Because they are historically verifiable. You can look at them. Here are some.
1. There are not two matching manuscripts. They all differ.
2. There is wide agreement across the manuscript families. There are no substantial differences that affect doctrine. The differences affect verses.
3. All through church history, God has preserved his word in imperfect manuscripts, as evidenced by #1.
4. Christ and his apostles affirmed that things other than the KJV were the word of God.
These are but just a few of the facts.
No I haven't. I showed you that the TR is not one text, but in reality there are several TRs. You said you knew which the right manuscript was, and yet you never told us which one it was and you never told us how you knew that. I was asking you to convinced me.
Be careful GG, this is close (but not quite) to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Spirit), to attribute to Satan what the Spirit does in the lives of many believers. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, didn't we all agree that even God used a wicked king to get us the AV 1611 KJB? Then why couldn't He use
the nkjv inspite of it's many fallacies to bring people to Christ? My God, Kevin, learn to differentiate. Granny Gumbo has got more wisdom in her little finger than you school boys probably will ever have. </font>[/QUOTE]Translation: GG is wise because she holds the narrow sect view of qs. Deadeningspirit, if you pursued unbiased learning, instead of the
N.P.V. Sect teachers, you too can become enlightened and enter into the 21st Century.
:rolleyes:
Yes, Oh brother, give me a break!
:rolleyes:
Because they are historically verifiable. You can look at them. Here are some.
1. There are not two matching manuscripts. They all differ.
2. There is wide agreement across the manuscript families. There are no substantial differences that affect doctrine. The differences affect verses.
3. All through church history, God has preserved his word in imperfect manuscripts, as evidenced by #1.
4. Christ and his apostles affirmed that things other than the KJV were the word of God.
These are but just a few of the facts.</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry, qs is not interesed in facts, but stretches all the way back to never-never land to hide his condition coined by Ed, "Polytransphobia"- Ed, brilliant! aka Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect.
Translation
So, quack-quack, suppose you tell us why Herod waited until after Easter to put Peter to death? Wasn’t Herod a wicked king who didn’t believe in the Passover?
I’m sorry my spelling is so bad but I’ve been having a hard time today. Quack. End-Translation
Yes, I know your quack language is tougher than the KJV English but not everyone is as talented as humble me.
The Herod family were semites, descendants of Abraham through Esau.
The patriarch Herod Antipater (d, 43 BC) converted the Herod family to Judaism which they practiced.
In 55 BC Julius Caesar made him ruler of Palestine.
There were two Agrippa’s, descended from Antipater, Herod Agrippa I
who ruled in Palestine 37-44AD called Livius by Rome (who celebrated the Passover of Acts 12:4) and Herod Agrippa II (48-100AD).
"And beyond the shadow of a doubt, I know I have God's Word in the AV 1611 KJB to the English speaking people, it had to be God for anyone to understand the Original 1611, wouldn't you say?"
Well, when you've quoted Scripture, I see by the spelling, etc. that it's NOT from the AV 1611. I have a Hendrickson'e Edition replica AV 1611 right before me to check out these things. So you have His word in the AV but quote from another edition? I see...
Is it not intellectual dishonesty to prefer the Westcott/Hort text, and all texts descended from it, and to throw out the doctrine of the pedobaptists who compiled it?
Is it not intellectual dishonesty to consider the LXX of value and to throw out the doctrine of the unsaved men who translated it?
I think you have erected yet another straw man. They seem to proliferate in this discussion. It makes me wonder if those who erect so many straw men do so because they cannot mount a sensible argument?
I'm so proud of you. Hey? Isn't that a prime example of intellectual dishonesty to procliam yourself humble?
Hmmm? I wonder if there were any other Semitic kings that held to pagan practice of worship?
:rolleyes:
BTW, with respect to the Seed of Abraham, we are to capitalize the "S" in Semitic, semantic, no.
Did Herod in Acts 12 observe Easter, yes. Luke recorded it. Herod said it, or else how could Luke have known he would wait till after Easter to put Peter to death?
AH! BUT Didn't the Lord spoil ol'Herod's plans!
YES! HE DID!
For the Father
For the Son
For the Holy Ghost
Uh, Hank, really? Practicing Jews? I thought it was in the Law of Moses not to kill? Also, I've always looked at Herod as a type of the devil trying to put God's people to death. If he observed Passover, he did rather as a hypocrite. Oh, well, I guess Jesus is right afterall.
Now, doesn't that open up all sorts, not sords, of implications?
Uh, I see you haven't learned not to use a double-negative.Besides, how did you ever spell "nothing" if you don't know it?
</font>[/QUOTE]If you read more carefully you will see that I used the double negative quite properly. To have omitted the "not" would be to admit that your fallacious claim was true. By saying "I do not know nothing," I am affirming the opposite, that I do indeed know something.
This is indicative of your methods on this board. Fail to read closely and fail to understand the truth, and then comment anyway. It destroys your credibility.
I saw this quite clearly the first time and pointed out how insufficient it is. I said, I have complete faith in what God said. But I know the truth ... the no 2 manuscripts match. Your faith is misplaced because it is not based in what God said. Any faith, to be valid, must have a valid object or a valid truth as its basis. Your faith is not based on the revelation of God but rather on your own mind and the minds of your teachers. That is a poor substitute for truth from God.
The truth is that no two manuscripts match. I not only have faith; I have facts.
But notice that you didn't answer the question. Which manuscript is the right one and how do you know it?
You haven't yet told us which manuscript is the proper one, and "faith" is not a good answer. It is a cop out and a substitute for "I have no idea and I don't want to tell anyone that."