Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[bibleprotector]

The capricious interpretations of Bibleprotector once again.

Actually, it is one of your side's rules, as they say, "context, context, context".

Now he complains about a text being too far away when recently he tries to convince us that an OT text explained a NT text.

I was not complaining. That's your misinterpretation of events at play once again. Basically, you are defending a set of ideas simply because I do not agree with them, that is, you seem to be ready to ally with any wrong in your quest to fight against the truth.

In reference to your claim about OT explaining NT, I don't know what you are referring to, but I explained a New Testament passage in Revelation with reference to an Old Testament pattern, which was the children of Israel begin told to choose between Baal and God, which is a Biblical pattern, as Revelation says to be hot or cold. That's the quite different to your claim.

How can anyone debate someone who makes up things as he goes?

How can anyone debate someone who is willing to agree to nothing the other person says. That seems to indicate that there is no common ground between the two positions: something which any spiritual person would understand.

 

[bibleprotector]

Surely it is too far away.  I mean it's the same book,  the same author and a whole two or three pages away in my Bible. 

Mark 11:23 directly relates to events in Mark 11. I suspect that you don't understand the passage. I am not against linking Scriptures together, but your "explanation" was fairly poor.

If your rules are that the same book and same author and a few Bible pages away, then all kinds of things can be said which would be very ridiculous. I don't think "a few Bible pages away" is a valid rule in your side's system. I think that if I said that, your side would try to crucify me for gross ignorance.

 

[Biblebeliever]

No, they do not. You are a liar.

Yes they do. They attack the blood atonement in Colossians 1:14. Now go check what I am telling you.

No, they do not. You are a liar.

Yes they do attack His Deity.

The modern Vatican perversions attack Christ's deity in the following verses:

1 Timothy 3:16 where they omit 'God.'

Matthew 5:22 where they omit the phrase 'without a cause' hence turning Jesus into a sinner.

Luke 2:33

Luke 23:42 since they omit 'Lord.'


Romans 14:10 where they omit 'Christ.'

Philippians 2:6

1 John 5:7

There are other places as well where the Vatican perversions attack Christ's deity.

No, they do not. You are a liar.

Again, yes they do attack the Virgin Birth.

The Vatican perversions attack the Virgin Birth in Matthew 1:25 by removing the phrase: 'firstborn.'

They also attack the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33 by removing the name 'Joseph' in that passage.

They attack the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:43 by changing the phrase 'Joseph and his mother' to 'his parents.'


Furthermore, the Vatican bibles attack the Virgin Birth by removing the phrases 'Christ' and 'is come in the flesh.' from 1 John 4:3.

No, they do not. You are a liar.

No, Scott. I am telling the truth. They do attack the Godhead. That is why the Vatican, new age, counterfeit bibles all remove the term 'Godhead' from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. Plus, the modern "up to date" Catholic bibles remove the phrase 'in heave, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.'

One sentence.
Four lies.[/b]

No, Scott. I told the truth.

YOU are the one who is doing the lying and deceiving. Are you that blind spiritually? Are you that dull of understanding and discernment that you cannot see the obvious attacks made on Christ and His person and Deity in the modern translations?

I question whether you are saved or not. I really do.

What Christian could brazenly tell so many lies about the word of God, knowing full well that anyone who can read is able to see right through them?

The modern versions which are simply Counterfeits from the Vatican and Papacy are not the word of God.

If you want the word of God. Then you'll need to get yourself a King James Holy Bible. It is that simple.

And to conclude, I like how Pastor Peter S. Ruckman described the very manuscripts which the modern versions are based upon:

Note: (The comment made about the NIV and NASV as being "reputable versions" is a comment written by the President of Moody bible institute back in 1996). Peter Ruckman is only quoting his response. Ruckman's words will be in blue:



Just like David Cloud, who, after claiming the King James was his "final authority," said that 2 Timothy 3:16 referred only to the "originals." Typical Alexandrian stuff.

"Based on my study of this matter, I believe that the NASV and NIV, in particular, are reputable versions based on historically credible manuscripts."

