Steven Avery
Well-known member
It surely looks like an attack on verses that are supported by Latin, without much Greek support.
And if you are NOT attacking the heavenly witnesses, why don't you simply affirm the verse as Scripture.
The Comma and KJVO criteria for jumping to the Latin
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
It surely looks like an attack on verses that are supported by Latin, without much Greek support.
And if you are NOT attacking the heavenly witnesses, why don't you simply affirm the verse as Scripture.
You are the only one who thinks this way. A wild accusation from you. Smoke.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
What verses were arbitrarily justified?
Why didn't you answer the question if you expect an answer to yours?
My question did not refer to whole verses, and it did not say "without much Greek support" so you seem to try to distort and misrepresent my question.
The Latin Vulgate-based additions would refer to words, phrases, or clauses found in no known Greek NT manuscripts.
It is KJV-only advocates who suggest that the Textus Receptus is a majority text so that as a consistent Greek NT majority text all its readings should be found in a majority of Greek NT manuscripts. Perhaps KJV-only advocates have no sound textual measures/standards that they will apply consistently and justly.
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
Their criteria is their personal desires.
It is ridiculously absurd to suppose the Greek speaking eastern church, Trinitarians, would let 1 John 5:7 somehow sneak out of all their thousands of Greek text Bibles and completely disappear from their sight while the Latin speaking western church made sure it didn't escape their sight. But that's what these KJVO madmen have on their hands to suppose really happened. They can't seem to use their heads and figure out such a simple thing.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So tell us what verses or phrases or words were "arbitrarily justified?".
Verses are the most important, and easiest to work with, so that is the best start.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nonsense. The AV defenders today generally are well aware of the fact that the AV represents Greek and Latin preservation, and some important verses are not Greek Majority.
You like to tilt at windmills by quoting old books by people not available to discuss today.
You provide no documented evidence that supports your opinion. D. A. Waite is a well-known and leading AV defender. Do you claim that the books by D. A. Waite are not available to discuss today?
D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts or over 99% of those preserved for us” and that “the Textus Receptus manuscripts are almost perfect mirrors of one another” (Central Seminary Refuted, pp. 67, 80, 95). D. A. Waite claimed that “the Textus Receptus is from a type of text known as the Traditional Text” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 27), that “the Textus Receptus kind of text is represented by over 99% of the 5, 255 manuscripts” (p. 52), and that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 99% (over 5,210) of the Greek manuscripts extant today” (p. 53). D. A. Waite wrote: “The Textus Receptus manuscripts vary in spellings somewhat. Let them vary” (BJU’s Errors, p. 43). D. A. Waite contended that “the ‘Textus Receptus’ was the result of the agreement of thousands of Greek manuscripts” (Critical Answer to Michael Sproul’s, p. 132). Waite claimed: “Each of these manuscripts of the Traditional Text or Received Greek Text are virtually identical” (Foes of the KJB, p. 130).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Just come on Facebook where there is lots of action, e.g. in Textus Receptus Academy, hosted by Nick Sayers.
Or King James Bible Debate, hosted by Will Kinney.
The AV defenders are aware of the issues, and do not consider Donald Waite as an authority.
They understand the problems with Two Lines theory, first myself and then Bryan Ross have clarified that issue.
You are way, way behind the times.
Your posts are becoming dinosaurs (the ones that are extinct.)
KJV-only advocates are the ones way behind the times. Each KJV-only advocate may want to consider themselves to be the authority even though they may repeat the unproven claims of other KJV-only advocates.
KJV-only advocates continue their same efforts to dismiss the truth and continue their attempts to attack the messengers instead of dealing with the facts.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You ignore the debate today and go back decades to cherry-pick quotes,
Shoddy scholarship.
You describe KJV-only writings in books and posts.
Most of what KJV-only advocates offer is "shoddy" scholarship or else no scholarship at all as seen in their use of fallacies and in their false allegations and smear tactics. You cherry-pick quotes that you assume support your unproven claims.
KJV-only advocates today still use the same erroneous arguments based on fallacies and the same unproven claims as those in earlier KJV-only books. I have read KJV-only books written and printed the last few years so I know that they still use the same bogus human KJV-only reasoning as found in earlier books. I have read recent KJV-only posts including yours, and they do not present a positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for a modern KJV-only view.
Last edited:
Faith commeth by hearing
and hearing by the word of God
Moses and the Prophets been dead hundreds of years;
so
How do you ''HEAR"" dead men speak
and hearing by the word of God
Lk.16:29
29 Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said,
Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
29 Abraham saith unto him,
They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said,
Nay, father Abraham:
but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him,
If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Moses and the Prophets been dead hundreds of years;
so
How do you ''HEAR"" dead men speak
Does a consistent application of your very own assertion suggest that your going back decades to cherry-pick quotes (even some from the 1800's) is shoddy scholarship?
Some of the English in the KJV is way behind the times or is outdated or archaic English that is not understood by many present-day English readers.
Do you suggest that KJV-only advocates are way behind the times in advocating a 1600's English Bible translation instead of a 1980's English Bible in present-day English?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nope, you are way behind the time. The AV defenders are active with gentlemen like Nick Sayers doing pioneer work, the Confessional Bibliology folks adding a lot, new research on the heavenly witnesses and much more. They are actively confronting the nouveau crowd against the AV perfection (Timothy Berg and Mark Ward) and the textual critics as well, like Jan Krans.
Most of your posts are now just archaic trash quotes from 10-20 years back.
Or, with Michael Mayard, you used the edition from 30 years back.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You flunk Logic 101 again.
There is lots of scholarship from the 1700s and 1800s that is superb.
You would do better addressing those issues than looking for weak quotes from Baptists and others in 1990 who did not have an in depth understanding of the issues.
Generally, your quote-fests on the AV today are just worthless.
So what? This 1991 edition is the only one available. The 1995 edition is just four year later so it is over 25 years back. I had tried to obtain the 1995 edition. Your accusations about my accurate quotations are bogus.
Your opinion. You contradict yourself. You waste time complaining about present-day scholarship so that you can oppose the facts and truth that expose the serious problems in your erroneous KJV-only reasoning. You flunk Logic 101. You accept erroneous KJV-only reasoning that involves the use of fallacies. Your undefined term of accusation "corruption" versions may involve use of the fallacy of composition.
You have not displayed any in depth understanding of the issues. You have too high an opinion of your own unproven claims.
You advocate those who seem to flunk Logic 101 as they try to deny being KJV-only while still trying to claim perfection for the KJV. They violate the law of non-contradiction. KJV-only advocates likewise deny that there are any translation errors in the KJV just as some of these KJV defenders do. They do not even seem to understand what constitutes a KJV-only view. Claiming perfection for the KJV or claiming no errors of translation in the KJV is being KJV-only. Often they are being exposed as being actually KJV-only in spite of their denials.
You fail to demonstrate that they add a lot if anything at all. Your biased opinion is not worthy of blind acceptance.
Last edited: