"cop-out phrase"? I guess this means you cannot produce one. That's ok, I knew you couldn't, because there aren't any. Go figure!Note I don't even
have the KJVO cop-out phrase "which was not merely an original printing error,"
Who is it that decides which translations are "worthwhile"? Would that invovle God or only our "scholars"?You see, it is axiomatic among MV users that
any worthwhile translation of the Bible is
inerrant, the preserved written word of
God for the time of the translation
You have missd the whole heart of the controversy. It is NOT about using modern English. It is about changing God's message or deleting parts of it.The English Language chagnes, the written
word of God does not change. The Living Word
of God does not change.
This is what the athiest say about God. They tell us because we say He is, then we must prove He is. We can say right back, prove that He isn't. But they cry foul! They say we proclaim the positive so we bear the burden of proof. It is a poor assumption to make. I don't have to prove God exist, the Holy Spirit does that. And I don't have to prove the KJB is the inerrant Word of God, the Holy Spirit does that as well.I don't believe "as opposed". I believe in this debate, they should both attempt to prove their position - however, normally, the person affirming the positive is the one required to prove their position.
Then who decides which words are in error? God or scholars?I assume Jason is not telling you because 1. his position does not require any single existing manuscript to be inerrant
You have a right to take this position, However I don't know how you could ever prove such a thing.I cannot tell you which ones are inerrant, but I can tell you why - because it is not my position that God's promise of preservation mean a word-perfect manuscript, but rather preservation take place via the range of manuscripts.
I cannot truthfully challenge you on this. Have you compared all 5000+ with each other, that would allow you to declare such an statement? I honestly don't know. Is this true, and how can I check it out?The problem for your position is that out of the 5,000+ manuscripts, no two agree with each other 100%.
This is a difficult one to explain for a KJVO advocate who claims that the KJV is a word for word perfect translation because here is where the translators used some liberty in hopes to let the reader understand just what passover the writer was reffering to.One that I haven't see it used in the debate yet, but I'm hoping it will appear soon, will be when Kinney speaks about "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
Another good one the KJB correctors like to mention is the Holy Spirit being called an "It". If "Easter" and "It" are the most troubling problems that they can come up with, well I will just smile and concede that they are right and the KJB is just riddled with error.
God Bless!
