Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Dr James Ach

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dr James Ach last won the day on February 13 2020

Dr James Ach had the most liked content!

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

13,127 profile views

Dr James Ach's Achievements

  1. Just when I thought that JD Hall and some of his Calvinist followers couldn’t get any lower, I stumbled upon a conversation that took place on Twitter where JD Hall, Fred Butler, “Rhology”, Gene Clyatt (Shinar Squirrel) where all of these Genevan Calvinists were harassing Ergun Caner’s 15 year old son. Not only is the […] View the full article
  2. [Assistant Editor's note: this looks like a deliberate conspiracy to slam the borders with known sick immigrants to spread disease as well as chaos into the country. There's just no other explanation for the things that OBama has allowed to happen on the US borders. A scary thought would be that if the US is […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.com&blog=40542567&post=1613&subd=dorightchristians&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" /> View the full article
  3. WARNING: If you are a member of the Anon Church, and can’t handle what you’ve dished out to other Baptists, this article is going to REALLY offend you! The Anon Church is a group of cyber religious terrorists lead by a convicted sex offender Matthew Coker (convicted for child pornography) -who goes by “Back Row […] View the full article
  4. A so-called Christian heavy metal band whose frontman was convicted of attempting to hire a hitman to murder his estranged wife has admitted that it duped fans into believing that they were Christian in order to sell their music. “Truthfully, I was an atheist,” Tim Lambesis, the lead singer and founder of As I Lay Dying told theAlternative Press in a recent interview. […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=dorightchristians.wordpress.com&blog=40542567&post=1529&subd=dorightchristians&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" /> View the full article
  5. Wow, what a bunch of pious sounding Palestinians who throw rocks and Molotov cocktails into our living quarters, and then go crying to the UN (in this case, the moderators) about how bad my "attitude" is. You want bad attitude? Take this forum and shove it in between a Catholic Bible like an Apocrypha.
  6. Considering that I have been gone all weekend and today is really some of my first postings in about 4 days, and your very first response to me is sarcastic (after just telling someone else to "cut the sarcasm" in Post #81), I would say that my assumption on how you intend to respond was pretty accurate. But it does appear that with the accusation of "paranoid" you have joined the ranks of the other James White hooligans (some on this board such as Genevan Preacher) that have labeled me a "conspiracy theorist". Here's a little bit more accuracy about your "activities": you are sympathizing more and more with those who purposely throw around false doctrine on this forum. Of all of the points I made toward Jeffrey, instead of dealing with the issues related to his attack on the KJV and support of modern version, you isolated one part of my comment to be sarcastic about whether or not you had the ability to read. And for the record, I never said you couldn't read (since you adamantly repeated it twice in 2 separate comments), even a 1st grader can read, but that doesn't mean they have enough comprehension to understand how many calories are in a bowl full of modern version soup.
  7. You're right, I should have limited my admonition toward the people commenting that actually think they know something about the history of the KJV and modern version debates, as opposed to the people that commented who DO know what they're talking about. It makes no difference how long the discussion lasted about Ruckman, that was not the ONLY thing I said "pay attention" to. I said that the thread was about how long the concept of King James Version Only preceded Ruckman, which has not so far been discussed at length (if at all). You even made the comment earlier on that you did not want to "derail the thread", and yet you did it any way. So you can stop being a hypocrite by telling me what can and can not be up for "discussion" on a "discussion board" when you admitted yourself that threads have a purpose of sticking to the point as per your response in Post #11. Thus if this is how it's going to be from now on every time I post something, at least make sure your arguments and comments have a little bit more weight to them than this one did.
  8. Now for Jeffrey, I'll ask you the same questions that James White keeps dodging about the Codex Sinaiticus: 1. If the correctors of Aleph are supposed to be 4th - 5th century, then explain how a 12th century Islamic prophecy is written in Arabic in the folio of Revelation chapter 7-8 in the footnote? 2. If the correctors of Aleph are 4th & 5th century, explain how 9th century miniscules were used in corrections (such as the uncial 'betas' used in Mark 2). Kind of hard to ascribe correctors to the 5th century when there is evidence of styles that were not in use until 400 years later. 