=========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (12:34) Number: 5714 From: JAMES WHITE Refer#: NONE To: DOUG SNEAD Recvd: NO Subj: RIPLINGER Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Doug was saying to James on 31 Mar 94 18:06:00 << DS>I'm new to this echo, so forgive me for my provincial ways. Having jus DS>read Riplinger's book, it is fascinating to observe the lines of DS>argument here against it. It is especially gratifying to see the DS>intense (and emotional) outbursts this book has produced! One has to DS>sift through many heated, unrelated, child-like, and petty comments in DS>this echo to get to any real refutation of Riplinger's position at all DS>(precious little that there is). The phrase 'got his goat' immediately DS>comes to mind. Look's like Riplinger got your goat full-on. (Am I DS>wrong?) DS>Being new to this little echo, and not having read any 'rules' post, I DS>assume that this is an anti-Authorized Version echo exclusively. Does DS>anyone know (or dare tell) of a pro-AV echo? DS>Also, are you the same 'James White', author of so many anti-Jehovah's DS>Witness papers? If so, what's it like to be on the same anti-AV side a DS>the JWs on this one? Hi, Doug, and welcome aboard. The echo is for the discussion of KJV Only beliefs, whether pro or con. It just happens that most of those who have logged on have not been KJV Only, and have recognized the errors of that position. As to Mrs. Riplinger, yes, I confess to being very bothered by her book, for it truly disheartens me to see someone naming the name of Christ and yet willing to engage in the grossest of misrepresentation. Even the Witnesses are more honest in their citations than Mrs. Riplinger. I would point out that if the term "get one's goat" is relevant, you might wish to ask Mrs. Riplinger who has gotten whose goat. Recently she described me as "rude and crude" and as a "heretic" on WMUZ in Detroit. Me thinks she is the one with the personal grudge, not I. As to not seeing anything of substance in response to her book, you probably missed the posting of my initial review that started things in this echo. There has been no response from anyone wishing to defend the book, and hence little reason to repost the same information over and over again. For your benefit, I'll repost the first few messages in this echo, following this one. I hope we can have some fruitful discussions. James>>> * Wave Rider 1.10 # 155 * ... Eat right, exercise, and die anyway. Hebrews 9:27 --- Blue Wave/Max v1.10 [NR] * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2.0) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (09:43) Number: 5715 From: JAMES WHITE Refer#: NONE To: ALL Recvd: NO Subj: WELCOME/RULES Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Original To : All (8:2016/4) * Original Subj: Welcome Folks: Welcome! My name is James White, and I am the moderator of this new echo, dedicated to the discussion and dissemination of accurate information regarding the controversy concerning the King James Version (or AV) being the only accurate translation of the Bible in English. The rules of conferences I moderate are simple and to the point. 1) Do not post inappropriate messages. This includes messages that are off-topic, contain vulgarities, or contain nothing more than flames of other participants. 2) Do not respond to inappropriate messages. See how easy that is? Now, of course, I realize that such rules require interpretation, and, as moderator, that's what I'll do. But, anyway..... So, I hope some folks who are interested in this issue will enter the conversation. James>>> --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (09:44) Number: 5716 From: JAMES WHITE Refer#: NONE To: DOUG SNEAD Recvd: NO Subj: RECENT DEBATE Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Original To : All (8:2016/4) Recently I "debated" (if two 1/2 hour radio programs can qualify for such a term) Gayle Riplinger, author of "New Age Bible Versions." If anyone has read this book, I'd like to dialogue with you. Till then, I provide my initial review of her work: Notes on Gayle Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions The issues raised by Gayle Riplinger are very important, if only for the fact that in this book professing Christian men who lived godly lives are attacked mercilessly, and are associated with men who were anything but godly or concerned about Christian truth. Orthodox Christian theologians are indiscriminately associated with heretics without any thought as to the consistency of such an action. Since we have in this book serious allegations of downright Satanic actions on the part of Christian leaders, I feel Mrs. Riplinger should be held to the highest standards of scholarly acumen and accuracy. Gayle Riplinger claims that her book "objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the new Age Movement's One World Religion." However, an even semi-unbiased review of Mrs. Riplinger's book reveals that this book is neither methodical, nor objective, in any way, shape or form. Now we need to remember that New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible versions, or who would dare to defend translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, as not just non-Christians, but as anti-Christians who are opposed to God's work in this world and actually want everyone to worship Lucifer. Anyone who opposes Gayle Riplinger's unique view of the world and theology is , in fact, a New Ager in sheep's clothing. A quick review of her book bears this out. She alleges that these new versions prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, his image, and religion--Lucifer worship. She