between us has been settled peacefully.

I'll write some more later on. Right now my left knee is killing me (injured it playing soccer last night--I'm not 22 anymore), and I have to set up shop for the day.

jth
 

brandplucked

New member
Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain"

Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain"

Jeremiah 8:8 The pen of the Scribes is in Vain

KJB "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

The meaning of the King James Bible is NOT that the scriptures themselves had been altered by the scribes, but rather that the Scriptures did not profit the people because they were not listening to them nor obeying them. It was not the Scriptures which had been changed or altered, but the people who thought themselves wise even in their rejection of God's word.

Consider the context of verses eight and nine. "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?"

Agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB that the Scriptures had not been altered, but rather written in vain for a disobedient people, are the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Jewish translations of the New Jewish Publication Society, and the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Publishing Company, New York), the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (but not 1960), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

The 1999 Spanish version called Las Sagradas Escrituras also agrees with the King James Bible reading: ¿Cómo decís: Nosotros somos sabios, y la ley de Jehová es con nosotros? Ciertamente, he aquí que en vano se cortó la pluma, por demás fueron los escribas.

Bishops' Bible 1568 "Howe dare ye say then, we are wyse, we haue the lawe of the Lorde among vs? Truely in vayne hath he prepared his penne, and vainely haue the writers written it."

The Geneva Bible 1587 "Howe doe yee say, Wee are wise, and the Lawe of the Lorde is with vs? Loe, certeinly in vaine made hee it, the penne of the scribes is in vaine."

This is much like the situation today in the Bible Version debate. Those who promote the modern versions think God's word has been corrupted by spurious readings, altered by the scribes and parts of it are lost to us. The stated position of all those who are behind such versions as the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard is that the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted or lost in several places. All these versions often reject, depart from, or replace the Hebrew texts with other readings, and often not even in the same places.

Modern bible translators have no sure words of God and deny that God has preserved His words in any Bible version or any text in any language on the earth today. They think themselves wise to decide which are God's words and which are not. They have in fact rejected the word of the LORD in the King James Bible and set themselves up as the final authority. And each and every one of their individual versions differs from those of everyone else.

Compare the comments of a few commentators on this verse, and then take a look at how many modern versions have changed the meaning of this verse from that found in God's true words.

Geneva Bible 1599 with notes.

"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

The law does not profit you neither need it to have been written for all that you have learned by it.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

Possessing the law, on which they prided themselves, the Jews might have become the wisest of nations; but by their neglecting its precepts, the law became given "in vain," as far as they were concerned. . "In vain" copies were multiplied.

Matthew Henry

Lo, certainly in vain made he it; surely never any people had Bibles to so little purpose as they have. They might as well have been without the law, unless they had made a better use of it. God has indeed made it able to make men wise to salvation, but as to them it is made so in vain, for they are never the wiser for it: The pen of the scribes, of those that first wrote the law and of those that now write expositions of it, is in vain. Both the favour of their God and the labour of their scribes are lost upon them; they receive the grace of God therein in vain.

John Wesley " In vain - For any use they made of it; neither need it ever have been copied out by the scribe."

However many popular modern versions have changed the text to mean that the scribes had altered the Scriptures, and implicitly deny God's preservation of His words. If the scribes had messed up the word of God and changed it, how would we ever be able to sort it all out to know what God really said to us? The Lord Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for many things, but never for having changed the words of God into a lie. He constantly referred them to "what is written in the law of the Lord."

KJB

"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

NKJV

"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."

NASB

"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."

NIV

"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

ESV

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."

J.P. Green's Modern KJV - "Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has written falsely."

The Message

"How can you say, "We know the score. We're the proud owners of God's revelation"? Look where it's gotten you--stuck in illusion. Your religion experts have taken you for a ride."

The NET version is most interesting. One one hand a blatant tampering with the text - "those who teach it", and then Daniel Wallace and Co. acknowledge their own tampering in the note.

NET version: "How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the Lord"? The truth is, those who teach it (2) have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean. (3)

Two footnotes of note. Notice how they get close to acknowledging that the Jewish translation (NJPS) gets it right, without pointing out that the KJB has the right text almost 400 years ago!

(2) tn Heb "the scribes." (3) tn Heb "The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie." The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, "Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes," surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn't done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow."

