Old age earth based prophets jailed

[AV1611VET]

Do you think I'm going to dance to your tune again? Just as when you did not recognize YHWH as the name of God in the Old Testament, I'll not waste my time tutoring you only to have you turn around and claim that you simply wanted to test me. (And that you supposedly wanted to see if I would get it right?)

I continue to suspect that your purpose here is to discredit Bible-believing Christians by portraying the most extreme cliched stereotype of the "clueless Creationist" who substitutes tradition for scripture . And even though I do whatever I can to encourage creationists to start examining (rather than ignoring and obfuscating) the evidence, both scriptural and scientific, before repeating the nonsense they find on YEC websites, I do not at all approve of such outright mockery of sincere creationists. One Edward Current is enough. He doesn't need a side-kick.

Suit yourself, professor.

 

[verysincere]

Oh, I wouldn't think of testing your knowledge; it's just my way of using an interrogative statement as saying I disagree with that Tetragram.

QV please:

This kind of stuff is why the KJVO movement got started.

You have no idea what I mean by SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

Your point is from the wrong perspective.

1) "I disagree with that Tetragram." I know. That is why I disdain your Edward Current portrayal. Bible-affirming Christians do not disagree with the Biblical text, especially as to its declaration of the name of God.

2) Please learn the proper use of quod vide.

3) "You have no idea what I mean by SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE." Unfortunately, YOU have no idea what you mean, largely because the character you are portraying demonstrates no understanding of even the definition of "science" and the scientific method.

4) "If I gave my honest opinion of [the word] "YHWH", I'd get a yellow card from upstairs. This kind of stuff is why the KJVO movement got started." More Edward Current imagination, complete with your direct memos from God ---although at least you recognize that God disagrees with your opinions which pretend to know how to correct the HMT when you have no fluency in the language or familiarity with the text. But I WILL agree that exactly that sort of presumptuousness of people who have no knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, exegesis, and Biblical theology & textual criticism has been the hallmark of the King James Only movement since its start. Just as you parodied, that sort of "I know better than the author of the Biblical text" attitude has raised that mindset to near cult status in some areas of the U.S.

But even most KJO leaders know the meaning of YHWH, because they consider it one of the KJV traditions they proudly cite.

 

[verysincere]

It's just my way of using an interrogative statement as saying I disagree with that Tetragram.

Not many presume to "disagree" with the four-letter name of God. But I suppose if one believes the King James is the inspired Biblical text and the HMT is a man-made corruption, consistency forces one into a declaration which most Christians would consider not only heresy but blasphemy at its most raw.

But I do appreciate that you occasionally "break character" and explicitly state your denial of the Biblical text outright. (Edward Current's delayed doing that and had a lot of people fooled for a very long time. I've heard that he still gets lots of approving email from Christians encouraging him to "keep fighting the good fight" and promising to pray for his truth-telling ministry daily.)

 

[AV1611VET]

1) "I disagree with that Tetragram." I know. That is why I disdain your Edward Current portrayal. Bible-affirming Christians do not disagree with the Biblical text, especially as to its declaration of the name of God.

Who or what is Edward Current?

2) Please learn the proper use of quod vide.

Then may I continue to use it as I have been for years, or must I get your approval first?

3) "You have no idea what I mean by SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE." Unfortunately, YOU have no idea what you mean, largely because the character you are portraying demonstrates no understanding of even the definition of "science" and the scientific method.

Your shot in the dark missed its target.

4) "If I gave my honest opinion of [the word] "YHWH", I'd get a yellow card from upstairs. This kind of stuff is why the KJVO movement got started." More Edward Current imagination, complete with your direct memos from God ---although at least you recognize that God disagrees with your opinions which pretend to know how to correct the HMT when you have no fluency in the language or familiarity with the text. But I WILL agree that exactly that sort of presumptuousness of people who have no knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, exegesis, and Biblical theology & textual criticism has been the hallmark of the King James Only movement since its start. Just as you parodied, that sort of "I know better than the author of the Biblical text" attitude has raised that mindset to near cult status in some areas of the U.S.

But even most KJO leaders know the meaning of YHWH, because they consider it one of the KJV traditions they proudly cite.

I think you're stuck on I not knowing the meaning of YHWH, even though I QV'd you some of my earlier posts; but since it lets you keep ranting about it, I guess I have to submit it as your prerogative, don't I?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not many presume to "disagree" with the four-letter name of God.

I have for years, and please don't tell me you don't know Gail A. Riplinger or Peter S. Ruckman; or are they in your 'not many' category as well?

But I suppose if one believes the King James is the inspired Biblical text...

I don't, chief. I believe the King James is the preserved Text. Only the Autographs were inspired.

