Search results

Your argument does not actually stand untouched, and you have not proven your argument to be true. Your argument that seems to try to suggest that all the readings of the preserved stream appear in the majority of Greek NT manuscripts is not correct. You have not proven that your sources would...

I have not recommended nor advocate the Critical Greek Text. I prefer the KJV, having read it over 60 years. According to the doctrine of truth taught in the KJV, I advocate and defend presenting the truth concerning the KJV and concerning other Bible translations. The KJV does not support...

In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Frederick Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). In his book about the...

Are you appealing to these authors without presenting their actual reasoning and without proving that they agree with your assertions and conclusions? You do not present proof for your many unproven assertions.

You are dodging and ignoring verifiable facts, seeming to run from the truth. Your response does not change the truth.

It is not repetition that is offered as evidence by me. You seem to be the one repeating unproven claims over and over. You try to reverse the burden of proof since you have not proven what you claim to be true. I did not make the claim "that the preserved text is very faulty" as you seem...

You seem to be trying to rewrite history according to unproven KJV-only claims. You are skipping over the fact that your statement is not true since all the readings in the preserved stream do not appear consistently in the vast majority of Greek NT manuscripts. Some Textus Receptus readings...

Does your own source John William Burgon refute the fable of a perfect Textus Receptus and the fable of a perfect 1611 KJV? John William Burgon did not advocate a Textus Receptus-only view nor a KJV-only view. Dean John William Burgon wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly...

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no missing or added verses in the preserved stream? Are you revealing that you have not actually compared completely the two claimed separate streams? The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they...

Does your own argument unintentionally suggest that the old Greek Septuagint should be considered part of the preserved stream since it was used in many years and it was used for centuries? The Greek Septuagint is still the Old Testament text used in Greek Orthodox churches. Karen Jobes and...

Your source Edward F. Hills acknowledged: “There are, however, a few places in which the Textus Receptus differs from the Traditional text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts” (KJV Defended, p. 200; Text, p. 336). Edward F. Hills claimed: “Through the influence of the...

Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated...

The sound, compelling evidence of the direct and significant influence of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV could be soundly considered a serious or even a devastating problem for a KJV-only view and its preserved stream claims and arguments. It is a serious problem for...

Did Thomas Curtis in 1833 suggest that the inconsistent updating of the KJV in 1769 degraded it? In 1833, Thomas Curtis wrote: “I stated that I conceived both Universities to have acted seriously in error: the one [Oxford] venturing to alter the Authorised Version (particularly in 1769) in...

Your study is mostly from KJV-only sources which have misled you. The two streams of transmission argument is a leading KJV-only argument, confirming my observation that you are using a KJV-only argument. You do not prove your KJV-only argument to be true. Verifiable facts would prove that...

Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle wrote: “Obsolete uses of the preposition ‘at’ appear in Exodus 19:15, ‘come not at your wives,’ and Numbers 6:6, ‘he shall come at no dead body’” (KJB Wordbook, p. 31). Other uncommon uses may be in Numbers 30:4, ‘hold his peace at her’” and in Numbers 35:11, “at...

It is a verifiable fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed several or even many renderings from the Roman Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament, which is on the KJV-only view’s corrupt tree of Bibles. First-hand testimony and evidence from one of the KJV translators would...

Does the unproven allegation that Modern English is degraded in present English Bibles imply that Early Modern English in the 1611 KJV is too hard for many present English readers to understand?

While I have read the KJV for over 60 years, it may be harder to understand than many of its readers realize. Sometimes readers of the KJV are reading different meanings into its words than what was intended in its Early Modern English. Even something as seeming simple as prepositions which...

Gustavus Paine maintained that Miles Smith, final editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, “protested that after Bilson and he had finished their editing, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes.” He gave as an example Bancroft's insistence on using "the glorious word bishopric even for Judas in...