Should the Textus Receptus have conjectural emendations?

Yes, as the 1611 team admit that they really revised prior translations, and that no doubt their own work would be getting revised and updated!

 

What proof do you have of that?

So when modern guys write and explain about what they put in their Greek texts, does that mean they do not have any Greek manuscripts with those words in them? Same principle you're espousing. A simpler reason for the need of the explanation is that his reading goes against the commonly found reading, even if/when he did find one. You can believe he was lying and I won't. How's that for a resolution?

 

You did not demonstrate that I make any false assumptions.

Perhaps you make the false assumptions concerning the KJV likely based on use of fallacies such as begging the question.

I understand what biblical faith is, and it is not believing assertions that are not true. Believing assertions that are not true is being deceived.

 

Wouldn't the Bible that King James read be the KJB?

It is actually a legitimate historic synonym for the KJV Bible.

King James Bible Online

 

Faith is a spiritual experience God gives to some. Unless you've experienced it, you remain with the theorists that try to make depraved human belief into something it is not.

 

Do you know all that God knows? Of course not. This is proof of your folly.

 

It's up to you to prove your claim. But anyone knows you cannot prove something does not exist.

 

Same way KJVO is false and cannot be proven!

 

I experienced faith over 50 years ago so your attempt to dismiss or avoid my sound points fails.

Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning attempts to make faith into something it is not. An appeal to blind faith or misplaced faith does not justify a modern KJV-only view.

 

"I experienced faith" Did you keep it? Sounds like you did it yourself.

"my sound points fails" said with pride.

"Human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning" , where are the bible verses that say only the originals are inspired? You said "non-scriptural" and that applies to you.

"An appeal to blind faith or misplaced faith", Faith in God's promises is misplaced?

What promises is your faith based on?

Man's scholarship? Not the word of God?

You do not believe any bible translation is inspired, right?

The bible verses you say are "preserved" are any of those inspired?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...
2 Timothy 3:16

no inspiration = no scripture

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

How is your diet going?

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35

Did you have a KJV quiet time today?

For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword... and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.
And this is the word by which the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Peter 1:25

No inspired word of God today = no Christian conversion.

 

You ignore the context and what the poster stated to which I replied. I was using the same terminology of the poster to which I responded. That poster 1689 Dave defined "faith as a spiritual experience" so I replied using his terminology. It is not the way that I would state it. I did not claim to do it myself.

Instead of presenting any positive, clear, sound, true, scriptural case for your own claims, you seem to focus on trying to invent some way to accuse me.

You jump to non-scriptural assertions that you do not back up from the Scriptures. The Scriptures do not state your assertion that without a new supernatural process of inspiration that post-NT Bible translations are not Scripture. You present no Scripture verses that assert that the process of inspiration continued after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. A Bible translation can be properly referred to as the word of God or as Scripture because it is translated from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Your own incorrect assertion would likely condemn the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. According to your own words in your posts, your reasoning would suggest that if the pre-1611 English Bible was scripture given by inspiration, then the KJV would not be since the KJV made hundreds and thousands of alterations to the pre-1611 English Bible. On the other hand, your stated reasoning would suggest that If the pre-1611 English Bible was not scripture, then the KJV was made from non-scripture.

 

You fail to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach your opinion that in effect tries to deny salvation or conversion to anyone who does not accept your non-scriptural claim of inspiration for the KJV. You do not show your new view to be sound Bible doctrine stated in the Scriptures.

Even many KJV-only advocates reject the extreme KJV-only claim of no salvation without use of the KJV, and you seem to be even more extreme by suggesting that even if the KJV was involved that there was still no true conversion if the person did not accept the claim of inspiration for the KJV. You suggest that a person has to believe the translation is inspired before he can be saved. You seem to have added a new non-scriptural requirement for conversion.

 

Actually, the burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one who made a specific claim about the ms not existing. 1689Dave has not claimed that it does exist, but rather questioned your assertion that it does not.

 

Can you point out the evidence for claiming that when someone states a negative that person has the burden of proof? Someone wisely suggested that no one can prove a negative.
It would be a person making a positive assertion that is said to have the burden of proof not a person making a negative assertion.

Someone that suggests the positive that a manuscript does exist would have the actual burden of proof.

An argument from silence or a mere speculation that a manuscript may have existed would be a very weak one or it may sometimes be considered to be based on a fallacy.

 

Why does the KJV produce faith in my heart? And it does not do the same for you, who would rather doubt God's providence over his word? People think faith comes from them, but Jesus is the author and finisher of biblical faith.

“The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)

 

I have not claimed to "doubt God's providence over His word" so you try to put words in my mouth that I do not say.

Would you suggest that your own KJV-only reasoning would in effect "doubt God's providence over His word" as preserved in the original-language manuscript copies of Scripture or as translated in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Exclusive only claims for one English Bible translation would in effect attempt to make that one English translation superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages and superior to the pre-1611 English Bible translations of which it was a revision.

Would you suggest that God's providence over His word does not involve printers but involves only the Church of England makers of the KJV? Would you suggest that admitting the fact of errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV would be doubting God's providence over His word?