Modern, unsound, nonscriptural doctrine of KJV-onlyism

[Ransom]

Just chat on. It's best to just leave a fool in his folly!

We've certainly laid yours bare. I mean, you've been slandered! Will you just run away with your tail between your legs like every stupid fundamentalist that's come to this board thinking his opinions were unassailable, rather than let this scurrilous attack on your good character pass with impunity?

And to go even further, these new translations were given us by the Westcott/Hort texts which are equally corrupt because much of their source came from the Alexandrian texts. These guys spent more time dabbling in the occult, than they did the "Good things of God".

If you're not a fundy, why do you repeat their lies?

 

[SC1]

We've certainly laid yours bare. I mean, you've been slandered! Will you just run away with your tail between your legs like every stupid fundamentalist that's come to this board thinking his opinions were unassailable, rather than let this scurrilous attack on your good character pass with impunity?

You're pretty good at goading Ransom. And I have been known to be persuaded from time to time. But not over the King James. I'll come back at my own time when I'm not too busy and we will pick up where we left off. I'll promise that. I'll leave you with a thought however. The texts that you so fondly find superior, where did they originate from? Back in a week or so.

 

[Ransom]

You're pretty good at goading Ransom.

And you're good at avoiding straight answers.

Are you another UGC sockpuppet?

'll leave you with a thought however. The texts that you so fondly find superior, where did they originate from?

God.

Next question?

 

[tmjbog]

You're pretty good at goading Ransom. And I have been known to be persuaded from time to time. But not over the King James. I'll come back at my own time when I'm not too busy and we will pick up where we left off. I'll promise that. I'll leave you with a thought however. The texts that you so fondly find superior, where did they originate from? Back in a week or so.

Where did they originate? Many different places-there are 100's of manuscripts used. Below is an image of the NA28 (I Cor. 5:1) which many of the newer translations use for the NT along with which manuscripts support it. Modern versions don't rely entirely on 1 or 2 manuscripts. You can see in the case of Icor. 5:1 there are 7 sources that support it. All of this info can be traced back to the images of the manuscripts in many cases.

 

[robycop3]

Where did they originate? Many different places-there are 100's of manuscripts used. Below is an image of the NA28 (I Cor. 5:1) which many of the newer translations use for the NT along with which manuscripts support it. Modern versions don't rely entirely on 1 or 2 manuscripts. You can see in the case of Icor. 5:1 there are 7 sources that support it. All of this info can be traced back to the images of the manuscripts in many cases.

So, lemme ask ya: Were YOU there when any of those mss. were written ? Can you tell us who wrote them, where & when, and what sources were used ? If not, you have no right to be a mss. critic. And, can you prove that GOD didn't preserve any of these mss ?

I TRUST GOD to have passed His word down to us in the mss. HE preserved & caused to be translated into over 2400 languages & dialects so far. Nowhere is God limited to one manuscript or translation. Remember, HE made all languages & dialects, and HE sees to it that His word is available in them.

 

[tmjbog]

So, lemme ask ya: Were YOU there when any of those mss. were written ? Can you tell us who wrote them, where & when, and what sources were used ? If not, you have no right to be a mss. critic. And, can you prove that GOD didn't preserve any of these mss ?

I TRUST GOD to have passed His word down to us in the mss. HE preserved & caused to be translated into over 2400 languages & dialects so far. Nowhere is God limited to one manuscript or translation. Remember, HE made all languages & dialects, and HE sees to it that His word is available in them.

Umm...agreed? My point was that the newer versions are not just based on the two manuscripts that the KJVO love to demonize, but also supported by 100's of others. Any conspiracy of changing manuscripts to support a certain doctrine would have necessitated running around the world, finding manuscripts, editing them and reburying them. All without leaving any evidence.

 

[robycop3]

So, the makers of newer versions are correct to use an eclectic mix of mss. for their translations.

Remember, the Textus Receptus that the KJV uses has been revised more than 30 times, & Dean John Burgon, whom the KJVOs have made one of their poster boys, wrote that the TR could stand yet another thorough revision.