Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?

[robycop3]

It's up to you to prove your claim. But anyone knows you cannot prove something does not exist.

Then, it remains up to YOU to either agree they don't exist, or show us one. (In this manner, you remind me of the song Ring Dang Doo.)

 

[robycop3]

Actually, the burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one who made a specific claim about the ms not existing. 1689Dave has not claimed that it does exist, but rather questioned your assertion that it does not.

Can't prove a negative, but a negative can only be disproven by a positive.

 

[Logos1560]

“The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)

Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach or support human exclusive only claims for the KJV.

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all.

After this assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would not contradict the earlier positive assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications in the various editions of the KJV.

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made purer; therefore, they would not have any impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

 

[robycop3]

Why does the KJV produce faith in my heart? And it does not do the same for you, who would rather doubt God's providence over his word? People think faith comes from them, but Jesus is the author and finisher of biblical faith.

“The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)

The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is proven false by the AV 1611 itself in its footnote for the 2nd them in V7-"Heb. [/i]him,[/i] I. Euery one of them." The translators knew the verse referred to more than one person, so they subbed the plural them for the singular [him.[/i]

That "thingie" is taken straight outta CULT OFFICIAL Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the "foundation stone" book of the current KJVO myth.

But, for discussion's sake, let's say both those verses are actually about God's words. WHERE DO THEY MENTION THE KJV ? WHERE DO THEY MENTION ANY BIBLE TRANSLATION??????????

Yet another KJVO notion goes "POOF!"

 

[robycop3]

Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach or support human exclusive only claims for the KJV.

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all.

After this assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would not contradict the earlier positive assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications in the various editions of the KJV.

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made purer; therefore, they would not have any impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

david is COMPARING God's words to 7-times-refined silver, the purest physical thing David knew of, the standard for the silver of the Tabernacle instruments. HE IS NOT SAYING GOD'S WORDS WERE REFINED! KJVOs need to pay more attention to their pet version's English.

 

[rlvaughn]

Can you point out the evidence for claiming that when someone states a negative that person has the burden of proof? Someone wisely suggested that no one can prove a negative.
It would be a person making a positive assertion that is said to have the burden of proof not a person making a negative assertion.

Someone that suggests the positive that a manuscript does exist would have the actual burden of proof.

Roby is making a specific positive claim about a negative thing. No, he cannot prove it, so he should not so dogmatically claim he is right. 1689Dave is not making a positive assertion that manuscript does exist. Roby is making a claim and Dave is not.

What seems to me as correct is that we do not currently know that such a manuscript exists. But have all existing manuscripts even been researched?

When two parties are in a debate, discussion, or dispute, and one of them makes a claim that the other disputes -- it is the one who made the claim who has the burden of proof. It is Roby's problem and not Dave's that he has made a negative claim.

 

[rlvaughn]

Can't prove a negative, but a negative can only be disproven by a positive.

That may be right, but that is your problem. You are the one who positively made the negative assertion as if you know it to be true. By your own admission now you admit cannot prove it to be true. Maybe an "as far as we know" would go a long way toward ameliorating your problem.

When two parties are in a debate, discussion, or dispute, and one of them makes a claim with which the other disagrees -- it is the one who made the claim who has the burden of proof. It is your problem that you have made a negative claim that you cannot prove.

 

[1689Dave]

The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is proven false by the AV 1611 itself in its footnote for the 2nd them in V7-"Heb. [/i]him,[/i] I. Euery one of them." The translators knew the verse referred to more than one person, so they subbed the plural them for the singular [him.[/i]

That "thingie" is taken straight outta CULT OFFICIAL Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the "foundation stone" book of the current KJVO myth.

But, for discussion's sake, let's say both those verses are actually about God's words. WHERE DO THEY MENTION THE KJV ? WHERE DO THEY MENTION ANY BIBLE TRANSLATION??????????

Yet another KJVO notion goes "POOF!"

Why do you spend time destroying faith instead of building it up? This makes me wonder about you in an unfavorable light.

 

[1689Dave]

Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach or support human exclusive only claims for the KJV.

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all.

After this assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by inspiration of God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly would not contradict the earlier positive assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications in the various editions of the KJV.

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made purer; therefore, they would not have any impurities that need to be removed during a claimed purification process. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be purer than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree would simply make a true assertion concerning what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

Why destroy faith? Why not build it up? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[1689Dave]

Then, it remains up to YOU to either agree they don't exist, or show us one. (In this manner, you remind me of the song Ring Dang Doo.)

You cannot prove something does not exist. And only diminish your thinking ability by trying to.

 

[1689Dave]

No, it's proof of your refusal to accept the truth.

Prove you are right.

 

[1689Dave]

I have not claimed to "doubt God's providence over His word" so you try to put words in my mouth that I do not say.

Would you suggest that your own KJV-only reasoning would in effect "doubt God's providence over His word" as preserved in the original-language manuscript copies of Scripture or as translated in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Exclusive only claims for one English Bible translation would in effect attempt to make that one English translation superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages and superior to the pre-1611 English Bible translations of which it was a revision.

