Is the TR Equal to the Autographs?

Bob Jones VI said:
You canot defend the KJV as inspired. Only the Original Documents were inspired and therefore inerrant. And what we have in the extant manuscripts represents those originals.
Click to expand...
IMO:
That conclusion is self defeating.
If what we have "represents" the original MSS then what we have is INERRANT. But the liberal (masquerading as conservative) position says no.

It is logically impossible to claim you know what "the original MSS" say yet we have over 450 English versions and uncounted other language versions. They claim NONE of these are exact copies of these mythical "originals" yet they have never seen the mythical "originals" to compare.

Jesus read from Isaiah and we know that copy was not the "originals" but He trusted that COPY as being inerrant.
Some even say He was reading from a copy of the LXX which would prove the inerrancy of a TRANSLATION.

My conclusion is that we have an exact inerrant, complete copy of an inerrant translation in the 1769 edition of the AV1611 and no other.
 
JimKnox said:
Some even say He was reading from a copy of the LXX which would prove the inerrancy of a TRANSLATION.

My conclusion is that we have an exact inerrant, complete copy of an inerrant translation in the 1769 edition of the AV1611 and no other.
Click to expand...
So LXX is an inerrant translation & 1769 AV1611 is also inerrant, but no other than the 1769 AV1611 is inerrant?
 
JimKnox said:
IMO:
That conclusion is self defeating.
If what we have "represents" the original MSS then what we have is INERRANT. But the liberal (masquerading as conservative) position says no.

It is logically impossible to claim you know what "the original MSS" say yet we have over 450 English versions and uncounted other language versions. They claim NONE of these are exact copies of these mythical "originals" yet they have never seen the mythical "originals" to compare.

Jesus read from Isaiah and we know that copy was not the "originals" but He trusted that COPY as being inerrant.
Some even say He was reading from a copy of the LXX which would prove the inerrancy of a TRANSLATION.

My conclusion is that we have an exact inerrant, complete copy of an inerrant translation in the 1769 edition of the AV1611 and no other.
Click to expand...
If by "inerrancy" you mean faultless accuracy, there is no manuscript tradition that is inerrant.
 
JimKnox said:
My conclusion is that we have an exact inerrant, complete copy of an inerrant translation in the 1769 edition of the AV1611 and no other.
Click to expand...

Mr. Knox, please explain why the "exact inerrant, complete copy of an inerrant translation in the 1769 edition of the AV1611" has different wording than the AV1611. Show your work.
 
JimKnox said:
IMO:
That conclusion is self defeating.
If what we have "represents" the original MSS then what we have is INERRANT. But the liberal (masquerading as conservative) position says no.

It is logically impossible to claim you know what "the original MSS" say yet we have over 450 English versions and uncounted other language versions. They claim NONE of these are exact copies of these mythical "originals" yet they have never seen the mythical "originals" to compare.

Jesus read from Isaiah and we know that copy was not the "originals" but He trusted that COPY as being inerrant.
Some even say He was reading from a copy of the LXX which would prove the inerrancy of a TRANSLATION.

My conclusion is that we have an exact inerrant, complete copy of an inerrant translation in the 1769 edition of the AV1611 and no other.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous, untenable, illogical, indefensible thing to say. I hesitate to attack your credibility any more.
 
Ekklesian said:
If by "inerrancy" you mean faultless accuracy, there is no manuscript tradition that is inerrant.
Click to expand...
Correct, but the Critical Text (represented by the UBS 4 and NA27) is as close as we can get, and there are absolutely zero doctrines affected by the differences between the Critical Text, the TR and the Majorioty Text. So we have a very close representation of the Originals. I would go so far as to say we have the WORD OF GOD in translations.
 
voicecrying said:
So LXX is an inerrant translation & 1769 AV1611 is also inerrant, but no other than the 1769 AV1611 is inerrant?
Click to expand...
I only mention the LXX ( which is a fraud BTW) only for the benefit of my opponents. I have never believed LXX to be inerrant nor authentic.
Please note I said, "Some say..."
 
Ekklesian said:
If by "inerrancy" you mean faultless accuracy, there is no manuscript tradition that is inerrant.
Click to expand...
You must have been absent for logic class.
You have no logical method for making that claim since you do not have these "originals" to verify your claim.
😉😘
 
Only "the originals" were inspired but we have never seen them but we are sure that what we have is a reliable representation of these "originals" because we have 5000 MSS and scraps of (writing materials) with a few words on it that might have a little bit here and a little bit there but none of it is 100% of the originals so we only have 95% of the originals even though we never saw these originals to confirm or deny that what we have is ACTUALLY what they said.
So all you uneducated little peon Christians in the pew must trust US to tell you whether or not that book in your lap is the real deal.

I am soooooooo glad that God resurrected the Sadducees and Pharisees to help us out.
Aren't you?
 
JimKnox said:
Only "the originals" were inspired but we have never seen them but we are sure that what we have is a reliable representation of these "originals" because we have 5000 MSS and scraps of (writing materials) with a few words on it that might have a little bit here and a little bit there but none of it is 100% of the originals so we only have 95% of the originals even though we never saw these originals to confirm or deny that what we have is ACTUALLY what they said.
So all you uneducated little peon Christians in the pew must trust US to tell you whether or not that book in your lap is the real deal.

I am soooooooo glad that God resurrected the Sadducees and Pharisees to help us out.
Aren't you?
Click to expand...

Get a load of this incomprehensible gibberish.

As I said ... clowns are for laughing at. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
JimKnox said:
I only mention the LXX ( which is a fraud BTW)
Click to expand...

The above evidence-free assertion brought to you by none other than KJV-onlyism.

For all the phony blather about "final authority," it's clear that the KJVers consider themselves their own final authority, which is why this knox-knox joke expects us to just take his word for it always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top