So far, it's self-proven.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
But you can't prove my assertion about the KJV's rev. 16:5 wrong. I suggest you study your KJVO myth for veracity.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
If the KJV is wrong in any way, as you imply, then God cannot be trusted.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
You cannot prove it is right.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Only to the gullible.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Pots calling the kettle black.........
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
If you cannot trust the KJV, you cannot be trusted.
Is that like the false doctrine that you are all-knowing about all manuscripts that ever existed, and which ones Beza used in making his text? You wrote, "it's NOT found in any of the mss. used by Beza to make his revision." Can you provide any evidence that you actually know which manuscripts Beza used in making his revision? Only God is all-knowing, so you border on preaching a false doctrine by implication, even if unknowingly.
As I suspected, you want someone else to do your work for you. I know of others as well, but like the one you linked (which covers two, Jeff Riddle and KJV Today), what they are saying is what I agree with, that there are presently no known manuscripts with ο εσομενος in that place. Unless I misunderstand you, you are claiming that Beza had none and there never has been one. Those are not equivalent, not the same.
More than one KJV goof has been shown & proven on this very board. And the KJV, same as all Bible translations is a product of God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.
It proves itself unless/until proven wrong. You can stay on your merry-go-round long as you want, but you're only gonna end up dizzy.
Only to those who see the truth.
If beza had ine we don't know about, then God has hidden some of His word from us. I don't believe He did that. What good would it do God to have given part of His word to a couple of men & then concealed it from mankind in general?
You can believe whatever you want, as will everyone else. However, what we believe and what we can prove are not the same thing, and it seems pretty clear that you don't know which manuscripts Beza used.
As concealing other scrolls and manuscripts for years that have been discovered and are now studied to revise Hebrew and Greek texts?
Last edited:
Your comment would clearly apply to you more. You are one who has been making false allegations against a Bible believer for disagreeing with your non-biblical opinions. You have tried improperly to put words in my mouth that I did not say. Your posts would show that you are guilty of what you accused others.
I properly and soundly disagree with your own personal assertions or opinions that are not true or that are not scriptural, but I make no allegations against you in cases where you stick to and believe what the Scriptures actually state.
Again-if an ancient Greek ms. is found that proves me wrong, I shall readily admit it. Otherwise, this has become a merry-go-round. Right now, the evidence is highly in favor of Beza's having made a conjectural emendation.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:40 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:40 PM Pacific.
Good to know.
Where are those pesky verses that say, "ONLY the originals are inspired"?
Non scriptural?
Why you don't even believe in scripture for
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16
So you believe all scripture is inspired?
But then you do not believe any scripture existing today is inspired.
Did I get that wrong too?
You are not a leader but a shameful misleader.
Is the following a lie?
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
Last edited:
I have already made it very clear that I believe all that the Scriptures state about themselves. Any false accusers have not proven that I reject any scriptural truth concerning the Scriptures.
What the verses say concerning the Scriptures was true before 1500, before 1600, and after 1611. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The making of yet another English translation in 1611 did not change the meaning of any of the verses concerning the Scriptures. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, or translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars/critics in 1611.
What the verses say concerning the Scriptures was true before 1500, before 1600, and after 1611. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611. The making of yet another English translation in 1611 did not change the meaning of any of the verses concerning the Scriptures. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, or translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars/critics in 1611.
Last edited:
- Status