Added: 1 year ago
From: edwardpf123
Views: 535
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (42)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Can't understand ur voice too deep Kjv only? If yes than speak loud n clear

    If not repent

  • @parisreidhead -I was speaking quietly because I have been having problems with my sound lately. Yes, I am KJB only.

  • @Mechanized0 -Were Westcott and Hort neo-platonists or not?

  • @Mechanized0 -Actually nothing of the sort has been proven, since it is untrue.

    Westcott was a Neo-Platonist and those quotes correctly review that fact.

    What is unfortunate is not seeing the truth, as you clearly don't.

  • @edwardpf123 The quotes were clearly distorted as Albert obviously proved. It is unfortunate that some who are unwilling or unable to understand the evidence put forth.

  • @Mechanized0 -Actually, the quotes were not distorted, they accurately reflected their ideas. Both men were neo-platonists.

  • @Mechanized0

    The Lord Jesus Christ said, "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26).

    Free of errors, omissions, and additions, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures in English as a matter of historical fact.

  • @boggymark1 I never claimed to be ashamed of Christ's words but rather it is the contents Gail Riplinger's book one should be ashamed of (as some appear to be aware, Riplinger is not Christ). Therefore, the preceding verse you provided does not applicable to my previous statement. For an excellent exposition on this subject see the below channel.

    w w w .youtube. com/ user/ labarum312

  • @Mechanized0

    Modern "versions" mistranslate the Old Testament and the New Testament from corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts which jesuitical Papists and crypto-Romanists posing as "Protestants" endorse.

    Only the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, verbally inerrant in English.

  • @boggymark1 -Amen!

  • Manuscript evidence has established that the text of the AV1611 derives from Antioch—where the disciples were first called Christians--chiefly down the Byzantine line, and therefore comes from the pure Biblical texts. Valid hermeneutic methology and sound Biblical doctrine and are not matters of debate. No English translation of the Holy Scriptures after 1611 even remotely approaches the accuracy of the King James Bible, and no error in the Scriptural text of the AV1611 has ever been proven.

  • @godsplumbline BTW in the book Blind Guides' this is slander.

  • @godsplumbline -I didn't see Cloud prove any 'mishandling of words of men' . And the conspiracy is real, as even Cloud admits. He just doesn't want to admit that it is the 'scholars' who are a large part of it, since he wants to be considered a scholar.

  • @godsplumbline -I read Cloud's review and 'Blind Guides' and it was Cloud who was the one who was in error, not Riplinger.

  • actually Cloud did write a critique of the New Age Bible Versions in defence of Dr White they are both KJV advocates goto way of life website and read his refutation of her.

  • @godsplumbline - I have read everything Cloud has written on the subject and nothing is substantive. If you have something, post it.

  • @edwardpf123 I cant post weblinks as youtube rejects them.

  • Bro Ed

    It's funny how anyone that does not agree with the scholarshiponly position is uneducated,misinformed, unqualified etc. However people who tow their line are enlightened,eruditious,credibl­e. Let's put White's education up against Ruckman's and weigh the evidence. I never hear that uttered on the opposite side!!

  • ripplinger is worse than a KJV onlyist she is a charleton, i cannot take her or her writting seriously.

    Their are even KJ only people such as David Cloud who refute her clames

  • @godsplumbline -Cloud has never refuted Riplinger in anything.

  • Comment removed

  • Thanks brother Ed. I've found that I cannot discuss any of my concerns with KJV Onlyists because they automatically assume I am attacking the Bible (which I am NOT!). Every time I ask a question, I'm treated like some frickin' heretic who worships Satan.

    I have lots of questions & much to say, but I am keeping my mouth shut because people like ThickShades comes along & makes a 22 min. video about me, pointing his hypocritical finger at me.

    You seem like a cool guy, are you open for discussion?

  • @BloodBoughtChad I have attempted to dialogue with you a number of times, however for whatever reason you have never responded. As far as I know I have not made any acromoniuos statement's directly or indirectly about you. I even said yesterday on your video that you never claimed to be KJVonly. I'm more than willing to discuss these issues with anyone as long as they will bring intellectual honesty to the table.

