Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You fail to identify to which quotations you refer. Were you referring to my accurate quotations of what KJV-only authors have claimed? Are you admitting that KJV-only authors make false claims?

Yes, you like to quote false material.

You never say whether you believe a quote is true or false, so discussing it with you is worthless.
The key point is that quoting errors (from any source) is not scholarship, unless you correct the error.

We should not waste time on non-scholarship quoting.

You do not even understand the Glenn Conjurske 1994 blunder.
(Glenn may have corrected that after the Michael Maynard book came out in 1995.)
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
On what evidence are you then presumably claiming that the manuscripts underlying the KJV escaped a similar fate during this period?
Kind regards,
Jonathan

And I agree with the Scrivener quote, which highlights the accuracy of the TR texts. If you are modern versionist, your mileage may vary. The Received Text editions are generally based on large majorities of texts, often Greek and Latin, often with the Syriac agreement as well.

Vaticanus-primacy texts are, of course, inherently unstable. They are the product of a delusion and deception.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
you like to quote false material.
For any one to quote you and respond to your posts, they may have to quote misleading or false KJV-only reasoning and allegations.

Your biased allegation is misleading. I quote false KJV-only claims to expose them. You make allegations without proving them to be true.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
For any one to quote you and respond to your posts, they may have to quote misleading or false KJV-only reasoning and allegations. Your biased allegation is misleading. I quote false KJV-only claims to expose them. You make allegations without proving them to be true.

No. Your quote-fests are absurd. They include true and false quotes. You do not differentiate.

Such posts are worthless, if the goal is scholarship.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
And I agree with the Scrivener quote, which highlights the accuracy of the TR texts. If you are modern versionist, your mileage may vary. The Received Text editions are generally based on large majorities of texts, often Greek and Latin, often with the Syriac agreement as well.

Vaticanus-primacy texts are, of course, inherently unstable. They are the product of a delusion and deception.
That's simply an evasion of the theoretical problem you face. If the second century was marked by such widespread corruption as you claim, what evidence could you possibly produce -- in the absence of an unbroken line back to the putative original texts which have been lost to history -- to demonstrate that the so-called "Received Text" escaped scribal intervention during this century? You have nothing more than your assumption that it did, you have no evidence of it...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
That's simply an evasion of the theoretical problem you face. If the second century was marked by such widespread corruption as you claim, what evidence could you possibly produce -- in the absence of an unbroken line back to the putative original texts which have been lost to history -- to demonstrate that the so-called "Received Text" escaped scribal intervention during this century? You have nothing more than your assumption that it did, you have no evidence of it...
Kind regards,
Jonathan

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.
 

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.
 
Top