The Heresies of the Religion of Calvinism and how Satan has used it to infiltrate the Church

[logos1560]

Go find them and submit to them. Oh that's right, you can't, because they aren't here anymore. Therefore you just admitted you have no authority, except yourself.

As usual you are wrong. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV were translated still exist.

According to your incorrect assertion, the KJV translators would have had no authority but they themselves since you suggest that they had no preserved Scriptures in the original languages to translate from and to use as their authority for revising the pre-1611 English Bibles. The existing, preserved Scriptures in the original languages were also the standard and authority used by later editors to make corrections to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

My statement did not refer to the original autographs which are not known to exist on earth as you incorrectly try to suggest.

 

[tmjbog]

I did not boast in myself as an individual

It sounded like you were. Don't worry though, it's common in cult leaders.

 

[Ransom]

You're running in circles again.

You realize we can all see how you edited the predicate of Logos' sentences right out of existence, right?

You aren't even pretending not to be liars anymore.

Satan's excrement, both of you. False brethren. Hell fuel.

Please, twist your panties up and whine about how inappropriate it is to call trash like you by its proper name.

 

[logos1560]

Go find them and submit to them. Oh that's right, you can't, because they aren't here anymore. Therefore you just admitted you have no authority, except yourself.

I always say, I take the position in debate settings that the KJV is the most accurate English translation to always ensure the win,

According to your own words, you suggest that you take an unproven, assumed [likely by fallacies] position that makes you in effect your own authority since you claimed that there are no preserved Scriptures in the original languages by which it can be determined whether the KJV has the most accurate English translation of every preserved original-language word of Scripture. Your claim that the KJV is the most accurate English translation is based on your own subjective opinion [your own human authority] since you provide no scripture that states what you claim.

 

[Ransom]

I did not boast in myself as an individual

It sounded like you were. Don't worry though, it's common in cult leaders.

Technically, there are two of them.

Twice the ego, half the wit.

 

[UGC]

Thus, any translating of Hebrew OT words whether by the Holy Spirit or by the apostles was a part of the process of the giving of the NT Scriptures by inspiration of God.

So you concur, translated scripture remains inspired.

 

[UGC]

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages

This verifies beyond all shadow of a doubt that you are an amateur.

No professional argues that we have the "preserved" original scriptures (all refer to the "originals" as those written down by the Apostles themselves).

Copies are not "preserved" originals, they are surviving copies, of which the variations between them guarantee you have no consistent preservation of scripture among the copies.

 

[logos1560]

So you concur, translated scripture remains inspired.

Translating that is part of the Scriptures given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles is included in the process of God's giving the Scriptures by inspiration so it does not need supposedly to remain inspired.

That fact in no way suggests that the making of the KJV was by this same miracle of a direct inspiration from God. You may try to rationalize or justify your human opinion about the KJV by reading into verses something that they do not state. If the 1611 edition of the KJV was supposedly made by inspiration of God, it is clear from the Scriptures that it would not have had the errors introduced by men that it has. 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God. There is not mention of the process of translating in 2 Timothy 3:16.

 

[UGC]

Sorry, you already lost here.

 

[logos1560]

This verifies beyond all shadow of a doubt that you are an amateur.

No professional argues that we have the "preserved" original scriptures (all refer to the "originals" as those written down by the Apostles themselves).

Copies are not "preserved" originals, they are surviving copies, of which the variations between them guarantee you have no consistent preservation of scripture among the copies.

You act as the amateur who tries to twist and distort my words into something I did not say. I did not argue what you try incorrectly to allege. You do not deal with what I actually state. As I clearly stated before, I did not refer to the original autographs. I nowhere claimed that the original autographs exist on earth.

I refer to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same way that the early English translators, the KJV translators, and reformers referred to them.

You act as an amateur if you assume or claim that the variations in the preserved copies suggest that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages no longer exist.

