KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[Huldrych]

Luther, Tepl, and Riplinger

Luther, Tepl, and Riplinger

Thanks for the work Huldrych,I will look into it.I do know this much,that the book,"Which Bible is God's Words?" is a transcript from interviews on SWRC Radio Ministries.
So,the majority of references will be in the text itself,when she gives it,plus she will give you any info you would like if you just contact her.She may be able to clear up the issue for you.

Unfortunately, she cannot be contacted at AV publications. At least, not by their website. Their "contact form" is solely for the purposes of buying their books.

And Onlyists get onto non-Onlyists for running a racket?

Is this the text that you are talking about?

pg53
3.Luther used the German Tepl Bible,which represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into German,to make Luther's German Bible.
G.A.Riplinger.
Other than that,this is the first time that I am in any way in knowledge of this Text,so I cannot help you here.

Just found it,page 74.Your quote is correct of her.

I don't think Luther made any mention of the Tepl in any of his writings, seeing that he drew from Erasmus' Greek text for the New Testament, and one of the Rabbinic Bibles for the Old. And still, even if it can be corroborated (by hook or by crook) that he used the Tepl, it is obvious from my research that he did not follow it closely, seeing that the Luther Bible had an agreement rate with the KJV of 80% in the verses I looked at, compared to the Tepl's 40%.

The only place you really hear about Luther using the Tepl is from Wilkinson's book, and even then, he does not tell where he got that idea from. I have attempted to try to find something that quotes Comba as making a clear connection between Luther and Tepl, but cannot find any. The most Comba does is try to make the connection between the Tepl and the Waldensians.

Gail seems to be parroting KJV propaganda, without really checking the facts.

jth

 

[Peter A V]

Huldrych 100% correct

Huldrych 100% correct

Unfortunately, she cannot be contacted at AV publications. At least, not by their website. Their "contact form" is solely for the purposes of buying their books.
........
I don't think Luther made any mention of the Tepl in any of his writings, seeing that he drew from Erasmus' Greek text for the New Testament, and one of the Rabbinic Bibles for the Old. And still, even if it can be corroborated (by hook or by crook) that he used the Tepl, it is obvious from my research that he did not follow it closely, seeing that the Luther Bible had an agreement rate with the KJV of 80% in the verses I looked at, compared to the Tepl's 40%.

The only place you really hear about Luther using the Tepl is from Wilkinson's book, and even then, he does not tell where he got that idea from. I have attempted to try to find something that quotes Comba as making a clear connection between Luther and Tepl, but cannot find any. The most Comba does is try to make the connection between the Tepl and the Waldensians.

Gail seems to be parroting KJV propaganda, without really checking the facts.

jth

Thanks for the help,Huldrych.I have found the same stuff as you.This is why I asked you.For you seemed to have info on the actual TEXT of thr German Tepl Bible.I can't find that.It would go a long way for me if I could get the info and then make a verification of your findings.That way it is not just hear-say evidence,for either side.
Just trying to get to the truth of things,is all.
Is it possible to post some of your findings,or give me info on how to find it,Myself?
If not,it is OK,just really curious,is all.
Been studying the OLD LATIN lately,very interesting history about it.Waldenses and all.

Relentless for him,
Peter Fuhrman

PS.If you just write a letter to the publishers,and send a letter in her name,she will get it and respond.She did that for me,and I know she would do it for you also.

 

[robycop3]

JTH & Peter, GAR hears or reads a snitch here or there about something like the TEPL & makes a chapter outta it. What GAR DOES have is writing ability, and a fertile imagination. What she does NOT have is too much knowledge of what she writes about. She shoulda kept her writing to what she DOES have knowledge about...INTERIOR DESIGN. Her Biblical knowledge consists of the previous KJVO bunk, her imagination, and her GUESSWORK. Such guesswork is the basis of most of the KJVO "facts".

 

[Peter A V]

Gail Giplinger

Gail Giplinger

JTH & Peter, GAR hears or reads a snitch here or there about something like the TEPL & makes a chapter outta it. What GAR DOES have is writing ability, and a fertile imagination. What she does NOT have is too much knowledge of what she writes about. She shoulda kept her writing to what she DOES have knowledge about...INTERIOR DESIGN. Her Biblical knowledge consists of the previous KJVO bunk, her imagination, and her GUESSWORK. Such guesswork is the basis of most of the KJVO "facts".

There you go again,with the unfounded accusations.I have found very little on the Tepl Manuscript.But what I have found is co-oberated in her sentence that includes the mention of the Tepl.Not a whole chapter,as you put it.
Let us be honest here,from now on OK?You should not be quoting just for argument sake.
Why are you offended with people that Believe the Holy Bible to be the Holy Bible?
Did someone insult you or get your goat?I don't know.But you can be more objective in your aproach,and I and others would be MORE than happy to chin-wag with you;even if we DO disagree.

