You disgusting creature. Oakley...."form a women like Riplinger, whose been divorced twice" OOOOoooh. What about the testimony of a murdering, adulterer like David? What's your slimy word worth you little bundle of perfection? You snake in the grass.
@MandoMohan My goal is not to mock a person with 2 failed marriages, but instead point out that she is not a super Christian as KJVOs make her out to be. They would call other woman like her whores while she is something amazing. She is no "Hero of the Faith."
Anyway, you still have not given any support. I have plenty of proof in my video. All you have shown is that you can name-call and use "Oakley" in random places which I have no idea what it means.
@MandoMohan Well, there are no lies in this video. The one mistake I did make it posted in the video description. I am no expert, but I did over 2 year of research on this. You can call me a liar, but I know I am telling the truth. If all you can do is name-call then you need to re-think your argument. There is nothing wrong with a nice, clean debate, but name calling is no needed. Also, bring support to back up your side of the debate.
@markshrey2000 1 The KJV is public domain 2 Other versions never banned by the King. The public had no access to a bible of any type. 3 As the reign of Elizabeth closed (1558-1603) there was a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible in the common tongue of the people.
An honest reading of the relevant material would not have you lie without end.
The KJV has brought the word of God to the world long before Murdoch and others started to cash in. You'll account for your lies.
@TheKJVberean . . . Only a few verses, which don't appear in early manuscripts have been removed. It doesn't mean that Christ's deity, virgin birth, and the blood have been totally removed from the Bible.
@TheKJVberean "remove Christ's deity, virgin birth, the blood" really? I have an NIV, it depicts Jesus as the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. It depicts him dying for our sins and rising from the grave 3 days later and ascending in heaven later on . You act as if all of that has been removed from the newer versions. It hasn't . . .
@TheKJVberean I highly doubt that they are "lying to themselves." I have seen both sides of the argument. I was raised King James Only (KJVO) most of my and I have studied the non-KJVO side too. I tend to agree with the non-KJVO side and I certainly am not lying to myself. I have no need nor desire to make stuff up. It would not denefit me in the least. Actually being non-KJVO makes my life more difficult since my family still is KJVO. Either way, you certainly have a right to your opinion.
@TheKJVberean True to the originals? Have you ever read the originals? There originals don't even exist and didn't when the KJV was written. Also, the documents that the KJV translators used did not all agree. If you look at a original AV1611 (KJV) it has other interpretations in the notes since the translators were unsure what the correct translation was.
Also, the Geneva Bible has many people help translate it and it is believe it is more accurate than the KJV. The KJV had rules...
...it had to floow due to the king. Do you want a Bible that had to follow rules by the government as to how to tranlsate it? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the KJV. It is supposed to be a good translation. I cannot read the originals so I have no idea how accurate it truly is.
All translations are fine provided they try to hold true to the best of their ability.
@Just0A0Though Well we'll all know when we're dead now won't we? so, in the event you are wrong, what do you plan to tell God when you are judged?? Just a thought.
@TheKJVberean Simple as that huh? Somehow I am wondering if you even watched the video. Can you please explain to me why all the other English versions that came BEFORE the KJV were not the inspired Word of God, but the KJV was?
You should have Dr Al Lacy clear this up for you if you cant seem to get your brain in order.
Try this:
If the other versions are Gods word then we didnt have Gods word before the other versions were printed. Answer: No we had it in the english languge KJV
If they are all Gods word then why do the contradict each other? Because the Devel is the authur of confusion.
How many great revivals were under the versions of the KJV? Answer for the uneducated: None
If you wish to insult me and act juvenile than I will not take the time to debate you. If you wish to act like an adult and not show your true not-so-Christian character by making rude remarks than I will continue, but I can assure you that I have my “brain in order.”
“If the other versions are Gods word then we didn’t have Gods word before the other versions were printed. Answer:” We have the Bible long before the KJV. There were many other English versions. Even the KJV interpreters used these other version to create the KJV. Also, the KJV has changed over time. It is not word-from-word the same as it once was.
