Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

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

Active 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

Active 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.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Do you suggest that you would tire of the preaching of the same gospel over and over or the same scriptural truths over and over and that you would stop listening to the repeating of the Scriptures? Would you object to reading the same Bible over and over?

You repeat the same bogus allegation against posting the truth. You likely do not even read entirely my posts or you close your eyes to how they differ from each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

logos1560

Well-known member
You read one logos post, you've read them all.
Your allegation is clearly not true. You likely have not read many of my posts against which you make your bogus claim. Since you claim that you ignore my posts 99% of the time, you admit that you have not read them so you do not know what you are talking about.

You fail to prove your negative personal attacks against me to be true.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Nope. I cannot prove the pure Bible to one full of doubt and uncertainty.
Just because we cannot reconstruct the putative originals does not mean we are "full of doubt and uncertainty" about the biblical texts. This is a gross exaggeration based on the all-or-nothing thinking that permeates the position of KJV Onlyism. Through comparing the extant variants and understanding scribal habits, textual critics have derived a number of general rules to assist in adjudicating the differences and in most cases we can be reasonably certain that the reconstructed text reflects the earliest-recoverable version. The degree to which this reflects the putative originals will always have a margin of uncertainty, but it is minimal, not the catastrophe you imply above in your question-begging comments about a "pure" Bible...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

CES1951

Active member
Your allegation is clearly not true. You likely have not read many of my posts against which you make your bogus claim. Since you claim that you ignore my posts 99% of the time, you admit that you have not read them so you do not know what you are talking about.

You fail to prove your negative personal attacks against me to be true.
Yep! Broken record.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
You did not soundly discuss the Old Latin mss, but instead you tried to dismiss and avoid significant important facts concerning them.
False. I addressed the facts.

Try to place in English what you think was not addressed.
And I will ignore quotes that you might consider true, false, or mixed.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Just because we cannot reconstruct the putative originals does not mean we are "full of doubt and uncertainty" about the biblical texts. This is a gross exaggeration based on the all-or-nothing thinking that permeates the position of KJV Onlyism. Through comparing the extant variants and understanding scribal habits, textual critics have derived a number of general rules to assist in adjudicating the differences and in most cases we can be reasonably certain that the reconstructed text reflects the earliest-recoverable version. The degree to which this reflects the putative originals will always have a margin of uncertainty, but it is minimal, not the catastrophe you imply above in your question-begging comments about a "pure" Bible...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

The 24 verses in the Mark ending, and the Pericope Adulterae.

Scripture, no, or dunno.

Rick Norris refuses to answer the question. Let's see how you do.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The 24 verses in the Mark ending, and the Pericope Adulterae.

Scripture, no, or dunno.

Rick Norris refuses to answer the question. Let's see how you do.
Neither section is original to its respective gospel so if this is a criterion for the status of "scripture" (as most who embrace the concept would propose), then no they are not. That wasn't a difficult question to answer... was it supposed to be?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Neither section is original to its respective gospel so if this is a criterion for the status of "scripture" (as most who embrace the concept would propose), then no they are not. That wasn't a difficult question to answer... was it supposed to be?

I just wanted to know if you are a dyed-in-the-wool Hortian.

How certain are you of those two sections as not being scripture?
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
How certain are you of those two sections not being scripture?

Where does your scripture Bible, original, differ from NA28?
I see, so you can ask a question and I answer straightforwardly, but when I ask you a question, you can dodge it. I ask again, what is a "dyed-in-the-wool Hortian" and do you think I am such an individual? The question that now appears in the post to which I responded was edited in afterward and I will answer it provided this is a fair back and forth of Q&A. That is entirely up to you...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top