I have researched the things that Gail has in her book.She is not lying.There is corruption going on in the new Bible versions.The new Bible versions ARE built upon the works of Heretics,such as Origen,Jerome,and made socially acceptable to the Publick by Eusebius,who licks Constantine's Boots.
The info on Westcott and Hort and other is very true.Plus I found much more.But then that would be just overkill.
Yes,there MIGHT be the odd way of phrasing things that gets people's goats,but it still is the truth.
She did her homework,very well.

 

[Huldrych]

Thanks for the help,Huldrych.I have found the same stuff as you.This is why I asked you.For you seemed to have info on the actual TEXT of thr German Tepl Bible.I can't find that.It would go a long way for me if I could get the info and then make a verification of your findings.

I have a copy of the 1880s reprint of the Tepl, which is very hard to come by. My research comes straight from that text.

I'm currently updating the research I did for my friend, including adding some three extra Reformation Bibles for purposes of comparison. My research as I last posted it, including quotes from my source material, can be found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibelversionen/message/46

Regarding Wilkinson, just about anywhere online where you find "Luther" and "Tepl" on the same webpage tends to be a direct quote from Wilkinson's book (online at http://www.present-truth.org/Wilkinson/authorizedbible2.htm , compare what you find on a search with the text here). The rest tend to be copies of Schaff's chapter on Luther's Bible. Wilkinson guesses that Luther used Tepl. Schaff makes no such connection.

jth

 

[robycop3]

Peter AV: There you go again,with the unfounded accusations.I have found very little on the Tepl Manuscript.But what I have found is co-oberated in her sentence that includes the mention of the Tepl.Not a whole chapter,as you put it.

While I may have exaggerated on that one little point, I certainly am not exaggerating on my opinion of Riplinger's works in general. She's found her a cash cow to milk.


Let us be honest here,from now on OK?You should not be quoting just for argument sake.
Why are you offended with people that Believe the Holy Bible to be the Holy Bible?
Did someone insult you or get your goat?I don't know.But you can be more objective in your aproach,and I and others would be MORE than happy to chin-wag with you;even if we DO disagree.

I believe the Holy Bible is the Holy Bible...but I know it's NOT limited to just one version. I have nothing against the KJV nor those who use it from personal preference. But the man-made, non-Scriptural myth some people have built around the KJV is the work of the devil, and not of God, and I shall continue to fight it, Gos Willing.

I have researched the things that Gail has in her book.

No insult meant, but your research doesn't appear to have been very deep, or youda seen her falsehoods such as the "loss of voice" thingie on the John Ankerberg show.


She is not lying.There is corruption going on in the new Bible versions.The new Bible versions ARE built upon the works of Heretics,such as Origen,Jerome,and made socially acceptable to the Publick by Eusebius,who licks Constantine's Boots.
The info on Westcott and Hort and other is very true.Plus I found much more.But then that would be just overkill.
Yes,there MIGHT be the odd way of phrasing things that gets people's goats,but it still is the truth.
She did her homework,very well.

I'm gonna do a little of your homework for you. to show you Riplinger uses lotsa guesswork and half-truths. In her tract about the NKJV, she says,

"NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of the KJV rendering "Jesus."

I have a repro AV 1611, & I read that the KJV translators stated in the margin of the 1611 KJV concerning their rendering "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua." At "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the following marginal note is referred to: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." Remember, 'Jesus' is the Latinized version of the Hebrew name 'Yeshua' or 'Joshua'. In this day, we English-speakers revere the name Jesus as the name of Our Lord, but we mustn't forget His REAL given name is YESHUA. This was a common Hebrew name for many centuries, and it's in keeping with there being nothing physical about Him that would cause us to love Him. We love Him for who He is, and what He did, and not for His physical appearance, human ancestry, or human-language name.

The context of Acts 7 plainly shows the 'Jesus' in V.45 to have been Joshua, son of Nun, Moses' successor, chosen by God, and NOT Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord, Son of God.

Obviously the 1950 NWT didn't exist before the Geneva or the AV. Feel free to check this out for yourself.

Oh, and here's another little tidbit for you...Do you have her book, New Age Bible Versions? If so, turn to P.232 & read,

“Watch out for the letter ‘s’--sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul). The added ‘s’ here is the hiss of the serpent.”

If this were true, we'd better never call Jesus '"S"avior' again, nor mention' "S"anctified' again.Never mind that earlier, on P.174, she recommends using the term '"S"ober'. I guess she had a mute snake then.

I'm not gonna bore you & everyone else with her misquptes of such authors as Richard Longenecker(She spells it "Longnecker"), and D.A.Carson(She spells it "Carlson"), but I will give you some guidelines so that anyone interested in the subject can look it up themselves to see if I'm telling the truth or not about Riplinger's works.

Go to NABV's p. 89 & read:

“Even NIV translator Larry Walker applauds the rejection of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Ugaritic wherein the gods of pantheism preside.”

Now, go to Pp.101-102 of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation to read Walker's article for yourselves. Please copy/paste any reference to the rejection of the Hebrew OT.

Go to P.345 of NABV to read her statements about Longenecker and Carson, then go to P.125 of The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation to read what each of them REALLY wrote.