“If they are all Gods word then why do the contradict each other?” This would be because these Bibles are man-made. I have never seen a “perfect” Bible. I know you probably think the KJV writers were Holy Ghost inspired, but they were not. If you look at an actually KJV 1611 (AV1611) you would find that they were not sure which manuscripts were right since they disagreed in areas.
“How many great revivals were under the versions of the KJV? Answer for the uneducated: None”
Another juvenile act, if you wish to believe me uneducated about past revivals then let me show you just how “uneducated” I am…or am not. Do you believe in salvation by grace or works? Back then many taught works salvation. If you support that then you could argue my findings, but if not then you might want to take back your comment.
As far as “Dr” Al Lacy is concerned, I have watched a video by him and found no proof of his position. He uses some of his own logic mixed with some verses that he has taken way out of context to prove his point. I am not sure if he even has a real doctorates degree.
Also, I do not have this book. I hate the lies told about it mixed with the hate that many (not all) King James Only’ist (KJVOs) have for those who don’t believe the same.
A good book dealing with this subject is: "The King James Only Controversy", by James R. White. As a minister I have 26 dif. translations and like to compare.
It also makes since why you can hardly even find a KJV 1611 in most Christian book stores, theres maybe 10 on ebay any given time, hardly no church uses it, the current state of the "church" is wrenched, and Rome killed millions upon millions for owning one.
The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it. Napoleon Bonaparte--- they have been trying to kill this text since its existence, and they have almost succeeded... but they wont.
Wikipedia has a good area on this. I believe it is 120 years but I have read 90 other places. I am not 100% what the time frame is anymore. Thanks for the comment!
You are partially right...In the U.S. there is no copyright. There really never was one we seperated from England. We did not care about the copyright once we went to war with them. In the U.S. you will see a copyright at the beginning but that is not for the test, it is for the notes. In England, it is a whole nother story. The Crown still has a copyright over there. So the KJV does not have a copyright in the U.S. but it does in England. Hope this answers your questions.
The Authorized KJV 1611 is the only translation left from the original hebrew OT and greek NT. All other translations, including NKJV, NIV, NAS, and literally EVERY translation is from the vaticanus, sinaiticus, and alexandrian text from rome and egypt (both of which have fought Gods word fiercely). These text are Gnostic in origin, and Gnosticism is satans lie in the garden of eden. This doesnt mean God can save anyway, but none the less, they are tampered versions of Gods Word.
Wow, thanks for all the information! I used to be KJV-only until I got several translations together along with New Age Versions by Riplinger. I picked several of her accusations at random, compared the versions, and when not one of the accusations proved true, gave up the KJV- only position in a hurry!
@Just0A0Though ...I strenuosly disagree with you. Thanks to her books, I've learned more about bible preservation, history, Greek & Hebrew texts, lexicons etc. etc. than I had in the previous 20 years. I don't agree with every word that comes out of her mouth, but her collation work is frankly unparalelled. Hazardous Materials is well worth the 30 bucks, I highly reccomend it.
Well, so be it. I am not going to try to pull you out of the KJVO realm. Sadly my friend you are deceived. I was once like you. I hope God shows you the error of this belief. God Bless!
Ok...I will make it brief. The NIV and KJV do not come from the same manuscripts. The Alaxandrian Manuscripts are much older than the ones used to make the Texus Receptus. So these versions differ. Since both of these Bibles come from sourses that differ they differ. The KJV came from more than just the TR though. Keep this in mind when you try to say the TR is perfect and the AT is not. The KJV also came from the corrupted Latin Vulgate.
@Just0A0Though ..So you believe the Alexandrian texts are superior based solely on there age, even when the text is exactly opposite to the KJV? Old books are not an indication of lack of corruption. If your a Catholic I can understand your loyalty to Vaticanus readings.
I am not Catholic. Apparently you are not aware that the Latin Valgate was used in the making of the KJV as well as other versions. Just because the Alexandrain Text is different that the KJV does not make it wrong. The KJV can be wrong too. Nowhere does God promote the KJV among Bible Versions.
