King James Version 100% pure

[joelkaki]

I agree that the Bible alone is the Word of God and ought not to be changed. .  I believe the KJV does add some things that were not truly part of God's Word.
  I don't believe that the ESV for example is false, therefore I use it, rejoice in it, and learn of my Savior through it.

You agree Joel,that the Bible is the Word of God and ought not to be changed.
Why did you forget to tell me just what this bible is that is the Word of God.Is it your ESV?Is that the one you believe ought not to be changed,because it is the Word Of God?
You admitt that,in your opinion that the ESV is not false.

My ESV is the Bible, so is the KJV, the NASB, and many others.  To the extent that they accurately reflect the original writings, they are perfect.  But if someone compiled a text with things taken away or added to it, those missing/added things would not be inspired.  This is not to say that God has not preserved His word.  He has done so, quite amazingly in fact.  No other document has as much support as the Scriptures.

Here are just a few tiny samplings of the hundreds and hundreds of corruptions,and I'll do it[pick samples] just in the O.T. where doctrine is not affected that much.They have identical personalities in both Testaments.So just what would the New testament look like after It is exposed?Nevertheless,here are a few samples from the OT.

You are still avoiding answering my questions and arguments that I brought up a few posts ago (if you are planning on getting to them, and have not yet had the time, I apologize).  The issue here is not whether the ESV is the best translation or not.  You have not yet proven that the KJV should be the translation standard that everything else is measured against, and until you do so, what you say is unconvincing.  

To start with,if you look at the history of the ESV,you find out that it is nothing more than the revision of the RSV.The most liberal piece of human evidence known to man,concerning the Holy Bible.It failed miserably.So to make money,they change the name and make a few More changes because of thoses darn copyright laws.

It is true that it comes in the line of the RSV (a translation which I am not fond of, because of a somewhat liberal bias in it, but at the same time, true knowledge of God can be had from it).  The issue was not making money with the ESV.  You have no proof of that whatsoever.  There many godly and knowledgeable men who helped put the ESV together, and to accuse them of financial motivations is quite an allegation, one which would have to be substantiated before you go throwing around things like that.  
  And honestly, it was completely retranslated, not just changing  a few words from the RSV.  The translation team compared each verse to the original languages.  
 

 Here are a few of the men and women that have promoted this ESV.
R.C.Sproul
Max Lucado
Joni Ericson Tada
John W.Walvoord
Erwin Lutzer

Some great men and women in there (though I do not agree on many things with some of them).

The ESV along with the RSV both are founded upon the corrupted Westcott and Hort Manuscripts.

False.  The WH text is not the same as the NA27/UBS4 critical text.  

These fake manuscripts,ommit over 5,000 words and 18 complete verses.

Omit them from what?  The KJV?  Why is the KJV the standard.  Once again you assume what you need to prove. Perhaps the KJV added them?
  And those "statistics" are fallacious argumentation anyway, but if you want to go down that road, just remember that the name Jesus is mentioned several hundred more times in the NIV than the KJV.

The Old Testament is an eclectic text that borrows sometimes from the Hebrew Masoratic texts,Then it will jump to the Septuagint[LXX72],it will also borrow from the Samaritan Pentateuch,and the Syriac,Plus the Vulgate.This just what the RSV did.It is nothing more than the RSV dressed up in new garb.Plus they have been using the Dead Sea Scrolls too.From the Essenes,an obvious heretical group.
This is how the modern Bibles are getting Pagan word definitions verses the pure Bible definitions.

Pagan word definitions?  (easter???)

I'm agraid that simply stating the above proves nothing.  Especially since some of the KJV text came from the Vulgate as well.  God preserves his Word even in the multitude of these manuscripts.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you,niether shall ye diminish ought from it,that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

I agree, and I believe that the KJV adds some words and even verses.

Pro 30:5,6
:5 Every word of God is pure:he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
:6 Add thou not to his words,lest he reprove thee,and thou be found a liar.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.

Very true.

So we have the Biblical standard set;Don't change,don't diminish.don't add.don't take away.God's word stands.

Once again, your implied presupposition here is that the KJV is the ultimate standard that everything should be judged by, and therefore those that differ from it are wrong.  But that is fallacious argumentation.  You are assuming what you need to prove.  