  • @LBBspock

    That would be great. One of the biggest things that threw me off is that there is not even one Greek MS to support the KJV's translation of Rev. 16:5.

    It replaces "O Holy One" with "and shalt be".

    1.) There is not one single Greek MS to support this.

    2.) Beza himself admitted it was his educated guess that it should be there, & proceeded to say "So why not truthfully, with good reason, write 'which is to come' as before in four other places".

  • @BloodBoughtChad This is true Chad that there is not a Greek manuscript for this extant. However keep in mind that none of the early papyri except for P47 includes the verse. As for all of the uncials that have the book of Revelation only Aleph, A, Ephraemi &046 have the verse. In other words it is a minority reading previous to the 10th century.The real issue here regarding textual criticism, is the methods used to make a determination. (cont)

  • @LBBspock

    First things first. I want to thank you for not being a jerk & actually communicating with me like a true Christian should according to 2 Timothy 2:24-25.

    While there may be a minimal amount of MS witness for this verse, the fact is that none of them read the way the KJV translated it. When I see that, added with Beza admitting he basically guessed & put it in there, it's obvious that this is an error.

  • @BloodBoughtChad Your welcome brother, I understand your skepticism about this, but keep this in mind, conjectural emendations such as this one we are discussing are used by scholars on all sides, Bruce Metzger admits this. For example I John 2:23 would have been one at the time that the A.V. was translated. Another example would be the name of our Saviour, Jesus is translated as Joshua in a couple of places in the modern bibles. Talk to you soon.

  • @BloodBoughtChad (cont) The method used by Aland &Wallace for instance insists upon early Greek authority for a reading to be valid. Now, to be fair, they will look at other evidences such as Church father quotes, lectionaries,other translations etc. But they do not weigh them as nearly authoritative as Greek attestation itself. As for someone like Burgon & Ruckman, they would rely on the 7 criteria method: unbroken tradition,catholicity,weight,c­onsent,internal reasonableness, the passage itself

  • @LBBspock

    With all due respect, you are shifting the topic. I'm inquiring about Rev. 16:5, & the fact that Beza made an educated guess as to "what it should say".

  • @BloodBoughtChad

    The recension of the Koine Greek texts by Theodore de Beze is irrelevant to correct reading of the Revelation 16:5 for several reasons. For example, the accuracy of the King James Bible at that verse has been documented by Scrivener's Textus Receptus. Moreover, earlier authoritative Bibles in English and other languages attest to the perfect translation of the Holy Scriptures in the AV1611 throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

  • Amen brother Ed

  • Amen brother Ed

  • Comment removed

  • Amen brother Ed

  • Amen brother Ed

  • Amen brother Ed

  • Comment removed

  • @husky394xp

    I'm an American, not an Alexandrian. Furthermore, all you are able to do is result to personal opinion & empty claims rather than bringing something substantial to the table.

    You must prove the authority of the KJV before assuming it is being undermined.

  • @BloodBoughtChad (cont) So what you will have to grapple with brother when determining this issue of whether we have  perfect Bible or not, will depend on which of those two method's are most convincing to you. Please let me know if this answer was not satisfactory.

  • @LBBspock

    I find it misleading and logically fallacious (no disrespect at all brother). It's begging the question. You haven't addressed the fact that Beza himself openly & unashamedly admits to giving his guess in this verse.

  • @BloodBoughtChad That not exactly true that it was a pure guess. If you would like a detailed summary of this I will have to send it to you by p.m. since I cannott post it here which show's in the text itself some amiguity in the spelling where the reading could go either way.

  • @LBBspock

    Please do, thanks. 

  • @BloodBoughtChad Coming to you monentarily brother.

  • @BloodBoughtChad Did you receive the link. I have been having some trouble my inbox &outbox lately?

  • @LBBspock

    Yes I did brother. Thank you so much. Really, thank you for taking the time to show me things rather than be a jerk.

  • Gail Riplinger's information is too much for the Alexandrians to handle, so they will use whatever they can to scare people away from studying her books! James White is popular only because people will grab at anything to undermine the authority of the KJV.

    Thank you brother Ed, for making this video exposing James White!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more