@Just0A0Though ....My conclusion is that a these new bibles are an attempt by the counter-reformationist movement to destroy Protestantism. That is a big charge....but an accurate one. One world religion....that has always been the goal of the Papacy.
As well as all other religions. There is not a religion who does not think they are right so everyone feels that everyone else should join thier religion. This is not the Papacy doing this either. They have thier own Catholic Bible as you mentiond earlier. They do not use these other versions. They use the Douay-Rheims which stems from the Latin Valgate. The same as some of the KJV. Who do you think put out the KJV? A bunch of Angelicans who were basically Catholics under a different name.
@Just0A0Though ...Spend a couple of years researching the counter-reformation...it is the sole reason the Jesuit order was created. They could'nt have people running around pointing out that the Papacy was the beast of Rev.13. They developed the rapture theories known as Futurism....putting anti-christ in the distant future...rather than in the present tense. Darby, Moody, Lindsey, Van Eppe etc. etc. All new bibles are from the minority text type.
@Just0A0Though ...I read a couple of Riplingers books...very insightfull. Why does the NIV contain 58,000 less words? I really think people should examine her work.
I completely agree with you. After they have read one of her books they would see just how nutty she is. Especially her cross algebra and why the Titanic sank. She pulls out anything she can make up to back her propaganda. Also, we are talking about a woman who many KJVO's hail as a hero but if anyone else outside thier KJVO group was divorced twice and on thier third marriage they would use that as proof as to how evil they are. It is different for her. She is hailed while others are condemned.
@Just0A0Though ...I really don't care about her personal life. How many of her books have you read? Maybe you think Westcott and Hort were men of God? lol
It is intresting that you attack Wescott and Hort but yet you care nothing of Riplingers lifestyle. This is the exacty hypocrisy I was speaking of earlier when I said that KJVO's attack others pasts but purposely avoid the issue with hers. As for Wescott and Hort, they were not such bad guys. Many of the KJVO's claims about them are down right lies. They purposely misquote them.
Did I say that? I went to HAC. They pushed her book back in the time I attended. You are however correct, I have never completely read a book of hers. I have listend to her speak and gatherd from that what a cook she really is. I have also read parts of her New Age Bible Versions. I have seen her materials in many churches that I have attended. It was haded out as reference material in which I read very deeply.
@Just0A0Though ...I think her work is quite thorough. There was a time not long ago when I believed all this was a joke...I've certainly changed my mind since then, especially after reading Harardous Materials.
Ok...well what gets me is that if you put out enough lies there will eventually be at least one that sounds good. You know, it seems that the KJVO belief started with a Seventh Day Adventist and wound up here with a women spreading lies of the past. Sadly, people buy into it. Look into the history of the KJV itself and into Bible History of that time in general. You will see that there was no special revelation that made the KJV any different than any Bible of it's time.
As for King James' translating rules, they were quite accurate... it was the PURITANS (who believed in works salvation) that used "washing" instead of baptism, and "congregation" instead of church. Christ established a CHURCH, the catholics just deformed the term.
Tyndale used certain things the puritans did, but also things the puritans hated. So I have no clue where you are going with that. It should be CHURCH for the *best* translation.
No, King James was a very VERY godly Christian who refuted Catholicism so well that Cardinal Bellarmine couldn't respond to his apology. Blackwell even consented to the oath of allegiance! As for "baby baptism," it wasn't believed to have given salvation, James states that salvation is ONLY through faith and not "doing" in the Basilikon Doron. You're attacking the wrong people in KJV-onlyism. As for the "money," it was done to prevent England's debt.
How the devil has used this to his advantage! Sadly, it is causing much division among Christ's children. Many Christians are also spending so much time defending their position on the KJV that could be used better. I believe the KJV is an accurate translation but not the only one. We use the NAS which I believe is very accurate as well as more in the language of the American people.
