Jim Lincoln wrote:
gibberish

"Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions:

1. Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!

2. Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.

3. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.

4. Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.

5. Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture. ......."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
This is like the KJVO types they have no case so the can only attack the presenter of information.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Dr. James White wrote;
"We are also told that the KJV translators were great scholars, and this is true. However, those same scholars denied the idea that the KJV was perfect, or not to be improved upon, in their introduction to readers.

The KJV translators WOULD NEVER have accepted the heretics Westcott and Hort nor Nestle and Aland who have contributed to the translation errors and inaccuracies to be found in the modern versions.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/127-1.pdf

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Know thy enemy

"Westcott and Hort were responsible for the greatest feat in textual criticism. They were responsible for replacing the Universal Text of the Authorized Version with the Local Text of Egypt and the Roman Catholic Church. Both Wescott and Hort were known to have resented the pre-eminence given to the Authorized Version and its underlying Greek Text. They had been deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic manuscripts, Vaticanus and Aleph, were better because they were "older." This they believed, even though Hort admitted that the Antiochian or Universal Text was equal in antiquity. "The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the Fourth Century." (chick.com)

Jim Lincoln wrote:
"I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists

I believe it is misguided for GOD to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists.

God used the King James Version for centuries to build HIS Church.

Jim Lincoln disagrees with GOD on this issue.

Look at your comment wrote:
(1) Do you really think that God's church only consist of English speaking people???
(2) Do you think that people who use other versions are not genuinely saved? (3) Do you think God didn't build His church before 1611?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
"I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists

Jim perhaps now would be a good time for you to return to the real Bible = King James Version.

Welcome to the Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
God apparently used the Vulgate for a much longer time, so why aren't you supporting that?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
many scholars love the KJV -- atheistic ones, the errors of the KJV are numerous, as has been pointed out, to you and others, Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions, actually the very long article Comparing Bible Translations should be looked over.
The NIV of 1984 is certainly more accurate than the KJV in spite of its free style

Today in these apostate times when we see the doctrine in churches at an all time low - and the coincidental numerical decline obvious - The Bibles according to Jim Lincoln are more accurate.

Obviously the Lord should have consulted Jim in centuries past and perhaps the church would have been even bigger today and certainly more educated? Not!!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
since NIV kicked the KJV of it's thrown decades ago

KJV - Used by God for centuries. Proof the building of His Church.

NIV (and modern versions) - No proof yet that God uses these versions.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Of course for us who want an accurate representation of God's Word

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Oh Jim what a sense of humour you have.

Modern versions "accurate"

Westcott and Hort's versions "accurate" ????
Where do you get them from Jim?

Jim. You really need to get yourself and your churches congregation to the REAL Word of God King James Version.
Remember that is what GOD Himself has been using for centuries. HE didn't need to change Books. As they say if it ain't broken don't fix it.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The KJV was and is a poor tool for training in English

God has used the King James Version of His Holy Word for centuries and used it to build His Church and many are the stories of those who learned their language from it.

Modern versions on the other hand appear on the scene when apostate churches flourish. That is an interesting connection. But one fact obvious is that the modern versions with their quote, use of 'modern' languages, haven't made the slightest difference to church increase. Now Jim; Does that tell you something about GOD working with NASB/NIV etc etc? Has HE demonstrated a critical veto of this human presumption?
_______

Jim Lincoln wrote:
it's the Romish types that have added material into the Bible. See How We Got Our Bible

Veritas Cafe wrote:
Jesus didn't speak king james!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
blasphemy

Jim Lincoln wrote:
instead of using antiquated gibberish

Are you practising your blasphemy again?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
But of course, the AV, isn't the preserved Word of God, it's been corrupted.

The King James Version of the Word of God has been used by God for centuries in His churches.

As for your NASB it contains the input of heretics Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland.

When will you agree with God and His providence over His true disciples?