Recent content by Logos1560

Anthony, perhaps you stepped out of the discussion because your unproven claims or assertions were either countered or refuted. New evidence or information was presented so your assertion is proven not to be true. You fail to prove your assertions in your above post to be true. You avoid...

Your claim that "nothing new was being said" is clearly false. Are you revealing that you do not engage in serious discussion? Are you the one doing the posturing as you proclaim your own victory without answering the evidence that countered your unproven assertions?

Are you posturing with your repeated, canned response to several threads? Your pattern is to dodge serious discussion. You claim the victory when you have not proven that your assertions are true. You are one who throws out the personal accusations, accusing others of "posturing, strutting...

Your comments and replies have been addressed. You have not answered nor refuted all the points that counter your unproven claims. You make the false claims as you seem to try to suggest that you and your comments are superior and are above being answered. Anyone disagreeing with you seems to...

Jakob Van Bruggen observed: “Sometimes, however, Christians are attached to a somewhat antiquated usage and therefore protest against modernization of the language of the Bible. But such a protest is mistaken. The Bible does not serve merely to gratify our linguistic taste, but it should be...

One of the sources of Anthony Pritchard for his claimed source grounding is Jacob Van Bruggen's book The Future of the Bible. Anthony does not actually demonstrate that his claimed sources agree with his assertions. Actual quotations are needed from his sources instead of just Anthony...

John Reynolds, one of the four Puritans invited to the Hampton Court conference, is said to have suggested the idea of a new translation to King James. John Eadie noted that Reynolds “was not chosen in any way by his own [Puritan] party” (English Bible, II, p. 172). The doctrinal views of John...

Perhaps the term "reconstructionist philosophy" cannot be clearly defined and explained without it possibly also applying to the textual criticism view of Erasmus.

Wilbur Pickering, one of your sources, wrote: "We understand that the human authors of Scripture wrote under inspiration, by which we mean that the Holy Spirit superintended the process with the result that they wrote just what He wanted them to write (respecting the means that rule the use of...

In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell noted: “When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity...

That is not what I post or say. Some KJV defenders who deny being KJV-only while arguing for the KJV may claim that all KJV-only advocates are "diehard followers of Peter Ruckman and all his teaching", but that is not a correct definition of the meaning of the term KJV-only. I have nowhere...

A two-different-texts argument [as a source for Bibles] or two-streams-of-Bible argument [a preserved stream and a reconstructed stream] would be basically the same thing as a two-lines-of-Bibles argument.

The poster in his title and in the opening post referred to the Bible translation that he holds in his hands [which would be the KJV] as inspired. Claiming that a Bible translation [the KJV] is given by inspiration of God would constitute KJV-only reasoning. Alan Dale Gross wrote: "By that I...

KJV-only author William Grady wrote: “God the Holy Ghost has already spent 3,500 years displaying His willingness to empower both His written and printed Scripture—despite whatever degree of human deficiencies may have accompanied the process” (Given By Inspiration, p. 277). Does William Grady’s...

I read what you wrote. Perhaps you did not read carefully what I wrote. You seem to read what I post through a different lens than how I wrote it. I did not claim that you were KJV-only. The opening post in this thread is advocating a typical KJV-only claim that suggests that the KJV is...