ECT WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT KJV-ONLY THINKING ??

[john w]

It is largely NON MAD KJVOs (mostly Baptists like nut cases, Ruckman and Riplinger and their huge, huge followings) who hold that the KJB is an inspired translation.

I see. Actually believing the LORD God preserved His scripture,which, by definition, is pure, pefect,true, sure, sound.......and those who believe that,is/are "nut cases."


Get this straight, you drones-there was no bigger "bible nut case" than the Lord Jesus Christ, and He believed every word of the book, not once correcting it.

Go ahead, you correctors-prove that a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration," from the scriptures themselves, and that the LORD God promised His scripture, in any language.


Go ahead. Shuck the "IMO," Oprah "wisdom," and give us scripture's testimony.

I am dealing with a bunch of drones, who, instead of examining "What saith the scripture, about itself," instead, "surf the net," to see what othee "websites," say, from a bunch of wavering, double minded wimps, with no conviction, who assert:

"Here are the scriptures, that say we no longer have the scriptures."


And bible believers are referred to you as "nut cases," Danoah?

Right. And you probably "shorted" the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 19832 at the 800 level.


You/most may not like/"prefer" me; however, I at least, "reasonably"(Isaiah 1:18 KJV) have conviction, the backbone/vertebrae, to expound, from the book, ,what I believe, shucking the "modern" humanism of this "present evil world"(Galatians).

 

[JudgeRightly]

No scripture asserts "originals only." You had to have alleged "scholars" in the late 1800's "teach" us that. "Originals onlyism" is a scam, makes the doctrine of preservation meaningless, superfluous, and is humanism, attributing the conveying, and subsequent preservation of the book, beholden to man, as the LORD God lost his masterpiece, as the overpowering elements of the wind, rain, heat, floods,cold, snow, ...overcame the LORD God, as he was just unable to preserve His scriptures, and we are left with a "theoretical," "desert mirage" "almost bible."

Yeh...that is really "scriptural." But, then again, you droids don't think scripture exists, as "all scripture WAS given, not IS given, by inspiration."

I'm not "originals only," friend, in that I think we should use only the originals to teach God's Word. I'm "originals only" in that only the original writings were inspired by God, but that we can use modern versions to teach, and can do so reliably, knowing that God's Word has been preserved well enough that the meaning and story has not changed at all.

Let me demonstrate why I believe that.

John, do you think that the Wicked Bible (the one that says "thou shalt commit adultery" instead of "shalt not") was inspired by God?

 

[john w]

Personally, I prefer the KJV myself.

And I "prefer" anything other than Christianity, which is the most "difficult" "way" of obtaining eternal life-faith alone,in what the Lord Jesus Christ did. That is why most are lost, as the most difficult thing for man to do, is shuck his works, as a basis for justification, before a holy(survey Isiah-His holiness is His # uno attribute-not "ove"),as the "preferre" method is self righteousness.


And I "prefer" ice cream, booze, hookers, french fries, not going to work.................And? My brother is a doctor. He prescribed a medicine for me once. I told him, Well I prefer....." He laughed at me.

Veracity, truth, "the bible," is not dependent on "preference."

 

[Danoh]

So, it was a copy, by definition, not "the originals."

No.

After he "borrowed" that COPY, he later passed it on to Paul, which is how Paul had been able to quote from a COPY of Isaiah.

ONE "original" copy, throughout.

Lol

In short, do these "originalists" soundly think out even their "originals" assertions?

Obviously, not; at least, not well.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[john w]

I'm not "originals only," friend, in that I think we should use only the originals to teach God's Word.

Huh? You have "the originals?" Send me your address. I am a stock trader, but, if you have these "orignals," and "proof" that you have them, I will tell all my clients to sell their Facebook stock(ticker symbol "FB), and invest in these Originals(Ticker symbol,"OO"), as I will send you $700,000(my approximate Net Worth).


Of course,I would need proof that you have these "only the originals," from which we are "to teach God's Word."


DON'T YOU MEMBERRS OF THE BOC GET IT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW YOU HAD THESE "THE ORIGINALS," EVEN IF YOU ALLEGEDLY HAD THEM? ARE YOU ALL WEARING STRAIGHT JACKETS?

 

[john w]

No.

After he "borrowed" that COPY, he later passed it on to Paul, which is how Paul had been able to quote from a COPY of Isaiah.

ONE "original" copy, throughout.

Lol

In short, do these "originalists" soundly think out even their "originals" assertions?