I'm still waiting to see your answers to my previous arguments.

Joel

[PeterAV]

If that is your stand,then I feel sorry for you.Lets play the GAME of PICK and CHOOSE,or I PREFER,or MY OPPINION,or the OPPINIONS of others.Good grief.None of those Bibles[yuk]agree with each other.Speak the SAME things,remember.Wouldn't that be a hoot,if we all stood up to read our favotite private interpretations,instead of the Holy Bible.
Any reasonable Christian can see a faithful translation just by comparing these few verses,and chapters.
Numbers 21-23
Genesis 1-3,50
Exodus 10-15
Luke 4
Psalm 91
Matthew 2,13,28
Acts 6,7.11,12,27
Luke 2:33
I Tim 3:16
Isaiah 14:9-16
II Cor 2:17
Rom 1:18,25
Acts 4:27
Plus hundreds more,of any version.

Any reasonable Christian that is truly honest KNOWS that there is ONLY ONE Holy Bible.The KJV is it.Not because I say so,but it has the stamp of history upon it and has proven itself to be exactly that;THE HOLY BIBLE.Without any proven error.Pretty impresive compared to the garbage of the NASB,and the ESV.
The NASB and the ESV do not acurately reflect the "original Writings" and they are NOT perfect.
To start with,there ARE NO "ORIGINALS".so that argument is a fakey.Fakey fakey,fakey.Mamma gonna spank,for telling a lie now.
To the next point;they are not perfect.I have showed you many mistakes,and they also ignor the Hebrew texts in areas.

Plus you are so hopeless in your defence that you resort to halftruths and outright lies.
Like the text of Westcott and Hort is not the same as the 27 and ubs4.But they are.They are basically the same text throughout.27 had to recant on some 500 spots to read back to the King James as will always be the case.But the Translators ignore this over and over again and again.They just play the game of pick and choose.$$$ copyright laws,you know.If they were truly interested in updating the KJV,they would use the same Hebrew and Greek,and not the heretical Alexandrian minority 1% text type that can't even agree with each other two verses in a row.

Yes,this is scholarship onlyites finest hour.They would like to be like the Nicolaitans and rule over the people.
The common person can read,and they can discern the truth;they need no upper class trying to dictate to them just what the word of God means.Going back to the dark ages ,are we?

[PeterAV]

A book that contains errors does not qualify here Joel.Infalible brings that truth out very accutely.
A book without proven error?

You have missed the truth again.                                                                                      
[You are mistaken.]
No,I am not mistaken.
Your understanding of the Bible is that there is ,out there somewhere in this world ,if you put all the manuscripts together,some kind of variation ,that that is the word of God.

There are many that try to prevert the words of God.There is only one Bible.Not many,then the scholar can make his fake money by being the mediator by presenting two contradicting versions,and then giving us his valued OPPINION.
I have given you more than is enouph info,to consider,but in your eyes I have given you nothing.Whats up with that?


[I did notice that you simply did not answer the arguments that I presented in my two posts at the top of page 8, but ignored them entirely.  All you responded with was the 99% thing, which is unsupported.  Even if it was, you still ignored my arguments which is telling.]

I can't be answering everything,and I do answer as much as I can or see reason to do so.Sometimes I just take a point or two and not take the whole thing to reply to.It becomes quite labourious.Especially when I put out a few posts,and then they get dissed with a sentance or two with no proof.And then You accuse me of not giving you proof.Whats up with that?

I don't know which questions you are needing,for I tried to answer most of what you asked.You may think it was ignored,or important,and maybe it is.So please help me out here.I have done my best.But there is much more to come.

I have showed you that the KJV follows the 99 percent,is this what you are looking for?The proof?

[PeterAV]

I have already read sizable portions of NABV.  If that is your defense, I don't know what else I can say.  Gail Riplinger is, pardon my language, a lunatic.  The lady doesn't even make sense.  I'm afraid that the statements in her book are simply unsupported.  Acrostic algebra?  The NIV and the sinking of the Titanic are related?  Come on, let's be rational.
.......................
We both know that she was just trying to make a point,is all.
That's right,just resort to name calling when you can't prove her wrong in her book.Plus,I have read her book many times and have used it extensively. She is a godly woman,and has treated me with much respect.Your accusation of her being a lunatic is not correct.

