Arminius:Yes this forum is full of proclaimed "Bible believers" who say they believe that various translations that contradict each other in thousands of places are "God's Word", whatever that means.
I betcha YOUR Bible gives Jehoiachin's age as eighteen in Kings when he began to reign, and eight in Chronicles when he began to reign. Now, is that contradictory or what. The error isn't in the translation; it's in the HEBREW. Thus, the "contradictory mss" argument is practically useless, as you don't know which is right & which is wrong. You only know they DIFFER.
We also have the example of the Four gospels differing in many places in the Greek, & not just in the translations.
It all comes down to WHICH ONE is God's Word? If you say "all of them" I have to question your sincerity or ability to think rationally because those who profess something that is contradictory and IMPOSSIBLE need to be viewed as such.
If YOU say, "Only ONE, & this is it", I must ask "BY WHAT AUTHORITY do ya make yer choice?" methinks yer 'authority' is yer own opinion & GUESSWORK.
Mexdeaf sayd KJO is of the Devil. HEY! I think that is forbidden talk here is it not? If I say the new versions are PERVERSIONS BASED ON WESTCOTT AND HORT'S CORRUPT VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS, is that not allowed?
The difference is PROOF. The W/H thingie is hearsay, while KJVO is certainly not of GOD. That leaves only ONE other source. however, such estreme examples as you've listed above are indeed verboten here, & I expect a moderator to do some editing shortly.
So how can some attack and LIE ABOUT those who believe the KJV best reflects the preservation of God's Word in the English language?
Now, you're trying to change course, from "only" to "best". However, "best" isn't true either, as the KJV isn't in OUR English.
The Devil questions what God said, sows confusion about what God actually said, and comes to STEAL THE WORD. Gee, I wonder which group reflects those characteristcs--the pioneers of Modern Criticism, or TR-KJV people
Actually, it would be the KJVOs tho try to hawk a doctrine ABOUT Scripture, that's NOT FOUND in Scripture in any shape, way, or form.
Somone said any "valid version" in English is God's Word. Really? And WHO PRAY TELL, determines what is "valid". And what is meant by "valid"? How subjective.
It's valid if it follows its sources. The validity of the sources is, however another question that's been hashed about for over 120 years.
It matters not whether the defenders of the KJV position are correct on EVERYTHING they have ever said.
But of course not. They've been accurate on very little.
If you write as prolifically as Riplinger and Rcukman have---sooner of later they will make mistakes, misinterpret their opponents, go too far, etc.
In their cases, it was SOONER...soon as their first writings.
These things do not necessarily undermine their overall position, nor the MANY FACTS they do provide, facts which are never found in the Critical Text crowd.
Their "facts" are OPINION AND GUESSWORK.
And the reason is obvious--when all the truth is known, it argues decisively against the Westcott and Hort text and the reasons for abandoning the KJV.
"Wisdom" is justified of her children.
And when it is further found that the Critical text scholars have not been honest in presenting what is known, and that many of the beliefs of Modern Textual Criticism came directly from Apostate Germans and Englishmen, and from Rome, that sure does put things in its true light.
Know what "Bah! Humbug!" means? it means the KJVOs, being unable to sustain their ascriptural doctrine, resort to all sortsa inventions to try to bring their doctrine into the realm of Christianity through the doggie door. Thus, we have such goofy ideas as "God's words were purified seven times", "Psalm 12:6-7 is proof text for the preservation of God's word", "Gimme da KJV dat Paul used", etc.
It is right to be suspicious of Westcott and Hort, their theories and text, and those backing it because the pioneers of these things were not Christians, but enemies of God's Word and Christianty. All one has to do is study the lives and beliefs of all the major players who develpoed Modern Textual Criticism to see these were wolves within the Protestant communites and universities. And they have done the damage they sought to do.
The lives of W/H have been discussed here more than once, and when comparing the writings of such as Riplinger & Ruckman against W&H's ACTUAL WRITINGS, the Ripruck crowd falls far short.
Regardless of what W/H actually did, or believed, we see Ripruck resorted to misquotes of their writings in order to slur them. Now, YOU may go ahead & trust someone who'd resort to such dishonesty, But I choose NOT to.
I do believe that appeal to Greek and hebrew can help amplify things and bring out facts about a word and its use in history that is interesting, but what I have seen and read in 24 years is mostly someone NOT LIKING what the AV says, so they CHANGE it by appelaing to the Greek and Hebrew in a most ignorant, unscholarly way. They have an ax to grind, but want to LOOK LEGIT when they do it. That IS sin my friends. To the few who DON'T do that, blessings upon them.
What's wrong with pointing out inaccuracies? The KJVOs are constantly doing it with other versions! What we have here is yet another example of the GREAT KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD! So ya didn't like Mexdeaf's statement? Well, given as how KJVO is NOT even HINTED AT in the KJV itself, seeing as how we've PROVEN the dishonesty of several KJVO authors, seeing as how KJVO causes true churches to split, ends friendships, & even divides families, it simely CANNOT be from GOD. Now, WHAT OTHER SOURCE(S) does that leave?
