Search results

Let's start with the meaning of the word. What does "begotten" mean, that it is critical to this verse? What "doctrine" is changed by the addition or subtraction of "begotten"? Does the ESV as a whole represent Jesus as something other than God's only-begotten Son? Single verses don't make...

You continue to make this claim (bolded) but continue to fail to list these allegedly impacted doctrines. Step up.

Get rid of your sick hypocrisy.

Ah... moving the goalposts. Get some integrity.

This thread is not about other translations, period, end of (that part of the) conversation. Because you carefully limit the definition of "without error" to suit your position, instead of accepting the plain definition, your conclusion is moot. God has preserved His word, but that says...

I guess you have to exclude the KJV, as it was not published into the public domain. It just happens to be there now.

The term "Textus Receptus" did not exist until the Elzevir brothers used it as an advertising logo more than a decade after the KJV was published. It's anachronistic to say that any church, group, or person used it prior to that time. They may have used the same sources but not the "Textus...

That's your concern, not mine.

And here we go with the downplaying/sidestepping/misleading. An error is an error. Either the KJV is an error-free translation, or it is not. "Without error" has no middle ground. The differences between the KJV and many newer translations are similarly "extremely minor" but KJV-only folks...

Apparently many of them don't, given they can't accept that actual errors in the KJV are actual errors.

Don't confuse the written word with the spoken Word. They are not the same thing.

Since there are actual errors in the KJV, it is not "correct". That (some) KJV-only people cannot accept that there are errors is what makes their position so laughable.

That KJVO folks mistrust every other English translation is their problem... in both senses.

This thread is entitled, "The Error of KJV-Onlyism". Where in that title is anything said about other translations? "Only" English version available? Gary, I know you aren't stupid, but that was a stupid comment. There are several good translations in English produced since 1611.

This thread is not about other translations.

specious (adjective) superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument" misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive: "the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty" Is the statement "the gospels and the Epistles of Paul were actually...

You're stirring a hornet's nest, but don't worry... I brought lots of bug spray. :cool:

I am not under obligation to support your assertion. No amount of finagling will make irrelevant passages relevant. Irrelevant.

Your assertion is not supported by your citations.

Definitions of the correct key terms are important. Irrelevant definitions do nothing. True. It isn't my mockery that makes your explanation deficient; it was laughably deficient before I even read it.