Quote Stacking v. Source Grounding

[Logos1560]

you need to demonstrate the actual correspondence in context, not just assert it.

You do not practice what you preach. You keep merely asserting your claims without demonstrating them to be true. Your argument has been soundly addressed regardless of your refusal to accept it.

Verifiable facts and truth have been presented for you whether you accept it or not. You try to dismiss the truth and pretend that it has not been presented.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You do not practice what you preach. You keep merely asserting your claims without demonstrating them to be true. Your argument has been soundly addressed regardless of your refusal to accept it.

Verifiable facts and truth have been presented for you whether you accept it or not. You try to dismiss the truth and pretend that it has not been presented.

You keep saying “verifiable facts have been presented,” but you still haven’t demonstrated the specific correspondence I asked for. I’m not asking for declarations; I’m asking for contextual evidence. Until you show that, your claim remains an assertion, not a demonstration.

 

[Logos1560]

I’m asking for contextual evidence. Until you show that, your claim remains an assertion, not a demonstration.

You have not demonstrated your assertions to be true. You have been given sound contextual evidence. You do not determine what evidence is valid for countering your unproven claims. Your claims remain assertions, not demonstrations.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

You have not demonstrated your assertions to be true.

You’re repeating my phrasing without addressing the point. I asked for contextual evidence for your specific claim. You have not provided any.

You quoted Burgon on the Textus Receptus, which I did not mention. Those quotations do not demonstrate that Burgon rejected a preserved stream, nor do they show that he supported your position.

If you wish to assert that Burgon held your view, provide direct quotations where he states it. Until you do, your claim remains an assertion, not a demonstration.

 

[Logos1560]

If you wish to assert that Burgon held your view, provide direct quotations where he states it.

You try to substitute the incorrect label "quote stacking" as a diversion away from your lack of clear, consistent, sound, primary evidence for your unproven declarations. Perhaps your misinformed and non-primary impressions of your preserved stream are not substitutes for documentation.

Are you actually claiming that the printing Textus Receptus editions are not part of your preserved stream? Do you try to blame the printing process for errors while ignoring errors introduced in the copying process of manuscripts?
The varying printed Textus Receptus are the result of their underlying varying imperfect Greek New Testament manuscripts which included many copying errors. A few printing errors were introduced in the printed Textus Receptus editions, but most of their errors come from the Greek NT manuscripts on which they are based, the imperfect collation of them, and from the introduction of readings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

My stated view is clearly much closer to the stated view of John William Burgon than your inconsistent view is. I already provided his quoted statements which provide support for my view or that are in agreement with my view. John William Burgon supported and advocated revision and correction of the Textus Receptus and revision of the KJV.
Your posts do not suggest that you would agree with all the statements that I quoted from John William Burgon.
Your seeming claim that Burgon held or supports your view remains an assertion, not a demonstration.

 

[Logos1560]

Source grounding is naming your sources in the proper way. It begins with a clear line of thought and uses historical witnesses only to confirm what the reasoning already demonstrates.

You fail to practice what you preach. You have not presented a clear line of thought. You have not provided historical witnesses and verifiable facts that confirm and prove your inconsistent KJV-only reasoning to be correct. You simply assert and declare your claims without meeting your burden of proof for them. That would suggest use of the fallacy of begging the question.

 

[Logos1560]

Until you show that, your claim remains an assertion, not a demonstration.

Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

Your claim that there are only two choices is your subjective assertion, but you have not demonstrated that there are only two.

There would be at least three or four positions and perhaps more while you seem to use the fallacy of false dilemma to try to limit it to two. Typical KJV-only reasoning also depends upon use of the fallacy of false dilemma. Again you argue for your position using the same argument as KJV-only authors. For example, KJV-only author Roy Branson claimed: "If one does not trust only the KJV 1611, he must trust liberal texts that are descended from liberal texts" (KJV 1611, p. 75). KJV-only author Dennis Corle suggested: “Since all Bibles don’t agree, one of them has to be the Word of God and all the rest of them have to be counterfeits” (God’s Inspired Book, p. 86). KJV-only author William Grady asserted: “If one rejects ‘King James Onlyism’ as his final authority, the only alternative is ‘Scholarship Onlyism’” (Given By Inspiration, p. 53).

It does not logically and scripturally follow that when believers disagree with your unproven position that they must accept the one claimed alterative that you offer. The one alterative offered by you may be an over-generalization and straw man that paints a very exaggerated, distorted and even false picture of the actual positions held by believers who disagree with your unsound reasoning involving use of fallacies. . Even a false view can be accepted or win by default when it is mistakenly assumed that there are no legitimate alternative views to replace it.

Four possible varying texts on which Bible translations could be made are at least these four. There are English Bible translations in existence from these four varying texts. I have copies of some of those English Bible translations from those four varying textual foundations.

Traditional Text or Byzantine Majority Text,
Textus Receptus text
Syriac Peshitta text
Critical Text

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Your claim that there are only two choices is your subjective assertion, but you have not demonstrated that there are only two.

I have not limited anything to two positions. I have stated one position. Preserved underlying text.

You are trying to bury the issue under noise that you never have to present the one thing I keep asking for: the reading, the primary sources.

PTO - Preserved Text Only

 

[Logos1560]

I have not limited anything to two positions. I have stated one position. Preserved underlying text.

You are contradicting what you posted in some posts. In several posts, you limited the choices to two: Traditional Text vs Critical Text.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This entire discourse has exposed the failed arguments of my detractors. Their replies are not at the level of meaningful discussion. Their replies are at the level of “You, you, you… BAD MAN!”. It is time to call it quits and all go home. End of thread encountered.

 

[Logos1560]

This entire discourse has exposed the failed arguments of my detractors.

This discourse has exposed your failed arguments. You have not refuted my sound observations. You failed to engage in serious, meaningful discussion.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You fail to practice what you preach. You have not presented a clear line of thought. You have not provided historical witnesses and verifiable facts that confirm and prove your inconsistent KJV-only reasoning to be correct. You simply assert and declare your claims without meeting your burden of proof for them. That would suggest use of the fallacy of begging the question.

I don't know how it is where you're at, but around here those who are blind cannot see, and vice versa, both ways.

 

[SovereignGrace]

This entire discourse has exposed the failed arguments of my detractors. Their replies are not at the level of meaningful discussion. Their replies are at the level of “You, you, you… BAD MAN!”. It is time to call it quits and all go home. End of thread encountered.

Get's thoroughly thrashed, takes ball and goes home. Typical behavior from KJVO'ers.