Is the TR Equal to the Autographs?

[JimKnox]

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.

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.

 

[Ransom]

"mythical originals"

 

[voicecrying]

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.

So LXX is an inerrant translation & 1769 AV1611 is also inerrant, but no other than the 1769 AV1611 is inerrant?

 

[Ekklesian]

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.

Define "inspiration."

 

[Ekklesian]

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.

If by "inerrancy" you mean faultless accuracy, there is no manuscript tradition that is inerrant.

 

[illinoisguy]

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.

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.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

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.

What a ridiculous, untenable, illogical, indefensible thing to say. I hesitate to attack your credibility any more.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

Define "inspiration."

Inspired, as the translation of theopneustos , the Greek Term literally translated "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

If by "inerrancy" you mean faultless accuracy, there is no manuscript tradition that is inerrant.

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.

 

[Ransom]

I would go so far as to say we have the WORD OF GOD in translations.

Yep. Even the ones JimKnox doesn't like.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

Yep. Even the ones JimKnox doesn't like.

One of the reasons I keep coming back here is that you have a settled biblical view of scripture.