That is from the Office of the President at Moody Bible Institute. The "historically credible manuscripts," according to Dean Burgon, Scrivener, Herman Hoskier, Edward Miller, Dr. Edward Hills, are the most godless, depraved, heretical, corrupt, grossly mutilated, barbarous pieces of trash that ever fell out of a Vatican dumpster and St. Catherine's wastebasket.  - (Peter S. Ruckman, Section on Moody Bible Institute, Bible Believer's Bulletin pg. 8, June, 1996).

 

[Ransom]

Yes they do. They attack the blood atonement in Colossians 1:14. Now go check what I am telling you.

I know exactly what passage you are talking about. It does not attack the blood atonement. You are a liar.

Yes they do attack His Deity.

"Is too" is not an argument, and now you are just doubling down on your lies, liar.

1 Timothy 3:16 where they omit 'God.'

The only possible antecedent for the pronoun "he" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is God. You are a liar.

Matthew 5:22 where they omit the phrase 'without a cause' hence turning Jesus into a sinner.

Everyone's anger has a cause, unless they are mentally ill. This proves nothing against the modern versions. You are a liar.

Luke 23:42 since they omit 'Lord.'

I suppose we're supposed to ignore the fact that the thief recognized Jesus as having power to bring him into the kingdom, which implies divinity. You are a liar.

Romans 14:10 where they omit 'Christ.'

And instead they say "God." I thought the not-Super-Duper-Offerizzzd-King-Jimmybibles were supposed to deny Jesus' deity, and here they are affirming it!

You are a liar and a nincompoop.

Philippians 2:6
1 John 5:7

Song of Solomon 7:13. See, I can throw out random Bible references too!

Again, yes they do attack the Virgin Birth.
The Vatican perversions attack the Virgin Birth in Matthew 1:25 by removing the phrase: 'firstborn.'

I guess we should just ignore the first part of that verse that says Joseph "knew her not."

Not only a liar, but a liar with an attention span worse than a goldfish's!

They also attack the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:33 by removing the name 'Joseph' in that passage.
They attack the Virgin Birth in Luke 2:43 by changing the phrase 'Joseph and his mother' to 'his parents.'

Yes, we're just supposed to ignore Luke 1:34, aren't we?

Don't presume that us real Christians are is idiotic as you, liar.

Also, maybe you should read what the Mega-Awesome-Ultra-Major-King-James-Authorizededed-More-Awesome-Bible says in Luke 2:48.

Go ahead, genius. Tell us that the Virgin Mary was denying the Virgin Birth.

LOL! KJV-only liars like you are about as stupid as they come.

Furthermore, the Vatican bibles attack the Virgin Birth by removing the phrases 'Christ' and 'is come in the flesh.' from 1 John 4:3.

This is such a complete non sequitur that it doesn't even warrant an answer. You're still a liar.

No, Scott. I am telling the truth.

That'd be a first, so far.

They do attack the Godhead. That is why the Vatican, new age, counterfeit bibles all remove the term 'Godhead' from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9.

"Divine being," "divine nature," and "deity" are all perfectly good synonyms for "Godhead."

Of course, you would know this if you ever spent half a second doing a modicum of research, even in as simple and accessible a resource as a common dictionary. But did you do that? Of course not. You are too busy repeating KJV-only idiocy and exulting in your utter ignorance.

I've been through about half your post, and despite all your protestations that you are not a liar, you have done nothing but post lie after lie after Satanic lie. You are, in short, a liar. You are a stupid liar. You are an ignorant and uninformed liar. You are an unrepentant liar.

You know who the father of lies is, right? By your unrepentant lies you prove yourself to be nothing but a reprobate, a hypocrite, and a worshipper of Satan.

You make Jesus vomit.

False teacher, empty, talker, and deceiver. Shut your fool mouth (Titus 1:10-11). Get out of my sight, you damnable fool, and peddle your lies somewhere else.

(Peter S. Ruckman, Section on Moody Bible Institute, Bible Believer's Bulletin pg. 8, June, 1996).

