Free Greek Course

A knowledge of the Greek Testament and NT grammar may be profitable. An example would be if one needed to assess the quality of modern versions of the Bible. They are to be compared to the Greek Testament of the Lord Christ, and as for me I would narrow that to the Textus Receptus, which is the superior text type available today. Most modern versions are perversions, translation-wise, as they are dynamic equivalent versions. Another bad thing about MV's in general is their Westcott-Hort type text underlying them. An accurate, precise, and faithful translation of the right Greek text is a good thing, and it should logically brings about greater obedience to God's commandments in those reading it than if the same read some modern DE perversion translated from an Alexandrian tampered-with Greek text.

Harald

 

Absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who knows what a first-grader knows about accreditation knows accreditation has nothing to do with content, but integrity.

 

Ransom, why are you like this with those who disagree with you? I appologise, and you STILL throw it back in my face, and suggest I am lying. However, the irony is that, I firmly believe, it is you who is being dishonest. In light of this, I am not prepared to argue with you any more. I will not engage with someone who accuses me of dishonesty whilst being nasty (including your continuous accusations - in the "church version" thread - that I was a member of a cult just because I believed my Bible had no errors in it), and dishonest himself (as I will show - and no, I don't care what smart-alec comment you make in response to this).

You're welcome. Most anti-KJVOs are at least honest in defing their positions. Pastor Larry, on page 3 of this thread, wrote (all emphasis is mine):

How am I being dishonest? At least Pastor Larry has the integrity not to twist words and honestly put is position out for all to see. Also, Scott J in the very previous post to that one wrote:

See that? Scott doesn't believe he has the words of God without error. He even says it's impossible for YOU to know you have the words of God! And yet you claim it:

OK - so you claim something both Scott J and Pastor Larry reject - that's your right. But you can't go accusing me of dishonesty when I point out their positions. But wait... I don't believe what you just wrote there. You say you have the words of God without error in the NASB? REALLY? So, you believe there is no error at all in the NASB??? If there is, then they AREN'T the "words of God without error", are they??? I don't know what kind of games you are trying to play with words, but to make such a statement is blatantly dishonest if you DO believe there are errors in the NASB.

But finally, is it possible you disagree with the rest of the MVers, and truly believe what you just wrote about the NASB? Alas, no (quote from Ransom on page 3 of the 'The "original" autographs' thread):

So if there are places we cannot be absolutely confident of, then you can't claim the NASB has the "words of God without error," can you? And so, it is proven from your own statements that you do not believe what you claimed.

Like I said, I am not going to argue any more with you, since your posts are persistently mocking and nasty, and you accuse me of dishonesty whilst exhibiting it yourself.

Your brother,

Bartholomew