[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

I am here to point out error wherever I find it. I am here to make posters and readers think.

This implies:
1. Error is present, and can be found in the promotion of the King James Bible.
2. Various posters are not thinking properly.
3. Various posters have failed to get readers to think properly.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Certainly, Chette. I was born-again as young lad. Jesus is my Savior, how about you? I was priviledged with several years of Christian education. I read my KJB and pray daily. Currently I am serving the Lord in several church ministries and regular personal evangelism. Thanks for asking!

It would be helpful if you would clarify your stand on the KJV. Yes, I read that you believe it is God's word. Do you say the same for other translations, like the NIV or NASB or the NKJV? Since you have appeared here and have only criticized people who are taking a stand for the King James Bible, it is certainly understandible that we would be suspicious of your motives here.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi CT. Thanks for your thoughts. One thing I did want to ask about though.

Forgive me if I am assuming something that is not true, but as a result of discussions on many other forums and with lots of different Christians, I have often found that people cloak what they really believe by using ambiguous or unclear phrases. If you really think the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible, then are you equally prepared to state the only logical alternative in regard to versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, etc? Because these multi-choice versions differ from the 100% true KJB by literally thousand of words omitted (anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in the N.T. alone) and often reject the Hebrew texts and have completely different meanings in hundreds of verses, are you then willing to take the stand that these other versions are NOT the complete, inspired and 100% Holy Bible?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like for you to give us a straight up and honest answer to it.

Well that seems like a fair question Bro. Will, let's see if he replies...

Critical Thinking, you seem to be a little too "critical" for my taste. A lot of us have gleaned wisdom from Bro. Kinney here, he has posted some very good articles and he avoids getting bogged down in personal attacks or other nonsense. In fact, it seems to me that the vast majority of his posts are focused like a laser beam on defending the KJV against those who attack it for whatever reason, and a lot of us really admire that. Maybe you should tread softly here for a while until you get a better sense of the forum and its various topics, just a suggestion brother.

It seems that Will Kinney is 'off limits' and above reproach in all matters.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This implies:
1. Error is present, and can be found in the promotion of the King James Bible.
...

Are you implying this is an inerrant message board on the basis that it promotes the KJB?

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Are you implying this is an inerrant message board on the basis that it promotes the KJB?

It is clearly not an error to support and promote the KJB. To deny the correctness of the word "oath's" in Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26 is to diminish the jots and tittles of Scripture.

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2).

The apostrophe must stand between the "h" and the "s" of the word "oath's"!

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).

[George]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

"Well, it may seem that way, but that would mostly be because Will writes more than just about any one else (but look at the 1611 vs. 1769 thread). No, I didn't come here to argue with him or any one else. I am here to point out error wherever I find it. I am here to make posters and readers think.

Certainly, Chette. I was born-again as young lad. Jesus is my Savior, how about you? I was priviledged with several years of Christian education. I read my KJB and pray daily. Currently I am serving the Lord in several church ministries and regular personal evangelism. Thanks for asking !"

Aloha critical,

It's too bad that you are not here to EDIFY the brethren! It's sad that you are not here to witness to the TRUTH! It's a tragedy that you "think" that you can "MAKE" people "think" - instead of trying to PERSUADE them!

Your statement;

"While "my words will not pass away" is a true statement, it actually adds nothing to prove the authenticity of any particular words attributed to Christ. Thinking folks will recognize your inclusion of "my words will not pass away" as a circular argument here at best. You don't need it."

Now, I consider myself a "thinking" folk, and I don't consider brother Will's presentation as "a circular argument at best". Could it be that in addition to being a "thinking" person, that I am also a BELIEVING person? Hmmm? Your argument is fallacious, at best, and is quite "typical" of the "sophistical thinking" that is now taught in the majority of "CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS"!

Your statement:

"You certainly throw around a lot of scripture."

Your statement throws up a "red flag" for me. Anyone who loves the Holy words of God is going to use a lot of Scripture in trying to "persuade" others. Have you got an OBJECTION to a genuine Bible believer throwing "around a lot of Scripture"?

Your "critical" intellectual approach to the Scriptures is a sad "testimony" as to the "results" of a modern day "CHRISTIAN EDUCATION", instead of a "BIBLICALLY BASED EDUCATION"!

We don't take too kindly to STRANGERS joining the Forum, and without so much of a "Howdy Do", start in "CRITICIZING" some of the brethren here. Your "Signature" says it all: "CRITICAL thinking" - because you certainly are NOT doing any "SCRIPTURAL THINKING"!

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

[bibleprotector]

Very wisely stated, Brother George.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is clearly not an error to support and promote the KJB. To deny the correctness of the word "oath's" in Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26 is to diminish the jots and tittles of Scripture. ...

I concur that it is NOT an error to support the KJB. Why do you try to make it sound like I said differently?

My 1611 KJB says "oaths". My KJB is not wrong!

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

I concur that it is NOT an error to support the KJB. Why do you try to make it sound like I said differently?

My 1611 KJB says "oaths". My KJB is not wrong!

No, the KJB is not wrong. You are wrong to claim that "oath's" is wrong.

You said,

However, I think you are wrong about the word's number; it is plural, not singular.

Oath's is singular.

Oaths or oaths' is plural.

Since the King James Bible in all proper editions today, most especially the Pure Cambridge Edition, reads "oath's", then you are rejecting the KJB as it stands today.

What you are doing is reading your interpretation into the unstandardised grammar of 1611, when many godly men, proper editors, and KJBO believers today hold that "oath's" would have been there in 1611 HAD APOSTROPHES BEEN USED IN THOSE DAYS!