Another fool Satan-worshipping blabbermouth. You and he deserve each other.

 

[Steven Avery]

1 Timothy 3:16 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

[quote author=biblebeleiver]1 Timothy 3:16 where they omit 'God.'

The only possible antecedent for the pronoun "he" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is God. You are a liar. [/quote]

It is actually very rare that anybody working with the critical text says that God is the antecedent of  ὃς. (mistranslated in some versions as "he".) 

The Greek critical text has "no real antecedent" (Daniel Wallace).
When they try to find one it is usually the mystery.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

It is actually very rare that anybody working with the critical text says that God is the antecedent of  ὃς. (mistranslated in some versions as "he".)

Appeal to the bandwagon is a fallacy, Stevie. You should remember this from your failure to promote Louis Berkhof as the Pope of Trinitarianism.

 

[Steven Avery]

Appeal to the bandwagon is a fallacy

Sometimes, especially  if that is the only data given and known.  In this case, there is a lot of detail available as to why the various attempts are mystery, Jesus Christ, the church of the living God, the gospel, more than even "God", to identify the missing antecedent.

And a far greater fallacy is simply dismissing virtually all the historical commentary and analysis without giving a reason.  You were the one who made the unusual claim.

Why not simply acknowledge you made an error?

Steven Avery

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery ]And a far greater fallacy is simply dismissing virtually all the historical commentary and analysis without giving a reason.  You were the one who made the unusual claim.

Why not simply acknowledge you made an error?

Steven Avery[/quote]

Don't you deny orthodox trinitarianism?

 

[Ransom]

And a far greater fallacy is simply dismissing virtually all the historical commentary and analysis without giving a reason.

I did give a reason, Stevie. You just handwaved it away by citting authorities.

Come to think of it, you didn't even do that, really; you just handwaved it away as "extremely rare."

So really, you're not the one to be lecturing me on fallacies.

Why not simply acknowledge you made an error?

LOL!

After you, Stevie, after you.

 

[Biblebeliever]

I know exactly what passage you are talking about. It does not attack the blood atonement.

Yes they do attack the Blood atonement. I gave you the passage. Now go and read it.

"Is too" is not an argument, and now you are just doubling down on your lies, liar.

Scott, it is a proven fact that the Vatican perversions all attack the person and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you can't see that, then you are blind spiritually.

The only possible antecedent for the pronoun "he" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is God. You are a liar.

If your argument is correct, and that is a BIG IF, then why do the "modern, up to date, versions" remove the word 'God.'

I mean is the word 'God' that archaic????

Everyone's anger has a cause,

WRONG.

The Lord Jesus said that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

You know what that means? That means that it is possible to be angry with someone without a cause. It is possible to get mad for no reason due to our wicked, sinful, and depraved nature.

Caught you again you rejecter of the Bible.

unless they are mentally ill. This proves nothing against the modern versions.

You are wrong again.

Why do the modern versions remove the phrase "without a cause"?

Again, is that phrase really archaic??

I suppose we're supposed to ignore the fact that the thief recognized Jesus as having power to bring him into the kingdom, which implies divinity.

Why do the modern versions remove 'Lord' then?

Song of Solomon 7:13. See, I can throw out random Bible references too!

New International Version
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

New Living Translation
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

English Standard Version
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

New American Standard Bible
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:



Holman Christian Standard Bible
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage.


NET Bible
who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,



The modern Vatican versions all say the exact opposite of what the King James Bible says.

Why do you think that is?

I know why. Because the modern versions are satanic. They do not exalt the Deity of Jesus Christ, but rather they strip the Lord Jesus of His Deity.

Get yourself a real Bible (King James Bible). The King James Bible exalts the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the modern Vatican versions DO NOT.

Yes, we're just supposed to ignore Luke 1:34, aren't we?

Don't presume that us real Christians are is idiotic as you, liar.

You are not a real Christian. I don't believe for a moment that you ever were truly converted. Concerning God's word (the Blessed King James Holy Bible); your attitude toward it is absolutely despicable.