Learn the difference between [verbal plenary] inspiration and preservation please.

... and the HMT is a man-made corruption, consistency forces one into a declaration which most Christians would consider not only heresy but blasphemy at its most raw.

What is the HMT? is that the Masoretic Text?

 

[dad]

The only reason you need is disbelief.

The only reason you have is belief. Unless you get support for it, it must be disbelieved. The bible has support out the wazoo.

 

[verysincere]

I have for years, and please don't tell me you don't know Gail A. Riplinger or Peter S. Ruckman; or are they in your 'not many' category as well?

To call them "insignificant" would be to give far too much credit to their "scholarship." Ruckman founded a little unaccredited "Institute" that is so far off the radar of any sort of credibility that their cult is virtually unknown to anyone except those who study that brand of pseudo-scholarship.

As to "preserving" the text, what happened to the text between the days of the apostles and 1611? And what of the many acknowledged errors of the "textus receptus" and the Byzantine tradition?

In any case, finding "allies" willing to join in denouncing the name of YHWH as stated in the HMT hardly adds credibility to claims of a "superior" preserved text. I'm waiting to hear which modern languages have been so blessed with the same elevated states of the KJV. In German, would it be the original Luther Bible? Or are Germans simply out of luck? How about the various dialects of Chinese?

And is a superiority based upon the Byzantine mss. or is it a superiority of the translation technique that guided the KJV? And what prophet did God use to inform Riplinger and Ruckman of the elevated status?

But I'm not at all surprised that you are unwilling to explain how the MT errs in properly revealing the name of YHWH. (Perhaps you would say that, much like science, the HMT can take a hike!)

Perhaps Mr. Current can help you with that. I've heard him say that he is KJO (as well as OTL and OHR.)

 

[dad]

Don't you mean your word? Get off the apologetics.

I mean that science is fairy tales. The hot spot cited earlier, where does it come from? You guys run when details are raised. As for God's word, there can be no doubt that the future and the past are different in key ways than the present. Science then is merely a present based explanation for all things.

 

[dad]

Grow up.

It is grown up to realize that the wicked wars of man are evil. There are only bad guys fighting bad guys, with babies and civilians being killed in the middle.

 

[dad]

Has it really never occurred to you that merely by supporting any side in a war He would be doing that very thing??

When some bad guys are so bad that they pose a danger to the salvation plan for mankind, they are taken out. Yay!!!

 

[dad]

So you are actually going to pretend that your failure to recognize YHWH as the name of God (and failure to relate the Tetragrammaton to "LORD") was some sort of "test" of my knowledge?

AV1611VET, that is remarkably pathetic, even for your "Science can take a hike" standards of......let's call it "intellectual nihilism."

His name is Jesus, isn't that Wonderful? Your vowel deficient word just doesn't really cut the mustard. Hey do you really even know how to pronounce it!!? Jesus we know, God made that clear.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

His name is Jesus, isn't that Wonderful? Your vowel deficient word just doesn't really cut the mustard. Hey do you really even know how to pronounce it!!? Jesus we know, God made that clear.

I thought Isaiah said his name would be "Immanuel?"

 

[AV1611VET]

(as well as OTL and OHR.)

You must think I'm Mr. Current or something. You keep throwing out these abbreviations that I assume you and he are privy to.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought Isaiah said his name would be "Immanuel?"

He was.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

He was.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So Isaiah got it wrong?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

In any case, finding "allies" willing to join in denouncing the name of YHWH as stated in the HMT hardly adds credibility to claims of a "superior" preserved text. I'm waiting to hear which modern languages have been so blessed with the same elevated states of the KJV. In German, would it be the original Luther Bible? Or are Germans simply out of luck? How about the various dialects of Chinese?

I seem to remember AV1611VET claiming that Adam spoke English in the garden of Eden and personally wrote Genesis in English. I think I'm correct in saying that. Basically, he things that English is the language the Bible either should be written in or was originally written in. Any attempts to show him why this idea is howlingly insane have so far failed.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

When some bad guys are so bad that they pose a danger to the salvation plan for mankind, they are taken out. Yay!!!

Even when you hold up a mirror to show them how ugly they are, all they do is preen.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Isaiah got it wrong?

No more than when he quoted Isaiah ...

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Immanuel = Emmanuel

Isaiah = Esaias

 

[AV1611VET]

I seem to remember AV1611VET claiming that Adam spoke English in the garden of Eden and personally wrote Genesis in English. I think I'm correct in saying that. Basically, he things that English is the language the Bible either should be written in or was originally written in. Any attempts to show him why this idea is howlingly insane have so far failed.

123

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No more than when he quoted Isaiah ...

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Immanuel = Emmanuel

Isaiah = Esaias

A simple "yes" would have sufficed.