Search results

Likely less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts and perhaps less than 50 Greek NT manuscripts were incompletely and imperfectly collated for the varying editions of the Textus Receptus. John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of...

You describe your own posts.

You provide no verifiable documented evidence for your unproven claim. Your "more likely" speculation remains a wild speculation.

Ruth Magnusson Davis asserted: "The Geneva Bible is the fruit and proof of Calvin's thought" (Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 2, p. 195). Ruth Davis claimed: "Calvin's new theology, so-called 'covenant theology,' undergirded these revisions" (the revisions made in the Geneva Bible to the...

You describe you and your fellow KJV-only advocates.

Your posts and claims do not display realism. You do not accept the real truth that your human KJV-only reasoning is non-scriptural and unsound.

You fail to present sound, verifiable, compelling evidence that would have actually compelled you. Perhaps it was more your unsound, incorrect human KJV-only reasoning which actually compelled you instead of any sound verifiable evidence.

Are you condemning your own typical circular reasoning and unproven claims?

Is that your subjective, non-scholarly KJV-only opinion? Your non-scriptural, non-scholarly KJV-only opinions are far more extremely difficult and unlikely than those which you may try to discredit.

Some of the 1611 KJV edition’s Old Testament chapter headings may be the result of influence of the 1560 Geneva Bible, and those headings differ from the headings and notes in the 1537 Matthew's Bible. Ruth Magnusson Davis claimed: “Following Calvin, the Geneva Bible taught that ‘the Church’...

It is one of your typical tactics to try to misrepresent, smear, or discredit thought-provoking questions whose answers would expose serious problems in your unproven claims.

Ruth Magnusson Davis asserted: "Tyndale would have abhorred what Geneva did to his translations" (Story of the Matthew Bible, part 2, p. 381).

She is critical of KJV-onlyism, but at times she does sound like a Matthew's Bible-only advocate. Ruth Magnusson Davis wrote: "PP [her abbreviation for Providential preservation and so-called Confessional Bibliology] and KJV-onlyism are really two sides of the same coin, in that both hold up...

Ruth Magnusson Davis maintained that "a characteristic shared by and unique to the Reformation Bibles is the translation of ecclesia by 'congregation'" (The Story of the Matthew Bible, Part 1, p. 243). Ruth Magnusson Davis asserted: "The simple fact is that the Matthew Bible is the only English...

Are you suggesting the possibility that deeply entrenched non-scholarly KJV-only studies may get confused by their own preconceived notions?

Are you suggesting that it is interesting for you to throw out strawman diversions?

You fail to prove what you claim to be a fact to be an actual verifiable fact. You do not at all prove that the experts "generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information." You seem to think that mere speculations, opinions, assumptions, and claims based on silence are salient information.

Your demand is empty and vain since you do not practice what you preach. You are in effect attacking the integrity of that poster. You have repeatedly attempted to question or attack the integrity or honesty of other posters, and you have not apologized for your improper attacks on their...

Steven Avery, how do Simonides' claims fit all the facts on the ground presented by the poster Maestroh on this page 18 of this thread? You are dodging and avoiding a great deal of information, and you are not presenting "tons of evidence" to support your unproven opinions.

You have not even come close to proving that to be the case. You are jumping to a conclusion that you have not proven to be true. You have offered mostly speculations and conjectures instead of verifiable facts.