Also, maybe you should read what the Mega-Awesome-Ultra-Major-King-James-Authorizededed-More-Awesome-Bible says in Luke 2:48.

Go ahead, genius. Tell us that the Virgin Mary was denying the Virgin Birth.

Who spoke the phrase: 'thy father and I sought thee sorrowing'?

it was Mary.

And notice that in the very next verse, the Lord Jesus corrected her.

You know who the father of lies is, right? By your unrepentant lies you prove yourself to be nothing but a reprobate, a hypocrite, and a worshipper of Satan.

You make Jesus vomit.

False teacher, empty, talker, and deceiver. Shut your fool mouth (Titus 1:10-11). Get out of my sight, you damnable fool, and peddle your lies somewhere else.

Scott, the very manuscripts which the modern versions are based upon are corrupt. The Source text for the modern versions was put together by two heretics (Westcott and Hort). And by the way Scott, they are burning in Hell now. And that is where you are headed if you don't repent and get truly converted.

Westcott and Hort did not believe in a literal Heaven.
They did not believe in a literal Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, these two heretics both founded two occult societies ( The Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).

And you are going to defend the modern Vatican versions?

You make me sick.

Study history. Study the history of the manuscripts. And quit being willingly ignorant. Repent of your utter folly and your wicked pride.

 

[Ransom]

Yes they do attack the Blood atonement. I gave you the passage. Now go and read it.

I did read it. You are a liar.

Scott, it is a proven fact that the Vatican perversions all attack the person and deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you can't see that, then you are blind spiritually.

No. I can't see that because it is not in agreement with reality, and you are a liar.

If your argument is correct, and that is a BIG IF, then why do the "modern, up to date, versions" remove the word 'God.'

I mean is the word 'God' that archaic????

If you hadn't dropped out of first grade and bought into the lie that dogged ignorance is a form of holiness, you'd already know that variant reading is perfectly understandable, because the difference in Greek between "he" and an abbreviation for "God" is literally one tiny stroke of the pen.

In other words, ancient Bible believers who are smarter than you were unsure of the correct reading, but obviously they don't buy into your lie that one is heretical.

WRONG.

No, right.

Why do the modern versions remove 'Lord' then?

They only "remove" "Lord" if you buy into your false assumption that the KJV must be right.

The modern Vatican versions all say the exact opposite of what the King James Bible says.

Why do you think that is?

I don't think that is. Your illiteracy is not my problem.

I know why. Because the modern versions are satanic.

Takes one to know one.

I don't believe for a moment that you ever were truly converted.

And? It's not up to you.

Who spoke the phrase: 'thy father and I sought thee sorrowing'?
it was Mary.
And notice that in the very next verse, the Lord Jesus corrected her.

So Mary was denying the Virgin Birth and had to be corrected? Good grief. Are you retarded?

 

[Steven Avery]

1 Timothy 3:16 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

It is actually very rare that anybody working with the critical text says that God is the antecedent of  ὃς. (mistranslated in some versions as "he".)  ... The Greek critical text has "no real antecedent" (Daniel Wallace). When they try to find one it is usually the mystery. 

While spending time with Ransom's blunder here is not worthwhile timewise, I will place a standing offer to share about the critical text solecism, including the lack of an antecedent, with anyone who is sincere in discussion, iron sharpeneth.  Also about the textual (external) evidences.

Historically and in terms of doctrine and Christology this is an extremely significant verse, and worthwhile to study.

It has long been my conviction that if this was the only error in the modern versions, it would be severe enough to warrant putting the versions away and switching to the pure Bible.  You would do well not to allow your landmarks and heritage to be destroyed just because some have placed animus to the TR and AV ahead of the pure scriptures and have become masters of the knee-jerk response syndrome against any AV verse. 

