It is so easy to flood the opposition with "information."
Yeah right you have been involved in this discussion since you interjected your baseless claims into my discussion with Dean.
Now all ofg a sudden you are concerned with the flood of "info"?
When will you post any info?
Of course you continue to AVOID the issues below.
Nothing new here.
Maybe the Bishop needs to STUDY the issue before he places his foot in his mouth
Then at least you could come up with some "info"
You think the KJV translators were inspired -- or are you now saying they were not - that the KJV came our way via the same scholarly discovery process that modern day critics use? What does Kevin Deegan believe on this matter? Tell us in plain and simple terms.
As this LIE has been foistered by you before and answered by me before.
I asked you to post any reference to me saying anything of the sort.
You have maintained this false Witness for at least a year now
Should I grab the earlier posts & repost them, to make a complete fool out of you?
I do not believe nor teach an inspired KJV nor an inspired translator
So deal with the issues instead of making ME the ISSUE
Even if I did teach such you have not once dealt with ANY of the issues
The Bishop needs to go back to school
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is so easy to flood the opposition with "information." This is exactly why I am hesitant in getting into this discussion --------------- your sources of misinformation are seemingly without end. You just keep on quoting those who are anti-everything but KJV.Your numbers below -- of course the NKJV has differences with the KJV. That was its purpose - to put the KJV into a little more readable condition for those in this day and time. There is nothing wrong or sinful in doing this.The issue is not how many differences exist - but WHY they exist. You do not want to discuss that, because that would make too much sense.And, oh, by the way -- ignore what I said about where the KJV came from .......... or maybe it is taking you a little longer to locate an effective response via internet subscription. (?) !!!!I do not mind the RCC influence in the original KJV - but I mention it only because you seem to think n such influence exists with that translation.By the way -- the Majority Text includes observations from all sources available to the modern translators. You write as if their sources (modern day) are one thing and the KJV scholar used something else, entirely different. You blast the Sinaiticus while apparently accepting the Vulgate version while the Majority Text of this day and time embraces ALL of the available and ancient material -- as it should. The "Majority text" is not a fixed body of work. It grows and changes with each MSS discovery. And that is why there are editions after editions of the Aland text --- b ecause we continue to discover new materials and ancient works that help to define the work of translation.You think the KJV translators were inspired -- or are you now saying they were not - that the KJV came our way via the same scholarly discovery process that modern day critics use? What does Kevin Deegan believe on this matter? Tell us in plain and simple terms.JDS
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:23:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor
This site claims that the NKJV uses the same TEXT as the KJV This is easily disproven by comparing the two texts Should we? Anyone want to compare? JUST A NEW KJV? The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times! The NKJV removes the word God 51 times! The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times! In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2,289 words from the KJV! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm > > The above will give an opposing opinion to Kevin's thinking. > > Know this - that the KJV in its original state included the > Apocrypha - which remains in the RCC bible. The primary text of > the KJV was created by a Roman Catholic named Erasmus and much of his > work was based on the Latin Vulgate and NOT on a critical review of > the Greek text of the day. > > Textual criticism is extremely important because of the variations > that Kevin, in part, refers to. That the KJ text (textus receptus) > is in some agreement with the versions of the day (i.e. Vulgate) is > of no surprise since Erasmus used these versions to create his greek > text -- and did it in record time -- about 20 weeks of work went > into the text that was the basis for the KJV. > > Anyway - corruption of the greek text abounds and the need for > scholarly review is well established. > > Enough said. > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:51:16 -0500 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor > > > All of this is from the web, written by KJVonlyists - a little > known and small wing of the Christian movement that believes the KJV > ------------ the translation itself -- is inspired. They reject > textual criticism or textual comparisons, believing, instead, that > the succession of biblical evidence came to an end with the last > original documents of scripture (perhaps John's writing of > Revelations) . The King James VERSION of the Bible IS THE WORD OF > GOD for modern man -- that is the cry of these cultists. > > They refuse to answer question about how the KJV came into being > because such answers put them in a box from which there is no > escape. They insist on moral standards that deny God's ability to > work through profane men to accomplish His purposes. They make fun > of those who ask questions about verbal/plenary inspiration when, in > point of fact, they deny such occasion themselves. They neither > understand or recognize God as a providential provider. And many if > not most, deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. > > Linda -- you are not going to believe anything I might say -- so > my advice to you is to talk to two or three pastor friends of yours. > Very few -- extremely few by comparison -- Christians believe > in this cultish notion. And most pastors accept at least the NASV. > I study from the NASV. I memorize from the NKJV. My devotional > times are often spent in the New Living Bible. > > If you decide to limit yourself to the KJV -- well, it is truly a > grand translation - just not the only really good translation. > But talk to your pastors about that. > > John > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
