MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS OF MVs OR nonKJVOs?

I'm sure that they know that we are right—they just argue for the fun of it.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, it is just that your arguments are not persuasive. Your arguments are rather like evolutionary theory: If you accept the assumptions, then they are provable; if you do not accept the assumptions, they carry no brute force on their own. I really don’t believe your basic assumptions. So, forget the details. They really don’t mean anything until you can establish your basic assumptions. Do you know what your assumptions are? If not, then you perhaps need to rethink your whole theory after identifying what assumptions you have made. I seriously doubt if most of the guys spouting the superiority of the MV/eclectic text position can even define and support their basic premises. The usual MO is to spout some trivia and to crow how this is so superior and more intelligent than the KJVO side. Well, there are a lot of ignoramuses (Ruckman, et. al.) associated with the KJVO position but not everyone is a complete dunce. Why don't you boys do something useful and deal with the hard issues. Anyone can make Ruckman look foolish since he is so cooperative in being foolish.

Just please explain to a poor guy why your assumptions are true--that is if you know what your underlying assumptions are. Otherwise, you need to go back and read W-H.

 

Please post the data upon which you base the assumption. Oh, you have no data at all? Only groundless assumptions?

Thou hast assumptions, and I have data: shew me thy assumptions without thy data, and I will shew thee my assumptions by my data.

 

The important point here is that Cyprian is often deliberately quoted out of context on the Internet to prove a point that Cyprian knew nothing about.

 

Please post the data upon which you base the assumption. Oh, you have no data at all? Only groundless assumptions?

Thou hast assumptions, and I have data: shew me thy assumptions without thy data, and I will shew thee my assumptions by my data. </font>[/QUOTE]Read your own posts. Do you accept the concept of brute fact (data). Do you even understand what I talking about? If so, deal with it. Can you deal with the idea that data has no meaning without the proper paradigm for interpretation? Data without a paradigm is called noise. All I'm hearing is noise and more noise. BTW, you parody is horribly misplaced. Can you even define your basic premises? Can you support them? I think not since you have failed to do so up to this point. Perhaps you are out of your depth with pat answers. Go back and rethink you position from your basic assumptions and then we'll talk.

Adios!

 

Thou hast assumptions, and I have data: shew me thy assumptions without thy data, and I will shew thee my assumptions by my data.