 

[UGC]

You pretty much played right into my questions like an amateur (any professional debating me would have refused to answer them and changed the subject, because they are designed to trap the opponent).

Until you can address the following point, your loss is set in stone. Unlike my previous questions, avoiding this one will actually guarantee your loss:


Copies are not "preserved" originals, they are surviving copies, of which the variations between them guarantee you have no consistent preservation of scripture among the copies.

Since this is already agreed upon by everyone, where is your accessible authority?

"Scattered somewhere throughout the extant Greek manuscripts" would imply you have no accessible and therefore no knowable authority.
Therefore you must inevitably conclude God did not make the words by which he will make eternal judgments on mankind definitively knowable today, and we're left trusting the disagreeing opinions of fallible men as to which variant copies and readings they prefer.

Your only other option is to argue your authority is accessible, and therefore knowable, salvaging your disparaging belief that God will make eternal judgments on man with words that man no longer has clear access to without the smoke and mirrors of fallibly preferred variants of his words (of course you would also have to deal with the fact that God is not the author of confusion, unless you had a variant reading that called the translation of this verse into question in addition to others).

If you argue for the second position, which is better, you would have to provide me with a work that is not scattered beyond accessibility and therefore knowledge.

All of mankind's eternity hangs in the balance.

1 John 5:13-14:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:"

"Divine inspiration without preservation would be a divine waste of time." -Dr. Sam Gipp

 

[tmjbog]

You pretty much played right into my questions like an amateur (any professional debating me would have refused to answer them and changed the subject, because they are designed to trap the opponent).

Until you can address the following point, your loss is set in stone. Unlike my previous questions, avoiding this one will actually guarantee your loss:


Copies are not "preserved" originals, they are surviving copies, of which the variations between them guarantee you have no consistent preservation of scripture among the copies.

Since this already agreed upon by everyone, where is your accessible authority?

"Scattered somewhere throughout the extant Greek manuscripts" would imply you have no accessible and therefore no knowable authority.
Therefore you must inevitably conclude God did not make the words by which he will make eternal judgments on mankind definitively knowable today, and we're left trusting the disagreeing opinions of fallible men as to which variant copies and readings they prefer.

Your only other option is to argue your authority is accessible, and therefore knowable, salvaging your disparaging belief that God will make eternal judgments on man with words that man no longer has clear access to without the smoke and mirrors of fallibly preferred variants of his words (of course you would also have to deal with the fact that God is not the author of confusion, unless you had a variant reading that called the translation of this verse into question in addition to others).

If you argue for the second position, which is better. You would have to provide me with a work that is not scattered beyond accessibility and therefore knowledge.

All of mankind's eternity hangs in the balance.

1 John 5:13-14:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:"

"Divine inspiration without preservation would be a divine waste of time." -Dr. Sam Gipp

You must answer the question! The cult leader with a business degree demands compliance!

 

[logos1560]

"Scattered somewhere throughout the extant Greek manuscripts" would imply you have no accessible and therefore no knowable authority.

In other words, you are in effect claiming that the KJV translators had no accessible and knowable authority in their printed original-language texts that were based on extant original-language manuscripts with variations and even with copying errors. It is a verifiable fact that the KJV was based on multiple, textually-varying sources.

You contradict the view of the early English Bible translators and of the Reformers.

In his 1583 book that defended the Reformation view or Protestant view of Bible translation, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) stated: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament" (A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations, p. 44). Neil Rhodes maintained that Fulke “had become the official voice of English Protestantism” (English Renaissance Translation Theory, p. 22). In the preface of another book, Fulke noted: "The dissension of interpreters [translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (Confutation, p. 26). Fulke maintained: “The Greek text of the New Testament needeth no patronage of men, as that which is the very word and truth of God” (Confutation, p. 32). He observed: "We acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, adjoining here with the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context, from that which by errors of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new" (A Defence, p. 78).

