The "scriptures" are said to be "Given by the Inspiration of God", and I, therefore, say "The Bible we hold in our is Inspired."

[Martin Marprelate]

Pneuma can mean either 'Spirit' or 'wind' or 'breath,' so theopneustos can have the meaning of either 'God-breathed' or 'God-spirited,' which isn't a word in English, so 'Given by inspiration of God' is absolutely fine.

We really need to stop beating one another up over these things. 'Let each be fully convinced in his own mind' (Romans 14:5).

 

[Logos1560]

You would have had to be called to smear all King James users and defenders as being KJV-Only Ruckmanite Quacks.

You again in effect bear false witness since I do not smear all King James users and defenders as supposedly being "KJV-only Ruckmanite Quacks." I have clearly defined the term KJV-only, and I have clearly noted that the term does not mean followers of Peter Ruckman.

I am a KJV user, having read and studied in over 60 years, and I am a KJV defender since I defend the stating of the truth concerning the KJV. Your erroneous and false accusation would suggest that I am supposedly smearing myself.

 

[Logos1560]

This guy is hard to pin down, because he's genuinely devious in his approach and his 'thing' about the Post KJV 1611 Translations all being of equal quality univocally, which would include the modern versions, is ludicrous and deserving to be called Quackery more than anything any KJV-Only Quack has dreamed up.

I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English Bible translations made from it as you should already know. Therefore, it is very clear that I have not anywhere claimed that all post-1611 English Bible translations are "of equal quality univocally." You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I have not said in your seeming vain attempt to smear me. You do not state the truth.

English Bible translations such as the 1833 Webster’s Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the 1962 Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible by Jay Green, the 1982 NKJV, the 1986 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, 2006 New Authorized Version—AV7 NT, the 2010 KJ3 Literal Translation, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament, and the 2024 edition of the Modern English Bible can be considered as being based on the same basic multiple original-language texts as the KJV.

I seek to avoid use of the fallacy of composition in statements concerning Bible translations. It is possible to overgeneralize when using adjectives to describe a Bible translation or one edition of it. A translation can still be considered overall accurate even when it has a few individual inaccurate renderings, a few inconsistencies, impurities, or imperfections, or a few printing errors. What may be true of a few individual renderings may not be true of the whole overall translation or edition just as what may be considered generally true or true overall of the whole translation may not be true of each and every individual rendering.

Henry Virkler noted: “The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what is true of the individual members of a class is true of the entire class” (Christian’s Guide to Critical Thinking, p. 202). In the glossary, Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks defined the fallacy of composition as “fallacy that assumes that what is true of the parts is true of the whole” (Come, Let Us Reason, p. 190). Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks asserted: “You cannot logically conclude anything about a whole group from something you only know about part of it, even if it looks right” (p. 82). Joshua Rasmussen observed: “It is false that whatever is true of the parts is automatically also true of the whole” (How Reason, p. 38). Joshua Rasmussen added: “Arguments that rely on the Parts to Whole principle are fallacious. They commit the fallacy of composition: they assume that the whole has all the same properties as its parts” (Ibid.). In his glossary, Gordon Clark defined composition as “an informal logical fallacy in which the characteristic of the part is attributed to the whole” (Logic, p. 134). Gordon Clark noted: “This argument is called the fallacy of composition. The logical reason is that the characteristics of components are not necessarily, nor even usually, the characteristics of the compound” (p. 13). Use of an adjective to describe the whole text of a translation can involve use of the fallacy of composition when or if it is assumed that what is true of a few individual renderings, of many individual renderings, or even of a great majority of the individual renderings is true of all the renderings in that translation. There is an important major difference in use of an adjective to describe overall a Bible translation and use of an adjective to describe every rendering of a Bible translation.

 

[Logos1560]

You just have unbelief in Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation as a given.

You jump to a wrong conclusion, and your claim is not true. I believe in Divine inspiration and Divine preservation. I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

Disagreeing with your human or private interpretations and understandings does not at all suggest "unbelief in Divine inspiration and Divine preservation as a given."

 

[Logos1560]

"At this point we have entered the realm of “textual criticism”. A textual critic is one who picks and chooses what part of whose story they will believe to be true. They make themselves the judge.

Erasmus and the other editors of Textus Receptus editions were textual critics. At times the Church of England makers of the KJV acted as textual critics. The KJV translators made some textual criticism decisions.