There are now many anti-Christian atheistic or Islamic sites that try to debunk the infallibility of the Bible, and they use Jeremiah 8:8 as it reads in most modern versions to prove that the Bible itself teaches that the Biblical texts have been corrupted.

At this Islamic site they begin their article with these words and a quote from the NIV to prove their point.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sake.htm

“Introduction: We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption!* GOD Almighty Said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' - From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8 - "

At an atheistic site, titled Jesus Never Existed, the guy argues that all bible versions read differently with many additions and omissions and so there is no such thing as an infallible Bible. He uses one of the modern paraphrases of Jeremiah 8:8 to make his point.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

'The Law of God? Look at it, it's a pack of lies from the lying pen of Scribes.' Jeremiah 8:8

This atheist then says: “There are many Christian bibles. Several hundred, in fact . Every group that has ever claimed the title ‘Christian’ has had recourse to its own version of the holy testament...This fine tuning of God’s word, which began at the very inception of Christianity, continues even in our own day. Though this plethora of bibles shares a common core, many contain material omitted by others, and vice versa. Even where the content is ostensibly the same, verses have been removed or added, words transposed, rearranged or rephrased. Evidently, God, as the ultimate ‘author’ is endlessly searching for that fine nuance, that pithy turn of phrase.”

The true Bible, the Authorized King James Holy Bible, never lies and never perverts true doctrine. It does not teach that God's words have been corrupted by lying scribes, as most modern versions do, and Jeremiah 8:8 in the KJB cannot be quoted by the mockers and destroyers of the faith to prove their point that God's words have been tampered with.

Those modern version promoters who continue to tell us all bible versions have the same message are simply blind to the facts.

Will Kinney
 

brandplucked

New member
"science" of textual criticism - the "oldest and the best"

"science" of textual criticism - the "oldest and the best"

Hi John baptist, you and I have talked before, so we know where each of us stands on the Bible version issue. The so called "science of textual criticism" is a complete joke. If you would take the time to go to my site and read, I have a whole section about this "science" with many examples of what they are doing in the modern versions. The fact is, none of them believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God. Their own Greek texts continue to change every few years and there is no logic or reason to their so called science. It is Hocus Pocus and pure fantasy.

A few here have posted about the "newest discoveries" of "the oldest and the best manuscripts", which form the basis of most modern versions like the nasb, niv, esv. The nkjv for the most part (but not always) follows the same texts as those of the King James Bible, but often has a completely different meaning even when translating the same texts. It is just another bogus bible, but not as bad as the niv, nasb.

Here are some undeniable facts about these two "oldest and best" texts that the modern versions use. Some here may be interested in these facts, and others really don't care to know about the true nature of these "latest findings". But for those who do care about the true words of God, here is some useful information.

The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-

Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

Matthew 6:13 What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and the NIV omits them while the NASB puts them in brackets.

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense.

Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This reading of both Aleph and B has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.

This reading also has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".

Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.

Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

Mark 6:22 "And when the daughter of Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod..." both Aleph and B read, "And when HIS daugher Herodias came in and danced", thus making Herodias the daughter of Herod.

Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea.

Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face." Here, B reads 72 sent and so do the NIV, ESV but Aleph reads 70, and so do the RSV, NRSV, and NASB.

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Sinaiticus joins the KJB reading with, "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version, NIV, but B says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ESV, thus making our Lord a liar.

Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

John 17:15 "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

I Corinthians 13:3 Instead of reading, "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing", both Aleph and B read: "and though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST". The NRSV actually adopted this reading, but the RSV, and the new ESV went back to "to be burned".

I Corinthians 13:5 ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51 "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55 "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children". "But we were BABIES among you." according to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The older Nestle-Aland text read "gentle among you" but the newer Nestle-Aland, UBS texts have now adopted the reading of "we were infants among you".

2 Peter 3:10 . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND". The old RSV stayed with the reading of "shall be burned up" and does the NASB, but the NIV, ESV say the works "shall be exposed" or "shall be discovered".

Revelation The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney
 

MartianManhuntr

New member
Johnthebaptist said:
You need to take a course on Introduction to the New Testament. German Higher Criticism and textual criticism are to different things...German Higher Criticism starts on the premise of unbelief.

You're as wrong as can be, as always. Does Textual Criticism today NOT start on the premise of unbelief? Why would you employ Textual Criticism if you believed you had the word of God? Why would you employ Textual Criticism if you didn't think that God failed to preserve his word? It is you who need to learn whereof you speak.
 