I actually found the NAS[B] to be very good too; closest the KJB I could find. But I prefer the KJB since I was cradled in pro-KJB stuff after I left catholicism. King James himself is also great (very humorous too), I love reading his writings and apologies.
How ironic. I picked the SAME robots but made them both female, to show point by point how Riplinger can't read English, nor the Greek and Hebrew texts, and exegetically refuted everything she said in her tract ADVERTISING HER BOOK FOR MONEY, in my 'KJV-only Blasphemy' playlist, just posted during the last two weeks.
Your video here, Just0A0Though is now in my other 'Contra KJV only' playlist, as your vid deals with other issues. Thanks!
You disgusting creature. Oakley...."form a women like Riplinger, whose been divorced twice" OOOOoooh. What about the testimony of a murdering, adulterer like David? What's your slimy word worth you little bundle of perfection? You snake in the grass.
MandoMohan 2 months ago
@MandoMohan My goal is not to mock a person with 2 failed marriages, but instead point out that she is not a super Christian as KJVOs make her out to be. They would call other woman like her whores while she is something amazing. She is no "Hero of the Faith."
Anyway, you still have not given any support. I have plenty of proof in my video. All you have shown is that you can name-call and use "Oakley" in random places which I have no idea what it means.
Throw some proof my way...
markshrey2000 2 months ago
No Christian making any points here. It's all Satan's work in this video, through and through. Full of the lying Oakley crap.
MandoMohan 2 months ago
@MandoMohan Well, there are no lies in this video. The one mistake I did make it posted in the video description. I am no expert, but I did over 2 year of research on this. You can call me a liar, but I know I am telling the truth. If all you can do is name-call then you need to re-think your argument. There is nothing wrong with a nice, clean debate, but name calling is no needed. Also, bring support to back up your side of the debate.
markshrey2000 2 months ago
@markshrey2000 1 The KJV is public domain 2 Other versions never banned by the King. The public had no access to a bible of any type. 3 As the reign of Elizabeth closed (1558-1603) there was a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible in the common tongue of the people.
An honest reading of the relevant material would not have you lie without end.
The KJV has brought the word of God to the world long before Murdoch and others started to cash in. You'll account for your lies.
MandoMohan 2 months ago
This is a lying piece of work. Typical Calvinists.
MandoMohan 2 months ago
@MandoMohan Hmmm...did I say I was a Calvinist?
markshrey2000 2 months ago
@TheKJVberean . . . Only a few verses, which don't appear in early manuscripts have been removed. It doesn't mean that Christ's deity, virgin birth, and the blood have been totally removed from the Bible.
warblerab 8 months ago
@TheKJVberean "remove Christ's deity, virgin birth, the blood" really? I have an NIV, it depicts Jesus as the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary. It depicts him dying for our sins and rising from the grave 3 days later and ascending in heaven later on . You act as if all of that has been removed from the newer versions. It hasn't . . .
warblerab 8 months ago
@TheKJVberean I highly doubt that they are "lying to themselves." I have seen both sides of the argument. I was raised King James Only (KJVO) most of my and I have studied the non-KJVO side too. I tend to agree with the non-KJVO side and I certainly am not lying to myself. I have no need nor desire to make stuff up. It would not denefit me in the least. Actually being non-KJVO makes my life more difficult since my family still is KJVO. Either way, you certainly have a right to your opinion.
Just0A0Though 11 months ago
@TheKJVberean True to the originals? Have you ever read the originals? There originals don't even exist and didn't when the KJV was written. Also, the documents that the KJV translators used did not all agree. If you look at a original AV1611 (KJV) it has other interpretations in the notes since the translators were unsure what the correct translation was.
Also, the Geneva Bible has many people help translate it and it is believe it is more accurate than the KJV. The KJV had rules...
Just0A0Though 11 months ago
...it had to floow due to the king. Do you want a Bible that had to follow rules by the government as to how to tranlsate it? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the KJV. It is supposed to be a good translation. I cannot read the originals so I have no idea how accurate it truly is.
All translations are fine provided they try to hold true to the best of their ability.