This 1 Timothy verse above is very precious. From the heart of God to us for the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And while it is easy to mock men, for some it is their only art form ... yet God is not mocked.  I truly believe that the scriptural revelation and declaration that:

God was manifest in the flesh

should be without controversy among believers. However, since a controversy arose around 1750 (Isaac Newton's position for the "which was manifest" variant had been published) it is only our reasonable service to show why God was manifest in the flesh is 100% the scriptural declaration.  And those with the corruption versions from the CT only deceive themselves if they do not see and understand the difference and issues and make various false and bogus attempts to excuse the corruption.

Steven Avery

 

[praise_yeshua]

1 Timothy 3:16 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

It is actually very rare that anybody working with the critical text says that God is the antecedent of  ὃς. (mistranslated in some versions as "he".)  ... The Greek critical text has "no real antecedent" (Daniel Wallace). When they try to find one it is usually the mystery. 

While spending time with Ransom's blunder here is not worthwhile timewise, I will place a standing offer to share about the critical text solecism, including the lack of an antecedent, with anyone who is sincere in discussion, iron sharpeneth.  Also about the textual (external) evidences.

Historically and in terms of doctrine and Christology this is an extremely significant verse, and worthwhile to study.

It has long been my conviction that if this was the only error in the modern versions, it would be severe enough to warrant putting the versions away and switching to the pure Bible.  You would do well not to allow your landmarks and heritage to be destroyed just because some have placed animus to the TR and AV ahead of the pure scriptures and have become masters of the knee-jerk response syndrome against any AV verse. 

This 1 Timothy verse above is very precious. From the heart of God to us for the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And while it is easy to mock men, for some it is their only art form ... yet God is not mocked.  I truly believe that the scriptural revelation and declaration that:

God was manifest in the flesh

should be without controversy among believers. However, since a controversy arose around 1750 (Isaac Newton's position for the "which was manifest" variant had been published) it is only our reasonable service to show why God was manifest in the flesh is 100% the scriptural declaration.  And those with the corruption versions from the CT only deceive themselves if they do not see and understand the difference and issues and make various false and bogus attempts to excuse the corruption.

Steven Avery

Just like a good KJVOist.... you require someone accept your proposition before you can have a sincere discussion.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Well, I think this thread proves that the answer to the OP question, "Is KJVO a mental disorder?" is a resounding YES. 

 

[Steven Avery]

... you require someone accept your proposition before you can have a sincere discussion.

If you could expound how you mean this, it would be helpful.  One proposition do I require to be accepted?

Thanks!

Steven

 

[subllibrm]

... you require someone accept your proposition before you can have a sincere discussion.

If you could expound how you mean this, it would be helpful.  One proposition do I require to be accepted?

Thanks!

Steven

For one you insist that there is only one bible for English speaking people in 2014.

Another is the idea that a translation can be "perfect" and you get to define perfection.

 

[Biblebeliever]

I did read it.

Well then you know they remove the important phrase: 'through his blood.'

Why even take that phrase out?

There is nothing 'archaic' about it.

Jesus warned about taking away from His word.

No. I can't see that because it is not in agreement with reality,

No, you don't see it, because you simply refuse to see it. You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth concerning the utter corruption in the modern versions. Just like the typical Alexandrian apostate does.

If you hadn't dropped out of first grade and bought into the lie that dogged ignorance is a form of holiness, you'd already know that variant reading is perfectly understandable, because the difference in Greek between "he" and an abbreviation for "God" is literally one tiny stroke of the pen.

The variant reading may be understandable; but the reading of 'God' is the clearest rendering. Especially for a proof text on the Deity of Jesus Christ.

You go and try to convince a Jehovah's witness that Jesus is God by using an NIV where it says that 'He appeared in the flesh,"

rather than simply using the inerrant word of God (AV1611) where it states boldly that GOD
was manifest in the flesh.


Also, let's see what some of the earlier protestant English Bibles said in 1 Timothy 3:16:


1 Timothy 3:16 (Geneva Bible)

3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, k justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


1 Timothy 3:16 Miles Coverdale Bible (1535)

and without naye, greate is that mystery of godlynes. God was shewed in the flesh: was iustified in the sprete: was sene of angels: was preached vnto the Heythen: was beleued on in the worlde: was receaued vp in glory.