Peter A V

New member
Which Version?

Which Version?

robycop3 said:
And i have no prob with someone's being KJVO by PERSONAL PREFERENCE, but any other reason is incorrect. And something PARTICULARLY wrong is to tell someone using another version that they're using the wrong Bible.
Which Version do you mean?
 

Johnthebaptist

New member
MartianManhuntr said:
You're as wrong as can be, as always. Does Textual Criticism today NOT start on the premise of unbelief? Why would you employ Textual Criticism if you believed you had the word of God? Why would you employ Textual Criticism if you didn't think that God failed to preserve his word? It is you who need to learn whereof you speak.

KJV Only, KJV Only, ignorance is bliss! :bang:
 

Johnthebaptist

New member
brandplucked said:
Hi John baptist, you and I have talked before, so we know where each of us stands on the Bible version issue. The so called "science of textual criticism" is a complete joke. If you would take the time to go to my site and read, I have a whole section about this "science" with many examples of what they are doing in the modern versions. The fact is, none of them believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God. Their own Greek texts continue to change every few years and there is no logic or reason to their so called science. It is Hocus Pocus and pure fantasy.

A few here have posted about the "newest discoveries" of "the oldest and the best manuscripts", which form the basis of most modern versions like the nasb, niv, esv. The nkjv for the most part (but not always) follows the same texts as those of the King James Bible, but often has a completely different meaning even when translating the same texts. It is just another bogus bible, but not as bad as the niv, nasb.

Here are some undeniable facts about these two "oldest and best" texts that the modern versions use. Some here may be interested in these facts, and others really don't care to know about the true nature of these "latest findings". But for those who do care about the true words of God, here is some useful information.

The character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts-

Most of the over 5000 New Testament differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists undeniable facts about what these two manuscripts say.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, afecting 2640 words."

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of many examples showing just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Aleph or B, yet the modern versions follow no discernable or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32; 17:35; John 9:38; 16:15; 21:25; and I Corinthians 2:15 and 13:2.

VATICANUS (B) omits Matthew 12:47 and Luke 23:17 while Sinaiticus retains them. Luke 23:17, "For of necessity he must release one onto them at the feast", is omitted in B, the NASB, and NIV, yet it is in Sinaticus and the majority of all Greek texts. Yet B omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaticus and this time kept in the NASB and NIV. Go figure.

In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

Matthew 6:13 What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and the NIV omits them while the NASB puts them in brackets.

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense.

Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This reading of both Aleph and B has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.

This reading also has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".

Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.

Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

Mark 6:22 "And when the daughter of Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod..." both Aleph and B read, "And when HIS daugher Herodias came in and danced", thus making Herodias the daughter of Herod.

Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea.

Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face." Here, B reads 72 sent and so do the NIV, ESV but Aleph reads 70, and so do the RSV, NRSV, and NASB.

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Sinaiticus joins the KJB reading with, "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version, NIV, but B says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ESV, thus making our Lord a liar.

Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

John 17:15 "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

I Corinthians 13:3 Instead of reading, "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing", both Aleph and B read: "and though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST". The NRSV actually adopted this reading, but the RSV, and the new ESV went back to "to be burned".

I Corinthians 13:5 ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51 "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55 "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children". "But we were BABIES among you." according to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The older Nestle-Aland text read "gentle among you" but the newer Nestle-Aland, UBS texts have now adopted the reading of "we were infants among you".

2 Peter 3:10 . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND". The old RSV stayed with the reading of "shall be burned up" and does the NASB, but the NIV, ESV say the works "shall be exposed" or "shall be discovered".

Revelation The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

Matt. 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" This verse ends with the Word "evil" in Alpeh, B, D, Z, 0170, 205 , 547 and in many Latin translations and many fathers. The absence of this phrase in early and important represenatives of the Alpeh, B, the Western D, and most of the old latin, and the pre-Caesarean text as well as early patristic commentaries on the Lord's prayer, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian impliesthat an ascription, usually in a threefold form was composed on he basis of 1 Chr 29:11-13 in order to adapt the prayer for liturgicl use in the early church. Which clearly shows it was added at a later time. There is also a number of variants with the longer ending.