Obviously, not; at least, not well.

Rom. 5:6-8.

"original copy"

No such thing.

Huh? By definition, there is only one "original."


What are you smoking? No, the proponents of "originals only-ism" contend that only that which was originally/"initially" transcribed by the LORD God through men, such as Moses , the scribes....on rock, papyrus, paper is "scripture," not the copies, which, by definition, are not the "originals," so quit misstating the argument.

Is that like an "original signature" that is a copy? I need to shuck this "medallion signature guarantee" scam in my business. Save your spin.

 

[Danoh]

And I "prefer" anything other than Christianity, which is the most "difficult" "way" of obtaining eternal life-faith alone,in what the Lord Jesus Christ did. That is why most are lost, as the most difficult thing for man to do, is shuck his works, as a basis for justification, before a holy(survey Isiah-His holiness is His # uno attribute-not "ove"),as the "preferre" method is self righteousness.


And I "prefer" ice cream, booze, hookers, french fries, not going to work.................And? My brother is a doctor. He prescribed a medicine for me once. I told him, Well I prefer....." He laughed at me.

Veracity, truth, "the bible," is not dependent on "preference."

Hah - I'd had a sense that had been your original intent.

Still, until someone PROVES an actual error in my KJV, I'll prefer it over all others.

Or as David put it...

Psalms 137:6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Huh? You have "the originals?" Send me your address. I am a stock trader, but, if you have these "orignals," and "proof" that you have them, I will tell all my clients to sell their Facebook stock(ticker symbol "FB), and invest in these Originals(Ticker symbol,"OO"), as I will send you $700,000(my approximate Net Worth).


Of course,I would need proof that you have these "only the originals," from which we are "to teach God's Word."


DON'T YOU MEMBERRS OF THE BOC GET IT? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW YOU HAD THESE "THE ORIGINALS," EVEN IF YOU ALLEGEDLY HAD THEM? ARE YOU ALL WEARING STRAIGHT JACKETS?

No, haha, that's not what I said. I'm simply saying that even though only the originals were inspired, we are still free to use modern versions of the Bible, for the exact reason you gave above, that Jesus used the Septuagint, and not, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls...

 

[Danoh]

"original copy"

No such thing.

Huh? By definition, there is only one "original."


What are you smoking? No, the proponents of "originals only-ism" contend that only that which was originally/"initially" transcribed by the LORD God through men, such as Moses , the scribes....on rock, papyrus, paper is "scripture," not the copies, which, by definition, are not the "originals," so quit misstating the argument.

Is that like an "original signature" that is a copy. Save your spin.

I was joking - making a joke of the "originals" argument.

Take a seat, son.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

No, haha, that's not what I said. I'm simply saying that even though only the originals were inspired, we are still free to use modern versions of the Bible, for the exact reason you gave above, that Jesus used the Septuagint, and not, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Well, its not like they were "Dead Sea Scrolls" yet.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[john w]

Again you promote this myth of yours.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

Like your "Errors Only-ism/Originals Only-ism/All versions Only-ism/No translation can be is given by inspiration/all versions Only-ism/"The" Greek(which does not exist)Only-ism" myth of yours, that has no basis in the book?

 

[john w]

No, haha, that's not what I said. I'm simply saying that even though only the originals were inspired, we are still free to use modern versions of the Bible, for the exact reason you gave above, that Jesus used the Septuagint, and not, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls...

You did not say that. I am very careful what I argue, and what I assert that you argued/said, paying attention to words, details:

I'm not "originals only," friend, in that I think we should use only the originals to teach God's Word.

Not one person, alive today, has seen these non existent "the originals," has never touched them, read them, as they disappeared almost as soon as "the ink" hit the rock, papyrus, parchment, paper, and no one living, would even know that they were reading/teaching from these "the originals," even if an alleged angel from heaven came down, and "certified" that they "the originals."


How can you use something which has not existed, for (fill in the blank) # of years?

Please, just one person, answer: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THESE "ORIGINALS" WERE PURE, PERFECT, TRUE,SOUND, SURE, RIGHT? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE SCRIBES, THAY WERE ENTRUSTED WITH COPYING THE SCRIPTURE, WERE NOT DRUNK, ON NATTY LIGHTS, AND MADE ERRORS?

Well? It is not that complicated.

 

[john w]

I was joking - making a joke of the "originals" argument.

