logos1560 wrote:
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?




We will stay with the fact that there is a corrupt line of a few manuscripts and there is a God honored line of thousands of manuscripts and that not only can be proved but is in fact traced back into our Bibles. So in this thread I will not allow anyone to derail it as you have already tried to do. If anyone wants an open an hones debate on the facts than let's get it on.

Shain1611

"SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THY TRUTH: THY WORD IS TRUTH
(John 17:17)

And Jesus Speaking; " He that rejecteth me, receiveth not my words, hath one that, judgeth him:the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in
( John12:48 KJV)