Search results

Because of the high agreement amongst all the manuscripts. How do you know you have God's word?

But those making the copies did see what they were copying. And same with the next one, and the next one.

Critical Text proponents do not say or imply that we have the actual originals. Critical Text proponents say we have a high confidence that the manuscripts we have today accurately represent the originals.

Boaz was a smooth operator.

The reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated.

At least Mitch is doing better.

How does having the actual autographs enable one to prove the originals were inspired?

"In this thread" is the key. You made the claim elsewhere on this forum, so it is a fair game.

Good to "see" you Billy! Hope you are still spending lots of time with the grandkids. I have 3 of my own now and that time with them is such a blessing.

If you cannot produce the originals, then your claim that the 1769 version of the AV1611 is the only accurate translation of the originals cannot be substantiated.

It is kind of humorous that the guy who ran the Repentance Blacklist is calling for someone to repent.

If his children are lying, then yes, they need to repent. If his children are being truthful, he is the one who needs to repent. Based on his history, I'm inclined to believe he's the one in the wrong in this situation.

The translation is given in the scripture. That is not the same as the entirety of the manuscripts being translated into other languages after the originals were written.

So why include the LXX at all in your argument? You try to support your conclusion that translations can be inerrant by making an appeal to Jesus reading from the LXX proving translations can be inerrant. If you don't believe the LXX is real or authentic, then don't make a case using it.