  I suggest you read "The King James Only Controversy" by James White, and listen to their interaction .
..................
I have already read the conversation,both at the web site and in Dr.Ruckman's material.White's book is only a justification for his own sins,and for the men who commended him for covering up their sins.They were the sinners that taught little Jimmy how to CORRECT the AV so he[and they]could pose as the "final authority" to "uninformed" Christians.
 His book is riddled with with 60 to 70 lies,manufactured out of thin air,to try to bring you to the conclusion that they are the "final authority."
  Final authority,is what it is all about.The Holy Bible is the final authority,not a Bible critic.
 
 White actually tells his clientel that no one should take offence at the NIV stealing Jesus Christ's title from Him in Rev 22:16 and giving it to the Devil[Isaiah 14:12]

This is the whole thing that must be kept in mind when reading junk like James White,Namely;
neither he nor any of his friends,peers,mentors,promoters,relatives,or colleagues have any higher authority on this earth than their OWN OPINIONS.

Gail Riplinger exposes his lies in her book called Bling Guides.So does Dr.Ruckman,and several others.In fact,White was exposed so much,that he had to edit his work.

You lied,when you said it isn't about the accuracy of the ESV.But it is important.

[nChrist]

Brothers,

This thread needs to be calmed down some. Name-calling is going too far between brothers discussing the Bible. So, take a chill pill, shake hands, and continue on.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 10:31  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

[joelkaki]

PeterAV,

If all the proof you are going to give me is calling me a liar and simply restating your claims with no evidence, and not answer specific responses I had to your claims, then I really see no need to continue the discussion.  Should you be willing to carry on a civilized discussion, without ad hominem attacks, and truly look at the issue, then I would be willing to continue.  But what we have here right now is nothing other than a big mess.

And I would not go around quoting Gail Riplinger as an authority.  She tries to use "acrostic algebra" (NASV+NIV-KJV=SIN).  She supposedly got this from the Lord.  I'm sorry, but that is just craziness.  Plus, the name of the version is NASB, not NASV.  That and she tries to link the sinking of the Titanic with the NIV, among a host of other ridiculous things.  Please, if you want to use support of scholars to back up your statements, at least pick someone who makes sense, like Edward Hills, who made what I thought was the best case for the KJV in his book, The King James Version Defended.  Riplinger's material is just full of conspiracy theories and inaccurate information.  Hills' is actually well thought out and well-done, even though I may not agree with his conclusion.  

(Several of the things I was talking about you not responding to were on pg 8, reply number 106, specifically the # of times Jesus' name is used in the versions, and you have not yet offered evidence showing that 99% of the manuscripts support your case.)

Joel

Joel

[PeterAV]

The 99%.
The Majority Text pg 467-479 NABV,Riplinger.

"Wilber Pickering,author of the Identity of the New Testament Textand recipient of a TH.M in Greek Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary and M.A.and Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Toronto says:

  'The distressing realization is forced upon us that the 'progress' of the past hundred years has been precisely in-the wrong direction-our modern versions and critical texts are found to differ from the Original in some 6,000 places,many of them being serious differences..[They]are several times farther removed from the originals than are the A.V.and TR[King James Version and its foundation,the Greek Texus Receptus].How could such a calamity have come upon us...much of the work that has been done is flawed..'

    Dean John Burgon,the scholar who has collated the most early New Testament witnesses[87,000],says of the changes in one of the 'new' versions and Greek texts:

   'Ordinary readers...will of course assume that the changes result from the revisor's skill in translating-advances which have been made in the study of Greek.It was found that they had erred through defective scholarship to an extent and with a frequency,which to me is simply inexplicable...Anything more unscientific...can scarcely be conceived,but it has prevailed for 50 years.We regret to discover that ...their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquantance with the Greek language.'

   Edward F.Hills,author ofThe King James Version Defended
and graduate of Yale University,Westminister Theological Seminary and recipient of the Ph.D.from Harvard and the TH.M from Columbia University says:

     'Modern speech bibles are unscolarly.'