Take a seat, son.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

Son? Oh.You're morphing into a Shugart fan. Next up:You will "evolve" into a bible corrector/mystic/agnostic, in contrast to a bible believer. It's like dementia...Slow, so slow, you don't even realize it's happening, much like a lobster, slowly swimming in/diving into a hot pot....

 

[john w]

Hah - I'd had a sense that had been your original intent.

Still, until someone PROVES an actual error in my KJV, I'll prefer it over all others.

Or as David put it...

Psalms 137:6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

Name your infallible source authority for correcting any "the bible."


Preferring any "the bible" presupposes an authority over it.

 

[Danoh]

You did not say that. I am very careful what I argue, and what I assert that you argued/said, paying attention to words, details:


Not one person, alive today, has seen these non existent "the originals," has never touched them, read them, as they disappeared almost as soon as "the ink" hit the rock, papyrus, parchment, paper, and no one living, would even know that they were reading/teaching from these "the originals," even if an alleged angel from heaven came down, and "certified" that they "the originals."


How can you use something which has not existed, for (fill in the blank) # of years?

Please, just one person, answer: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THESE "ORIGINALS" WERE PURE, PERFECT, TRUE,SOUND, SURE, RIGHT? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE SCRIBES, THAY WERE ENTRUSTED WITH COPYING THE SCRIPTURE, WERE NOT DRUNK, ON NATTY LIGHTS, AND MADE ERRORS?

Well? It is not that complicated.

The Scripture assumes the originals were without error.

In fact, it asserts that...and in, of all things - in a copy in Greek.

Which is what Matt. 4:4 is partly talking about.

Peter also implies their Copies were as more sure, as the Originals due to their actual Origin, 2 Peter 1.

That still does not make the case of the Bible correcters, though.

Not by a long shot.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[john w]

I'm of the belief that only the originals were inspired by God, but that God was smart enough to write a book that could survive translations and updates in the languages.

The story itself has not changed, even if the words and wording has.

And the truth is in no way affected by your understanding, as no scripture testifies to this made up "only the originals were inspired by God," as that would mean we no longer have the scripture, and the LORD God is an idiot, for even promising "preservation," as that would be superfluous, meaningless, and nonsense.



Translation: We have an "uninspired" scripture.


The words, "scripture," are "is given by inspiration." not "the story," "interpretation."


You confuse objective revelation, given by objective words, across all languages, with interpretation/illumination/understanding.

 

[Danoh]

Name your infallible source authority for correcting any "the bible."


Preferring any "the bible" presupposes an authority over it.

Lol - What are you babbling on about, I do not hold with the "correct the KJV crowd."

And you must needs update your obviously limited definition of the word "prefer."

Daniel 6:3 Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

Have a seat, son.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[john w]

The Scripture assumes the originals were without error.

In fact, it asserts that...and in, of all things - in a copy in Greek.

Which is what Matt. 4:4 is partly talking about.

Peter also implies their Copies were as more sure, as the Originals due to their actual Origin, 2 Peter 1.

That still does not make the case of the Bible correcters, though.

Not by a long shot.

Rom. 5:6-8.

No scripture testifies to this made up "only the originals were inspired by God," as that would mean we no longer have the scripture, and the LORD God is an idiot, for even promising "preservation," as that would be superfluous, meaningless, and nonsense.

Scripture-copies.



Translation of this "OO" scam: We have an "uninspired" scripture, a "theoretical" scripture.

 

[john w]

Lol - What are you babbling on about, I do not hold with the "correct the KJV crowd."

And you must needs update your obviously limited definition of the word "prefer."

Daniel 6:3 Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

Have a seat, son.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

Babbling? Oh.

Preferring any "the bible" presupposes an authority over it.


Someone to you: I "prefer" Islam.


You: OK!!!

 

[john w]

Hah - I'd had a sense that had been your original intent.

Still, until someone PROVES an actual error in my KJV, I'll prefer it over all others.

Or as David put it...

Psalms 137:6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

I do not "prefer" the KJB. I believe every word of it. If I "preferred" it, that would necessitate that my beliefs/doctrine determine what the word of God is, and what it should say.


Someone: I prefer that "the bible" should say here (fill in the blank), as that coincides with what I believe. If it does not, I will "revise" that "the bible,"
"correct it," or find another source authority, be it another version, or translation, or the Book of Mormon, or The Koran, or the Catholic "missal," "Catechism," or....................................................that I "prefer,"i.e., that supports what I believe/my doctrine.


It's based upon "preference," not truth, like choosing ice cream, which is how most "choose" their "religion"(generically used here).