3. Defend James White's assumption that Aleph was "in much usage" by the earlier churches when there are numerous folios that are written on pure white parchment (and free of any lemon or other whitening process). I have about 20 more anomalies I could list, but those 3 are smoking guns against the Sinaiticus that James White has refused to answer from us for at least a year now. Why? Because the life of all your modern versions and the veracity of their textual criticism apparatus DEPENDS ON CODEX SINAITICUS, and if just one card falls out, the whole house of Sinaiticus crumbles. And what's funny about James White is that he recently criticized a person for failing to show up on his radio show to debate Molinism (He's also made fun of Ergun Caner for failing to appear for a debate with him). However, White does not hold Constantine Tischendorf (the alleged founder of the Sinaiticus) to the same standard when Tishy failed to show up for a debate with Constantine Simonides who claimed authorship of the document that Tishy was trying to pass off as the oldest mss known to Christendom. Tishy had already once before accused Simonides of fraud when Simonides claimed to have a Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermes (which ironically was included in Tishy first edition of his Russian copy of the Sinaiticus) and then had to retract his statements and apologize to Simonides. When Simonides publicly challenged Tishy in all of the local media outlets, Tischendorf was a no-show on the day of the debate. By the way, James White in his book on the KJVO Controversy had initially agreed with the commonly held story that Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus in a 'trash can'. It was not until later when this story was challenged that White altered his story to it being found bound in a red cloth carefully guarded by the monks at St. Catherine's. White is a professional liar that his boot licking followers don't pay attention to when he changes his stories. And for the rest of you, pay attention to what the subject was about. It wasn't about Peter Ruckman but about the oft made claims by KJV haters that the KJVO position was started by Ruckman giving the impression that defense of the KJV is some new phenomena. The quote is simply posted to show that defense of the KJV preceded Peter Ruckman by a long shot.
  9. Yes, God forbid that He would actually COMMAND that copies be made: Deut 17:18: " And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites" How dare God to expect kings and judges to follow laws from a COPY
  10. I'd rather get them all out of the way to avoid side shows for those who think the Calvinist forgot something. Or it can be 1-1 with allowances made for the Calvinist to use handicaps, life lines and dial-a-Calvinist I'll catch up more after the week end is over. We passed out tracts today during a homo parade which went over about as well as a model duck posing at a gun range, and then before sunrise we are moving our stuff to another family member's house in Jaffa. I'm sick of Tel Aviv. When I had to walk over a rainbow colored crosswalk to get my coffee, that was it for me LOL.
  11. Yeah, ME TOO, just saw this thread. I would also like to debate every person on the forum that defends Calvinism. Me against any Calvinist, or all of you at once, doesn't matter to me.
  12. Dr. Elisha Weismann Contrary to critics like James White, Rick Norris, Fred Butler, JD Hall, Doug Cutelick, and all modern professional liars, the King James Only view did not begin with Peter Ruckman, Ruckman was merely instrumental in causing professing Baptists to quit riding the fence on the issue. Thomas Morris posted the following quote […] View the full article
  13. The issue went right over his head. The contention was about symbolism as it applied to mathematical equations, not the OBjects being numerated. Their initial rebuttal was that the measurements (i.e., mathematical equations) themselves were symbolic, and the point I am showing- which they've completely missed and reverted right back to circular reasoning- is that the equations given in Revelation are not neither symbolic nor allegorical. And since the mathematical equations have a literal meaning, it is impossible to conclude that the city is made up of humans because it doesn't 'add up'
  14. What is funny is that he appealed to Dave that if he is going to argue against Reformed Doctrine (not the Bible) he should at least "try to understand it". It never ceases to amaze me how much Calvinists claim "sola scriptura" but then accuse their opponents of misrepresentation, and then admonish them to study the creeds, confessions and commentaries of the Reformers to better understand Calvinism/Reformed Doctrine. Calvinists prove to me over and over again they are really not "Sola Scriptura". It's the same logic used by the Jehovah's Witnesses "If you want to understand the Watchtower you have to understand the Bible...but wait...the Watchtower doesn't believe that and you need to study Russel's 'Studies In the Scriptures' to know that the Watchtower really believes the Bible" It's a constant circular reasoning trap. "Calvinism IS the gospel", and the only way to really know it is to know the confessions and creeds and writings of the Reformers, if all you know is the Bible, well then you can never truly understand Calvinism because the first time you disagree with a Calvinist, they will gladly point to an article in the Confessions (whether Westminster, London, Philadelphia, Helvetic Confessions, Lambeth Articles , Dortian Canons, etc...) and accuse you of not understanding the Reformers if you don't know these documents and authors. This was my SOP in debate tactics when I was a Calvinist. Ironically, every Calvinist would've "Amen'd" every word I said back then, but now I "misunderstand" it. Well just how many authors, books, confessions, creeds, catechisms, commentaries does one have to read in order to understand Calvinism? And if Calvinism is really that predictable, then why don't Calvinist themselves agree with each other? I mean, after all, if God ordains all things, and His will can never be thwarted or altered or interfered with (Psalm 78:41), and it's surely God's will that His people have unity (Eph 4:13) and be of the same mind (Phil 2:1-5), then surely Calvinists are all on the same page, right? Don't try cashing that check.
