Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You do not practice what you preach. You do not differentiate between truth and error. You accept erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching instead of rejecting it.

Just spouting diversion nonsense because I have pointed out the worthlessness of your true and false quote-fests.

My posts likely have more value than your posts advocating erroneous KJV-only reasoning with its dependence upon fallacies. You oppose objective sound scholarship.

By mixing truth and error in a ball of confusion, they have negative value.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
By mixing truth and error in a ball of confusion, they have negative value.
You describe your own inconsistent KJV-only theory and its mixture of truth and error. It is not at all diversion to point out the truth of your blind acceptance of erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

You choose to believe blindly assertions or claims that are not true.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You describe your own inconsistent KJV-only theory and its mixture of truth and error. It is not at all diversion to point out the truth of your blind acceptance of erroneous KJV-only reasoning. You choose to believe blindly assertions or claims that are not true.
You are simply repeating your circular presumptions, of zero value.

You do that because you cannot defend your truth-and-false quoting, so you need a diversion.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The preservational imperative, the logic of faith, and the actual evidences supporting the Reformation Bible text, and its providential element.

And I have no idea if you have a Bible that you actually believe is the pure word of God.
If you do not, then you have a real problem.
What do you mean by the "preservational imperative"? The idea that if the original writings were divinely inspired then they must have been divinely preserved? Why must they have? Not this or anything else you've offered is hard evidence... they all rest on intangibles and assumptions. I'm a realist and the reality is that we cannot get back to the putative originals... the best we can do is reconstruct, from the available manuscript evidence, an earliest recoverable form of each book. I'm sorry if that fact is inconvenient to you or might cause you angst if you accepted it, but it is the reality we are all faced with and you need to deal with it. Did you ever stop to think that divine preservation was not actuated so that people would focus on the person central to those texts rather than on the text itself and therefore fall into idolatry of it?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Steven Avery, you perhaps need a diversion away from the truth that you accept erroneous KJV-only reasoning with its circular presumptions of zero value. My accurate quotations presented accurately the claims of KJV-only advocates that you avoid.

My accurate quotations presented known facts about the varying imperfect Latin manuscripts so that you try to divert away from those facts.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Steven Avery, you perhaps need a diversion away from the truth that you accept erroneous KJV-only reasoning with its circular presumptions of zero value. My accurate quotations presented accurately the claims of KJV-only advocates that you avoid. My accurate quotations presented known facts about the varying imperfect Latin manuscripts so that you try to divert away from those facts.

More repetitious diversionary blah blah.
And I discussed the Old Latin and the Vulgate mss. You affirmed the corruption pointed out by Scrivener.

My accurate quotations presented known facts
Your quotes are worthless .. they mix true facts and falsehoods.

And you never affirm which are which.

An accurate quotation of an error is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
An accurate quotation of an error is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless.
Your opinion is incorrect.

Accurate quotations of erroneous claims by KJV-only authors would demonstrate that KJV-only advocates believe claims and assertions that are not true just as you also do. Do you ever affirm that you believe KJV-only assertions that are not true? Perhaps you seek to avoid the truth that KJV-only advocates believe assertions that are not true, which could be why you try to dismiss and avoid valuable quotations.

You fail to provide convincing evidence to prove that certain accurate quotations are actually errors just because you claim that they are. You believe KJV-only assertions that are not true so why could your unsupported allegations be blindly accepted?

Since you have in effect deceived yourself by believing KJV-only assertions that are not true, perhaps readers may consider your unsupported, unproven allegations to be worse than worthless.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
What do you mean by the "preservational imperative"? The idea that if the original writings were divinely inspired then they must have been divinely preserved? Why must they have? Not this or anything else you've offered is hard evidence... they all rest on intangibles and assumptions. I'm a realist and the reality is that we cannot get back to the putative originals... the best we can do is reconstruct, from the available manuscript evidence, an earliest recoverable form of each book. I'm sorry if that fact is inconvenient to you or might cause you angst if you accepted it, but it is the reality we are all faced with and you need to deal with it. Did you ever stop to think that divine preservation was not actuated so that people would focus on the person central to those texts rather than on the text itself and therefore fall into idolatry of it?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

We can leave it be.
As I believe my Bible is the pure word of God. You are equivocal.

