Search results

So-called KJV-only "truth" is inconsistent, contradictory, muddy, and complicated as human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning avoid some clear, simple, scriptural truths. It is KJV-only advocates who love their own human KJV-only traditions.

Are KJV-only advocates unable to discuss the actual subject of a thread instead of throwing out bogus, false allegations? Evidently they are unable to defend Riplinger's opinions.

You argue incorrectly. I nowhere make the arrogant claims made by Gail Riplinger. I am willing to learn from any believer including even KJV-only believers when they prove what they claim to be actually true and sound scripturally. I quote KJV-only authors favorably when they state accurate...

Gail Riplinger claimed: "All new versions, in their attempt to present a 'works' based salvation mistranslate pistis as 'faithfulness'" in Galatians 5:22 (New Age Bible Versions, p. 257). Riplinger suggested or implied that the NKJV supported "works salvation" because of its rendering...

In her misleading tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in...

Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Riplinger also wrote: “The Geneva text is almost identical to the KJV” (In Awe of thy Word, p. 566). Riplinger asserted that “generally...

Seeming to imply that she could not possibly be wrong in any of her claims, Gail Riplinger wrote: "Even simple statements in New Age Bible Versions were not made without years of study behind them" (Blind Guides, p. 51). Riplinger asserted: “This book will provoke grave silence, as none can...

Actually your statement describes you and your biased attempts to excuse human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. You may feel the need to protect your own ego for believing incorrect opinions concerning the KJV. Your human KJV-only reasoning resists the wisdom from God above that is...

What a vain boast. It is vain and empty for you to assume that your improper attempts to twist my words and your use of fallacies are in any way a win for your unproven, unsound efforts to rationalize erroneous KJV-only teaching.

There is no mention of the KJV, the KJV translators, or KJV-onlyism in those two verses. There is no need for an exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611 for the scriptures at 1 John 5:13-14 to be true. You incorrectly try to read human KJV-only reasoning into them. The words...

Your unproven claims display continued use of fallacies. Your broad-sweeping overgeneralized statement would involve use of the fallacy of false dilemma. One of the sources for the KJV was the unreliable, corrupt Latin Vulgate along with the 1582 Rheims New Testament based on it. You have...

Your invalid question is based on a fallacy. One book on logic refers to it as "every schoolboy knows" fallacy. This fallacy is used to try to stifle sound debate and to try to allow a claim to be accepted with few or no facts to support it. There is no need to answer an invalid question...

Are the opinions of Sam Gipp scripture in your eyes? Do you and Sam Gipp seek to dictate to God what He supposedly has to do according to human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?

In other words, you are in effect claiming that the KJV translators had no accessible and knowable authority in their printed original-language texts that were based on extant original-language manuscripts with variations and even with copying errors. It is a verifiable fact that the KJV was...

You act as the amateur who tries to twist and distort my words into something I did not say. I did not argue what you try incorrectly to allege. You do not deal with what I actually state. As I clearly stated before, I did not refer to the original autographs. I nowhere claimed that the...

Translating that is part of the Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles is included in the process of God's giving the Scriptures by inspiration so it does not need supposedly to remain inspired. That fact in no way suggests that the making of the KJV was by this same...

According to your own words, you suggest that you take an unproven, assumed [likely by fallacies] position that makes you in effect your own authority since you claimed that there are no preserved Scriptures in the original languages by which it can be determined whether the KJV has the most...

As usual you are wrong. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV were translated still exist. According to your incorrect assertion, the KJV translators would have had no authority but they themselves since you suggest that they...

All the words of the New Testament that proceeded directly from the mouth of God to the apostles and NT prophets were given by the process of inspiration. Thus, any translating of Hebrew OT words whether by the Holy Spirit or by the apostles was a part of the process of the giving of the NT...

Not at all. You were improperly trying to misrepresent and distort my words by removing part of my correct, true statements. Both of my statements as I presented them are correct. Perhaps you were unable to discuss accurately what I actually stated. You did not demonstrate any problem...