Mark 1:2 "As it is written in the prophets" The Phrase "It is written in Isaiah the prophet" was a common form of citation of two different Old Testament prophets placed under the name of the more important of the two prophets. This was a common way of writing in the 1st Century.

More Later

God Bless
John
 

Johnthebaptist

New member
Brandplucked

Mark 6:22 "And when the daughter of Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod..." both Aleph and B read, "And when HIS daugher Herodias came in and danced", thus making Herodias the daughter of Herod.

Here is what A.T. Robertson says: " Mar 6:22 -
The daughter of Herodias herself (tēs thugatros autēs Hērōidiados). Genitive absolute again. Some ancient manuscripts read autou (his, referring to Herod Antipas. So Westcott and Hort) instead of autēs (herself). In that case the daughter of Herodias would also have the name Herodias as well as Salome, the name commonly given her. That is quite possible in itself. It was toward the close of the banquet, when all had partaken freely of the wine, that Herodias made her daughter come in and dance (eiselthousēs kai orchēsamenēs) in the midst (Matthew). “Such dancing was an almost unprecedented thing for women of rank, or even respectability. It was mimetic and licentious, and performed by professionals” (Gould). Herodias stooped thus low to degrade her own daughter like a common hetaira in order to carry out her set purpose against John." (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)
The ASV, NASV, ISV, NKJV use herself.

Luke1:26, 10:1, It is common knowledge that you have variations in the copies of manuscripts we have. There are variations in the Byzantine manuscripts also in various places.

ohn 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast. Sinaiticus joins the KJB reading with, "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version, NIV, but B says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ESV, thus making our Lord a liar

" I go not up yet (egō oupō anabainō). So Westcott and Hort after B W L (Neutral) while ou (not) is read by Aleph D, African Latin, Vulgate, Coptic (Western). Some of the early Greek Fathers were puzzled over the reading ouk (I go not up) as contradictory to Joh_7:10 wherein it is stated that Jesus did go up. Almost certainly ouk (not) is correct and is not really contradictory when one notes in Joh_7:10 that the manner of Christ’s going up is precisely the opposite of the advice of the brothers in Joh_7:3, Joh_7:4. “Not yet” (oupō) is genuine before “fulfilled” (peplērōtai, perfect passive indicative of plēroō). One may think, if he will, that Jesus changed his plans after these words, but that is unnecessary. He simply refused to fall in with his brothers’ sneering proposal for a grand Messianic procession with the caravan on the way to the feast. He will do that on the journey to the last passover." (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)

More later
 

Johnthebaptist

New member
brandplucked

What it boils down too, is that if it goes contrary to the KJV it must be wrong or error. But on closer scrutinizing the accertians of the KJV Only folks do not hold up.

God Bless
John
 

Huldrych

New member
Some more thoughts for Peter AV

Some more thoughts for Peter AV

Peter A V said:
As far as the KJV thing.Any person can use what they want.All I am saying,is why go with garbage,put out by heretics?

I have mixed feelings about Alexandrian-influenced Bibles. On the one hand, when compared to traditional texts, they seem to be lacking in some places. Giving the relatively few number of them greater weight than traditional mss witnesses is a little on the disproportionate side, especially given that you find some patristic quotes that favor traditional readings. The more I read and reflect on the matter, the more I am convinced for myself that Byzantine-based Bibles are the way to go. But I won't press that issue unless someone really wants to know what I think about it. Their walk with God is more important than the Bible they read.

But I wouldn't go so far as to call them heretical, or garbage, or say that God is unable to bless a church or individuals that use them. Now, if a version has been translated for the express purpose of fitting into a certain theological or ideological slant (say, the NWT or the Inclusive Language Version or Rosenberg's nazified bible), that's a different story (for this reason, I tend to hold the KJV in slightly lesser regard than most Reformation Bibles, since it was commissioned with certain political and high church goals in mind). But most of what I hear from the Onlyist camp about these Bibles leading to heresy tends to be hype and fearmongering. I've seen quite the contrary in churches that use primarily the NIV and NASB. But I think the level of life in such churches has more to do with the church's desire for God than the text they read from.

jth
 

robycop3

Member
[
You still have no inerrant Bible.

Your fave response to those who don't subscribe to your KJVO myth.

Instead, you recommended two versions, Luther's German and the Spanish Biblia de las Americas. Do these two versions always agree in the underlying texts or the resultant meanings found even when the texts do agree? Of course not.

