Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?

[SGO]

You do not have one Bible verse that states your opinions concerning the 1611 KJV or other Bible translations. The verses that you cite and quote do not state your claims concerning post-NT Bible translations. You may have dreamed up or invented your own non-scriptural doctrine, but you do not prove that I have done what you allege.

Your allegations are hypocritical and unjust since you do not apply them to your own non-scriptural opinions. You show that you are making unrighteous judgments.

Talk about hypocritical!

Talk about "biblical principles" with no verses.

Your writing skills and pride of man has taken you over the "bible believing" edge and downward.

What exactly do you ever mean by saying you are a "bible believing man"?

Did I ever actually say the KJV states it's inspired alone?

No Sir Pants on Fire I did not.

I did state that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16

All the major translations say that.

But you have stated that ONLY the originals are inspired.

That means you believe you became a Christian without the inspired word of God, whatever translation was used in your conversion.

No verses in any English bible say "ONLY the originals are inspired" and you always avoid that in your responses preferring to call me a liar in a nicely worded way.

Your mirror broke.

Now you will have x years of ___ ____.

But I am still praying that God will give you a great blessing from the KJV you have read for fifty years.

The bible is a living book not a dead one.

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

 

[Logos1560]

I believe and accept what the Scriptures actually state about themselves.

It is surprising that KJV-only advocates who claim to believe the Scriptures and believe the truth too often resort to the carnal tactic of making misleading and even false allegations against those who believe the Scriptures but disagree with non-scriptural opinions. Throwing out unproven accusations seems to have become the main argument for those opinions. KJV-only advocates have not demonstrated anything hypocritical in my advocating the applying of the same just measures/standards to all Bible translations.

It suggests to me that they know the truth that they cannot present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for the opinions that they try to add to the Scriptures.

 

[1689Dave]

You disobey the Scriptures by bearing false witness by making your false allegation.

You do not prove that my faith in God and in the Scriptures nor that my stand for consistent truth would discredit God's word.

You try to destroy faith in God's word. I try to build it up. Who are you working for?

 

[1689Dave]

Your allegation is false. I did not at all suggest that God gave the church false scripture. God gave by inspiration 100% true, absolutely pure Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

God was not and is not responsible for the errors introduced by men in original language copies or for the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

My scripturally-based position would build up and nurture sound faith in the truth while modern KJV-only reasoning exacts blind faith in assertions that are not true.

All roads lead to you undermining faith in God's Word.

 

[1689Dave]

No; I tell the TRUTH. The KJVO myth is man-made & therefore FALSE. There's not one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it.

You really need to STUDY THE FACTS of that myth you believe. Perhaps some study, beginning with the AV makers' preface To The Reader, will help break your thralldom to it.

You need to build people's faith in God's provided word over the centuries, not destroy it.

 

[1689Dave]

My proof is simple-no one has shown us one. If you say it can't be proven, you're tacitly admitting there aren't any.

You need to prove what you claim. And this is impossible for anyone to do.

 

[Logos1560]

You try to destroy faith in God's word

Your allegation is not true. Truth does not destroy nor harm faith in God's word. Where do the Scriptures suggest that truth destroys faith in God's word?

Advocating belief in assertions that are not true and thereby being deceived would be more harmful to faith in God's word than efforts to present the truth and to apply scriptural truths consistently and justly.

Perhaps you cannot deal with and face some facts so you resort to throwing out incorrect allegations.

 

[1689Dave]

Your allegation is not true. Truth does not destroy nor harm faith in God's word. Where do the Scriptures suggest that truth destroys faith in God's word?

Advocating belief in assertions that are not true and thereby being deceived would be more harmful to faith in God's word than efforts to present the truth and to apply scriptural truths consistently and justly.

Perhaps you cannot deal with and face some facts so you resort to throwing out incorrect allegations.

You deny God's providence over His Word. And teach the naive to doubt Him and His word.

 

[Logos1560]

You need to prove what you claim.

You do not practice what you preach since you do not prove what you claim.

You do not prove your allegations against believers to be true, and you do not prove exclusive only claims for the KJV to be true.

 

[1689Dave]

You do not practice what you preach since you do not prove what you claim.

You do not prove your allegations against believers to be true, and you do not prove exclusive only claims for the KJV to be true.

Faith proves what I say about this. You do not have faith in this matter so you are blind.

 

[Logos1560]

You deny God's providence over His Word

Another false allegation since I do not deny God's providence over His word.

I believe and accept God's providence over His word.

 

[1689Dave]

Another false allegation since I do not deny God's providence over His word.