In another place, Fulke pointed out: "We acknowledge the Hebrew "as the fountain and spring, from whence we must receive the infallible truth of God's Word of the Old Testament" (Ibid., p. 147). He also wrote: "It becometh us best in translation to follow the original text, and, as near as we can, the true meaning of the Holy Ghost" (Ibid., p. 214).

KJV-only author Gail Riplinger acknowledged that many of the KJV translators had in their hands a copy of Fulke’s two books (In Awe, p. 536).

 

[logos1560]

"Divine inspiration without preservation would be a divine waste of time." -Dr. Sam Gipp

Are the opinions of Sam Gipp scripture in your eyes? Do you and Sam Gipp seek to dictate to God what He supposedly has to do according to human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?

 

[UGC]

you are in effect claiming that the KJV translators had no accessible and knowable authority in their printed original-language texts

Whatever the most definitive accessible authority by comparison to all others accessible at the time that everyone could read, understand, and know, was the format in which God let them know the words by which they would be judged.

Today, the most definitive accessible authority we have in the English language is the KJV because the New Versions have an incredibly corrupt history by comparison, and because 1. almost no one speaks fluent Koine Greek anymore, and you've already agreed translations can remain inspired by answering my question like an amateur and 2. the Alexandrian-type MSS have corrupted the greek texts anyway. Your best argument outside the KJV is the Textus Receptus, but the KJV is certainly better as it drew from sources beyond just the TR AND is accessible in English for everyone today to understand and know.

 

[logos1560]

Since this is already agreed upon by everyone, where is your accessible authority?

Your invalid question is based on a fallacy. One book on logic refers to it as "every schoolboy knows" fallacy. This fallacy is used to try to stifle sound debate and to try to allow a claim to be accepted with few or no facts to support it. There is no need to answer an invalid question.

You also contradict a scholar trusted by KJV-only advocates--John William Burgon.

In 1864, John William Burgon asserted “that no codices of the Scripture exhibit an absolutely identical text” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 66). Burgon noted: “By multiplying MSS., we do indeed multiply ’various readings,’ as they are called; but then, (what is far more important,) we also increase our certainty as to which of those readings are true, because we multiply our witnesses on this very point” (p. 68). Burgon added: “So that although the various readings of the N. T. amount to some hundreds of thousands, the text, (as already hinted,) is established with an extraordinary degree of certainty” (pp. 68-69).

 

[logos1560]

Today, the most definitive accessible authority we have in the English language is the KJV because the New Versions have an incredibly corrupt history by comparison, .

Your unproven claims display continued use of fallacies. Your broad-sweeping overgeneralized statement would involve use of the fallacy of false dilemma. One of the sources for the KJV was the unreliable, corrupt Latin Vulgate along with the 1582 Rheims New Testament based on it.

You have not proven your biased, human opinion to be true.

 

[UGC]

seek to dictate to God what He supposedly has to do according to human, non-scriptural... reasoning?

Non-scriptural? Did a human dictate this or did God:

1 John 5:13-14:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:"

How can God eternally judge us by words he "wrote to us for us to know" if he doesn't make these words accessible for us to even be capable of knowing with any assurance that they're indeed the words in question?

 

[tmjbog]

Your unproven claims display continued use of fallacies. Your broad-sweeping overgeneralized statement would involve use of the fallacy of false dilemma. One of the sources for the KJV was the unreliable, corrupt Latin Vulgate along with the 1582 Rheims New Testament based on it.

You have not proven your biased, human opinion to be true.

But he has a business degree. You must submit.

 

[logos1560]

1 John 5:13-14:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:"

There is no mention of the KJV, the KJV translators, or KJV-onlyism in those two verses. There is no need for an exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611 for the scriptures at 1 John 5:13-14 to be true. You incorrectly try to read human KJV-only reasoning into them.

The words in 1 John 5:13-14 were true when given by God, and they were true hundreds of years before the KJV was ever made.
The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611 so that English-speakers could know that they had eternal life without any need for a later English revision in 1611.