Search results

Perhaps you do not approach the NKJV with the same attitude with which you would approach the Geneva Bible or the KJV. Do you approach the NKJV and other modern English Bibles as a Bible critic instead as a serious, seeking reader of a Bible translation? Perhaps you may come to inspect a mirror...

That is what Anthony Pritchard and you seem to be doing. Does he claim the victory, asserting that I have supposedly proven nothing? I did not claim some type of "victory" as you try to put words in my mouth and allege incorrectly. I am not interested in "winning" as you seem to assume and...

Only one camp or group out of four varying KJV-only camps would seem to suggest resinspiration. You can still agree with one of the three other views of inspiration held by KJV-only advocates. One camp possibly advocates retained or continuing inspiration, one camp advocates derivative...

Peter Ruckman and many KJV-only authors also accept the many bibles translated from the preserved text, earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1611 KJV, and translations in other languages. Your view of preservation leads to the same conclusions that the view of preservation of KJV-only authors...

You present the same interpretation of preservation that KJV-only authors present--one that attempts to dictate to God how God has to preserve His words including how He has to preserve them in English. You do not distinguish your interpretation from the KJV-only interpretation. You do not...

I do not assume that he holds a KJV-only position. My conclusion is soundly based on what he himself has posted. I have soundly compared what he himself states and claims to similar the claims of KJV-only authors. His own stated opposition to modern translations indicates KJV-only reasoning...

This one thread is not the only place he has presented and stated his views. In another thread, Anthony Pritchard maintained that preservation is God's work, and he does not suggest that God failed to preserve the inspiration of His words in what Anthony claims to be the preserved text. Do his...

It is your pointless responses that are noise that do nothing towards engaging in serious discussion. You close your eyes to seeing that KJV-only advocates make a similar argument to the one that you make.

Actual verifiable facts from the twenty to thirty varying Textus Receptus Greek NT editions would prove that the differences are not all "minor." Are textual differences involving whole verses or entire clauses very slight, minor, meaningless, and insignificant? The printed TR editions differ...

In which specific post or posts do you suggest that Anthony Pritchard proved from the Scriptures that inspiration is actually identified in Scripture to be a continuing attribute or quality that can be transferred in post-NT translations?

Your improper attempt to mock at research instead of engaging in discussion is not amusing.

The sound research and documented quotations that I present provide evidence to support my points and assertions in contract to your unsupported and unproven assertions. You have not proven your subjective linguistic point to be true. Your unproven linguistic point is similar to the linguistic...

Your subjective opinion is wrong. Documented evidence is not noise. You improperly try to dismiss the substance that conflicts with your unproven assertions.

Does Gail Riplinger use a linguistic argument as part of her KJV-only reasoning or argument for the KJV? Gail Riplinger claimed that the NKJV “and all new versions use many, many, many more words and letters to say something than the KJV does” (In Awe, pp. 269-270). Gail Riplinger asserted that...

Donald Brake noted: “The 1611 translation shows the grammatical variations of two overlapping eras. Because the seventeenth-century translators lived and worked in an era that rode the shifting tides of language, they somewhat capriciously applied various rules of grammar. For instance, they...

R. S. Sugirtharajah wrote: “Their preference for the King James Version over the new arrivals is often based on the simple and purely subjective reason that the King James Version is venerably archaic and enticingly more familiar” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 511). Adam Nicolson wrote: “The Romantics’...

Gail Riplinger asserted: “We cannot assume, as most have, who have not actually collated them word-for-word, that the language of the KJV reflects updating of the language of the Bishops’ and earlier Bibles” (In Awe, p. 136; Hidden History, p. 51). Gail Riplinger claimed that “only rarely does...

You have not demonstrated that it is a sound argument. You do not demonstrate that Early Modern English or Elizabethan English was more precise than standardized Modern English. The lack of standardization of grammar and spelling in Early Modern English does not suggest that it is a more...

I copied and accurately quoted what you yourself posted. In another thread, Anthony Pritchard posted: "Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it...

In another thread, Anthony Pritchard posted: "Modern English has collapsed that category into “talk,” and modern translations follow the reduced vocabulary of the modern language. That narrowing does not simply affect interpretation; it affects the accuracy of the translation itself. This is...