   The late E.W.Colwell,past president of the University of Chicago and the premier North American Greek scholar,authored scores of books,such as Studies in Methodology in Textual Critcism of the New Testament.He confesses his 'change of heart' concerning the reliability of readings in the new versions:

  ..'cholars now believe that most errors were made deliberately...the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons.Most of the manuals now in print[including mine!]will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment....The reverse is the case.'

   Zane Hodges,professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and co-editor of a Greek New Testament refers to new versions as,

   '[M]onstrously unscientific,if not dangerously obscurantist.The average well-taught Bible-bekieving Christian has often heard the King James Version corrected on the basis of 'better manuscripts' or 'older authorities'...Lacking any kind of technical training in this area,the average believer probably has accepted such explanations from individuals he reguards as qualified to give them.'

   William Palmer,scholar and author ofNarative of Events on the Tracts, says:

    '

• rdinary Christians have little idea [concerning the new Greek text]..it rests in many cases on quotations which are not genuine...on passages which when collated with the original,are proved to be wholly ineffecatious as proofs.'

[Reba]

wasnt the 1611 correct in 1613

[PeterAV]

99% continued

'The' Original Greek

  If you are convinced most Christians use a recently published version of the bible,such as the NIV,NASB,NKJB,Living Bibleetc.-what you really mean is-mostthat you have come in contact with,at your fellowship,in the 1990's,in the U.S.A.,use it.However throughout the 2,000 year history of the New Testament,people using a text like those of the new versions,were in a mathematically infentesimal minority.So,if you want to be lined up with most
Christians 'when the saints go marching in',don't take a quick spin of the head[like the girl in The Exorcist] to see what's happening around you.Take a long look back through history and around the world.It is safer.

   The survival of 'the' original Greek New Testament is dream which dissolves with the discovery that no two manuscripts or critical editions are alike.Those applying this tem to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf are unaquanted with the volotile state of the text.

   There are over 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.Together they giva view of the text much like a shifting kaliedoscope. 'They contain several hunderd thousand variant readings...,' notes Pickering.In an attempt to mary these 'moody' manuscripts,the 'Wheel of Fortune' is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a 'critical edition of the Greek Text'.There are more than two dozen of these texts,each a 'prize' stuffed with between 5,000 and 8,000 variations.As one scholar puts it, '...equally competent critics often arive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.'

Scholar's Sources

    Evidence for the New Testament is composed of papyrus fragments and manuscripts,uncial and miniscule manuscripts[modified capitals and cursives] and lectionaries[books used in chuches].Each of the 5,366 manuscripts including 2209 lexionaries extant today are given a name,an abreviation and/or a number.

Papyri            1-88     [e.g.,P66,P46,P75]
Uncials           01-0274[e.g.,Aleph,B,C,D]
Miniscules       1-2795  [e.g.,1-2795]
Lectionaries     1-2209  [e.g.,1-2209]

   In addition to the above,numerous other language versions of the Greek text were made in the 2nd century and those following.Those include the Old Latin,the Syriac,the Coptic,the Ethiopic,and score of others.These provide witnesses to the correct readings of the New Testament.Finally,scores of second,third,and fourth century personalities,such as JohnCrysostom,Irenaeus,Tertullian,and Justin Martyr,to name just a few,have left writings containing citations of scripture verses,witnessing to the original readings of the New Testament.Dean John Burgon has extrapolated over 87,000 of these.Currently the manuscripts are being collated by the Institut fur neutestamentiche Tereforschung by Kurt Aland in Munster,Germany.Microfilms of many are housed in the archives of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Centre in Claremont,California.Shouls the reader wish to pursue their own investigation,a list of sources where copies of those manuscripts may be found is given in this footnote.

  The Majority Text

   The overwhelming majority of these manuscripts,lectionaries,and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament.Manuscripts from the 2nd century[P66] down through the Middle Ages[A.D.1500]attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text',as Kurt Aland terms it.Dean Burgon,who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated,calls it 'The Traditional Text'.It is also called the Syrian Text,the Byzantine Text and the K[Kappa]or Common Text.

