It is written

i don't think most here wld dispute the doctrine of preservation. it is the HOW that is in question--on the one hand u have the KJBOs erecting an evidence-free scheme centering on one particular version of the Bible; on the other, a multiplicity of sources is acknowledged. i'm curious to see how the Brandenburg book approaches this.

 

This statement is tagged by footnote 118, which states:

</font>[/QUOTE]but the existence of unique preposterous claims is not self-validating. if La More stands outside his window n proclaims, exclusively, that he is an rambutan tree, that doesn't necessarily make him one.

the fact is that the TR exists in various editions, some with the Johannine Comma, others without, plus a host of other variants. why shd the verse about incorruptible seed then apply to the TR or KJB or the Vulgate?

 

This "reality of preservation" and the logic which accompanies is seriously flawed.

The OT is quoted in the NT Greek following what many say (which I believe) is from the LXX and (in any case) is significantly different from the Hebrew.

the result is that the KJV english of these corresponding passages is often different and sometimes signifcantly different.

Sometimes words are added, changed or taken away.

KJV Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

KJV Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.


Acts 1:20
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Psalms 69:24
25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

 

aefting quoted:

The New Testament declares the doctrine of preservation when it employs the phrase “it is written.” etc.

This is just another example of the same old non sequitur the KJV-onlyists use when they pull out a spoof-text for "preservation" and say it means preservation in the KJV, with no proof whatsoever.

These authors appear to be doing the same thing.

The TR is the only text that is even asserted to be incorruptible, “pure,” “unadulterated,” and without error. Neither the advocates of the CT or of the Hodges-Farstad text even assert this for their text. This verse indicates the TR to be the preserved Word of God.

This is even an even more ridiculous assertion. We're supposed to believe the TR is "incorruptible" for the sole reaqson that it is "the only text" even claimed to be so?

That is nothing but sheer subjectivism. Worse, it is subjectivism taken as proof that the TR is objectively incorruptible - another unwarranted leap of faith from the KJV-onlyists.

 

It's worst than that, they claim the KJV English supercedes the koine Greek.

HankD

 

It does.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

It does.

Only in KJV-only Fantasyland.

 

Dear Anti-Alexandrian,

You said concerning my statement that the KJVO position is that the AV English of the KJV supercedes the Koine Greek of the AV TR.

I respect your position but strongly disagree.

What about the primary issue of this thread? Where do you stand?

I would like to know how you reconcile the quote below with the differences between the KJV OT vs. NT quotation of Psalms 69:24.

Acts 1:20
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Psalms 69:24
25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

The KJV NT Book of Acts quote of this OT Psalms passage is in the third person singular rather than plural, substitutes “no man” for “dwell” and deletes the word “tents” when compared to the OT passage in the KJV.

Apparently Luke disagrees with Mr. Sutton.

Please respond.

HankD

 

This statement is tagged by footnote 118, which states:

</font>[/QUOTE]Notice the pathetic exegesis ... the abuse of God's word ... the twisting of the inspired text. This text says nothing about the TR. The only people claiming tha the TR is "incorruptible, “pure,” “unadulterated,” and without error" are the people who are ignorant, not having studied the truth. Such assertions are bald-faced lies, wholly incompatible with the God of truth whose word we are talking about. The TR did not even exist until Erasmus compiled it from less than a dozen conflicting manuscripts in the early 1500s. After that, this "pure, unadulterated, incorruptible, error free" text was revised numerous times, each time resulting in the changing of the text, the addition or deletion of words, often under political pressure from those who did not like the textual choices Erasmus made.

The incorruptible, error free, pure, unadulterated TR did not even contain 1 John 5:7-8 in its first editions. Only after bowing to political pressure did Erasmus corrupt the word of God by adding to it.

Such books as this should not be tolerated or espoused by those who love the truth.