Is the TR Equal to the Autographs?

Ransom said:
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.
Click to expand...
What a joke of an "administrator".
Christ is insulted by you.
 
JimKnox said:
You have no logical method for making that claim since you do not have these "originals" to verify your claim.
Click to expand...
Do we have the "originals" for the AV1611? Where are they? Without the AV1611 original manuscripts, you have nothing with which to verify your claim.
 
JimKnox said:
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..."
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ransom said:
The above was brought to you by the geniuses at KJV-only, Inc., where they don't have evidence in favour of their assertions, but at least they have whining. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Triple.
What's the matter with you?
Are you SURE you are saved?
 
voicecrying said:
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.
Click to expand...
Correction my friend.
It appears that you are still misreading my original AND my follow-up comments.
I did not appeal to the LXX nor did I use it to support my claim.
Translations ARE inerrant and there is plenty of Scripture to support that claim.
Eli Eli lamach sabach tani
 
JimKnox said:
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.
😉😘
Click to expand...
You were absent from Apologetics class. You have not one scriptural proof that the AV 1611 is inspired. While I have is the direct evidence of 2 Tim 3:16 that the orginal Scriptures aka Autographs, are inspired and inerrant. And logic shows us that if we have a faithful representation of those Autographs, in the Overwhelming Manuscript evidence, that we de facto have the Originals. And faithful translations from those Collated texts, in the NA27 and UBS4, are in fact inerrant as well.
 
JimKnox said:
Triple.
What's the matter with you?
Are you SURE you are saved?
Click to expand...

The above insinuations, that I am mentally and spiritually deficient, are presented without evidence, courtesy of KJV-onlyism.

That's quadruple. Hope that helps. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
I have found that trying to argue woth the KJVOnly crowd is a waste of my time. I spent 7 or 8 years studying translations, Greek Manuscripts, Koine Greek and I have come to the conclusion that God has been really gracious to us to give us such an overwhelming abundance of manuscripts that it is embarrassing when KJVO'ers say that the AV1611 is inspired, or the only reliable translation.
 
Bob Jones VI said:
You were absent from Apologetics class. You have not one scriptural proof that the AV 1611 is inspired. While I have is the direct evidence of 2 Tim 3:16 that the orginal Scriptures aka Autographs, are inspired and inerrant. And logic shows us that if we have a faithful representation of those Autographs, in the Overwhelming Manuscript evidence, that we de facto have the Originals. And faithful translations from those Collated texts, in the NA27 and UBS4, are in fact inerrant as well.
Click to expand...
No you don't.
That passage says NOTHING about your mythical "originals". All it says is "ALL scripture is given by inspiration....". Paul certainly was not talking about autographs since HE never saw them either.
Besides, the Critical Text is based upon proven frauds: Aleph, B, LXX.
 
Bob Jones VI said:
I have found that trying to argue woth the KJVOnly crowd is a waste of my time. I spent 7 or 8 years studying translations, Greek Manuscripts, Koine Greek and I have come to the conclusion that God has been really gracious to us to give us such an overwhelming abundance of manuscripts that it is embarrassing when KJVO'ers say that the AV1611 is inspired, or the only reliable translation.
Click to expand...
It wasn't God who created the current confusion. It started with charlatans like Tischendorf, Westcot, Hort, Nestle, Alund and a multitude of popes.
 
JimKnox said:
charlatans like Tischendorf, Westcot, Hort, Nestle, Alund
Click to expand...

The above assertion, again presented without supporting evidence, is the best "argument" KJV-onlyism has to offer.

That's quintuple.

For the KJV-onlyists reading this, quintuple means five (5). Five is this many: :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Ekklesian said:
How do you know? Did Jesus read from it?
Click to expand...

don;t you remember?..... joseph of arimithea took Jesus to england when he was a teenager..
... while there they time warped to the year 1611 then also to 1769 and spoke personally with
the translators of the king james bible and advised them. ..... and that was the inspiration
for william blake .. who was there and witnessed it all.. .to write his famous poem jerusalem..

reading what our new prince of arrogance writes i can almost imagine him singing this... :sneaky:


;)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top