    This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version,or as it is called in the United States,the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611,in 300 languages,demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'.[Unfortunately,as we shall see,the new versions are not based on this 'Majority Text',but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the Majority.]

[Dyskolos]

Isn't this all just a bit silly?

I mean, throughout most of the last two thousand years the majority of Christians have been unable to read scripture for themselves. They were either illiterate or too poor to be able to afford a Bible. For the first few hundred years Christians didn't even have a Bible. It's only in the last couple hundred years, since the Industrial Revolution gave rise to an educated middle class, that most Christians have been able to have a Bible in their homes. Millions of Christians are functionally illiterate today!

So how important is all this? I mean, get a sense of Christ's message, then start walking the walk. Do a bit of daily devotional reading if it gives you comfort. Having an encyclopedic knowledge of scripture isn't necessary to be a good Christian.

Sitting around obsessing which translation is or isn't the best - I don't think that's what it's all about.

[PeterAV]

   99% continued,NABV,Riplinger 467-479.
 The scriptures themselves attest to the proliferation and early creation of a 'Majority' text.

Acts 6:7 'And the word of God increased.'
Acts 12:24 'But the word of God grew and multiplied.'
Acts 13:49 '[T]he word of the Lord was published throughout all the region'
Acts 19:20 'So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.'

   Pickering explains the multiplication of the originals throughout history.

   '{W]e may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the text,the most reliable copies of the Autographs would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs.With an ever-increasing demand and consequent proliferation of copies throughout the Graeco-Roman world and with the potential for verifying copies by having recourse to the centres still possessing the Autographs,the early textual situation was highly favourable to the wide dissemination of MSS in c;lose agreement with the original text...It follows that within a relatively few years after the writing of the New Testament books,there came rapidly into existence a 'Majority text'.whose form was essentially that of the Autographs...the science of statistical probability demonstrates that a text form in such circumstances could scarcely be dislodged from its dominant position... every age,from the apostolic to the 19th century,the text form in question...was the one that the church in general recognized,used,and transmitted.'

   From the academic arena,world-class scholars express their unanimous agreement on the overwhelming dominance of this type of New Testament text in the early church and throughout history.

  Colwell calls it '[T]he uncontrolled popular edition of the 2nd century.'

   Comfort says it, 'became the most prevailing type of text throughout the Greek speaking world...it was nearly standardized.From then on,almost all MSS follow the Byzantine[Majority]text,including those MSS used by Erasmus in compiling the text that eventually would become the Textus Receptus.'[The Greek Text type underlying the KJV.]

   Geerling affirms reguarding the Majority Text saying, 'Its origins..go back to the autographs.'

Hodges writes, 'The Majority text,it must be remembered,is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives...[T]he majority of MSS in the transmission of any book will,a priori preserve the best text.Thus the Majority Text, upon which the King James Version is based,has in reality the strongest claim possible to be reguarded as an authentic representation of the original text...based on its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.'

   Harvard Theological Review cites Kirsopp Lake's exhaustive examination of MSS which revealed,'the uniformity of the text exhibited by the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts.'

  Von Soden,who made the most extensive review of the text yet accomplished,calls it the Common[Kappa]text,showing that it was the Greek text type most commonly used throughout history.'

   Kurt Aland's collation of 1,000 miniscules in 1,000 different passages shows that 90% contain the 'Traditional Text'.Work done at The Institut fur neutestamentliche Textforschung
in Munster,Germany confirms this same 90%.When they include papyrus and uncials together with cursives the number remains above 80%

  Metzger agrees speaking of '...the great majority of the miniscule manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus rests.'

   Hill says, 'The vast majority of these extant Greek New Testament Manuscripts agree very closely together,so closely indeed that they may fairly be said to contain the same New Testament.This Majority Text is usually called the Byzantine Text by modern textual critics.This is because all modern critics aknowledge that this was the Greek New Testament text in general use throughout the greater part of the Byzantine Period [A.D.312-1453].For many centuries,before the Protestant Reformation,this Byzantine text was the text of the entire Greek Church,and for more than 3 centuries after the Reformation,it was the text of the entire Protestant Church...[It is] found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts...[T]he Traditional Text...is the true text because it is that form of the Greek New Testament which is known to have been used in the Church of Christ in unbroken succession...is amply sufficient to justify the view...that therefore the Byzantine text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts is that true text.'