Would you suggest that God's providence over His word does not involve printers but involves only the Church of England makers of the KJV? Would you suggest that admitting the fact of errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV would be doubting God's providence over His word?

I believe God controls all, including the various translations. And you reject His pick over the centuries causing my spiritual alarm bells to go off.

 

[robycop3]

Roby is making a specific positive claim about a negative thing. No, he cannot prove it, so he should not so dogmatically claim he is right. 1689Dave is not making a positive assertion that manuscript does exist. Roby is making a claim and Dave is not.

What seems to me as correct is that we do not currently know that such a manuscript exists. But have all existing manuscripts even been researched?

When two parties are in a debate, discussion, or dispute, and one of them makes a claim that the other disputes -- it is the one who made the claim who has the burden of proof. It is Roby's problem and not Dave's that he has made a negative claim.

I have no prob with it. My claim stands til it's proven otherwise.

 

[robycop3]

That may be right, but that is your problem. You are the one who positively made the negative assertion as if you know it to be true. By your own admission now you admit cannot prove it to be true. Maybe an "as far as we know" would go a long way toward ameliorating your problem.

When two parties are in a debate, discussion, or dispute, and one of them makes a claim with which the other disagrees -- it is the one who made the claim who has the burden of proof. It is your problem that you have made a negative claim that you cannot prove.

It stands til proven wrong.

 

[atpollard]

It was called the AV (A uthorized V ersion) of 1611.

That WAS its official title, but it was commonly referred to (in the 17th and 18th Century) as the King James Bible rather than the “Authorized Version”. So KJB is not official, but is a common, historic “a.k.a.” for the AV Bible. It is STILL not commonly called the AV Bible but is known as the KJV in the book trade.

 

[robycop3]

Why do you spend time destroying faith instead of building it up? This makes me wonder about you in an unfavorable light.

Not destroying faith, but proving CONJECTURE , GUESSWORK, & CERTAIN OPINIONS wrong. You have no answer to the FACTS I posted about the "Psalm 12:6=7 thingie", of course. And your thralldom to a FALSE DOCTRINE makes me see YOU in an unfavorable light.

 

[robycop3]

That WAS its official title, but it was commonly referred to (in the 17th and 18th Century) as the King James Bible rather than the “Authorized Version”. So KJB is not official, but is a common, historic “a.k.a.” for the AV Bible. It is STILL not commonly called the AV Bible but is known as the KJV in the book trade.

That's because it's a VERSION, not "the" Bible. KJVOs use "KJB" because of their false belief that the KJV is he ONLY "official" English Bible translation. And as you know, I am staunchly opposed to the whole KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

Prove you are right.

Don't see any such manuscript, do ya?

 

[SGO]

You ignore the context and what the poster stated to which I replied. I was using the same terminology of the poster to which I responded. That poster 1689 Dave defined "faith as a spiritual experience" so I replied using his terminology. It is not the way that I would state it. I did not claim to do it myself.

Instead of presenting any positive, clear, sound, true, scriptural case for your own claims, you seem to focus on trying to invent some way to accuse me.




You jump to non-scriptural assertions that you do not back up from the Scriptures. The Scriptures do not state your assertion that without a new supernatural process of inspiration that post-NT Bible translations are not Scripture. You present no Scripture verses that assert that the process of inspiration continued after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. A Bible translation can be properly referred to as the word of God or as Scripture because it is translated from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Your own incorrect assertion would likely condemn the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. According to your own words in your posts, your reasoning would suggest that if the pre-1611 English Bible was scripture given by inspiration, then the KJV would not be since the KJV made hundreds and thousands of alterations to the pre-1611 English Bible. On the other hand, your stated reasoning would suggest that If the pre-1611 English Bible was not scripture, then the KJV was made from non-scripture.

You always call me a liar but look in the mirror.

"ONLY the originals are inspired" but not one bible verse to prove it.

Your whole doctrine is built on one big fat lie, and a complicated one at that.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16

The word of our God shall stand forever.
Isaiah 40:8

Where is it standing now, oh wise one?

 

[robycop3]

Where is it standing now?

In every ancient Scriptural ms, & in every valis Bible translation in any language.

 

[SGO]

You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your opinion that in effect tries to deny salvation or conversion to anyone who does not accept your non-scriptural claim of inspiration for the KJV. You do not show your new view to be sound Bible doctrine stated in the Scriptures.

Even many KJV-only advocates reject the extreme KJV-only claim of no salvation without use of the KJV, and you seem to be even more extreme by suggesting that even if the KJV was involved that there was still no true conversion if the person did not accept the claim of inspiration for the KJV. You suggest that a person has to believe the translation is inspired before he can be saved. You seem to have added a new non-scriptural requirement for conversion.

Hey, Pants On Fire!

Where in the bible does it say, "only the originals are inspired"?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16

May God bless you when you come to the truth.

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.
And this is the word which by the gospel was preached unto you.
1 Peter 1:25

Did you forget that you are born again by the living word of God?

Being born again,
not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible,
by the word of God,
which liveth and abideth for ever.
1 Peter 1:23

No? You didn't forget?

Then where is the word of God living now?