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
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.
I already soundly informed you that I do not need to address your "likely" speculations since my position has nothing to do with the Critical Text.
Perhaps you do not understand your own speculations as well as you may assume since they remain only "likely" speculations, and not proven facts.

There is no need to refute your speculations that do not answer nor refute my scripturally-based position.
Your weak "likely" scenario clearly does not outweigh my advocating of a just application of scriptural truths.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
I already soundly informed you that I do not need to address your "likely" speculations since my position has nothing to do with the Critical Text.
I'm going to help you understand why everything you say is BS.

1. That is not a sound informing. A sound informing addresses the details of another person's argument in a way that addresses their main point.
2. You do not understand both the details of my argument, nor the main point they lead to.

__a) you pigeon-holed in on the word "likely" with peripheral blinders to everything else in my argument, therefore you don't even know my argument.
__b) I already explained
that the "more probable / more likely" charts logically FOLLOW the first scenario, which you have never addressed, in detail.
__c) you are treating the "more likely" charts as if they stand on their own independent of the first scenario, concluding my argument is "speculative".
__d) therefore you missed my entire argument and you are the one strawmanning while accusing not only me, but every KJV person of fallacies. Liar.
__e) you need to go back to math class.
__f) the first scenario accurately represents the necessary degree of variance the variable set needs to accurately conclude "there are no categories"
__g) any significant gap in variance creates categories. therefore any professional would use those "hot spots" on the chart to dial in further to their analysis.

3. Now that my point in letter g. has been established (notice the step-by-step format of my arguments (unlike the baseless shotgun method you use in throwing out a random string of huge concepts and claims with zero explanation to prove each of them individually) we can all see that any "scholar" who claims there are no categories among manuscripts probably has no clue what he's talking about and just got famous from defending the "popular" Catholic new versions.

4. Real professionals are rarely famous. They're too busy doing actual analysis that takes more thought to understand, not making stupid, baseless claims in a best-seller book. "I looked at a few manuscripts and they were DOTTED HELTER-SKELTER, MAN! Therefore, THERE ARE NO CATEGORIES". ANYONE who argues for this position or quotes guys who do is an amateur. I don't care how famous they are. I don't care how many books they wrote. Why don't you take a look at some celebrities out there to see just how much fame is correlated with true knowledge and intelligence.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
A sound informing addresses the details of another person's argument in a way that addresses their main point.
You again demonstrate to readers that you do not practice what you preach.

According to a consistent application of your assertion, you have not presented any sound response to my actual scripturally-based points.
I wisely choose to stick with what God states and teaches in the Scriptures instead of your weak, non-scriptural attempts to rationalize or defend erroneous KJV-only reasoning. Readers may notice how you seem to try to mock and distort the advocating of scriptural truths.

Does your refusal to face the fact that my position has nothing to do with the Critical Text suggest that you are a little dense?
Your speculative charts would be directed at a position that is not mine. Thus, your claims are practically-meaningless or useless so far as addressing my Bible-believing position.

Readers may also notice that you still have not taken responsibility and corrected your repeated, undefined, false allegation of "anti-KJV."

Are you so clue-less that you will even attack the assertions of the leading and main scholar to which KJV-only advocates appeal--John William Burgon? You are also even attacking statements made by KJV-only advocates such as David Cloud.

I taught math in Christian schools.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
You have to include all known manuscripts in your assessment. Otherwise you can't make the claim "there are no categories or groups of MSS, they're all individuals".
That claim is what is made by the favorite textual critic to which KJV-only advocates appeal--John William Burgon, and it is repeated by a leading KJV-only author D. A. Waite. You have appealed to Burgon yourself.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
You are proving you're drawing your conclusions from an incomplete data set. Truth is not a salad bar where you only zoom in on variables you like that support your subjective conclusion..
You continue to jump to wrong conclusions. Your statements would condemn your own attempts to defend subjective, selective, erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

Thanks for what could be regarded as a clear attack on typical, subjective, selective KJV-only reasoning and even on your own subjective conclusion that the KJV is the most accurate English Bible translation.

