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.