Changes in the King James Version

Theo1689

Well-known member
Well you have been studying Greek for 50 years so you say.

Nope.
I've never EVER made that claim.
This is why CARM rules require you to provide a LINKED quote if you want to make claims about what another poster has said.

So if that's an example of your reading comprehension and/or memory, I don't think there's reason to trust ANYTHING you claim here.

You were around in about 63 right? Anyways, its documented. No matter how hard it is , it documented.

I hate to break it to you, but I wasn't reading NA25 in infancy (I was born in '63).

But if, as you claim, it is "documented", then let's simply SEE this "documentation".
Please SHOW us this "documentation".
 

OldWalt

Member
Nope.
I've never EVER made that claim.
This is why CARM rules require you to provide a LINKED quote if you want to make claims about what another poster has said.

So if that's an example of your reading comprehension and/or memory, I don't think there's reason to trust ANYTHING you claim here.



I hate to break it to you, but I wasn't reading NA25 in infancy (I was born in '63).

But if, as you claim, it is "documented", then let's simply SEE this "documentation".
Please SHOW us this "documentation".
I may have misremembered, Im sorry about that.
As far as documentation, its out there. The onus is on you to read said editions. Elbow work sucks.
 

OldWalt

Member
Just like you likely "misremembered" about the NA25.



Nope, the burden of proof is on the person who MADE the claim.
And that is

Just like you likely "misremembered" about the NA25.



Nope, the burden of proof is on

Just like you likely "misremembered" about the NA25.



Nope, the burden of proof is on the person who MADE the claim.
And that is YOU.
And the different addtions are for sale. Or you can go to the local library. Or the University library of your choice.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
So I can go around saying that OldWalt is a secret Roman Catholic, and it's up to him to disprove it?? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" If the DA can't prove his case, it's chucked out of court! So, since OldWalt can't prove his case, chuck it!

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 

OldWalt

Member
So I can go around saying that OldWalt is a secret Roman Catholic, and it's up to him to disprove it?? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" If the DA can't prove his case, it's chucked out of court! So, since OldWalt can't prove his case, chuck it!

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
Not here for you.
 

OldWalt

Member
You need to take your own advice.
You made an apparently bogus claim.
And you are unable to "demonstrate" it with EVIDENCE.

You would fail any research paper in my class (I'm a teacher, btw).
"Apparently bogus claim"? Now who was the one claiming I was ignorant about the received text? A fourth century "recension theory"! Why is it bogus? Because you will not research it?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
"Apparently bogus claim"? Now who was the one claiming I was ignorant about the received text? A fourth century "recension theory"! Why is it bogus? Because you will not research it?

It's not my JOB to "research" it.
There's no valid reason for me to waste my time on a wild goose chase.
YOU are the one who made the claim.
YOU allegedly know where the "proof" is.
So why should I waste my time looking for something you claim you KNOW already exists?
That's worthless game-playing.

Did someone tell you this in a coffee shop? What was his name?
Did you read it in some KJV-Only book? What was the title?
Did you actually see it in a copy of the NA25? Take a picture and post it here.

I'm not here to play games, or to waste my time searching for something that doesn't exist. If YOU can't provide that proof, then that means you KNOW it's a bogus claim.
 
Top