Search results

Jim Taylor asserted: “The ‘purity’ of the scripture is a natural outcome of the process of inspiration” and that “we cannot separate ‘purity’ from the doctrine of inspiration” (In Defense of the TR, p. 299). David Cloud declared: “The Bible plainly teaches that divine inspiration produces...

Your position is not near as clear as you assume and claim, and the replies that follow did directly address your claims and assertions. The replies did deal with scriptural truths and verifiable facts. Your seeming excuses for not clarifying your position and for not engaging in serious...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/scripture-twisting-james-talarico-rewrites-the-bible-for-leftist-ends/ar-AA2ddzUj?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6abc1707df4446b8b57e4b3eb7f3c813&ei=30...

You seem to be suggesting indirectly that preservation is through the KJV. Are you claiming that the KJV is the work of God?

Disagreeing with a human, non-scriptural KJV-only view is not kicking the KJV. I love the KJV, which I have read over 60 years. I believe the KJV as what it actually is. My effort is to present the truth concerning the KJV. I am not an "industrial bible complex scholar" as you seemed to try...

Readers of this forum, Anthony has claimed that his position is clear, and he seems to be unwilling to clarify it. To me, his position on the Critical Text is not clear. Readers, do you understand Anthony to be suggesting that the entire or whole Critical Text should be considered...

Anthony, can readers see your posturing and performance in claiming the victory and in making excuses for not engaging in serious discussion? In your opening post of threads, you seem to frame your position as a contest that you win since you seem to assume that no one can counter your...

Leland Ryken asserted: "Tyndale's English New Testament was the founding document of English Puritanism" (William Tyndale's New Testament, p. 61). Leland Ryken wrote: "Tyndale's career as polemicist and translator propelled him into the related role of controversialist. A controversialist is...

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.