The "scriptures" are said to be "Given by the Inspiration of God", and I, therefore, say "The Bible we hold in our is Inspired."

[Martin Marprelate]

Pneuma can mean either 'Spirit' or 'wind' or 'breath,' so theopneustos can have the meaning of either 'God-breathed' or 'God-spirited,' which isn't a word in English, so 'Given by inspiration of God' is absolutely fine.

We really need to stop beating one another up over these things. 'Let each be fully convinced in his own mind' (Romans 14:5).

 

[Logos1560]

You would have had to be called to smear all King James users and defenders as being KJV-Only Ruckmanite Quacks.

You again in effect bear false witness since I do not smear all King James users and defenders as supposedly being "KJV-only Ruckmanite Quacks." I have clearly defined the term KJV-only, and I have clearly noted that the term does not mean followers of Peter Ruckman.

I am a KJV user, having read and studied in over 60 years, and I am a KJV defender since I defend the stating of the truth concerning the KJV. Your erroneous and false accusation would suggest that I am supposedly smearing myself.

 

[Logos1560]

This guy is hard to pin down, because he's genuinely devious in his approach and his 'thing' about the Post KJV 1611 Translations all being of equal quality univocally, which would include the modern versions, is ludicrous and deserving to be called Quackery more than anything any KJV-Only Quack has dreamed up.

I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English Bible translations made from it as you should already know. Therefore, it is very clear that I have not anywhere claimed that all post-1611 English Bible translations are "of equal quality univocally." You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said in your seeming vain attempt to smear me. You do not state the truth.

English Bible translations such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple original-language texts as the KJV.

I seek to avoid use of the fallacy of composition in statements concerning Bible translations. It is possible to overgeneralize when using adjectives to describe a Bible translation or one edition of it. A translation can still be considered overall accurate even when it has a few individual inaccurate renderings, a few inconsistencies, impurities, or imperfections, or a few printing errors. What may be true of a few individual renderings may not be true of the whole overall translation or edition just as what may be considered generally true or true overall of the whole translation may not be true of each and every individual rendering.

Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13). Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every rendering of a Bible translation.

 

[Logos1560]

You just have unbelief in Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation as a given.

You jump to a wrong conclusion, and your claim is not true. I believe in Divine inspiration and Divine preservation. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

Disagreeing with your human or private interpretations and understandings does not at all suggest "unbelief in Divine inspiration and Divine preservation as a given."

 

[Logos1560]

"At this point we have entered the realm of “textual criticism”. A textual critic is one who picks and chooses what part of whose story they will believe to be true. They make themselves the judge.

Erasmus and the other editors of Textus Receptus editions were textual critics. At times the Church of England makers of the KJV acted as textual critics. The KJV translators made some textual criticism decisions.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Your belief in your interpretation does not make it true and scriptural.

"The whole problem with textual criticism is that man becomes the judge of what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t. A textual critic sets himself up as judge over God’s Word, when no man has such a right. The Scriptures are not to be privately interpreted. The Bible teaches “No Scripture is of private interpretation”. No mere mortal dare add to, or subtract from God’s Word (the last chapter in Revelation teaches this). Textual criticism is flawed because man’s judgment is by nature flawed with bias.

God's Words are Always Inspired that make up His Holy Scriptures.

But yours does? Of course, if you have Authority over the Word of God.

"if"

Which, of course, you don't.

You do not have Authority over the Word of God to say that the King James Bible, for one example, was Translated in no way differently univocally than all Post KJV 1611 Translations that cut out 20%, or so, of the Inspired Writings in the New Testament out and throw them away, in violation of Revelation 22:19;

"And if any man shall take away from the Words of the Book of this Prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City,
and from the things which are Written in this Book."

I don't know if you know that or not.

It seems to be a thing you claim and will fight tooth and nail to maintain.

"It seems to be a thing" with you to attempt to force feed your idea that the modern versions that have had your Authority given to them to omit 20% of the New Testament, when you say they are equal univocally to the King James and other versions that Faithfully Translated from a Comparison Process of consulting all reliable Manuscripts extant humanly possible.

You bear false witness as I nowhere claim or suggest that I supposedly have authority over the Word of God.

Can you show me where you have said something positive about the King James Bible, other than it was Translated by men and, therefore, the Words that Go Forth Out of the Mouth of God which "shall not Return unto Me void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it" (Isaiah 55:11), therefore, can't be dripping with God-Breathed Inspiration and the Blood of Jesus, the Eternal Logos?

