Uh, no. You either did not look at all of the false doctrines I listed or you simply do not care about them (Which would be even more of a deeper concern).
You said:
Those things were added to the Byzantine text.
Now I know you did not look at all of the reasons I gave. Some of the points I mentioned were false doctrines added by the Modern English Bibles based upon the forced union of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts (despite their thousands of differences between each other) (This union of these two manuscripts was originally the Westcott and Hort 1881 NT Greek text and it is now the Nestle and Aland). But the Nestle and Aland Critical Text is barely any different than the Westcott and Hort text.
Here is a quote from Modern Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:
“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation….” ~ Quote by: Eldon Jay Epp.
You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings
here.
To make matters worse the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland says it is supervised by the Vatican.
You can see 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church simply by Googling "Keith Piper NIV" and then going to pages 21-22 of the PDF.
You said:
They don't belong in the Bible.
You are only saying this because you are merely repeating what the scholars have said to you.
You did not come to this conclusion based on comparing the two lines of texts, and praying about it first, seeking the truth.
So of course you are going to come to the wrong conclusion based on what men say vs. your own unbiased investigation.
Any person who has done the honest comparison without any bias is going to see the KJB is superior doctrinally.
This is not really open to debate because we can actually see a pattern of evidences of changes for the worse in doctrines and not for the better. I mean, you got Modern Bibles teaching Jesus was a demi-god for crying out loud, and then folks want to strain at gnats with small little supposed errors in the KJB. It's nonsense. Do your research on the other side of the debate. I would start with David Cloud at WayofLife.org. This man has spent thousands of dollars researching books on both sides of the issue and was not even KJB Only to begin with. He thought they were crazy.
You said:
They needed to be taken out as they conflate the tel, inspired text.
This is said by the scholars because of Westcott and Hort's Lucian Rescension Theory. There is not one shred of evidence that backs this claim. They say it like it is fact with no proof. If you read the writings of the life of Westcott and Hort by their own sons, you will say that they are heretics. You can even read their own commentaries and they deny the blood atonement, the substitutionary atonement, etcetera. They had Unitarians on their Revised Version Translation team. This is documented and not made up. So if Unitarians were on their team, and they favored texts that water down the Trinity, then that is called motive. They had the motive to choose texts that aligned with their false beliefs. But you're not thinking like a detective and doing any investigation of your own. You just believe blindly what the scholars say because they have some fancy degrees displayed on a certificate on their wall somewhere.
You said:
As for you sheer nonsense about the Trinity. I did a big unit in the a Trinity for my PhD. I used a modern Bible, as well as the original languages to prove conclusively the truth of the Trinity, in my 30 page paper. I never even considered consulting the KJV, it wasn't necessary. The Joannine comma was not needed, either.
Look. I do not care if you did a thousand-page paper. If you try to witness to a person about the Trinity without direct references, your witnessing is greatly hindered if you do not have those verses in the Bible. The reality is that there are NO DIRECT REFERENCES of the Trinity in Modern Bibles. 1 John 5:7, and the word "Godhead" (Meaning Trinity) is altered to say "divinity." The word "Godhead" appears three times. Christians of the 1800s did not have this problem when witnessing the Trinity because these words were in their Bibles back in the day. If you lived back in the 1700s in America, you wouldn't even know about Modern Scholarship and all you would have known was the King James Bible. So your movement is recent and new like other false religious movements that are started. Just because the movement is disguised in the veil of education and scholarship does not mean it is correct by any means.
In addition, the Critical text side has employed deception involving 1 John 5:7.
For example: They move the words "For there are three that testify:" in 1 John 5:8 to the missing place of 1 John 5:7 to make it look like there are no missing words there. This is clearly a deception for the new reader to not discover that a major doctrine (the Trinity is being attacked). You have a top Greek Grammarian who lives in Greece, and his native tongue is Greek and who is not KJV-Only who says that there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there. On top of that, we have early church fathers testifying to the Comma, as well. Fulgentius is a person that the scholars do not want you to research because it destroys their narrative.
Also, double dots (umlauts) next to 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus show it has a variant reading.
Meaning, the Vaticanus does not predate the reading of 1 John 5:7.
You said:
The Bible is full of references to the Trinity. Some of those other statements come right off a KJV Only website, they are plain nonsense.
How do you know it is nonsense? Just because it is KJB-Only info?
Granted, I am not saying that all research done by KJB believers is true.
Some can get their facts wrong at times like Gail Riplinger. I will not read her written works because of that.
David Cloud (a KJB Advocate) has criticized her book for faulty info. in her New Age Bible Versions book.
I actually tried to read it once a while back and it was assuming too much, as well.
But not all KJB believers are not crazy like that.
You said:
All you have convinced me is that you are a deluded follower of an archaic Bible. And that you read books and websites to find information in this topic.
I can say the same for you. But that does not prove anything. As I said David Cloud read tons of books on both the KJB side and the Modern Scholarship side spending thousands of dollars researching deeply and he came out in the end believing the King James Bible is superior. It is also the most faith based position and not based on the opinions of men who are simply trying to keep their jobs.
You said:
When you have a few years Koine Greek at a Master's Degree level, come back and we can talk.
Most of your Theological Scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek and you want me to believe they are experts in dead languages that don't exist anymore? Kione Greek is gone. You would at least have to know Modern Greek before even tackling the archaic form of Greek. Biblical Hebrew is also not precisely the same as Hebrew used today. Again, you would need to know these languages intimately. I mean, you would have to read, write, speak, and hear these languages like it was in your own native tongue. If not, your playing games and only pretending. You don't go to Ethiopia and get some textbooks on Chinese in order to truly know Chinese. You go to China and you live there for a good part of your life and you let that language become like your native tongue. If not, you are only toying with a language and not fully grasping what it says.
You said:
We had a doctor in our second year Greek class. She started rambling about how bad West and Horcott are and how the KJV was the only true Bible. Our professor put her straight.
I would like to talk to your professor and put him straight. Granted, I am sure he will simply not want to debate me or hear any evidence I presented. This is not cooked up KJB propoganda. It's called reading their own writings (commentaries), and hearing their own quotes that come from books written by their own sons who were not KJV-Only to my knowledge.
You said:
I can't imagine why she was even studying Greek if she thought the KJV was perfect by itself.
It may surprise you to know that not all KJB believers are alike. Some KJB believers shun in looking at the original languages.
Others like David Cloud at WayofLife.org do not do that.
You said:
She never came back after that day - quit the course.
Many have abandoned the faith when they learned of Textual Criticism at Bible college. So I believe God was helping her to make the right choice. Rick Beckman and Bart Erhman were into Textual Criticism big time and they criticized the KJB. Yet, look at them today. They are no longer believers in God's Word anymore. Why? Because that is what Textual Criticism does. It makes you to question and criticize the text. Footnotes that get you the reader to decide if the ending of Mark or the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery was in your Bible. Oh by the way, I can prove that the story is true. There is an Old Testament reference that ties into the story that tells us what Jesus was writing on the ground. But you would not know that because Modern scholarship will not allow you to see it or believe it.
