Shain1611 wrote:
I don't think you even read my first post here..so please go back and read it.
I read your first post. You were making accusations against two manuscripts although the title of your thread suggested a broad-sweeping generalization. Your title seemed to be aimed at all present English translations including even though that were translated from the same original language texts as the KJV such as the NKJV, Modern KJV, KJ2000. Your own statements in your first post may have broader implications or applications than you may have considered. Since I have not recommended the Critical Text, I applied your own claims or statements to the good line that you claim to accept. If your claims cannot be applied consistently, they are invalid. Perhaps you do not consider the logical and consistent applications of the statements you make. Your thread title indicated a broad concept of "what makes a valid version." Your argument seems to be that "the sources" are the key so it would be valid to see if you apply your reasoning to the sources of the KJV. The truth is consistent. Otherwise, inconsistency would indicate double standards or lack of truth. Are you "on the run" from KJV-only inconsistencies and double standards? Are you avoiding dealing with actual facts concerning the line on which the KJV came?