1 Timothy 3:16 (Bishop's Bible)

16 And without doubt, great is that misterie of godlynesse: God was shewed in the flesshe, was iustified in the spirite, was seene among the angels, was preached vnto the gentiles, was beleued on in the worlde, and was receaued vp in glorie

1 Timothy 3:16 (Tyndale's New Testament)

And without nay great is that mystery of godliness. God was shewed in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, was seen of angels, was preached unto the gentiles, was believed on in earth and received up in glory.


Well there you go. Even the pre-1611 Bibles had the clear and precise rendering of 'God' in 1 Tim. 3:16.

You have to remember Scott, that the Translators of the Pre-1611 Bibles were very much different than the translators of the modern, post 1881 so called "bibles."

In that the translators of the early English Bibles believed God's word. They were Bible believers. They feared God and trembled at His holy word. Furthermore, they translated their Bibles from the correct line of manuscripts. And they did their translational work with the right motives and right reasons. Therefore God blessed those early English Bibles.


Now on the contrary, just about every single translation produced since 1881 was translated from the wrong manuscripts (i.e. Siniaiticus and Vaticanus).

No, right.

Once again, you are wrong.

They only "remove" "Lord" if you buy into your false assumption that the KJV must be right.

They do remove 'Lord.' And I showed you where they do that.

The KJV is right. It is ALWAYS right. God preserved His pure words. Therefore we must have them. And the Authorized Version has stood the test of time. It has been here for 403 years now.

No other Bible has done that. Although I am aware that they did come out with a re-release of the Geneva Bible several years back.

Many of the modern translations don't even last 30 years. And those very few (like the NIV) that have had to be sold using secular methods and sales gimmicks, in addition to being owned and marketed by SECULAR publishing companies (HarperColins... ring a bell?).

And of course I am sure that we all know that HarperColins is owned by Rupert Murdoch who just so happens to be a pornographer.

Therefore, it is not a surprise that HarperCloins in addition to selling Christian Literature and bibles.

It just so happens to also sell the 'Satanic bible' as well as books that are filled with the utter wicked and filthy content of porn. One such filthy book which they sell is pornography star and whore Jenna Jameson's: 'How To Make Love Like A Porn Star.'


Now let me ask you Scott, aren't you at least concerned that the NIV would be owned by such a wicked man?

Any Christian with any amount of discernment and common sense would take issue with that.

Oh and one other thing, Thomas Nelson, Inc. is also owned by Rupert Murdock. News Corporation bought Thomas Nelson back in 2011. So just know that now in addition to Zondervan, whenever you buy a book published by Thomas Nelson, you will also be supporting Rupert Murdock's empire. 

I don't think that is. Your illiteracy is not my problem.

Once again you do not 'think that is' because you refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth concerning the corruption that is found in the modern versions.

Takes one to know one.

I know they are satanic because I am not ignorant of Satan's devices.

I have the Holy Ghost living in me and showing me and leading me into all truth (Jn. 16:13).

 

[Ransom]

Bibleburner, you embody ignorance and unbelief. Get lost.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Bible Burner speaking of modern versions said, "I know they are satanic because I am not ignorant of Satan's devices."

Satan has complete control of his thinking.

Not just a burner of Bibles (like a good Catholic) but a blasphemer of God's Holy Spirit.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Steven Avery]

For one you insist that there is only one bible for English speaking people in 2014.
Another is the idea that a translation can be "perfect" and you get to define perfection.

You seem to be confusing my belief on the scriptures with what I expect from those with whom I dialog.  I'll even work together closely on issues with people with totally different beliefs.  And I am happy to discuss the Bible issues with anyone sincere.  In fact, in some ways it is possible for the true Critical Text aficionado to be more sensible and sincere than the panscriptural (God is behind all the differing versions) approach that has become common today, especially among those whose main Bible position is contra the purity and excellence of the TR and the AV.

Steven Avery