Search results

As I understand it, the primary goal of modern textual criticism is to determine what the original authors wrote. Period. What is the harm in that? These footnotes rightly explain that there are uncertainties about the validity of these passages. If something had been added to Scripture...

Difference alone does not demonstrate "corruption". As you know, there are different ways to say the same thing without having corrupted the message. As for your very tired, "They all cannot be the word of God", drop it. It's a flawed assertion... and according to the King James translators...

All you have done is shown DIFFERENCES between verses in the KJV and various modern translations. You haven't demonstrated that the modern wording is "blatantly corrupt". You (and every KJV-onlyist I've encountered) throw around the accusation, "Corrupt!" like it's confetti at a wedding. In...

I couldn't, as I don't track such things. I just remember my HS classes. I was a top student in Physics and Maths, but middling in English because, despite my proficiency with grammar, I really couldn't give a hoot about literature. I can only guess what Literature classes were like for people...

Criticism without explanation is merely opinion. No, that's not true at all. The modern translations are printed in English. Those who desire to study further have long been encouraged to learn the original languages. That has nothing to do with "Modern Textual Critics".

Your selection is unrepresentative and does not support your assertion(s).

In high school, many people are forced to read Shakespeare and don’t even understand the language, let alone the poetry. Such people rarely read a word of poetry later in life. Why, with something as important as their eternal destiny on the line, would you risk the possibility they won’t...

I will correct whom I choose to correct. If you want ‘fair’, pay for your own sins.

Prove it. Demonstrate the veracity of your claim with evidence. Hearsay and biased criticism are not acceptable.

That’s still incorrect. If you say “a word… looks and sounds the same” then you need to add a referent. ” You can say instead, “Homonyms are words that look…” or, “A homonym is each of two or more words that look…”.

I guess it's possible; I don't know the relevant dates. :)

I'll take that as a yes. Just what this site needs: yet another Judaizer. Prescription for you: Read Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. Repeat until you are no longer fallen from grace.

Y'know, if these KJV-only types start doing their homework, learning the original languages, and getting proper understanding of the text, they're going to stop arguing in favour of the KJV and get on with being decent Christian folks. Are you sure that's what you want? ;)

Apologies to all for dredging this thread up; I thought I was in another thread.

My Mother made amazing Christmas pudding... and my Dad was happy to tip her elbow as she poured rum for the sauce.

If Judge Judy were presiding, I suspect the whole thing would be tossed after the first three minutes of testimony. At least she seems to have her head screwed on straight.

Do you believe that Christians are required to obey all the laws given to Moses at Sinai?

Please explain your understanding of "symbiotic relationship" without reference to either Jesus or the Bible.

How so? Does the single word have multiple origins? I suspect not. Rather, it is simply a word used for several things within a single category.

You are clearly unaware of the history behind the KJV. Please, go and do your homework. Start with Desiderius Erasmus and his five editions of the Greek text. Move on to the work of Robert Estienne (aka Stephanus), and Theodore Beza, and their work in revising the Greek text, Finally, look at...