The pure Bible is the written source of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Your opinion is incorrect. Accurate quotations of erroneous claims by KJV-only authors would demonstrate that KJV-only advocates believe claims and assertions that are not true just as you also do.

You quoting does not differentiate what is accurate and what is false.
Both on AV defenders and others you quote.

Thus, your quotes are worse than worthless.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Old Latin translations put in the Western family are known for having a number of additions as well as some omissions. Would you suggest the Byzantine text has some of the same additions as the Old Latin has?

The Old Latin additions are generally noted as not being in the Greek text.
So, the answer is no.

If those Old Latin additions were in the Greek Byzantine mss., they would not be additions.
Logic 101.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
We can leave it be.
As I believe my Bible is the pure word of God. You are equivocal.

The pure Bible is the written source of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
So you run away from the reality I've outlined and that you cannot refute? That is certainly your prerogative, but it just exposed how theoretically and practically indefensible your position is...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

logos1560

Well-known member
If those Old Latin additions were in the Greek Byzantine mss., they would not be additions.
Logic 101.
Your logic is faulty. Perhaps you assume your unproven opinion by use of the fallacy of begging the question.

Just as Greek Byzantine mss. can have and do have omissions, they can also have additions.

Some Greek Byzantine mss. can have readings not found in all Greek Byzantine mss as they have many variations and differences. Some Latin-Greek manuscripts could have readings added in their Greek text to make them try to harmonize with their Latin text.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Your logic is faulty. Perhaps you assume your unproven opinion by use of the fallacy of begging the question. Just as Greek Byzantine mss. can have and do have omissions, they can also have additions. Some Greek Byzantine mss. can have readings not found in all Greek Byzantine mss as they have many variations and differences. Some Latin-Greek manuscripts could have readings added in their Greek text to make them try to harmonize with their Latin text.
Stop jumping around.
Your question was about additions in Old Latin mss,, and I answered it directly.

My logic was fine.
Your questions jump around in your confusion.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I cannot prove the pure Bible to one full of doubt and uncertainty.
You do not even attempt to obey the scriptural command to prove all things. You know that you cannot prove your untrue assertions to one who stands for the consistent truth.

You fail to prove your negative, untrue allegation against me and other posters. You do not prove that other posters are supposedly full of doubt and uncertainty as you attempt to suggest with your diversionary carnal smear tactics. You jump around avoiding any serious discussion because your diversionary tactic is to make false allegations, attacking the integrity and honesty of the other poster instead of discussing what they actually state. You are guilty of what you accuse others.

It is inconsistent, uncertain, human KJV-only reasoning that has a great deal of doubt and uncertainty concerning the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as it in effect attempts to make one imperfect English Bible translation superior to them.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
My logic was fine.
Your questions jump around in your confusion.
Your modern KJV-only reasoning/logic is not fine, and you have not demonstrated it to be true nor scriptural.

According to your illogic, you attempt to call my statements "questions" when I did not even ask you one question in the post to which you responded. Are you displaying confusion as you call statements "questions"?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Your modern KJV-only reasoning/logic is not fine, and you have not demonstrated it to be true nor scriptural. According to your illogic, you attempt to call my statements "questions" when I did not even ask you one question in the post to which you responded. Are you displaying confusion as you call statements "questions"?
You are the one who is completely confused.

You asked

You again present mere unsupported opinion without evidence to back it up. The Old Latin translations put in the Western family are known for having a number of additions as well as some omissions. Would you suggest the Byzantine text has some of the same additions as the Old Latin has?

Rick Norris, it is hard to have any discussion with you.
You give quotes that can be true, or they can be false.

And you do not even follow the posts and make false accusations, as right above.

Beyond that is all your personal repetitious blah-blah that says nothing.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Your logic is faulty. Perhaps you assume your unproven opinion by use of the fallacy of begging the question.

Just as Greek Byzantine mss. can have and do have omissions, they can also have additions.

Some Greek Byzantine mss. can have readings not found in all Greek Byzantine mss as they have many variations and differences. Some Latin-Greek manuscripts could have readings added in their Greek text to make them try to harmonize with their Latin text.
Above is my post that you had actually quoted, concerning which you make your allegation about my questions

I did not make any false accusation against you in pointing out the truth that my post that you quoted did not have any questions in it. You now go back to an earlier post to try to excuse your incorrect response.
 
Top