Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In July 2015, I very explicitly asked you whether or not the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
You have never answered that question yet, which can hardly be considered loaded here given your argument.
Not only is that a first-person writing FROM Paul...he also SAYS IN COLOSSIANS that he wrote the Laodiceans.....so.......do you accept that claim or not?
And if not - what's the difference?
And whom do you propose as the forger?

Seven years ago ...
Where did you ask this question? Do you have the url?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
See - here's the difference: EVEN IF Jerome wrote it, it doesn't matter. It simply constitutes his fifth century opinion of a Latin corruption rooted in the 4th century. So I don't even have to care one way or the other, which is why it's amusing to watch you constantly raise the temperature here.

You are back to circular reasoning, using your own personal quirky presuppositions.
e.g. The Cyprian usage c. 250 AD could not be rooted in the 4th century.

In fact, if Jerome's Vulgate Prologue is accepted, the debate about heavenly witnesses authenticity is basically over, since Jerome would have had manuscripts going back much earlier than 400 AD, and he acknowledged the heavenly witnesses in his source manuscripts.

Thanks for basically conceding heavenly witnesses authenticity. At least tentatively.

Why do you think pointing out evidences raises the temperature?
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
You are back to circular reasoning, using your own personal quirky presuppositions.
Do you condemn your own reasoning? Your human KJV-only reasoning involves use of circular reasoning, and it depends upon fallacies. You have your own personal quirky presuppositions that you may try to keep hidden. You don't let facts get in the way of your erroneous reasoning.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
You have never proved an iota of circular reasoning.
Your incorrect opinion. Any serious thinking believer can see that you start with your unproven KJV-only assumptions and then proceed by circular reasoning to try to advocate them. KJV-only reasoning involves circular reasoning. The KJV is assumed by circular reasoning and by begging the question to be the standard for itself.

You selectively look for evidence to support your preconceived unproven assumptions. You have never provided any sound arguments for your KJV-only reasoning that do not involve use of fallacies.
 

Conan

Well-known member
Wrong again.

I came to my AV belief, by serious thinking belief, especially looking at the heavenly witnesses evidences.

You still do not know if the verse is Scripture!
The comma Johannine is not scripture. It wasn't written By John the Apostle of Christ. It wasn't even written in Greek, but Latin. All of the evidence says so. You have to deny the evidence, because your an Onlyist. You have no say in the matter, you are forced to deny the evidence at all cost
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You have failed to prove that to be the case. Blind belief in something does not make it true or scriptural.
You assume and believe assertions concerning the KJV that have not been proven to be true.
I simply gave you my historical truth,

And I never claim to “prove” anything to you to your satisfaction.
And you never prove … anything about the pure word of God.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
And I never claim to “prove” anything to you to your satisfaction.
I have not asked you to prove anything to my satisfaction.

You have been soundly and scripturally asked to prove according to the scriptural command: "Prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:22).
Do you try to suggest that this command does not apply to you or that you disobey it?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I simply gave you my historical truth,
You may state what you assume and believe, but you can be wrong or deceived in what you believe. What you believe may not be truth. Your belief in something does not make it truth. Do you incorrectly assume that because you believe something that it has to be true?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I have not asked you to prove anything to my satisfaction. You have been soundly and scripturally asked to prove according to the scriptural command: "Prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:22). Do you try to suggest that this command does not apply to you or that you disobey it?
Since you have a quirky private interpretation, first I want you to prove the twin prime theory.
Thanks!
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You may state what you assume and believe, but you can be wrong or deceived in what you believe. What you believe may not be truth. Your belief in something does not make it truth. Do you incorrectly assume that because you believe something that it has to be true?
I remember my history well. Including how the debates about Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses helped inform my move to accepting the excellence of the AV.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I remember my history well.
Your remembering your personal life story so far does not at all mean that everything that you choose to believe is true.

Anyone who believes assertions that are not true deceives themselves concerning that thing that they believed. Your history would confirm the fact that you can believe things that are not true. Human KJV-only reasoning/teaching depends upon use of fallacies.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
This is your circular reasoning, and weird jargon, of zero value.
Your allegation is not true. It remains the truth that human KJV-only reasoning involves circular reasoning and fallacies. You show that you try to deny the truth.
No KJV-only advocate has demonstrated from the Scriptures that KJV-only teaching is sound Bible doctrine from the Scriptures. It is a man-made doctrine and tradition.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
I have clearly defined the accurate term KJV-only several times. The clear term "human KJV-only reasoning" is not meaningless. Its meaning can be easily understood. Since a KJV-only view is not a Bible doctrine of God stated nor taught in the Scriptures, it is human or man-made teaching, and it involves human reasoning.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The clear term "human KJV-only reasoning" is not meaningless.
This is your personal, private, repetitive and meaningless jargon phrase.

This is your method to make vague personal attacks without touching the substance of the discussions.
A type of spam.
 
Top