You and other KJV-only advocates zoom in on only a few selective renderings to try to support their subjective opinion that the KJV is the most accurate English translation while they ignore the many places where another English Bible translation may be more accurate than the KJV. You have nowhere soundly and objectively proven that the KJV has the most accurate rendering of every preserved original-language word of Scripture so your claim is subjective.

I nowhere claim that truth is a salad bar so your comparison is invalid. In agreement with scriptural truth, I maintain that the same exact measures/standards should be applied consistently and justly.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
You HAVE to address the Critical Text. It cannot be selectively ignored: it is one of the most fundamental aspects of this topic.
So you seem to assume or think that you are entitled to command or dictate what I supposedly have to address. You fail to address matters that others think that you should address so again you do not practice what you preach. You have been encouraged to address the matter of the scriptural teaching to apply the same measures/standards justly as opposed to the use of double standards evident in KJV-only allegations.

Actually I have in effect addressed the matter of the Critical Text by choosing not to recommend or advocate it. The matter of the Critical Text would involve the textual measures used in the textual criticism decisions used to create it. I have chosen not to recommend nor advocate it because I do not know that textual measures/standards used in making it were all sound and were all applied justly. I also in effect address the Critical Text by advocating that the same measures/standards be applied justly in evaluating all textual criticism decisions. I am not a textual critic, and I have not claimed to be one.

I am a Bible-believer who advocates following scriptural truths and who advocates applying scriptural truths justly. I advocate what God says instead of advocating following the subjective opinions of men.

Perhaps some or even many KJV-only advocates attempt to selectively ignore or dismiss the Critical text by suggesting with a broad-sweeping generalization that its entire text is corrupt. Even though the majority [over 50%] and likely even over 80% of the text of the Critical Text is the same as the text of the Textus Receptus, KJV-only advocates use the fallacy of composition to try to condemn its entire text as corrupt. In effect, KJV-only advocates would also be condemning the majority of the text in TR editions if the entire text of the Critical Text is claimed to be corrupt.

There are many facts and matters that KJV-only advocates do not address. For example, most KJV-only advocates do not address the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an 1500's edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. KJV-only advocates do not address the matter of applying the same measures/standards justly to the making of the KJV as to the making of other Bible translations.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Actually I have in effect addressed the matter of the Critical Text by choosing not to recommend or advocate it.
First, that's not addressing the matter. And if this is true, you must prefer the KJV (or the Geneva Bible, etc.), because all of the New Versions incorporate the Critical Text.

The only one using double standards here is you. You avoid the Critical Text, Westcott and Hort, and then claim anyone who pins you with them is "commanding you". What a pansy.

Then you project your own double standards on others. That's why you're The Projector.

I also in effect address the Critical Text by advocating that the same measures/standards be applied justly in evaluating all textual criticism decisions.
They were applied. The Dean of Chichester was just one of many who applied them. The standard, The Nestle Aland Text, notes that they are not of the Majority Text.

I then took the numbers provided by Dean Burgon and plugged them into mathematical charts, even giving the numbers leeway.

Even though the majority [over 50%] and likely even over 80% of the text of the Critical Text is the same as the text of the Textus Receptus
Where'd you get these numbers from? How'd you go from 50% to 80% in the same sentence? Do you have any idea how huge of a difference in percentage that is?

What study are you basing this on? And you accuse me of using "most likely"? I used it in cohesion with sound mathematical analysis. You need to stop being a collector of other men's subjective opinions so you can think and make decisions for yourself.

KJV-only advocates use the fallacy of composition to try to condemn its entire text as corrupt. In effect, KJV-only advocates would also be condemning the majority of the text in TR editions if the entire text of the Critical Text is claimed to be corrupt.
What kind of moronic argument is this. Where'd you get this one from? Do you just turn off your brain and sit around collecting anti-KJV literature like baseball cards?