 

[Logos1560]

You do not have Authority over the Word of God to say that the King James Bible, for one example, was Translated in no way differently univocally than all Post KJV 1611 Translations that cut out 20%, or so, of the Inspired Writings in the New Testament out and throw them away, in violation of Revelation 22:19;

"It seems to be a thing" with you to attempt to force feed your idea that the modern versions that have had your Authority given to them to omit 20% of the New Testament, when you say they are equal univocally to the King James and other versions that Faithfully Translated from a Comparison Process of consulting all reliable Manuscripts extant humanly possible.

You improperly seem to try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. I do not claim to have authority over the word of God as you falsely allege. I do not say that the KJV "was translated in no way differently univocally than all post KJV 1611 translation so you bear false witness. You try to twist and distort what I have stated into something that I do not say. Your strawman misrepresentations are wrong.

You know that I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English translations made from it.

 

[kyredneck]

Logos: I was referring to the POWER of the Words of God, regardless of version.

ZACTLY

For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isa 55:9-10

 

[Armchair Apologist]

When rightly translated, a translation is, in fact, the inspired word of God. I primarily use the ESV and the KJV and am of the conviction that they are, in fact, the Word of God for the English speaking people!

If such is not the case, perhaps we all need to get on the ball and learn how to read Greek and Hebrew to the point where we are able to speak such in a conversational setting!

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).

Nope. That isn't anything like it says.

Are you kidding me? "the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles" IS WHERE GOD SAYS, "So shall My Word be that Goeth Forth Out of My Mouth" WAS ONLY WRITTEN TO THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WHERE GOD SAID THAT "it shall Not Return unto Me void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please, and it shall Prosper in the thing whereto I Sent it".

Incredible, staggering, and astounding.

"Sightler observed that God’s Word “does not lose its Authority by being Translated into any language if those who do the work are saved, reverent believers, and seek the Guidance of the Holy Ghost, as the Translators of the KJV certainly did” (p. 11). Applying this statement consistently shows that other Translations including the Geneva Bible, Wesley’s Bible, Webster’s Bible, the 1842 Bible by Baptists, the NKJV, the MKJV, the KJ2000, and others can be validly called the Word of God in the same sense that the KJV is." Review of Sightler’s A Testimony Founded For Ever | Unbound Scriptures by Rick Norris

Is James Sightler, M.D., a Greek scholar?

Looks like he knows his way around Greek pretty well to me. "Mr. John Krinke, Bible College teacher of Greek and author and publisher of What Happened to Bible Faith? (Greenwood, IN, 2003) also contends that theopneustos is a noun, an Entity. See below.

"James Harold Sightler, MD, 82, passed away June 24, 2019."

Br. Sighter's credentials and education don't list his knowledge of Greek, or how he obtained it.

"He was a US Army Veteran, a retired doctor and a member of Good News Baptist Church.
"Dr. Sightler received a BS in Chemistry from Furman University in 1959.
"He graduated from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1968.
"He served in the US Army Medical Corps as a Pediatrician from 1970 to 1972.
"From 1973 to 2003, he was in private practice in Greenville, SC."

Would he have a possible motive of trying to justify his father Harold Sightler's KJV-only teaching?

Br. James Sightler is teaching that the Words of God which THE BIBLE defines as Scripture are Inspired.

His father, Br. Herald Sightler had some convictions about the King James Bible to some extent, but as always you paint anyone who knows the King James Bible exists as being Peter Ruckman incarnated.

I was saved ten or twelve years before I ever knew a King James Bible existed. Of course, I didn't know there were two Testaments in the Bible, or the Gospels, or Books named Genesis or Revelation. Hey, maybe, just maybe, I wasn't a Peter Ruckmanite KING JAMES BIBLE VERSION ONLY Quack, according to you, for that initial period in my Christian walk.

But you know better than everyone else about everything, so I guess not and I have to be wrong about that to fit your sinister mindset about anyone who even knew someone who may have known the King James Bible existed is a Quack.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Is James Sightler possibly following the claims of Gail Riplinger?

Br. James Sightler was not arguing "the HERESY View of the Plenary Verbal Inspiration of the King James Bible and of Other Bibles As Well. This HERESY view is held by Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, and many of their followers. What is this view? This HERESY view believes that in 1611, when the King James Bible was published, (contrary to all truth and Biblical doctrine) God performed a “second inspiration.” Because of this, their so-called verbal plenary inspiration of the King James Bible supplants the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words given by God Himself as inferior and exalts the verbal plenary inspiration of the King James Bible as superior." https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/VPP/warning_on_gail_riplinger.pdf

As with anyone else who may profess an imperfect Theology, Gail Riplinger has blown it in the area of her Bible understanding on that major point of "double-Inspiration" and other KJV-Only junk, but she has other research that has been invaluable to the understanding of the Occult predominance prevalent in the modern day Bible debate.

