Frankly, that is crap.
I have said it before: I accept any (reasonable) translation, but only the Greek and Hebrew are the authoritative.
That's a far cry from having no Bible be my authority.
Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs?
That, too, is crap. I love the Bible very much... ask anyone who has much contact with me.
The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy!
I may be public-school educated, but I can point out the gaping logical fallacy here: post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is, "after that, therefore because of it." Just because something happens after the introduction of new versions (the CoE goes apostate) does not prove that the new versions were repsonsible.
Also, did I ping you on this?
No, but I am not going to let you and your rabble go by unchallanged. A KJV-onlyist like you deceived me when I was in High School -- may God judge me if I allow you to do it to someone else.
Alright, which Greek and Hebrew?
Do you read the Bible in both languages?
So when you deal with the English, which translation do you think in and appeal to as the final authority.
TR people say that the King James is the best translation and they follow it, what say ye?
That's a far cry from having no Bible be my authority.
It is not, since you have to have a Bible in English, one that you can think in.
Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs? That, too, is crap. I love the Bible very much... ask anyone who has much contact with me.
Well, which one is it?
Which Bible do you love?
Why is that so hard to answer?
Do you love the TR/Ben Chayim textual Bible put out by the TBS do you love the Critical text, which Bible do you love?
The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy! I may be public-school educated, but I can point out the gaping logical fallacy here: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Oh, brother!
That is, "after that, therefore because of it." Just because something happens after the introduction of new versions (the CoE goes apostate) does not prove that the new versions were repsonsible.
It was you that made the connection between the King James and the Church of England.
I only pointed out that the Church of England has long given up their King James for the New Versions, thus, their apostasy cannot be assoicated with it, as you were attempting to do with your comments on them.
Since all the churches are going into apostasy (not the Church of England) maybe the rejection of the King James is the common link that begins the downward spiral!
As if their doctrinal position today had anything to do with what they believed in 1611!
Also, did I ping you on this? No, but I am not going to let you and your rabble go by unchallanged. A KJV-onlyist like you deceived me when I was in High School -- may God judge me if I allow you to do it to someone else.
Well, that is exactly how I feel about you guys who claim to have a Bible but cannot produce one.