No one claims the entire text is corrupt. That would mean it would bear zero resemblance to the other manuscripts. It has to share similarities in order for it to even be identifiable and recognizable as a MS of the same book/passage. What kind of crackpot "scholars" are you reading? This is one of the dumbest strawmen I've ever seen.

Way to try and over-exaggerate the gap in percentage-based cohesion between them and the Majority. People will do backflips to defend their 80 new versions while attacking the main Bible used by most Protestants for over 300 years before then. Zero ability to weigh the pros and cons of what you're doing. I'm defending the Bible. You're constantly attacking it.

I advocate what God says instead of advocating following the subjective opinions of men.
All you do is quote the subjective opinions of other men: there is no math in your analysis.

For example, most KJV-only advocates do not address the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an 1500's edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
As if this even needs to be addressed. Who cares? How does this bear any weight on the mathematical analysis that only a doofus could get wrong.

Anti-KJV's need to learn how to prioritize which variables bear more weight in their analysis over others. They need to go back to math class.

You and other KJV-only advocates zoom in on only a few selective renderings to try to support their subjective opinion
Math is not subjective.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
I'm defending the Bible. You're constantly attacking it.
You have been poorly attempting to defend a modern, human KJV-only theory, which is not at all the same thing as defending the Bible.

I have no been attacking the Bible as you falsely allege. By your bearing false witness against me in disobedience to the Bible, you are clearly not defending the Bible. You have failed to prove your bogus allegation to be true. I advocate clear scriptural truths. I accept all that the Scriptures state about themselves. Exposing the serious problems with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is not attacking the Bible regardless of how many times you repeat your bogus allegation.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
And if this is true, you must prefer the KJV (or the Geneva Bible, etc.), because all of the New Versions incorporate the Critical Text.
It is true. I have clearly noted that I have read the KJV over 50 years. I do prefer the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and post-1611 English Bibles based on the same traditional texts on which the Geneva Bible and the KJV were based.

All of the New Versions have not been proven to incorporate the Critical Text. Perhaps you try to overgeneralize as you fail to prove your assertion to be true.

Along with not recommended or advocating the Critical Text, I have not recommended any English translations directly translated from the Critical Text.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
355
Reaction score
22
Points
28
All of the New Versions have not been proven to incorporate the Critical Text. Perhaps you try to overgeneralize as you fail to prove your assertion to be true.
OK now I know you're just pulling things out of your behind. You should study this issue beyond just collecting one sides' biased opinions like they're baseball cards.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
OK now I know you're just pulling things out of your behind. You should study this issue beyond just collecting one sides' biased opinions like they're baseball cards.
You demonstrate that you do not know what you incorrectly allege against me.
You may assume, speculate, suppose, and jump to wrong conclusions, but you do not demonstrate that you know the truth.

I have carefully studied this issue. I have completely read over 150 books written by KJV-only authors. I have read many histories concerning the making of the English Bible including the making of the KJV. I have read the writings of the KJV translators that I could obtain. I have examined and compared the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV. I have considered both sides of this issue. I have also studied concerning the Masoretic Text and concerning the varying Textus Receptus editions.

Perhaps I have more carefully studied this issue than most KJV-only authors have.
 

logos1560

Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
510
Reaction score
19
Points
18
UGC, are you in effect promoting and admiring Roman Catholics with the video you found and posted as you waste time trying to attack and accuse falsely a Bible-believing, independent Baptist believer?

Modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning uses some of the same warmed-over, incorrect arguments that Roman Catholics used in the 1500's for their Latin Vulgate-only theory. On the other hand, the KJV translators wisely rejected the incorrect arguments for a one-perfect-translation-only theory.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
UGC, are you in effect promoting and admiring Roman Catholics with the video you found and posted as you waste time trying to attack and accuse falsely a Bible-believing, independent Baptist believer?
Hey, give the Wonder Twins the memes. it's the closest thing they can muster up to actual substance. If they couldn't think in picture books, they wouldn't be able to think at all.
 
Top