describes the historic Reformed doctrine of regeneration, a doctrine taught by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, John Calvin, the crafters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Puritans, C harles Haddon Spurgeon, B. B. Warfield, J.I, Packer a nd R.C. Sproul, as those that "an orthodox Christian would find shocking." Riplinger connects Christian men such as Edwin Palmer with everyone from Blavatsky to Hitler to Charlie Manson! All are in one boat according to New Age Bible Versions. No opportunity is missed to insult, attack, and degrade those who would dare oppose Mrs. Riplinger's position. In light of this, I hope no one will take too much offense at my less than sparkling review of Gayle's book. I note in passing that this book centers on the two most popular conservative Bible translations, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Very little is said about blatantly liberal translations such as the New Revised Standard Version or the New English Bible, most probably because these translations have had little impact, comparatively speaking, to the NASB and the NIV. I would join Gayle in critiquing these translations, not as part of some New Age conspiracy, but as less th an accurate translations of the Bible. But Gayle barely mentions these versions; her target is plainly the NIV and the NASB. As an apologist working on the front lines in dealing with the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and in debating Roman Catholic apologists all across the United States, I have only once or twice encountered a work that contained more misrepresentation of historical facts, cited sources of documentation, and the writings of those who are being reviewed. New Age Bible Versions shows not the slightest concern for accurately representing its oppo sition. Context is a term that is utterly lost in the maze of disconnected, disjointed citations thrown at the reader on almost every page. Utterly illogical argumentation carries the day in Gayle's attempt to find a New Age conspiracy behind every bush. Even the deity of Christ is undermined so as to maintain the supposed inerrancy of a translation, that being the KJV. And worst of all, Gayle Riplinger attacks the memories and characters of good men of God, such as Edwi n Palmer, without once differenti ating between the beliefs and actions of such men and the likes of New Age wackos and Satanists. She misrepresents their writings and words over and over and over again. Accurate representation of others is one thing that is utterly lacking in New Age Bible Versions. Those are some pretty harsh words, but the documentation of these statements is easily found. All one has to do is take Gayle Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, and then take the time to find such books as Barker's The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Palmer's The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, and John Kohlenberger's Words About the Word, and examine the references provided at the end of the book. The number of complete mis-citations and altered quotations will quickly prove the correctness of my statements. Given the small amount of time we have today, I will only be able to provide a few examples, but I could literally expand the list indefinitely. First, one simply cannot believe the "facts" that are presented in this book, for quite often, they are not facts at all. There are dozens and dozens of charts throughout the book, allegedly comparing the KJV with the supposed "New Versions," which she calls "mutant versions." Yet, over and over again these charts are simply wrong. On page 22 we are told that the "New Versions" delete the call to take up the cross, when they do not. We are told that while the KJV tells us to bless our enemies, the new v ersions tell us to call our enemies bastards, which, of course, they do not. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (09:44) Number: 5717 From: JAMES WHITE Refer#: NONE To: DOUG SNEAD Recvd: NO Subj: RECENT DEBATE #2 Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Original To : All (8:2016/4) At times the facts are 180 degrees opposite of what is claimed by Gayle Riplinger. For example, on page 99 we read, "All new versions, based on a tiny percentage of corrupt Greek manuscripts, make the fatefully frightening addition of three words in Revelation 14:1." She then quotes the passage from the NIV, which reads, "...the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." The phrase "his name and" is not found in the KJV. She con tinues on page 100, "Will the unwary, reading Revelation 14:1 in a recent version, be persuaded that the bible sanctions and encourages the taking of "his name" on their forehead before they receive his Father's name?" Such sounds truly ominous, until one discovers that in point of fact, it is the Textus Receptus, the Greek Text of the New Testament utilized by the KJV translators, that alone does not contain the disputed phrase, "his name." The Majority Text contains it, as do all the Greek texts. We ha ve here merely a mistake on the part, most probably, of Desiderius Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest who collated what became the Textus Receptus. He had major problems in producing the text of Revelation, and merely skipped over the phrase referring to the Lamb's name. Sadly, someone reading New Age Bible Versions could be led to attack the NIV on the basis of a basic mistake. The modern versions are unashamedly misrepresented in place after place by the convenient use of punctuation. While attempting to argue that new versions teach us to believe in monism through the use of the term "one," the NASB is cited as follows, "True knowledge according to the image of the One..." on page 92. The reference given is Colossians 3:10, which reads in full from the NASB: "And have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created hi m--a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all." The arguments put forward in this book at times border on the ludicrous. The chart found on page 26 should fascinate anyone seeking logical thinking. On page 232 we are warned against the letter "s." Riplinger writes, "Watch out for the letter `s' -- sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added `s` here is the hiss of the serpent." Such argumentation would lead us to abandon such terms as salvation, Savior, and sanctification as well! Indeed, on page 174 our author recommends the KJ V's use of the term "sober" over other translations, possibly missing the "hiss" of that "s" on "sober." I, as a Reformed theologian, was certainly amazed to discover that, according to Mrs. Riplinger, the "Five Points" of Calvinism form a Satanic pentagram! And everyone should surely take heed to Mrs. Riplinger's use of "acrostic algebra" on page 149. Here, in a passage reminiscent of the identifications of Henry Kissinger as the anti-Christ two decades a go, Mrs. Riplinger demonstrates how the abbreviat ions for the New American Standard Version and the New International Version add up to the word "sin" when the Authorized Version is taken away. Not only is such argumentation utterly without merit, but it is interesting to note that throughout the rest of the book Mrs. Riplinger abbreviates the New American Standard Bible as NASB, but solely for the purpose of this trip into "acrostic algebra," she changes to the NASV, an abbreviation used nowhere else in the book. Indeed, over and over and over again th e arguments that are put forward could easily be turned around and used against the KJV and Mrs. Riplinger's position. The use of such argumentation should warn the reader that all is not well in New Age Bible Versions. Double standards are rampant throughout the book. Shortly after attacking all modern versions for daring to use the term "one" in their translations, she fails to attack the KJV for using it in her own citation of it on page 93. When the modern versions do not follow the KJV in rendering the Greek term Artemidos as Diana, she accuses them of being ignorant of classical mythology on page 127; but when they recognize similar gods in Old Testament passages, she accuses them of rejecting the one true God in f avor of false gods. And in what would probably be one of the most amusing examples of double standards, if it were not so sad, Gayle Riplinger attacks all who are Reformed, or "Calvinists," in many places, as I shall discuss and refute later. But in the process she seems to be blissfully unaware of the simple fact that amongst the KJV translators you have the likes of Doctor John Rainolds, a Puritan! And surely Mrs. Riplinger must be aware of the theological beliefs of the Puritans! They were Reformed men, Calvinists, who s trongly believed in God's sovereignty and the deadness of man in sin. If Edwin Palmer's Calvinistic beliefs make the NIV one of Satan's tricks, what about the KJV? It seems that as long as someone had anything at all to do with the production of the NIV, it is fair game to not only impugn their character, but to misrepresent their words. For example, on page 89 of New Age Bible Versions, we read the following, "Even NIV translator Larry Walker applauds the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic wherein the gods of pantheism preside." The reference given is to Walker's article, again in the book on the NIV, specifically pages 101-102. Yet, one will s earch in vain throughout the article for the slightest reference to a rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament in favor of anything else at all. The citation simply has nothing to do with the allegation that is made. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (09:44) Number: 5718 From: JAMES WHITE Refer#: NONE To: DOUG SNEAD Recvd: NO Subj: RECENT DEBATE #3 Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Original To : All (8:2016/4) On page 165 we have another personal attack upon an NIV translator, Herbert Wolf, for his defense of the very logical, scholarly translation of the Hebrew "zedekah" in poetic contexts by the term "prosperity." Ignoring the very solid, reasonable defense given by Wolf, Riplinger chooses instead to play games with the man's name, writing, "Perhaps the armour and breastplate of `righteousness does not fit' Mr. Wolf and his pack because they are puffed up and paunchy, because they have devoured souls (Ezekiel 22:25)." She goes on to say, "Paul said that those, like Wolf, who teach that `gain is godliness' are `destitute of the truth.' Equating financial prosperity with spirituality is a common characteristic of the `New' Christianity and the New Age." Of course, anyone can see that Wolf said nothing at all about equating prosperity and spirituality; this is mere fantasy on Riplinger's part. Yet the book is filled from cover to cover with such misrepresentati on and wild imagination. Mrs. Riplinger moves on to attack another NIV translator, Richard Longenecker. On page 345, after saying that the NIV "joins the cults," she massacres a quote from Longenecker, again from the book, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. She introduces Longenecker's quotation as follows: "To Longnecker, Jesus was `chosen' to receive the title `Son of God' because he earned it through `obedience.' He says, that Jesus, [then quoting] ...exemplified in his life an unparalleled obedience...