Search results

What case can be made for translations that lend support to the doctrine of infant baptism by altering the word of God?

I am no more blindly parroting what I have been taught than you are.

The NU text shares many errors introduced by Westcott's corrupt new Greek replacement for the Textus Receptus.

No. The problem with the footnote is that it does not share the fact that the "most ancient" manuscripts spoken of were rejected by the best translation scholars over the years as being some of the most corrupt. By leaving out key details like that the NKJV translators have unknowingly...

I believe the experts who have convinced me the Alexandrian Texts and the Textus Receptus have major serious differences. To set the record straight, I claim the word of God is inerrant and is essentially preserved in inerrant form in the Textus Receptus and accurately translated in the KJV. I...

I have studied the history of the Sinaiticus and have read many accounts that do not all agree. I read things like this and have found them persuasive in light of everything else I have read. Codex Sinaiticus (jesus-is-lord.com) (the following is excerpted from, Deception 45: Modern "Biblical...

I cannot provide you with Greek texts. All I can do is quote Greek scholars. If you think the scholars i quote are wrong then you should refute them. If you want to believe there are no meaningful differences between the Alexandrian texts and the Textus Receptus then you can believe that if...

Jesus quoted from the OT scriptures that were passed down by copyists for hundreds or thousands of years, yet I believe Jesus referred to the Scriptures He quoted as inerrant.

Can we say the word of God we preach is inerrant, and if so how can we be sure if we do not have inerrancy in our Bibles?

I believe the Sinaiticus was a forgery written for profit and passed upon the world in a scam by men motivated by fame and profit. There are many eyewitness accounts from that period that support that belief.

Modern leftists are rewriting US history from a black racist point of view. I believe their views are flawed and their version of history is also flawed. You claim the Valdois did not exist until the 12th century. Not all historians agree. According to Britannica, the reign of the House of...

I do appreciate the fact the KJV translators were faithful to italicize the words they added for our benefit and encouragement. I'm sure the NKJV translators added their marginal notes for noble reasons as well.

Catholics believe in infant baptism and the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism has seemed to have influenced the work of translators who shared Catholic doctrinal beliefs.

Not everyone who examines old manuscripts knows how to distinguish between the good and the bad.

The fact remains whether you think it is a matter of unsupported opinion or not, people either hold the KJV Bible as special to them or not, and choices like that cannot be dismissed as wrong.

The KJV picked up the unofficial title "Authorized Version" many hundreds of years ago. I agree that the title was not something God attached to the KJV.

The writer of the article said this: There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. I assume the writer is suggesting that all versions, including the KJV, are faithful, unaltered, unedited, or accurate translations of God's...

I'll assume they are and let you assume they are not. Someone with a bad understanding told you that. I am certain you could not have come up with such a conclusion on your own.

You follow your translators and I will follow mine. John Burgon wrote his book The Revision Revised in 1883, critiquing Westcott's 1881 Revised Version. Westcott and his horde of Bible translation critics despised Burgon for his opposition, but not one supporter of the 1881 Revised Version...

Who would you recommend to teach students the Greek language, someone who shares KJVO beliefs or someone who believes the Bible is full of errors?