Oldest and more "reliable" Manuscripts?

[John the Baptist]

Or merely scribal errors.

So you admit that there are scribal errors in the Textus Receptus.
Yes they are minute, but there are the adding of words or phrases also. The KJV is a Trustworthy translation but not inerrant, because the text it was translated from is not inerrant, the originals were inerrant.

[pneu-engine]

So you admit that there are scribal errors in the Textus Receptus.
Yes they are minute, but there are the adding of words or phrases also. The KJV is a Trustworthy translation but not inerrant, because the text it was translated from is not inerrant, the originals were inerrant.

JTB,

I do hope and pray that someday soon you will come to the very real conviction that ourKJV, Textus Receptus, and Masoretic text, complete with variations and all of the little itsy bitsy details that you call errors, are not errors in the true sense. Yes, they are variations, but they are not errors (ie. mistakes from copy to copy).

I feel sorry for you, JTB, I really do. You, who claim to know something, are actually putting yourself above God, and He created the entire universe with just a few spoken words. I say that because He claims to have preserved His Word(s) in all of their perfection, and yet you say that He did not.

Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Will]

So you admit that there are scribal errors in the Textus Receptus.
Yes they are minute, but there are the adding of words or phrases also. The KJV is a Trustworthy translation but not inerrant, because the text it was translated from is not inerrant, the originals were inerrant.

Variations are not necessarily errors.

[John the Baptist]

Variations are not necessarily errors.

What ever you want to call them they still vary from the original text, which shows the KJV is not infallible. They are not errors of doctrine, and they are minute. The the KJV is totally trustworthy, as well as the ASV and any strict translation, but they are not inerrant. inerrancy is in the originals.

[Calvary]

The truly pathetic position of Mr Baptist is that he has never seen the originals a day in his life to even know what they say. Neither did the men who taught him this "fallible scripture" doctrine.

This new doctrine which no historical position ever held to is the invention of men who cannot abide by any single authoratative text for their lives. They sit in judgemnt upon the word of God, critical of it's ability to discern the intents of their hearts. No generation before the German Rationalist believed that the Bible had errors. It is a new teaching that the Body of Christ has never had in it's tenants or dogmas.

The doctrine of errant scriptures cannot be taught by using only the Bible. Any Bible. Any version. Any language. I challenge you John to present one verse of scripture from any language, any version that demostrates there are errors in the scriptures. I further challenge you to present from any Bible in any language you choose one verse that teaches the word "scriptures" refers to the originals.

Your doctrine cannot be proved from the Bible. Of that I am confident.

If all you can do is muster up a "Well, you can believe what you like", then please don't bother responding. That has been your patented response to every challenge made to you. I would like some scripture that teaches, suggests, hints, says, initmates that there are errors in scriptures. I would further like to see one verse that teaches, suggests, initimates or says that the word "scripture" refers to an original writing.

If you cannot meet the challenge, my question to you is, why do you continue to demostrate loyalty to a false teaching? Why do you hold to extra-biblical teachings that cannot be found in any Bible of any language anywhere?

Do you fear men that much?

I would think with 2 Seminary degrees you would be at least a little bit qualified to teach us this doctrine from the Bible. Can you? Or can you only quote your own opinion?

[pneu-engine]

The truly pathetic position of Mr Baptist is that he has never seen the originals a day in his life to even know what they say. Neither did the men who taught him this "fallible scripture" doctrine.

This new doctrine which no historical position ever held to is the invention of men who cannot abide by any single authoratative text for their lives. They sit in judgement upon the word of God, critical of it's ability to discern the intents of their hearts. No generation before the German Rationalist believed that the Bible had errors. It is a new teaching that the Body of Christ has never had in it's tenants or dogmas.

The doctrine of errant scriptures cannot be taught by using only the Bible. Any Bible. Any version. Any language. I challenge you John to present one verse of scripture from any language, any version that demostrates there are errors in the scriptures. I further challenge you to present from any Bible in any language you choose one verse that teaches the word "scriptures" refers to the originals.

Your doctrine cannot be proved from the Bible. Of that I am confident.

If all you can do is muster up a "Well, you can believe what you like", then please don't bother responding. That has been your patented response to every challenge made to you. I would like some scripture that teaches, suggests, hints, says, initmates that there are errors in scriptures. I would further like to see one verse that teaches, suggests, initimates or says that the word "scripture" refers to an original writing.

