Search results

Burgon exposed the corruption in Westcott's Revision Revised and his excellent critique of that corrupted translation has formed the foundation for my respect for the KJV and Textus Receptus ever since I read it. Since the Textus Receptus was not written in Koine Greek and you were trained in...

I suggest you re-read post 66 and then follow the conversation from there so you will not make the kind of mistakes you are making here.

Let's acknowledge some facts before proceeding. You give your opinions and then offer online support for those opinions. I commend you for that, but I do not commend you for claiming your opinions and the opinions of authors who support you should be enough to irrefutably settle the issue...

Did I stupidly think you were calling another poster's source a liar? If so, I apologize.

You claim the KJV had errors, but I remain unconvinced because you have not persuasively demonstrated that you are right about that. Were the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus both written in Koine Greek? Were the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus copied from the same original Greek text?

Sounds like a stalemate. I'm OK with that because I have no irresistible drive to compel others to see what I see.

Dean Burgon. Peter Ruckman. There are two to start with.

Third Corinthians? Sounds like something another Tischendorf could 'find' in a forgotten dustbin of a devout backwoods' Roman Catholic monastery.

I have done extensive study in manuscript translation and am persuaded that textual critics have a host of bad views, flawed conclusions, and too little respect for the infallible word of God.

Bart Ehrman does not believe in the infallible inspiration of God's word. He offers his biased interpretations and views of God's historic opreservation of His word down therough the ages but how much value can we place on the ramblings of someone who does not believe in God's inspiration of...

Fair enough. You say the writer of this article is lying? https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-bible/question4-original-manuscripts-of-the-bible.cfm

I will not be persuaded to change my opinions by bad arguments and weak supports.

We should have known the seditionists in Seattle would spark copy-cat secessions.

I would like for him to challenge me on my statement so I can offer him more explanation for why I believe wheat I believe. This is a debate site, isn't it, and not an indoctrination site?

These people are being driven by mob opinion that has been majorly influenced by the devil.

Is he afraid to debate me himself? What about you? Do you believe older manuscripts must be better because they are older?

I see the deliberate omission of 12 verses in the Bible to be a gross violation of the translator's responsibility to include every word in the word of God in every translation.

You have been led to believe the older manuscripts are "more trustworthy." I believe the older texts were less valued and lesser used than more accurate texts, causing the lesser valued texts to last longer than more valued texts.

OK. The translators of the NIV did not approve of the Textus Receptus and made that fact known in their own translation of the alternative text.

I claim versions that discount or disallow the deity of Christ are corrupted. I claim versions that discount or disallow the virgin birth are corrupted. I claim versions that downplay the significance of Jesus' shed blood are corrupted. I claim versions that give support for the doctrine of...