Search results

And the beat goes on.... :rolleyes:

@Anthony Pritchard care to address this?

So why was the one stream considered preserved but the stream that the MV's used is not? What is the litmus test for all of this?

It took Tim “Tool Man” Taylor 8 years to get through college.

We just ask to be given the same grace from them we show to them. If they grow by studying the KJV, use it. But they disparage us by saying we are using a modern perversion. The grace we show them is not reciprocated.

Seeing it’s called the preserved stream why were they restricted to using five Erasmus editions, Beza’s, and Stephanus’ works. If it’s the preserved stream, why not use mss from the 8th century? The 6th? 10th? 5th? 11th?

And don't think for one second if the roles were reversed and the TR had the earlier mss tradition that you wouldn't throw that in our faces. Y'all make the claim that older does not necessarily mean more accurate. In middle school a teacher whispered something into a girl's ear, and she...

And why do you repeatedly call it the "preserved stream"? Upon what basis can you make such a claim?

You keep saying they omit verses. Oddly, it is actually later additions in the mss used to compile the TR that is the culprit.

Seeing that the Pericope Adulterae is found in both Luke and John in differing mss should raise red flags everywhere. Then the longer ending of Mark tying baptism with salvation, drinking poison and handling serpents, Jesus appearing to them in a different form, should also raise red flags.

Seeing the earliest mss the TR used is around 12th century, and the ones the CT used are closer to the originals, around the 4th century, should show you there is less chance with corruptions.

According to Dr. White, those men who gave us the KJV used the five editions of Erasmus' GNT, Beza's, and Stephanus'. They consulted with the Latin Vulgate (hello Lucifer), Tyndale, LXX, among others. So the KJV is not solely the offspring of the TR, but has many others contained in its pages.

Vaticanus does not have the longer ending of Mark 16, the Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37 [same with Sinaiticus], 1 John 5:7, just to name a few. And both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are way older than any mss the men used when translating the KJV.

Sinaiticus does not have the longer ending of Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7, just to name a few. I called Dr. James White's show "Dividing Line" one time and asked him about the longer ending of Mark 16 and he admitted there is more attestation to it than John 7:53-8:11, but thought it was...

The real question should be why did the KJV use the TR which has additions in it? The corruption is in those additions, not in the CT.

How about answering this @searchingtruths ?

The MV's did not subtract vss [that's called a red herring], they used mss that were written 800-1000 years closer to the Apostles than the oldest mss used in assembling the KJV.

FYI, its more likely vss aren't missing, as the KJVO crowds claims, but verses were added through scribal notes. So, the question should be, why did the KJV add vss to their bible?

Upon what basis is your disagreement?

Another clear example of KJVO language. No matter how you slice you, you are arguing for KJVO while at the same exact time saying that is not your position. But it is your position, whether you see it or not.