She does not believe that the King James Bible is the only Inspired Version.

Br. James Slighter argues that:
"Inspiration is seen again, and only once, in the Old Testament in Job 32:8: "But there is a spirit in man: and the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." There it is also a noun, in Hebrew neshamah, and the passage is parallel to II Timothy 3:16. It is also once more the Breath of God which was given to Adam and which gives us understanding. It is the Bible, the Breath of God, which Gives man all the understanding which he can possibly have.

"Psalm 33:6 states that the Heavens were Made by the Word of the LORD and “by the Breath of His Mouth,” so that here the Word of God and His Breath are seen to be the same. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments here that the Hebrew word neshamah is particularly used where those Operations of God “are Energetic,” and that “God’s Breath is the Irrestible Outflow of His Power.” Job 33:4 again refers to "the breath of the Almighty" which gave Elihu life and to the Holy Ghost, Who Gave Paul The Theopneustos.

"Mr. John Krinke, Bible College teacher of Greek and author and publisher of What Happened to Bible Faith? (Greenwood, IN, 2003) also contends that theopneustos is a noun, an Entity.

He asks a very important question: “What are the languages that may be referred to as being Inspired?”

"He answers from Acts 2:5-7:

5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every Nation under Heaven.

6 "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 "And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

"He further cites Acts 2:8-12:

8 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 "Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 "Cretes and Arabians, we do hear themspeak in our tongues the wonderful works ofGod.

12 "And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?"

"And then he adds that, since every Nation under Heaven is stated in Acts 2:5, the 16 named regions of verses 8-12 were only representative of the whole congregation assembled. There were more languages and dialects represented than the 16 named regions. When the Gospel of Christ was Preached and Written by the Apostles, those who heard or read had nothing less than God’s Inspiration, no matter what language they heard or read. He rightly believes that, if Inspiration is confined to autographs or faithful apographs of the original languages, we cannot claim God’s Promises unless we know those original languages in which God Delivered His Inspiration, the Bible, to mankind. We must forever be at sea.

"Scripture is Eternal and is Given to all, out of every Nation. And in the same way the Plan of Redemption is Eternal and Given to all, out of every Nation. The Bible says Jesus is the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World, from Eternity. The Word that became flesh was Eternal. It follows that the Word of God which we have before us is also Eternal. When God Breathed the Breath of Life into Adam he became a living soul; we see the same statement made in Job by Elihu. The Breath of God came upon something already completed. Likewise when God Breathed His Word from Eternity Inspiration was completed. In I Corinthians 2:7 Paul says that the wisdom he preached and wrote “God Ordained before the World unto our Glory.”

"My Dad, The late Dr. Harold B. Sightler many times said:
“Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?”
"I do not believe the scriptures occurred to Him in Time but have existed from Eternity and are a part of His Being, the Great I Am. That is why the crucifixion and Resurrection are described as occurring according to the Scriptures. Scripture is the only means we have of knowing the Attributes and Nature and Plan of God for the World. That is why the Bible cannot be an idol. The alternative to Revealed Religion of the Bible is natural theology and apologetics, both products of man’s mind which have always led man astray into philosophy and vain babblings.

"The KJV translators did not claim Inspiration for their work because they did not need to. In their day it was generally understood that the Bible was Inspired, and to them it was also clear that the Bible was now English and had been since at least the day of Wycliffe; ..., perhaps as early as Tyndale. The true church, even in the Middle Ages, has always had Inspired Scripture before it. An Omniscient, Omnipotent God would not have allowed anything else.

"Mr Krinke’s book, What Happened to Bible Faith?, may be obtained from:"

"John M. Krinke"
"1161 Rosengarten Drive
"Greenwood, IN 46142"

 

[SovereignGrace]

But yours does? Of course, if you have Authority over the Word of God.

Which, of course, you don't.

I don't know if you know that or not.

It seems to be a thing you claim and will fight tooth and nail to maintain.

It does not "assert nor infer that there is a giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God each time it was copied or each time it was translated into a different language", because there is no need for a "giving or re-giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God", since the Words of Scripture themselves are Inspired by God.

As much as you may try, you are not going to separate the Anointing, Unction from on High, and the Inspiration Inherent in and Contained in God's Words.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 states; "And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures,
which are able to Make thee Wise unto Salvation through Faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 "All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in Righteousness:

17 "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."