Just0A0Though 11 months ago
@Just0A0Though Well we'll all know when we're dead now won't we? so, in the event you are wrong, what do you plan to tell God when you are judged?? Just a thought.
extacy336 7 months ago
@TheKJVberean Simple as that huh? Somehow I am wondering if you even watched the video. Can you please explain to me why all the other English versions that came BEFORE the KJV were not the inspired Word of God, but the KJV was?
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
You should have Dr Al Lacy clear this up for you if you cant seem to get your brain in order.
Try this:
If the other versions are Gods word then we didnt have Gods word before the other versions were printed. Answer: No we had it in the english languge KJV
If they are all Gods word then why do the contradict each other? Because the Devel is the authur of confusion.
How many great revivals were under the versions of the KJV? Answer for the uneducated: None
Why do you hate this book?
24preacherboy 1 year ago
If you wish to insult me and act juvenile than I will not take the time to debate you. If you wish to act like an adult and not show your true not-so-Christian character by making rude remarks than I will continue, but I can assure you that I have my “brain in order.”
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
“If the other versions are Gods word then we didn’t have Gods word before the other versions were printed. Answer:” We have the Bible long before the KJV. There were many other English versions. Even the KJV interpreters used these other version to create the KJV. Also, the KJV has changed over time. It is not word-from-word the same as it once was.
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
@Just0A0Though
Wrong,
You dont win the new car.
Go home.
24preacherboy 1 year ago
“If they are all Gods word then why do the contradict each other?” This would be because these Bibles are man-made. I have never seen a “perfect” Bible. I know you probably think the KJV writers were Holy Ghost inspired, but they were not. If you look at an actually KJV 1611 (AV1611) you would find that they were not sure which manuscripts were right since they disagreed in areas.
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
Due to this they place alternative readings in the notes. Look it up some time…even they knew the KJV they created was not perfect.
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
“How many great revivals were under the versions of the KJV? Answer for the uneducated: None”
Another juvenile act, if you wish to believe me uneducated about past revivals then let me show you just how “uneducated” I am…or am not. Do you believe in salvation by grace or works? Back then many taught works salvation. If you support that then you could argue my findings, but if not then you might want to take back your comment.
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
@Just0A0Though
Wrong again.
Your getting kicked out the door.
I take a juvenile approach to your arguements because they are juvenile.
24preacherboy 1 year ago
As far as “Dr” Al Lacy is concerned, I have watched a video by him and found no proof of his position. He uses some of his own logic mixed with some verses that he has taken way out of context to prove his point. I am not sure if he even has a real doctorates degree.
Also, I do not have this book. I hate the lies told about it mixed with the hate that many (not all) King James Only’ist (KJVOs) have for those who don’t believe the same.
Just0A0Though 1 year ago
A good book dealing with this subject is: "The King James Only Controversy", by James R. White. As a minister I have 26 dif. translations and like to compare.
DrStevenz 2 years ago
It also makes since why you can hardly even find a KJV 1611 in most Christian book stores, theres maybe 10 on ebay any given time, hardly no church uses it, the current state of the "church" is wrenched, and Rome killed millions upon millions for owning one.
The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it. Napoleon Bonaparte--- they have been trying to kill this text since its existence, and they have almost succeeded... but they wont.
dankeewolnir4042 2 years ago
as to the copy write, i thought any book older than 70yrs is public domain...
dankeewolnir4042 2 years ago
Wikipedia has a good area on this. I believe it is 120 years but I have read 90 other places. I am not 100% what the time frame is anymore. Thanks for the comment!