If you cannot meet the challenge, my question to you is, why do you continue to demostrate loyalty to a false teaching? Why do you hold to extra-biblical teachings that cannot be found in any Bible of any language anywhere?

Do you fear men that much?

I would think with 2 Seminary degrees you would be at least a little bit qualified to teach us this doctrine from the Bible. Can you? Or can you only quote your own opinion?

AMEN, Calvary. :thumb

The highlighted portion up there is the heart of the problem. Those that sit in judgement of God's Word are actually sitting in judgement against God, Himself. How arrogant, prideful, and belligerent. What a horrible situation to be in. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. We recall that God has placed His Word above His very Name, and at the the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow.

What truly amazes me is that mister Baptist cannot see it. :roll:

[John the Baptist]

The truly pathetic position of Mr Baptist is that he has never seen the originals a day in his life to even know what they say. Neither did the men who taught him this "fallible scripture" doctrine.

This new doctrine which no historical position ever held to is the invention of men who cannot abide by any single authoratative text for their lives. They sit in judgemnt upon the word of God, critical of it's ability to discern the intents of their hearts. No generation before the German Rationalist believed that the Bible had errors. It is a new teaching that the Body of Christ has never had in it's tenants or dogmas.

The doctrine of errant scriptures cannot be taught by using only the Bible. Any Bible. Any version. Any language. I challenge you John to present one verse of scripture from any language, any version that demostrates there are errors in the scriptures. I further challenge you to present from any Bible in any language you choose one verse that teaches the word "scriptures" refers to the originals.

Your doctrine cannot be proved from the Bible. Of that I am confident.

If all you can do is muster up a "Well, you can believe what you like", then please don't bother responding. That has been your patented response to every challenge made to you. I would like some scripture that teaches, suggests, hints, says, initmates that there are errors in scriptures. I would further like to see one verse that teaches, suggests, initimates or says that the word "scripture" refers to an original writing.

If you cannot meet the challenge, my question to you is, why do you continue to demostrate loyalty to a false teaching? Why do you hold to extra-biblical teachings that cannot be found in any Bible of any language anywhere?

Do you fear men that much?

I would think with 2 Seminary degrees you would be at least a little bit qualified to teach us this doctrine from the Bible. Can you? Or can you only quote your own opinion?

NO I have not seen the originals, but the copies we have have a hight degree of accuracy that points to the fact that the originals were inerrant. You totally over look this fact and cannot accept it. You make everyone a heretic who does not agree with you. Ignorance is Bliss!

[IM4given]

NO I have not seen the originals, but the copies we have have a hight degree of accuracy that points to the fact that the originals were inerrant. You totally over look this fact and cannot accept it. You make everyone a heretic who does not agree with you. Ignorance is Bliss!

Just a friendly reminder guys...
In case you have not read what BroMatt has put across the TOP OF EVRY THREAD...

Forum rules

Online Baptist is a KJB board and we will not change. Regardless of what you think, we have studied this out and believe that God has preserved His words for the English speaking people in the King James Bible. We do not care to listen to your insults and sarcasm as it is a waste of our time.

:dead: :dead: Maybe instead of this emoticon, we ought to have a Merry Go Round, so we can stop it and get off when these threads start going around in circles????

[Calvary]

You totally over look this fact and cannot accept it.

John, I never said that the originals aren't inerrant. My question to you is can you show me from the Bible where it teaches that inerrancy only extends to an original?

My question to you is that where does the Bible teach that the scriptures contain errors?

You will never find one verse to teach thus, yet you expect me to cower before your 2 seminary degrees and can only muster up, "Ignorance is bliss!"

Beloved, I am far from ignorant, in fact you still have a time with simple English as your posts are replete with spelling errors on almost every thread you post on.

@ Janet,

I find you insertion increduolous. You are involved in 45 page thread over pants on women and you come over here and talk about beating dead horses??!!

Wow. :loco

[IM4given]

:nutty touche Bro. Calvary!

[Bakershalfdozen]

:dead: :dead: Maybe instead of this emoticon' date=' we ought to have a Merry Go Round, so we can stop it and get off when these threads start going around in circles????[/quote']

Did someone call me?


Which do you prefer?

[IM4given]

I like the ones with the horsies! :lol

[Jerry]

Yes, then we can beat the dead horsies and go round and round on the merry go round at the same time! :ideas:

[IM4given]

I am getting dizzy just thinking about it! :tum Will beating the dead horsies make them go around any faster? :wink

[Calvary]

:nutty touche Bro. Calvary!

lol :smile :smile