Daniel1611
New member
The texts can agree but not be reliable. Copies of the Koran agree, but I do not believe they are accurate records. See my point?
New International PerVersion
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
The texts can agree but not be reliable. Copies of the Koran agree, but I do not believe they are accurate records. See my point?
No I don't because you're not making one just deflecting. The Quran is NOT the issue.
Feel free to read the following.
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Daniel1611
New member
You said the texts agree so they're accurate. I was illustrating your logical fallacy. They can agree yet not be accurate.
They do. Did you read the info?
So tell us Grand Poohbah, HOW are they NOT accurate?
Daniel1611
New member
How could I tell? They're one off texts. They weren't recopied, preserved and passed down like the TR and masoretic
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
A KJV onlyist has an emotional need for the KJV to be right and everything else to be wrong, arguing with them is pointless.
Because they need a infallible version they will ignore any local argument or evidence that points towards the KJV not beign the orginal version which all other translations should be compared to.
Because they need a infallible version they will ignore any local argument or evidence that points towards the KJV not beign the orginal version which all other translations should be compared to.
Daniel1611
New member
So
The supporters of modern Versions have an emotional need to not have an inerrant Bible. I've always said their problem isn't with the KJV. Their problem is that they don't believe in or want an inspired and preserved word of God.
The supporters of modern Versions have an emotional need to not have an inerrant Bible. I've always said their problem isn't with the KJV. Their problem is that they don't believe in or want an inspired and preserved word of God.
Apparently you don't know what the oldest extant scriptures is that we do have do you?
The earliest Masoretic Texts are from the 10th century CE, well after the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I'm afraid you're full of it.
That Judaism prefers it to others does NOT make it better. The TR is also not the mostly widely used for the NT but in either case you have not supplied anything of credence that supports your assertions.
Daniel1611
New member
So older means accurate?
Yes
That would be a fallacious assertion born by your obvious contempt for the MAJORITY view.
Daniel1611
New member
So Paul talks about people forging scripture. People made false scripture during Paul's lifetime. Also ancient Egyptian mythological texts are older than the NT. They must be super accurate.
again you clearly demonstrate you know NOTHING about manuscripts and how they come about. Nothing is ONE off.
Daniel1611
New member
2 Corinthians 2:17
This refers to speech and word, NOT written scripture.
Please place you call again.
Daniel1611
New member
Said who? You? It says they were corrupting the word of God in Pauls day. But you expect me to believe some Catholic manuscript from a garbage can is true just because it's old?
Well as you evidently DON'T know, yes, ME.
Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.(NIV)
Again if you have an assertion, back it up with a factual citation, instead of all your unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Daniel1611
New member
God says he preserves his word. The TR down through the KJV. Yet you say it was hidden untill the 1800s when the critical text was discovered. That's my proof. God preserved his word and there have always been 7,000 men who haven't bowed the knee to Baal