Nothing teaches that "the process or method for the making of post-NT Bible translations is by inspiration", except maybe your KJV-Only friends you are so infatuated with, because God's Words are Always Inspired that make up His Holy Scriptures.


You can't divorce God's Breath, from being on the Words that Go Forth from God's Mouth since souls are to live by every Word that Proceeds Out of the Mouth of God.


I wasn't taking about the King James Version as opposed to any other Faithfully Translated 'Version', by Comparison to and from the Majority of Manuscript Evidence.

You assumed and brought up the King James Version, because you can never seem to resist bashing it, even when it's not specifically being talked about.

There are no bibles today that are inspired. What we have are copies of copies of copies...of the inspired.

 

[Logos1560]

His father, Br. Herald Sightler had some convictions about the King James Bible to some extent, but as always you paint anyone who knows the King James Bible exists as being Peter Ruckman incarnated.

Your continuing to bear false witness discredits you. I do not paint "anyone who knows the King James Bible exists as being Peter Ruckman incarnated." Your bogus accusation is false.

 

[Logos1560]

Br. James Slighter argues that:
"Inspiration is seen again, and only once, in the Old Testament in Job 32:8: "But there is a spirit in man: and the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." There it is also a noun, in Hebrew neshamah, and the passage is parallel to II Timothy 3:16. It is also once more the Breath of God which was given to Adam and which gives us understanding. It is the Bible, the Breath of God, which Gives man all the understanding which he can possibly have.

Job 32:8 has not been demonstrated to be parallel to 2 Timothy 3:16.

Do these two verses (2 Timothy 3:16 and Job 32:8) use the same original-language word in the same exact sense concerning the same exact subject that would indicate that they should be considered real parallel passages? Henry A. Virkler noted: “It is important, though, to distinguish between verbal parallels and real parallels. Verbal parallels are those that use similar words but are discussing different ideas (the similarity is more verbal than real)” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 38). Henry Virkler observed: “Real parallels are those that speak of the same idea or same event” (Ibid.). Perhaps describing a similar matter while using a different term, John Beekman and John Callow wrote: “Pseudo concordance is the reoccurrence of the same word in a text but with different senses. Several occurrences of the same word in its different senses gives the appearance of real concordance within a document while in fact there is only pseudo concordance” (Translating, p. 152). John Beekman and John Callow added: “True concordance within a document occurs when the word is used several times representing only one of its senses” (p. 153). John Beekman and John Callow noted: “Real concordance within the text of a document is the deliberate reoccurrence of the same word with the same sense” (p. 154).

James Sire asserted: “When two or more unrelated texts are treated as if they belonged together, we have the fallacy of collapsing contexts” (Scripture Twisting, p. 58). James Sire defined and explained the reading error collapsing contexts as follows: “two or more verses which have little or nothing to do with each other are put together as if one were a commentary on the other(s)” (p. 156). James Sire noted: “If two or more texts talk about the same subject in a similar way, then when we study them together we are not collapsing the contexts” (p. 62). Does the use of the same English word “inspiration” to translate two different words in two different verses in different contexts prove that these two verses are real parallels both about the same subject or idea--the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Is there real or true concordance between the use of inspiration at Job 32:8 and its use at 2 Timothy 3:16?

Is it clearly demonstrated that the assertion (Job 32:8) made by Elihu would be the first mention of the same subject of the giving of the Scriptures as the verse in 2 Timothy 3:16 is? KJV defender David Sorenson asserted: “The only place in the Bible where the word inspiration appears in the context of Scripture is 2 Timothy 3:16” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 43). In a footnote, David Sorenson noted: “The word inspiration also appears in Job 32:8, but the context there clearly is not of Scripture, but of a man’s spirit being inspired or enlightened by God” (Ibid.). KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged that the word ‘inspiration’ “is used once in the Old Testament (Job 32:8) in a different sense” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 45). KJV-only author Phil Stringer claimed: “The word inspiration did not exist before God invented it for the New Testament” (Unbroken Bible, p. 60). KJV defender Bruce Lackey wrote: “We will be safe in ignoring Job 32:8 in this discussion [about inspiration], because it simply records the statement of one of Job’s critics, Elihu” (Why I Believe, p. 13). Bruce Lackey added: “Even if we were to take Elihu’s statement as being truth, it would have nothing to do with the inspiration of scripture” (Ibid.).