[PeterAV]

Yes.You are right.

[PeterAV]

99%continued

1881: The 1% Minority

  [A] false balance is an abomination to the Lord.
                                                 Proverbs 11:1

  The variations among the majority Text are minor,like the varieties of doves.On the other hand,the remaining handful of manuscripts are as diverse as dogs and dragons.This handful,not only disagree with 'the Majority',as to what the New Testament says,but disagree among themselves.These include such manuscripts as Vaticanus,Sinaiticus [Aleph],Bezae [D],Papyrus 75 and a smattering of versions.Of the 4 uncials,Aleph,B,C,and D,Burgon writes:

   'All 4 are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially,not only from the 99 out of 100 of the whole body of extant manuscripts,but even from one another.'

  In 1881 this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millenia standing.A 'New' Greek Text,using the Vatican manuscript ,was introduced by Westcott and Hort and has been used as the Greek Text for
all subsequent versions.

  Fredric Kenyon,the late Director of the British Museum and author of the most widely used textbooks on textual criticism,says of the Majority Text:

   'This is the text found in the great majority of manuscripts,entrenched in print by Erasmus and Stephanus and known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text...until 1881...it held the field as the text in practicallyuniversal
use and when its position was then decisively challenged,a stiff fight was made in its defence by advocates such as Burgon.[This 'New' Minority-type Greek text] used predominantly...Aleph and B type readings...[The changes] amount to an extensive modification of the text.[It] has been the dominating influence in all modern critical editions.It is clear that...deliberate alteration...has been at work on a large scale in one text or the other...The Textus Receptus being habitually the longer and fuller of the two.'

Pickering reveals the continued use of this 1% text by the new version editors.

   '[The new versions] ignore the over 5,000 Greek MSS now extant...[T]he evidence cited does prove that aberrant forms of the N.T. text were produced.Naturally some of those text forms may have aquired a local and temporary currency.Recall that the possibility of checking with the Autographs must have served to inhibit the spread of such forms.We have the Majority Text [Aland] or the Traditional Text [Burgon],dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways...One may reasonably speak of 90% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority Text type...[The remaining 10-20% do not represent a single competing form.

   The minority MSS disagree as much [or more] among themselves as they do with the majority.We are not judging between two text forms,one representing 80% of the manuscripts and the other 20%.Rather we have to judge between 80-90% and a fraction of 1% [comparing the Majority Text with P75 and B text form for example...]
  Or to make a specific case,in I Tim 3:16 over 300 Greek MSS read 'God' [KJV] ...7 Greek MSS read 'who' [NIV,NASB,etc.]So we have to judge here between 97% and 2%...

    It really does seem that those scholars who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem...They are remnants reflecting ancient aberant forms.It is a dependence on such aberant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical editions of the New Testament...I submit that due process requires us to receive as original that form of the text which is supported bu the majority of witnesses.To reject their testimony in favour of our  own imagination as to what a reading ought to be is manifestly untenable.'

   Hodges describes the readings in the new versions.

   '[M]odern criticism repeatedly and systematically rejects majority readings on a large scale...[This is] monstrously unscientific...f modern criticism continues its trend toward more genuinely scientific proceedures,this question will once again become a central consideration...[T]he Textus Receptus was too hastily abandoned...'

[Reba]

Then this statment is a lie.

Holy Bible,Pure,Purified,Preserved.
Infalible,Inspired,Integral.
AV 1611 King James Version
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.


And i said i wouldnt post on this thread again  

God doesn't make mistakes or typos or type setting erros. In the form of Jesus Christ His Word is perfect. The books are printed by man .

[2nd Timothy]

God doesn't make mistakes or typos or type setting erros. In the form of Jesus Christ His Word is perfect. The books are printed by man .

Amen!  Preach it sister!  

The word is eternal....from the beginning.

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Me thinks 1611 came a wee bit later.  

And i said i wouldnt post on this thread again  

oops....me too...lol

Grace and Peace!