The Extent of Corruption

[Anthony Pritchard]

You in effect...

Quote stacking. More noise. None of the quotations you provided address the point I raised. My statement was simple: if someone claims Burgon, Scrivener, Pickering, or van Bruggen support a particular theological position, they must provide documentation for that specific claim.

Your quotations concern Burgon’s view of the Textus Receptus, which I did not mention. They do not demonstrate that Burgon rejected a preserved stream, nor do they show that he supported your position.

If you wish to assert that Burgon held your view, please provide direct quotations where Burgon states it. Summaries, impressions, and labels are not substitutes for documentation.

 

[Logos1560]

Summaries, impressions, and labels are not substitutes for documentation.

That seems to be all you offer. You try to substitute the label "quote stacking" as a diversion away from your lack of clear, consistent, sound evidence for your unproven declarations. Perhaps your misinformed impressions of your preserved stream are not substitutes for documentation.

Are you actually claiming that the Textus Receptus editions are not part of your preserved stream?

My view is clearly much closer to the stated view of John William Burgon than your view is. His statements are support for my view. John William Burgon supported and advocated revision and correction of the Textus Receptus and revision of the KJV. Your posts do not suggest that you would agree with the statements that I quoted from John William Burgon.

 

[Conan]

You’ve repeated your summaries, but you still haven’t provided a single quotation from Burgon, Scrivener, Pickering, or van Bruggen that matches your claims. I’m asking for documented citations, not impressions. Until you provide those, your assertions remain unsubstantiated.

No my facts are correct. Your views are false. You have not read the 4 Scholars works. You clearly do not know what they believed. I have read their works. They are brilliant scholars. Not one of them believed the Comma was genuine. Not one of them thought the KJV perfectly preserved. Not one of them thought the Textus Receptus perfectly preserved. They know the Comma is not original because they are learned Scholars . They know it is not in the Greek Originals. All scholars know it came from the Latin, not the Greek. The Greek Byzantine Manuscripts do not have the Comma. The Original Greek does not contain the Comma. The Greek Byzantine Manuscripts do not contain the Comma. That's why the Comma does not appear in Pickering , or any Greek Byzantine Text. It's an intrusion from the Non original Latin manuscripts. All scholars know this. Pickering, Scrivener, Burgon, Van Bruggen are no exception. You do not know it because you have not read these brilliant scholars for yourself. You read non-scholarly Onlyist . Read Pickering for yourself. Read the Revision Revised by Burgon, or read his Greek Text of Matthew where he recommends readings from the Byzantine Manuscripts to improve the Textus Receptus. In other words, clear errors in the Textus Receptus he corrected and knew the need. Read anything from any of those Four and you will learn not to be an Onlyist.

 

[Conan]

You’ve repeated your summaries, but you still haven’t provided a single quotation from Burgon, Scrivener, Pickering, or van Bruggen that matches your claims. I’m asking for documented citations, not impressions. Until you provide those, your assertions remain unsubstantiated.

You are wrong. Everything I said was a fact everything that you have said is wrong. I know that I am correct because I have read all four Scholars. You have not read them for yourself. If they believed the Comma they would have defended it. But they did not defend the Comma in their works. Real scholarship know. If you read the 4 brilliant scholars for yourself you would know .