Does Elihu actually define the meaning of inspiration at 2 Timothy 3:16? Would a possibly more obscure or less clear use of an English word be properly considered the key to understanding a clearer use of that same word? Has it been soundly demonstrated that the Hebrew noun used in Job 32:8 has the exact, same meaning as the Greek adjective used in 2 Timothy 3:16? The Greek adjective at 2 Timothy 3:16 is actually translated in the KJV by five words [“given by inspiration of God”], not by one word [inspiration]. How would this adjectival participial phrase [“given by inspiration of God”] be identical to a noun? Do these KJV-only authors avoid sound consideration of how the same Hebrew word translated “inspiration” at Job 32:8 is translated in over twenty other verses in the KJV’s Old Testament? Could any of the other verses where the same Hebrew word is used contribute to understanding its use at Job 32:8? Does Job 33:4 where Elihu used the same Hebrew word again and where it is translated “breath” support the new KJV-only interpretation of Job 32:8? Would presenting one result of “the inspiration of the Almighty” [“giveth them understanding”] actually provide Elihu’s clear and complete definition of it? Even if it supposedly was Elihu’s definition, does that prove it to be God’s definition? Are all the words stated by Job’s three friends and Elihu identified as being revelation directly from God or are all their words accurately recorded by inspiration of God as they had stated them regardless of whether they were right or wrong in some of them? Do the Scripture anywhere identify Elihu as being a true prophet of God who was given direct revelation from God?

 

[Logos1560]

"Mr. John Krinke, Bible College teacher of Greek and author and publisher of What Happened to Bible Faith? (Greenwood, IN, 2003) also contends that theopneustos is a noun, an Entity.

Does John Krinke have authority over the word of God so that He can declare a Greek adjective to be a Greek noun?

John Krinke wrote: "An eclectic Bible version which one man possesses differs with the different eclectic Bible version of another man; both men cannot possess The Preserved Word, for God has only One Bible."

The 1611 King James Version is "an eclectic Bible version" based on multiple varying eclectic Old Testament texts and based on multiple varying eclectic New Testament texts. The 1611 KJV also differs with the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision.

KJV defender Laurence Vance asserted: “We are really limited to a Greek text that is based on an eclectic mix of manuscripts” (King James, His Bible, p. 260). Laurence Vance noted: “The King James Bible was both a translation and a revision, based on a wide variety of sources” (Text of the KJB, p. 351). Laurence Vance asserted: “Alterations from the Bishops’ Bible in the New Testament were sometimes made on the basis of a better rendering in English of the common Greek reading and other times because the King James translators followed a different Greek reading than the Bishops’ Bible translators did” (p. 432).
KJV-only author William Grady admitted: “The King James Bible is an eclectic text, which means that it was produced from a variety of underlying sources” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44).

The 1611 KJV differs in hundreds of places from the widely-accepted, trusted, and loved 1560 Geneva Bible of English-speaking believers before 1611. Is John Krinke suggesting that English-speaking believers before 1611 cannot have possessed The Preserved Word?

Excluding 1611 reprint editions, varying multiple post-1900 KJV editions differ in over 1,000 places from the original 1611 KJV edition.

 

[Baptist4life]

Logos ........ Posting until late in the evening, then right back at it early in the morning, and all hours in between, but he doesn't have an obsession? Day after day. Year after year. That's really a sign of being obsessed with something to me. I'm not trying to bash him. It's just really strange for someone to spend all their time with this topic He claims he has another life, but this IS his life! All one needs to do is look at his posting history. For the last 15+ years! I'm not saying he's not well educated, but I truly worry about his mental state.

 

[Logos1560]

I'm not trying to bash him.

Do you in effect contradict yourself since your seeming strange obsession with trying to smear and bash me is demonstrated in your bogus personal attacks? Perhaps you should consider your own critical mental state.

I posted more yesterday than usual because there were several posts which quoted mine.

 

[Baptist4life]

Denial is not a river in Egypt. I won't post anymore on here about you, but I just want to ask the other posters to keep track of how many times you post endless paragraphs, and all hours of the day and night that you post them. I think they'll see what I'm talking about. It's just abnormal behavior.

 

[Logos1560]

It's just abnormal behavior.

Your opinion is incorrect. You prove no "abnormal behavior" on my part. You improperly keep insulting me or keep bashing me while you try to deny it. There are other posters who post at these forums more than I do. My posting time at this forum is typically less than one hour a day. Visiting this site does not take long if there are no posts to which to respond.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You bear false witness as I nowhere claim or suggest that I supposedly have authority over the Word of God.

You take Authority over all Bible Versions by saying the 1611 King James and all Pre-KJV 1611, are univocally equal with the same weights, standards, and measures in their Translation as all Post KJV 1611 Versions are.

They are are not Translated in any similar way, shape, or form, and that on purpose, by design.

BTW, aren't you talking to us tonight? What's up?