A must see. Argue with this.

Are you suggesting that this video is Scripture? Is the speaker on this video a prophet or apostle who is being given direct revelation from God?

Are you arguing with God for not giving in the Scriptures the sound, scriptural evidence for KJV-only opinions so a video has to be made to do what God supposedly did not do? Are you asserting that the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are not sufficient?

Are you in effect admitting that you are unwilling or unable to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case from the Scriptures themselves for exclusive only claims for the KJV?
 
The fascinating thing in the OP video is the contrast between KJVO's and modern versions proponents.

All MV proponents are willing to completely change the Bible via archeological finds.

They are openly admitting the word of God is still in the ground on the video.

I never knew they believed that.

This is why on all forums not a single MV will say they have a pure word of God preserved.

What an amazing discovery in the video.
 
The fascinating thing in the OP video is the contrast between KJVO's and modern versions proponents.

All MV proponents are willing to completely change the Bible via archeological finds.

They are openly admitting the word of God is still in the ground on the video.

I never knew they believed that.

This is why on all forums not a single MV will say they have a pure word of God preserved.

What an amazing discovery in the video.
My NASB95 is God's Word.
 
All MV proponents are willing to completely change the Bible via archeological finds.

They are openly admitting the word of God is still in the ground on the video.

I never knew they believed that.
Perhaps you or the video improperly and unsoundly put words in their mouth that they do not actually say. Quotes from two people or a few people does not lead to the conclusion that "all" believe it.

Inventing bogus strawman distortions and misrepresentations seems to be a common tactic of KJV-only advocates.
 
Perhaps you or the video improperly and unsoundly put words in their mouth that they do not actually say. Quotes from two people or a few people does not lead to the conclusion that "all" believe it.

Inventing bogus strawman distortions and misrepresentations seems to be a common tactic of KJV-only advocates.
There’s a clip in the video of the owner of this forum that says that they will follow archaeology into new translations to find the word of God. They are still digging up God’s word somewhere in the Earth.
 
There’s a clip in the video of the owner of this forum that says that they will follow archaeology into new translations to find the word of God. They are still digging up God’s word somewhere in the Earth.
Thanks for confirming the truth of my points.
You have unsoundly made a broad-sweeping generalization based on comments by a very few people and incorrectly concluded that it can be applied to "all." That is not sound reasoning.

Perhaps some KJV-only advocates keep digging in hopes of finding evidence for a few readings followed in the KJV that are found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

Perhaps this video could be considered to be like digging or searching, looking for some new way to rationalize and excuse human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions since no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case can be presented directly from the Scriptures themselves.
 
Thanks for confirming the truth of my points.
You have unsoundly made a broad-sweeping generalization based on comments by a very few people and incorrectly concluded that it can be applied to "all." That is not sound reasoning.

Perhaps some KJV-only advocates keep digging in hopes of finding evidence for a few readings followed in the KJV that are found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

Perhaps this video could be considered to be like digging or searching, looking for some new way to rationalize and excuse human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions since no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case can be presented directly from the Scriptures themselves.
The video speaks for itself.
 
According to modern versionists, no.
Really? Do you speak for them? According to you, where was the absolutely pure and perfect word of God found on earth before 1611?

Where do the Scriptures suggest that the purity of God's word changed in 1611?

Do you ignore the fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV had some proven errors in it or do you redefine pure to include errors?

How do you claim that the KJV preserves original-language words of Scriptures for which it gives no English rendering?
 
Really? Do you speak for them? According to you, where was the absolutely pure and perfect word of God found on earth before 1611?

Where do the Scriptures suggest that the purity of God's word changed in 1611?

Do you ignore the fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV had some proven errors in it or do you redefine pure to include errors?

How do you claim that the KJV preserves original-language words of Scriptures for which it gives no English rendering?
The copies the KJV translators used were the perfect word of God per the video.
Also per the video, modernists say the perfect word has not been dug up yet.
Per the video, the Jews buried bad copies and distributed good ones, and still do to this day.

Keep digging.
 
Per the video, the Jews buried bad copies and distributed good ones, and still do to this day.


"Bad copies" are relatively rare. The experience with, e.g., the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls, shows that good copies that were worn out or damaged were also buried.
 
Moreover, not a single one of the Hebrew mss, listed in Ginsburg's Introduction or used in the BHS, was "buried". They were all regarded by the people holding them as a good copies, notwithstanding they may have had differences from other Hebrew mss also in use elsewhere.
 
"Bad copies" are relatively rare. The experience with, e.g., the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls, shows that good copies that were worn out or damaged were also buried.
You are teaching just the reverse of what the Jews practice now and have practiced in the past. Why would anyone bury good copies that are even worn? I’ve never buried a Bible. I have burned bad translations though.
 
You and the maker of the video are misinformed since the multiple, varying copies or printed texts used in the making of the KJV were not absolutely perfect.
Did you watch the video? Please qualify yourself by watching it.
 
Back
Top