It's Finally Here: The Ultimate Scale of "Ruckmanite" and Those Falsely-So-Called

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
The stance of the Anti-KJV "scholar" crowd is one of denial, poor logic, laziness, an affinity to make everything "incalculable" along with a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. They're amateurs.
You may describe the writings of KJV-only authors, but you do not describe accurately all the writings of believers who disagree with unsound, erroneous, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching. Poor logic even false logic [use of fallacies] is very common in KJV-only writings and in posts seeking to defend erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

Disagreeing with KJV-only reasoning does not lead to the bogus claim that someone is supposedly "anti-KJV." The undefined, bogus smear term "anti-KJV" may be an example of how KJV-only advocates will disobey clear scriptural commands such as "Thou shalt not bear false witness." It is likely that they cannot define their term of accusation "anti-KJV" and apply it justly without making the KJV translators in effect into "anti-KJV" scholars.

I am not anti-KJV. I read the KJV [have read it over 50 years]. I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Before I prove my point, how many is a "relative few"? We need to know to compare this statement to the definitive numbers we have from collations that actually did take place.
KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite asserted that “the Textus Receptus is the big circle of 5,210 Greek manuscripts or more” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 28). Waite declared that “the Textus Receptus is based on over 5,210 Greek manuscripts” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 56). Waite argued that “over 5,210 out of the 5,255 manuscripts as of the 1967 total lie behind our Textus Receptus” (p. 71). Charles Keen claimed that “it took 5,000 Greek manuscripts to get the Beza Manuscript Edition from which the KJV came” (Unpublished Word, Summer, 2008, pp. 10-11).

Who has carefully examined and completely collated all those 5,210 Greek manuscripts so that it can accurately be implied or suggested that they are every word in agreement with the Textus Receptus? J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17). David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692). Does a consistent, just application of that statement by David Cloud suggest that it cannot with any degree of certainty be claimed that all those 5,210 manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus editions?

David Cloud claimed that the collations of Hermann von Soden are “the most extensive collation that has ever been made” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692). Clinton Branine also acknowledged that “Von Sodden has done more work for a critical apparatus than anyone else has in this point of time” (Waite, Fundamental Distortions, p. 27). J. A. Moorman suggested that von Soden “provides far more MS information than any other” source and claimed that “von Soden examined more items than anyone before or since” (When the KJV Departs, p. 21). The collations by von Soden are said to involve around 600 manuscripts.

If that more extensive collation of around 600 Greek NT manuscripts is supposedly insufficient evidence to establish the text for a Majority Text according to KJV-only advocates, it would indicate or even demonstrate that the actual use of a much smaller number of Greek manuscripts also incompletely and imperfectly collated would have been insufficient evidence to establish the text of the printed textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus. That smaller number is evidently fewer than one hundred and perhaps fewer than fifty.

John Scott Porter claimed: “The MSS they possessed were few; add together the five of Erasmus, the fifteen of Stephens, the two possessed by Beza, and allow ten for the Complutensian, there were only thirty-two in all” (Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 253).

The textually-varying Textus Receptus editions may be based on an imperfect, incomplete collations of less than 50 Greek NT manuscripts.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Yeah that's nice, stop red herring by deferring to other people's arguments and not addressing mine. I'm going to use my own arguments, not theirs.

Here's a simple chart made so everyone can understand the fundamental concept. The space between the variables (each representing a manuscript) represents the degree of variation they have from one another. The greater the distance, the more the variation. This is a rough example of the overall variable set:

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.18.58 AM.png


In order to successfully get rid of these categories, you'd have to add many more MSS to the overall sample set AND they'd have to be varied in such a way:

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.27.37 AM.png
This is highly unlikely, and even if it did happen, the 99 would be an anomaly because they were still somehow gathered/used first in this analysis before all the other variant MSS were found/added. This means they most likely are in a locational category (they were all discovered in the same area) or time-based category (all around the same time). Still a category. At which point now you must look into the nature of that category.


The more probable scenario:
Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.32.59 AM.png

Another more probable scenario:


Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.42.52 AM.png
The fact remains that there was a huge gap between the 4 NV-favored manuscripts and the rest in Burgon's careful analysis, a difference of 99 out of the 100 (99%). The probability of the first scenario happening as opposed to the next 2 is highly unlikely. HIGHLY. Anyone arguing from that position is defending the WEAKER position. And EVEN IF IT IS THE CASE: the significance of the 99 anomaly remains and demands it stays a sub-category.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
in Burgon's careful analysis,.
Perhaps you are the one who rejects part of Burgon's careful analysis since Burgon did not support nor advocate any Textus Receptus-only or KJV-only theory. KJV-only appeals to Burgon could be considered a red herring. I have not advocated or recommended the Critical Text so perhaps you try to introduce another red herring that has nothing to do with my position.