  15. From Jack Moorman's, Forever Settled, pages 69-70 Origen (185 - 254) He is considered by many to be the most profound mind in the history of the church. But in fact it may be said that he had a greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the Bible itself than any man. Origen was born in Alexandria, Egypt, the cradle of Gnosticism. He and Clement before him were renowned teachers in Alexandria's famous Catechetical School. This school was a center of philosophical and scientific learning as well as theology.He practiced rigorous asceticism, memorized largo portions of Scripture and wrote commentaries on much of the Bible. Millers Church History states "he sought to gather the fragments of truth scattered throughout the pagan Philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to present the Gospel in a form that would not offend but rather ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics and cultivated heathen." Origen said, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed in universalism, that all including demons would eventually be saved. His theology included a kind of reincarnation of the soul.. He was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture, saying - "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as written." Though Origen says "there never was a time when the Son was not." His attempts to explain the father’s "begetting" of the Son have somewhat left this issue in doubt. In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism. Adam Clarke says he was the first to teach purgatory. A number of the doctrines which later found their way into Romanism have their source in this man. J. H. Newman who was made a Cardinal after he left the Church of England for the Church of Rome said, "I love the name of Origen, I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost." The fact that the Catholic Bibles contain the seven additional books known is the Apocrypha may be traced to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own "doctored" Greek manuscripts. This indicates that he placed tradition and Scripture on about the same footing a prime tenant in Roman theology. Reumann in "The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars" says that Origen had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the manuscripts (pp S0-56). Westcott refers to his alteration of Mark 6:3. Hills states that he altered Matthew 19:17-21 and Burgon that he altered Luke 2:14. Kilpatrick says, "The creation of new variants ceased about 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them. From the 3rd century onward, even Origen could not effectively alter the text."Origen himself, referred to the tampering of manuscripts in his day. "Nowadays, as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts, either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those, who, playing the part of correctors, lengthen or shorten it as they please." Hort stated regarding Origen, "His Scripture quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the TR." However, Edward Miller, in his exhaustive study of the Fathers, found that Origen sided with the TR 460 times and with the WH 491 times. This is a powerful proof that even in Alexandria at this early date, the distinctive readings of the Received Text were almost as common as that of the other. Hills states - "In the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John (that is, in the area covered by P.66) out of 52 instances in which the TR stands alone, Origen agrees with it 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. Thus to assertions that Origen knew nothing of the TR becomes difficult indeed to maintain. It is argued that these TR readings are not really Origen's, but represent alterations made by scribes who copied Origen's works to make them conform with the TR. However, a number of these distinctively TR readings in Origen also appear in P66. Origen spent the later part of his life in Caesarea where his corruptive influence affected later generations, including Eusebius (265 - 340) and Jerome (340 - 420). Newman says, "Palestine, where Origen spent the latter half of his life has always been devoted to his memory and faithful to his teachings."Wilkinson says, 'When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries ... His corrupted manuscripts of the Scriptures were well arranged and balanced with subtlety. The last one hundred years have seen much of the so-called scholarship of European and English Christianity dominated by the subtle and powerful influence of Origen." ****************** Page 194 By 1833 the issue was becoming clearly defined. It was Premillenarianism, that is, belief in the return of Christ before the millennium, or Liberalism; it was with regard to the Scriptures either literalism or allegorism. As Cadman says of the Evangelicals of that day: "Their fatalism inclined many of them to Premillenarianism as a refuge from the approaching catastrophes of the present dispensation… Famous divines strengthened and adorned the wider ranks of Evangelicalism, but few such were found within the pale of the Establishment. ROBert Hall, John Foster, William Jay of Bath, and in Scotland, Thomas Chalmers, represented the vigour and fearlessness of an earlier day and maintained the excellence of Evangelical preaching." Here was a faith in the Second Coming of Christ, at once Protestant and evangelical, which would resist any effort so to revise the Scriptures as to render them colourless, giving to them nothing more than a literary endorsement of plans of betterment, merely social or political. This faith was soon to be called upon to face a theology of an entirely different spirit. German religious thinking at that moment was taking on an aggressive attitude. Schleiermacher had captured the imagination of the age and would soon mould the theology of Oxford and Cambridge. Though he openly confessed himself a Protestant, nevertheless, like Origen of old, he sat at the feet of Clement, the old Alexandrian teacher of 190 A.D.
  • Create New...