Does the KJV always agree with itself ? of course not.

Jt, You do not believe The Bible (any Bible) is now today the complete, inerrant and infallible words of God.

Actually, he's on a LOT firmer foundation than YOU are, will; JTH has presented FACTS while,YOU'VE presented guesswork and opinion.


All you have are your own personal preferences. I am not disputing the fact that the gospel is found in even the worst of versions out there, and that God can use them. He does. The issue is: Has God kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words in a Book here on this earth. Most Christians right here on this site, including you, do not believe He did.

While YOU'RE just GUESSING which one it could be.


The German bible? Well, Luther's version was a lot better than versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman stuff, but it was not the inerrant words of God. God sees the end from the beginning. God did not use the German bible to spread the gospel to a multitude of nations in the modern missionary movement. He used English and the Greek and Hebrew texts of the English King James Bible.

And now, as communication is so much easier, according to GOD'S will, He uses many languages and Bible versions.

German is not even close to being the universal language of today, and Germany is presently a spiritual wasteland. The German language became the language of the Skeptics, the Textual Critics, and the Apostates. Sorry, Jt, but you are riding the wrong bus.

While YOU'RE trying to ride a garbage scow UP the creek, just GUESSING where it may land. You don't give GOD credit for what He's done. This world is NOT limited to our English-using peoples...Jesus died for the Chinese as well as us. You're so deeply entrenched in the mire of the false KJVO doctrine that you can no longer see reality.

Every time someone like you posts such propaganda, someone like me will be there to disprove it.
 

robycop3

Member
Brandplucked: You do not believe The Bible IS now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure word of God in any language in any Book here on this earth today. This is the whole point of the topic of "Bob Enyart does not believe the Bible is inerrant."

Will K.

ACTUALLY, the whole point is that Pastor Enyart doesn't believe your KJVO garbage, so you start up yoiur usual "You have no inerrant Bible" horse stuff.

You just don't get it. Will...THAT KJVO BUNK IS A BIG FAT SET OF LIES! We have presented PROOF for that statement, while you & the other KJVO can't even get past the basic and cardinal problem with the whole KJVO myth...TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even from the KJV itself.
 

robycop3

Member
Dread Helm said:
So you really don't want to talk about Bob Enyart, you want to talk about KJV-only.


I've been dealing with Will on these boards for years. We could be talking about the weather & SOL he'll start tossing plugs for his KJVO nonsense.
 

robycop3

Member
Huldrych, we''ve had many a discussion on many a board. Have you EVER seen any KJVO deal with their myth's lack of Scriptural support? Have you EVER seen them come up with anything that disproves the SMALLEST part of our stated origins of the modern KJVO myth...that it began in 1930 with the release of Dr. Wilkinson's book?

I ceased trying to reason with'em long ago. I now simply prove their myth wrong on these various boards for the sake of newer Christians before they get swallowed up in the KJVO cesspool, or lose faith in the reliability of their Bibles, even if it's the KJV, due to their finding out that THEY'VE BEEN DECEIVED by the KJVOs' fairy tales.

Will reminds me of an old man I useta transport in an ambulance back & forth from his rest home to his dr's ofc. I asked him about the "good ole days" & he told me what a misconception that was. He grew up in town during horse-and-buggy days, & he said that the flies were a constant nuisance. He said that on his first childhood trip to the country, he noticed that the air was somewhat fresher, but for awhile he couldn't quit figure out why. Then, it dawned on him...THE ODOR OF THE HORSE DROPPINGS WAS MISSING! He'd smelt it so long he thought it was a natural scent that belonged there.
Well, pore ole Will & many other KJVOs have smelled the foul odor of their false doctrine so long that they believe it actually BELONGS THERE. Actually, it belongs with those horse by-products; but at least the horse material can be used for fertilizer, while the KJVO myth is just another pollutant.
 

SteveG.

New member
The KJV makes for a terribly awkward read. To most people, it is difficult to understand due to the
archaic terminology. I am familiar with most popular versions and have concluded that the KJV no longer serves a useful purpose and is best left on the shelf. None of the most popular, newer versions, e.g. the NIV does any violence to any core Christian doctrine and is far better for daily reading and study for the "average" reader. The whole KJV-only position is unnecessary, destructive,
and a huge time waster. We have much bigger fish to fry and we're burnin' daylight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top