I believe and accept God's providence over His word.

But you say His word over the past centuries cannot be relied on.

 

[Logos1560]

Faith in premises based on fallacies would not qualify as sound biblical faith in what the Scriptures state. Roy Beacham asserted: “It is not biblical faith to trust in human assumptions that are only peripherally associated with God’s explicit revelation” (One Bible Only, pp. 68-69). Faith in opinions and claims of men that are not true would not qualify as biblical faith in what the Scriptures state.

Edward Carnell asserted: “Too often faith is used as an epistemological device to avoid the hard labor of straight thinking” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 65).

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV, noted: “It belongs to the essence of traditionalism to be obliged to circumvent either the plain statements of Scripture or the plain facts of history and so to sacrifice honesty in order to maintain what is held to be faith” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 196; Bible Version, p. 15). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: "We all no doubt have our own doctrinal predilections, but to allow our doctrines to dictate what we regard as facts is as dangerous as it is fraudulent, for it deprives us of one of the most effectual checks against false doctrine. Yet so these men do, and do it avowedly and apparently unashamedly, and dignify the illicit process with the name of faith" (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 135; Bible Version, p. 269). Glenn Conjurske maintained that the KJV-only system “divorce faith from everything concrete and objective, and place it at last in the whims, the bigotry, or the honest mistakes of every interpreter” (Bible Version, p. 268). Conjurske added: “But such faith is only conceit or superstition, and as far removed as possible from the Bible doctrine of faith” (Ibid.).

 

[Logos1560]

But you say His word over the past centuries cannot be relied on.

That is not what I say. You keep using the bogus tactic of putting words in my mouth that I do not say.
You are twisting and misrepresenting my consistent, scripturally-based position. You do not discuss nor answer my actual statements but instead invent false misrepresentations that are not what I state.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

 

[Logos1560]

You do not have faith in this matter so you are blind.

You do not speak for me. You do not prove your allegation to be true.

It would involve being blind to accept blindly assertions that are not true in the name of faith.

 

[1689Dave]

Faith in premises based on fallacies would not qualify as sound biblical faith in what the Scriptures state. Roy Beacham asserted: “It is not biblical faith to trust in human assumptions that are only peripherally associated with God’s explicit revelation” (One Bible Only, pp. 68-69). Faith in opinions and claims of men that are not true would not qualify as biblical faith in what the Scriptures state.

Edward Carnell asserted: “Too often faith is used as an epistemological device to avoid the hard labor of straight thinking” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 65).

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV, noted: “It belongs to the essence of traditionalism to be obliged to circumvent either the plain statements of Scripture or the plain facts of history and so to sacrifice honesty in order to maintain what is held to be faith” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1996, p. 196; Bible Version, p. 15). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: "We all no doubt have our own doctrinal predilections, but to allow our doctrines to dictate what we regard as facts is as dangerous as it is fraudulent, for it deprives us of one of the most effectual checks against false doctrine. Yet so these men do, and do it avowedly and apparently unashamedly, and dignify the illicit process with the name of faith" (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 135; Bible Version, p. 269). Glenn Conjurske maintained that the KJV-only system “divorce faith from everything concrete and objective, and place it at last in the whims, the bigotry, or the honest mistakes of every interpreter” (Bible Version, p. 268). Conjurske added: “But such faith is only conceit or superstition, and as far removed as possible from the Bible doctrine of faith” (Ibid.).

You still destroy faith in God's providence to watch over his word. And make it untrustworthy.

 

[1689Dave]

You do not speak for me. You do not prove your allegation to be true.

It would involve being blind to accept blindly assertions that are not true in the name of faith.

How can you have faith if it comes from hearing the word you doubt?

 

[1689Dave]

That is not what I say. You keep using the bogus tactic of putting words in my mouth that I do not say.
You are twisting and misrepresenting my consistent, scripturally-based position. You do not discuss nor answer my actual statements but instead invent false misrepresentations that are not what I state.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

It all adds up to you suggesting God fails to provide true scriptures to the Church over the centuries.

 

[rlvaughn]

Actually, the claim was made before I repeated it, made many years ago...It's not as if I suddenly stated the theory outta thin air. It's been around a while! And I'm far from the only one stating it!

Give us a quote, something to look at. I would like to see what they are saying.

 

[robycop3]

You need to build people's faith in God's provided word over the centuries, not destroy it.

that's what I'm doing by pointing out false doctrines of faith/worship. In this forum, the false doctrine being pointed out is the KJVO myth.