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
Ahh yes, its 70 for US books... So the Queen does not have the copy right to KJV correct?... It is public domain right?
dankeewolnir4042 2 years ago
You are partially right...In the U.S. there is no copyright. There really never was one we seperated from England. We did not care about the copyright once we went to war with them. In the U.S. you will see a copyright at the beginning but that is not for the test, it is for the notes. In England, it is a whole nother story. The Crown still has a copyright over there. So the KJV does not have a copyright in the U.S. but it does in England. Hope this answers your questions.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
The Authorized KJV 1611 is the only translation left from the original hebrew OT and greek NT. All other translations, including NKJV, NIV, NAS, and literally EVERY translation is from the vaticanus, sinaiticus, and alexandrian text from rome and egypt (both of which have fought Gods word fiercely). These text are Gnostic in origin, and Gnosticism is satans lie in the garden of eden. This doesnt mean God can save anyway, but none the less, they are tampered versions of Gods Word.
dankeewolnir4042 2 years ago
Wow, thanks for all the information! I used to be KJV-only until I got several translations together along with New Age Versions by Riplinger. I picked several of her accusations at random, compared the versions, and when not one of the accusations proved true, gave up the KJV- only position in a hurry!
snowleopard205 2 years ago
I am glad to hear this helped. I am certainly not against the KJV just the KJVO position. Thanks for the comment!
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...I strenuosly disagree with you. Thanks to her books, I've learned more about bible preservation, history, Greek & Hebrew texts, lexicons etc. etc. than I had in the previous 20 years. I don't agree with every word that comes out of her mouth, but her collation work is frankly unparalelled. Hazardous Materials is well worth the 30 bucks, I highly reccomend it.
vachief 2 years ago
Well, so be it. I am not going to try to pull you out of the KJVO realm. Sadly my friend you are deceived. I was once like you. I hope God shows you the error of this belief. God Bless!
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ..Instead of being sad, read for yourself and make up your own mind. Education is a powerfull thing.
vachief 2 years ago
I have studied the subject for over 2 years and listend to many of her lectures. I need no further studing to make up my mind.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...I would love to hear your explaination of why the NIV is so different than the KJV.
vachief 2 years ago
Ok...I will make it brief. The NIV and KJV do not come from the same manuscripts. The Alaxandrian Manuscripts are much older than the ones used to make the Texus Receptus. So these versions differ. Since both of these Bibles come from sourses that differ they differ. The KJV came from more than just the TR though. Keep this in mind when you try to say the TR is perfect and the AT is not. The KJV also came from the corrupted Latin Vulgate.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ..So you believe the Alexandrian texts are superior based solely on there age, even when the text is exactly opposite to the KJV? Old books are not an indication of lack of corruption. If your a Catholic I can understand your loyalty to Vaticanus readings.
vachief 2 years ago
I am not Catholic. Apparently you are not aware that the Latin Valgate was used in the making of the KJV as well as other versions. Just because the Alexandrain Text is different that the KJV does not make it wrong. The KJV can be wrong too. Nowhere does God promote the KJV among Bible Versions.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ....My conclusion is that a these new bibles are an attempt by the counter-reformationist movement to destroy Protestantism. That is a big charge....but an accurate one. One world religion....that has always been the goal of the Papacy.
vachief 2 years ago
As well as all other religions. There is not a religion who does not think they are right so everyone feels that everyone else should join thier religion. This is not the Papacy doing this either. They have thier own Catholic Bible as you mentiond earlier. They do not use these other versions. They use the Douay-Rheims which stems from the Latin Valgate. The same as some of the KJV. Who do you think put out the KJV? A bunch of Angelicans who were basically Catholics under a different name.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...Spend a couple of years researching the counter-reformation...it is the sole reason the Jesuit order was created. They could'nt have people running around pointing out that the Papacy was the beast of Rev.13. They developed the rapture theories known as Futurism....putting anti-christ in the distant future...rather than in the present tense. Darby, Moody, Lindsey, Van Eppe etc. etc. All new bibles are from the minority text type.
vachief 2 years ago
..Interesting bit of propaganda. lol
vachief 2 years ago
Feel free to prove it wrong.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...I read a couple of Riplingers books...very insightfull. Why does the NIV contain 58,000 less words? I really think people should examine her work.