Do you continue to bear false witness with your undefined, bogus "anti-KJV" allegation?

KJV-only advocate D. A. Waite asserted: “There is no proof whatsoever that Greek manuscripts are genealogically related and in ‘families.’ I agree with Dean John William Burgon who stated that all the Greek manuscripts are like ’orphaned children.’ You don’t know which manuscript goes with which family so how can you classify them as belonging to one another” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 118). Waite claimed that “there is no such thing as ’Text type’” (Ibid.). Waite suggested that his readers should buy Burgon’s book and “see the proof that all of the surviving manuscripts are like orphan children with no provable connection with one another and certainly not grouped as ‘Text-types’” (p. 98).

John William Burgon as edited by Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10).
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Burgon did not support nor advocate any Textus Receptus-only or KJV-only theory
Who cares! Stop avoiding the facts. Math doesn't lie, opinions about the results can.

Logos1560 has no ability to critically think on his own, he just regurgitates what other people said. How do you form your beliefs, an "opinion democracy"? LOL
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Who cares! Stop avoiding the facts. Math doesn't lie, opinions about the results can.
You fail to practice what you preach.

You fail to demonstrate that I am avoiding the facts. You suppose, speculate, or assume, but you do not prove.

It is the supporters of erroneous KJV-only reasoning with its dependence upon fallacies who do not seem to care about all the facts and who are avoiding the facts. You avoid the fact that I am not anti-KJV.

John William Burgon as edited by Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46).
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Why haven't you addressed this yet:

Yeah that's nice, stop red herring by deferring to other people's arguments and not addressing mine. I'm going to use my own arguments, not theirs.

Here's a simple chart made so everyone can understand the fundamental concept. The space between the variables (each representing a manuscript) represents the degree of variation they have from one another. The greater the distance, the more the variation. This is a rough example of the overall variable set:


Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.18.58 AM.png




In order to successfully get rid of these categories, you'd have to add many more MSS to the overall sample set AND they'd have to be varied in such a way:


Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.27.37 AM.png


This is highly unlikely, and even if it did happen, the 99 would be an anomaly because they were still somehow gathered/used first in this analysis before all the other variant MSS were found/added. This means they most likely are in a locational category (they were all discovered in the same area) or time-based category (all around the same time). Still a category. At which point now you must look into the nature of that category.


The more probable scenario:

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.32.59 AM.png



Another more probable scenario:


Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.42.52 AM.png


The fact remains that there was a huge gap between the 4 NV-favored manuscripts and the rest in Burgon's careful analysis, a difference of 99 out of the 100 (99%). The probability of the first scenario happening as opposed to the next 2 is highly unlikely. HIGHLY. Anyone arguing from that position is defending the WEAKER position. And EVEN IF IT IS THE CASE: the significance of the 99 anomaly remains and demands it stays a sub-category.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Why haven't you addressed this yet:

Another more likely scenerio:
There is no need to address your "likely" speculations that have nothing to do with my scripturally-based position.

You have not addressed nor refuted my actual Bible-believing position, and you do not deal with the fact that I am not anti-KJV.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Here's scripture for you: "God is not the author of confusion"

In order for these confused Anti-KJV scholars' claims to be true, they MUST argue for the first scenario (chart 2). Prove this statement wrong or you forfeit the match!
Yes, God is not the author of the confusion that would result from erroneous human KJV-only reasoning with its dependence upon fallacies and its use of unjust divers measures.

Your bogus claim that someone supposedly has to "prove your statement wrong" involves use of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Your unproven claim that your statement has not been proven wrong would not at all prove your statement to be true. You have the burden of proof to prove your own assertions. There is especially no need to prove wrong mere "likely" speculations.

Since you do not prove that I am supposedly make any confused, anti-KJV claims, are you saying that you forfeit the match according to a consistent, just application of your incorrect assertion? I had mostly quoted from Burgon to which KJV-only advocates appeal and from KJV-only authors.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Here. (The reason the "more probable" charts followed this one was because this scenario, claimed by Anti-KJV scholars, is HIGHLY unlikely, which means therefore that there are more likely scenarios).

"There are no streams or categories of manuscripts, they should all be treated as individuals." Really? That means you must accept this chart, because any significant gap in distance between these variables and you have categories.