[H]e h as the greatest right to the title...God's son par excellence." A quick glance at page 125 of the original source reveals yet once again that Gayle Riplinger has misrepresented yet another Christian scholar. Longenecker says nothing of the kind, and in fact gives a very solid, orthodox, Biblically based discussion of the Sonship of Jesus Christ. In light of this it is amazing to read again on page 345 that Riplinger says, "Both Longnecker and Carlson are expressing a view similar to that held by the earl y Adoptionists, Dynamic Monarchists or Ebionites." Not only is this utterly untrue of what Longenecker said in the cited passage, but it is equally untrue of the other person she mentions, D. A. Carson. Neither are adoptionists. Now, it is possible that all these misrepresentations are due to horrifically poor research on Gayle Riplinger's part. For example, she misspells the names of both Longenecker and Carson on page 345, even though ostensibly quoting from their books while accusing them of being cultists. On the previous page she misspells the term "Mormon" as well; indeed, every time it appears in the book it is spelled incorrectly. Possibly she simply read other people's books and then got all her bad information from tho se secondary sources. Who knows? All I know is that the book is one long misrepresentation from the preface to the index. Edwin Palmer wrote an article comparing the KJV and the NIV that appears in the book, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. On page 153 he addresses 1 Peter 2:9 which, in the KJV refers to a "peculiar people." He wrote, "Today that means `odd people.' It should be, `a people belonging to God.' (NIV)." Edwin Palmer believed strongly that God's people are a special people, a people chosen by God Himself and set apart by their holiness. Yet on page 170, Gayle Riplinger, under the title "The C ountry Club or the Cross," writes, "A lifestyle driven by verses not vogue, will brand one as "peculiar" (NERD, in the vernacular). Unwilling to bear `his reproach,' the NIV's Edwin Palmer pushes the "peculiar people" of Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 2:9 into the closet--already crowded with the `righteous' and `the perfect.' Palmer writes, "...a peculiar people. Today that means odd. It should be..." She goes on to say, "It meant odd when Peter and Paul wrote it and when Moses wrote it 4000 years earlier." In reality, the term has nothing at all to do with "odd" or "peculiar" as we use it today. In point of fact, the Greek term found in 1 Peter 2:9 is also found in Ephesians 1:14, where the KJV translates it as "possession"! That Riplinger can say that a Christian minister was unwilling to bear the reproach of Christ for more accurately understanding the Greek term peripoiesis than she does is absolutely amazing. It is Palmer himself, the editor of the NIV Study Bible until his death in 1980, who comes in for the most obvious personal attack on the part of Riplinger. I can see no other conclusions, having examined Riplinger's attacks upon Palmer, than either she is grossly dishonest in her methods, or is completely ignorant of the writings of Edwin Palmer and what he actually believed. I can see no other possibilities. For example, on page 344 she attempts to parallel Palmer's quotation, "The Holy Spirit did not beget the Son" with a quotation from Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses. Of course, Palmer, in the context in which he was speaking, was exactly right, since he was speaking of the internal operations of the Trinity. Young, on the other hand, was denying the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth. One might conjecture that Riplinger has never read either Palmer's statements, or those of Brigham Young, and hence did not know that she was mixing contex ts so badly. In either case, her point is ut terly false. --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 7/2 0 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (09:44) Number: 5719 From: JAMES WHITE Refer#: NONE To: DOUG SNEAD Recvd: NO Subj: RECENT DEBATE FINAL Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Original To : All (8:2016/4) The same is to be said of her citation of Palmer's words with regards to the deity of Christ. On page 2 she quotes Palmer in the following form: "[F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God." This is taken as sure evidence of Palmer's supposed heresy. Yet, is this accurate? No, yet once again context has been thrown out the window. Palmer is actually talking about the rendering of John 1:18 in the NIV. His words are, "John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few and clear a nd decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus `Son.' " My what a difference context makes! And Palmer is exactly right. There are less than ten places in all the New Testament that could possibly apply the term theos to Jesus Christ; if that is not "few" then what is? In passing, I wish to note that Riplinger even misleads her readers regarding the deity of Christ in an effort to maintain the accuracy of the KJV. I am referring to two important passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. The NIV translates Titus 2:13, "While we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." and 2 Peter 1:1 says, "To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." In both cases t he KJV interrupts the proper translation, splitting up the terms "God" and "Savior," resulting in the phraseology, "our God and our Savior, Jesus Christ," as if two persons, God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Savior, are being referred to, when this