vachief 2 years ago
I completely agree with you. After they have read one of her books they would see just how nutty she is. Especially her cross algebra and why the Titanic sank. She pulls out anything she can make up to back her propaganda. Also, we are talking about a woman who many KJVO's hail as a hero but if anyone else outside thier KJVO group was divorced twice and on thier third marriage they would use that as proof as to how evil they are. It is different for her. She is hailed while others are condemned.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...I really don't care about her personal life. How many of her books have you read? Maybe you think Westcott and Hort were men of God? lol
vachief 2 years ago
It is intresting that you attack Wescott and Hort but yet you care nothing of Riplingers lifestyle. This is the exacty hypocrisy I was speaking of earlier when I said that KJVO's attack others pasts but purposely avoid the issue with hers. As for Wescott and Hort, they were not such bad guys. Many of the KJVO's claims about them are down right lies. They purposely misquote them.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...So what your saying...is that you have never bothered to read any of her books? lol
vachief 2 years ago
Did I say that? I went to HAC. They pushed her book back in the time I attended. You are however correct, I have never completely read a book of hers. I have listend to her speak and gatherd from that what a cook she really is. I have also read parts of her New Age Bible Versions. I have seen her materials in many churches that I have attended. It was haded out as reference material in which I read very deeply.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
@Just0A0Though ...I think her work is quite thorough. There was a time not long ago when I believed all this was a joke...I've certainly changed my mind since then, especially after reading Harardous Materials.
vachief 2 years ago
Ok...well what gets me is that if you put out enough lies there will eventually be at least one that sounds good. You know, it seems that the KJVO belief started with a Seventh Day Adventist and wound up here with a women spreading lies of the past. Sadly, people buy into it. Look into the history of the KJV itself and into Bible History of that time in general. You will see that there was no special revelation that made the KJV any different than any Bible of it's time.
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
I tried really hard to watch this whole video. ._.
InvaderKED 2 years ago
Ummm...ok
Just0A0Though 2 years ago
The Psalm 12.6-7 comment is very frequently used by KJVOs. It is also translated the same way in the ASV.
Also, you hit the nail on the head about Gail Riplinger. :P
mollyzkoubou 2 years ago
luv it
MackenziePattinson22 2 years ago
As for King James' translating rules, they were quite accurate... it was the PURITANS (who believed in works salvation) that used "washing" instead of baptism, and "congregation" instead of church. Christ established a CHURCH, the catholics just deformed the term.
ChristKeep 2 years ago
William Tyndale wasn't a Puritan (he was a Lutheran) and he used "congregation" in his translation in 1526.
mollyzkoubou 2 years ago
Tyndale used certain things the puritans did, but also things the puritans hated. So I have no clue where you are going with that. It should be CHURCH for the *best* translation.
ChristKeep 2 years ago
No, King James was a very VERY godly Christian who refuted Catholicism so well that Cardinal Bellarmine couldn't respond to his apology. Blackwell even consented to the oath of allegiance! As for "baby baptism," it wasn't believed to have given salvation, James states that salvation is ONLY through faith and not "doing" in the Basilikon Doron. You're attacking the wrong people in KJV-onlyism. As for the "money," it was done to prevent England's debt.
ChristKeep 2 years ago
How the devil has used this to his advantage! Sadly, it is causing much division among Christ's children. Many Christians are also spending so much time defending their position on the KJV that could be used better. I believe the KJV is an accurate translation but not the only one. We use the NAS which I believe is very accurate as well as more in the language of the American people.
secureinCHRIST 2 years ago
I actually found the NAS[B] to be very good too; closest the KJB I could find. But I prefer the KJB since I was cradled in pro-KJB stuff after I left catholicism. King James himself is also great (very humorous too), I love reading his writings and apologies.
ChristKeep 2 years ago
How ironic. I picked the SAME robots but made them both female, to show point by point how Riplinger can't read English, nor the Greek and Hebrew texts, and exegetically refuted everything she said in her tract ADVERTISING HER BOOK FOR MONEY, in my 'KJV-only Blasphemy' playlist, just posted during the last two weeks.
Your video here, Just0A0Though is now in my other 'Contra KJV only' playlist, as your vid deals with other issues. Thanks!
brainouty 2 years ago