Featured Final Authority and Final Canonization

yes, for it was scripture as soon as Paul recorded it down!

 

over 2,000 changes, not 421

Your information is incorrect. You are repeating inaccurate research that is now out of date.

There are over 2,000 of those same type changes between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible, not 421. Those 2,000 differences are listed in a booklet entitled Today's KJV and 1611 Compared.

In this thread, you were earlier informed about your incorrect information, but still you repeat it again.

 

I answered your question earlier in this thread.

Do you have a poor memory since you kept repeating or parroting the same comments over and over?

 

sadly, many holding to that position just parrot the allenged facts of the KJVO gurus!

 

How many times in this one thread have you repeated the same exact question and many of the same comments?

Your question has been answered.

The fact that you ask and repeat a question offers no sound evidence for your theory. Questions do not establish or determine the truth.

 

Actually you can. Only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God. God did not continue to write Scripture. He promised to preserve His words, but only the original manuscripts were inspired. It's actually the words that are inspired. God promised to Preserve his word, He did not promise that everyone that copies the Bible would copy though inspiration and thus be kept from error.

 

Copies of the original manuscripts are just as good as the originals themselves, provided one can discern the occasional errors of individual scribes and those manuscripts that perpetuated their errors. For example, if we have 1625 copies that contain Mark 7:16 and only 18 that omit it (only 5 of which predate the 10th century), then we can be pretty confident that a few early mss omitted the verse because it interrupted the lection that ran from Mark 7:14–24. The lection on the previous day runs from Mark 7:5–16 and ends with the verse in question. Also, the early versions support the verse's inclusion. Also, the verse doesn't have the earmarks of contamination from the lectionaries, which to my knowledge always have a completely different form of the words: ταυτα λεγων εφωνει ο εχων ωτα ακουειν ακουετω (cf. Matt 25:29; Luke 12:21; 13:9; 21:4), and always have only a few insignificant mss in support. On the other hand, this Mark 7:16 has the distinctively Markan expression ει τις εχει ωτα ακουειν ακουετω (Mark 4:23) as opposed to the form(s) used by Matthew and Luke (cf. Matt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Luke 8:8; 14:35). All this points to the fact that we know what the originals contained based on the many 1600+ mss that have preserve the words perfectly to the letter for roughly two thousand years.

 

Do you not read the responses that you have been given?

Your question has been answered in this thread.

Are you trying to hide behind questions instead of dealing with the truth that your theory [actually a form of KJV-only theory] is not correct or scriptural?

 

Trolls can't read.

 

yes, for we derive from the inerrant originals the concept of us having an infallible bible, based upon the reconstructed original languages text available to us today!

We can get infalliblity, but NOT inerrancy for either our texts or versions, which is what KJVO demands!

 

Go back and read the thread. Your question was answered earlier.

Your question provides no proof for your claims that are based on the KJV-only writings by Ruckman and Riplinger.

See the new thread about the "Bishops' Bible: no less perfect than the KJV?"
for evidence that Riplinger's claims are not reliable.

 

Sure do.

Which one is easier to read and understand?

2 Cor. 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

2 Cor. 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.