In order to successfully get rid of these categories, you'd have to add many more MSS to the overall sample set AND they'd have to be varied in such a way:


Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.27.37 AM.png



This is highly unlikely, and even if it did happen, the 99 would be an anomaly because they were still somehow gathered/used first in this analysis before all the other variant MSS were found/added. This means they most likely are in a locational category (they were all discovered in the same area) or time-based category (all around the same time). Still a category. At which point now you must look into the nature of that category.

To bank on or defend this scenario without conclusive evidence is moronic. It is highly unlikely that it all fits perfectly together to fit their theory. "No categories" my foot, there's a reason why everyone still uses the terms "Byzantine-type text", "Majority Text", and "Alexandrian-type text".
 
Last edited:

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
fallacies and its use of unjust divers measures.
What does "justice" have to do with fallacies? Why are you combining your moral compass and personal views on the justice system with logic? That's a fallacy!
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Scripture does not say which manuscripts are scripture you dunce!
Your improper insults or name-calling aside, I did not say the words that you improperly try to put in my mouth.

The Scriptures do provide the instructions that can be soundly followed concerning how to evaluate soundly manuscript copies of Scripture.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God.

These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28).

Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? There is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations.

It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).

Because a manuscript copy of Scripture has any errors introduced by the copier would not mean that the many words accurately copied are not still scripture. It would involve use of the fallacy of composition to try to suggest that because a word or several words in a manuscript copy are errors that the rest of copy with its many accurately copied words are not Scripture.

Accurately copied words remain Scripture while any errors introduced by men are not Scripture.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Yeah none of those teach you the math needed to analyze categorical distinctions or the lack thereof, which is the main topic you keep red herring away from.

Here's a question for you: how do you know which version to take those verses from? Your fallacy: "Affirming the Consequent". Look it up.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
What does "justice" have to do with fallacies? Why are you combining your moral compass and personal views on the justice system with logic? That's a fallacy!
Your improper strawman attempts to twist and distort my words into something that I did not say is wrong.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Lol that's not even what a strawman is! I responded to what you said, if you didn't mean it, change your diction.
You did not respond accurately to what I stated. Instead you tried to twist and distort what I stated. Your attempts to distort my position and statements in some way in order to attack that distortion that you incorrectly attempt to create is a straw man.

Your weak attempts to try to defend the fallacies evident in erroneous KJV-only reasoning have failed.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Your pseudo-intellectual babbling
Why would you attempt to allege that advocating a consistent, just application of scriptural truths is supposedly "pseudo-intellectual babbling"?

I am surprised that you attempt to attack the advocating of scriptural truths.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
I accurately read what you stated, .
In your negative, unsound responses, you did not state what I actually stated. Instead you improperly try to distort my statements into your straw man misrepresentations. For one example, you threw in terms such as "justice system" that is not at all in my statements. Instead I used the biblical term "just" with the same meaning as it is used in the KJV.

I did not say anything about your reading. I correctly referred to your improper attempts to put words in my mouth that I did not say.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
Take responsibility for what you say.
I do, but your posts demonstrate that you don't.

For one clear example, you still have not taken responsibility and corrected your undefined, false allegation of "anti-KJV."
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
You have no arguments for your position,
Really? Your opinion is clearly wrong as your incorrect opinion would condemn the scriptural truths that are an essential part of my position.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Still haven't addressed this in any detail whatsoever I see. Probably because you either don't understand it or you can't think of a refutation because it's right.

Here's a simple chart made so everyone can understand the fundamental concept. The space between the variables (each representing a manuscript) represents the degree of variation they have from one another. The greater the distance, the more the variation. This is a rough example of the overall variable set:


Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.18.58 AM.png



In order to successfully get rid of these categories, you'd have to add many more MSS to the overall sample set AND they'd have to be varied in such a way:
Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.27.37 AM.png


This is highly unlikely, and even if it did happen, the 99 would be an anomaly because they were still somehow gathered/used first in this analysis before all the other variant MSS were found/added. This means they most likely are in a locational category (they were all discovered in the same area) or time-based category (all around the same time). Still a category. At which point now you must look into the nature of that category.


The more probable scenario:
Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.32.59 AM.png



Another more probable scenario:

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 7.42.52 AM.png


The fact remains that there was a huge gap between the 4 NV-favored manuscripts and the rest in Burgon's careful analysis, a difference of 99 out of the 100 (99%). The probability of the first scenario happening as opposed to the next 2 is highly unlikely. HIGHLY. Anyone arguing from that position is defending the WEAKER position. And EVEN IF IT IS THE CASE: the significance of the 99 anomaly remains and demands it stays a sub-category.
 
Top