Featured Do you hold to ONLY I right Greek/hebrew text?

I assumed nothing... that's why I asked questions.

And if you are too proud to take a suggestion of using more humble language, then who is the real blowhard?

 

Assumption 1, I am too proud

Assumption 2, I did not use "humble language."

The fault finders are the blowhards, telling others how to speak and think and so forth.

 

Dude... it was a suggestion!!! Thin skin

I'll never lend you advice again.

 

I suggest you stop disparaging me based on your errant assumptions.

You might do a bible study on fault finders. You might be surprised.


New American Standard Bible (NASB) Romans 14:

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you (A)regard your brother with contempt? For (B)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

“(C)As I live, says the Lord, (D)every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall [a]give praise to God.”

12 So then (E)each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not (F)judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—(G)not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

 

A KJV-only view does not advocate any consistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures. There are no original language manuscripts for either the Old Testament or the New Testament that agree 100% with every reading found in the KJV.

The Textus Receptus had readings added from the Latin Vulgate by Erasmus and even a few conjectures made by Erasmus and Beza that have no Greek NT manuscript support.

Accepting those conjectures is not standing for God's preservation of the Scriptures from A. D. 100 until the 1500's when the printed TR editions were first made.

There are no pre-1611 translations of the Scriptures in other languages such as Luther's German Bible or the 1602 Spanish Valera that agree 100% textually and translationally with the KJV.

A consistent and scriptural view of the preservation of the Scriptures would be true both before and after 1611. The inconsistent KJV-only view of preservation cannot be true before 1611 if it is supposedly true afterwards.

The KJV translators themselves rejected the type arguments that KJV-only advocates use. The KJV translators indicated that no translation which would include their own could be perfect.

According to what the Scriptures teach, the doctrine of preservation concerned the preservation of the words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, not the fallible textual criticism decisions or fallible translating decisions of an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

The Scriptures are not bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one group of Church of England critics and scholars in 1611.

 

Do you selectively exclude a great deal of the original language evidence that conflicts with a modern KJV-only theory?

The actual evidence for the Traditional original language texts does not support claims of perfection of the Textus Receptus and the KJV. John William Burgon clearly showed that the Traditional Text is not the same thing as the Textus Receptus with its minority readings and readings with no Byzantine Greek manuscript support.


Dean John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269). For example, Dean Burgon wrote: "Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1).

Burgon asserted that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (p. 15). Edward Miller suggested that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96).