one on one said:Muz said:Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine.
brandplucked said:You make textual criticism sound as though there are thousands of places where things are unsure, and we can't rely upon it, and there are major problems.
There aren't. Muz, this is pure Baloney. Where on earth did you get your “13 places” figure? Are you inventing these numbers from your own vivid imagination? That is so utterly over the top, out of the ballpark ridiculous that nobody who knows a modicum of the textual differences that exist today could possibly take you seriously.
Do we go with the RSV that omits some 45 entire verses from the New Testament that are found in the NKJV, plus another 2000 to 3000 other words besides? Or how about your NIV that omits 17 entire verses plus half of another 50 verses, plus hundreds of other words from the texts used by such versions as the NKJV? Or the ESV that omits even more whole verses than the NIV but not as many as the previous RSV? And all of them often and not in the same places reject the Hebrew readings. Who are you trying to kid?
This is a poor attempt by brandplucked to set up and attack a strawman. Note that Muz stated there are 13 places where the translators were unsure of the original reading. Brandplucked responded with a statement of omitted verses and words. That these verses and words were omitted are a sign that the the translators were sure enough of their work to leave the verses out. Brandplucked attempted to equate leaving verses out with not understanding them. Sorry brandplucked, your tactic failed and you did not add information other than yet another list of differences between translations.
one on one said:brandplucked said:I want to thank the Theology Online members for allowing me the opportunity to defend the Book as being the inerrant, preserved and complete words of the living God.
Finally, brandplucked closes with this statement. I must say that brandplucked did a spectacularly bad job at defending the inerrancy of the KJV. I had hoped that I would learn something new about the KJV and instead all I got were the same tired old lists of differences between translations, an unsupported assertion that one is the standard by which all others must be measured and an blanket accusation that those who do not believe in KJV-only are inferior Christians of weak faith.
Brandplucked supporters on this thread (Stephen Avery and AVbunyan) were equally ineffective at providing any substantial support for their position. Indeed, Steven abandoned this thread when pressed for scriptural authority for his claim.
For all their passion about their claim of superiority, I am forced to conclude that their position is a man made position, weakly supported based on historical claims. They have presented no evidence the the KJV is superior and have in fact admitted that other bibles can bring others to a saving relationship with Christ; a position that undercuts their claim that modern version are uninspired.