is not the case. Now, on page 370, with reference to Titus 2:13, Riplinger says, "All Greek texts have the wording of the KJV, "God and our Savior Jesus Christ." None render it as the new versions do." And on pag e 371 she wrote, "2 Thessalonians 1:12, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1 are called hendiadies, from the Greek hen dia dyoin, `one by two.' Grammatically it is the `expression of an idea by two nouns connected by and, instead of by a noun and an adjunct. It would be like introducing one's spouse as `my wife and best friend.'" In reality, the reason that the NIV and NASB and others accurately translate these passages as "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" is due to what is known as Granville Sharp's Rule. Without going into detai l, the KJV translators wer e not aware of this grammatical feature of koine Greek, and hence did not translate these passages accurately. The Jehovah's Witnesses mistranslate these passages purposefully, of course, for obvious reasons. Now, if I were looking for conspiracies, I'd have to identify Gayle as a secret Jehovah's Witness trying to infiltrate the Church. Of course, I know that is not the case, and would never make such an argument, yet this is the argument presented throughout her book. On at least three different occasions our author attacks Palmer's belief in the sovereignty of God in saving mankind. Twice she mis-cites his words, first on page 2, then again in the exact same form on page 231. Here is her quote from the very beginning of her book on page 2: "The NIV's chief editor vaunts his version's heresy saying: `This [his NIV] shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith...and that in o rder to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior." Now, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Palmer. Men must be made new creatures by the Holy Spirit of God before they can have true, saving faith. Romans 8:5-9 teaches this with glaring clarity in any translation. And it was, in fact, this belief in salvation by grace, free, unmerited grace, that spawned the Reformation itself. It is Gayle Riplinger who here denies the Protestant heritage. But eve n in doing this, she misrepresents Palmer yet on ce again! Riplinger says that Palmer is talking about the NIV. He is not! The NIV is nowhere mentioned on page 83 of the book being cited. Hence, her whole point is based upon the insertion of the little phrase "his NIV" where it does not belong! Anyone who would read Palmer's work would shake their head in disbelief at the complete misuse of his words by Riplinger. Gayle's Pelagianism comes out in yet another misrepresentation of Palmer on page 90. She writes, "His denial of free will is seen in his NIV. He says his change in 1 Thessalonians 1:4 `suggests the opposite' of the KJV." When you look up the reference, you read the following, "1 Thessalonians 1:4: `your election of God.' In the days of the KJV this was a way of saying `your election by God.' As it is today, the KJV suggests the opposite of what the Greek really says. NIV has `he has chosen you.'" Not ice that Palmer says nothing like what Riplinger says; and, Palmer happens to be 100% right, as anyone who has examined the passage well knows. This topic was so important for Riplinger that she addressed it a third time, on page 231. Here she says that the same quotation given above is so "scandalous and sacriligious" that it will "stun and shock the reader." One has to wonder what Gayle would say about the following quotation from Martin Luther: "If any man ascribe ought of his salvation, even the least part, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and has not learned Jesus Christ." But beyond this, it is obvious that Gayle attacks Palmer's theology, and by extension, the theology of the Protestant Reformation, on the basis of ignorance of it's tenets. She asks, "If he denies faith and each individual's responsibility to accept Jesus as his Savior, what does he offer in its place?" Possibly if Gayle would read Dr. Palmer's book she would discover what he was really saying? I'd be glad to send her a copy of Dr. Palmer's works, or other books such as R.C. Sproul's Chosen by God or J.I . Packer's Sovereignty and Evangelism, or my own God's Sovereign Grace, if she would like to discover what it is that was taught by the Reformers. James>>> --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-01-94 (20:43) Number: 5721 From: ROBERT MCKAY Refer#: NONE To: CHUCK GREEN Recvd: NO Subj: NEW HERE Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CG>He is pretty calm, come to think of it. He's not one for long threads, CG>though. He presents his opinion, labels his opponents un-Christian, CG>then quits. Well, shoot, that would convince me. ___ X QMPro 1.01 11-1111 X I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. --Rom. 9:15 --- Maximus 2.01wb * Origin: Pros Apologian: Toward a Defense of the Faith (8:7007/2) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2 =========================================================================== BBS: Christian Central Date: 04-02-94 (22:16) Number: 7051 From: BERNIE WILT Refer#: NONE To: ALL Recvd: NO Subj: 1611 AV Conf: (170) E-kjv Ccn --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings All! I have not read much here, but plan to, in the near future. I am wondering if any of you that contend for the KJV ONLY have a REAL KJV Bible? ~Bernie Wilt~ ... FReq: "REALKJV" (without quotes) for information/ad ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- Renegade v1-2 Exp * Origin: PIONEER INTERNATIONAL BBS =Mesa, AZ= (602)649-2647 (8:1015/0) SEEN-BY: 1015/0 50 3200/207 7007/0 2