I could write ten pages of such Riplingerisms, including many more deliberate misquotes, her ridiculous "acrostic algebra" (Hints she believes in Numerology & "Bible Codes), and many other examples of poor research, misimformation, guesswork, and plain ole DISHONESTY. With all due respect to you, Peter, when you boost Riplinger, your credibility falls, in the eyes of many, including more than one KJVO, to the level of MARK Fuhrman's.

You wanted honesty...Here's honesty. Please feel free to check behind me in what I've written above. In fact, I hope you do, since DIRECT EVIDENCE will have a much-more-profound effect than anything I could say.

 

[Peter A V]

Info by robycop

Info by robycop

Thankyou,robycop.THIS is the type of thing I was asking for,Some actual proofs.This gives credibility,and shows to me that you have done some homework.For that I am greatful.

I will be checking the stuff out,for I need to be honest.But I will say,that I do hold to the overall premice of her book,and I did raise my eyebrows more than once,but found those spots not to hinder the actual message as a whole,if you can get a grip of what I mean.
Thanks again,roby,I appreciate your last post,for it came across as one of a level head,and not one of hurling acusasions and empty smear campaigns.
Just good honest interest in me.Thanks.

 

[Peter A V]

#1- Luke 3:36 ERROR?

#1- Luke 3:36 ERROR?

I have a copy of the 1880s reprint of the Tepl, which is very hard to come by. My research comes straight from that text.

I'm currently updating the research I did for my friend, including adding some three extra Reformation Bibles for purposes of comparison. My research as I last posted it, including quotes from my source material, can be found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibelversionen/message/46

jth

Thank you kindly,Huldrych for the post.Its a long one but very informative.The very first verse mentioned with a supposed mistake is easily solved,by following these rules,upcomming in my post.It will solve many problems,before the verse is read.
You quote another writter,and then add your own comments.here is a sampling of the first,if I may.
clearly the case since the Hebrew Text is clear in both Genesis and I
Chronicles 1:18 that there was only one Cainan and not two. The New
Testament manuscripts, however, retain this error almost unanimously.
That is the reason it is found in the King James. Clearly, however,
it is an error.

Manuscript fragment P75 (3rd century) seems to have omitted the
reference to Cainan as the son of Arphaxad. It is also omitted in
manuscript D (5th century). It is found in all other manuscripts.

«jth»
Every Bible I looked at has this same passage, thus reflecting the
same error. Even the Tepl 1385 says "which was of Kainan, which was
of Arphaxad."
...................

ERRor??TRUTH??in Luke 3:36??Absolutely not.To start with,Ms D is the most corrupted peice of garbage out there.Even more so than Aleph and B.Never go to the most corrupt to finalize a verse.But many a modern scholar has.

All we have to do,is go by the standard of the author,to find all the answers.
If the author[Judy B.]says that her kitten's name is Pipsqueak,and later calls him puddytat.
She is showing us,her perameters.We don't change the text and insert Pipsqueak.

The same goes for the Holy Bible.Many places in the Bible are named different names at different times in history.Plus people have more than one name,or are given another name by some other person.Plus somw people can get married,and are then rekognized as that family name also.This will clear up tons of "errors" percieved by those that simple go to the word in their own understanding,instead of pure faith.And then dig in faith,to find the answer.

Sometimes we DO dig,but our digging MUST progress,as info comes to our hearts.Some people are 20 year scholars,but still at the first year understanding,if you get the drift.We all need the revelation of God in many things;this indeed will cause us all to grow.

Now to the text:Luke 3:35,36,Gen 10:24
Gen 10:26]
And Arphaxad begat Salah;and Salah begat Eber.
Versus
Lk 3:35-36
Which was the son of Saruch,which was the son of Ragau,which was the son of Phalec,which was the son of Heber,which was the son of Sala,Which was the son of Cainan,which was the son of Arphaxad,which was the son of Sem,which was the son of Noe,which was the son of Lamech,

Now,to the unseasoned Bible believer,their seems to be a problem here.Because,with the natural understanding,one would think that Luke had ADDED another name here.This Geneolgy includes "Cainan",but Moses didn't write Cainan's name down,but Luke does.

Now,this is where the Alexandrian dementia kicks in.Origen and all that follow his "I can improve God's words"followers,get sucked in,and try to reconcile what they think is some Kind of contradiction.Don't get sucked in to thinking that Luke was following some kind of LXX[72].Then you will be on the SHIFTING sands and uncertain foundation;this will collapse when the first drops of pure water enter this picture.

To start with,You don't follow the Greek LXX[72],but you follow the Hebrew,and the Hebrew is very correct here.

Did you know,that "Cainan"is the thirteenth from Adam in the Messianic line?And that Nimrod is the thirteenth from Adam in Ham's line? See?The Bible has all the answers.

Now,if a person is determined to follow this "error " theory,he must prove a few things first.
One cannot just say this must be an error,and then change it to your understanding.

1]You would have to prove that the begats are of the direct father and son only relationship.
Don't forget,"The son" is in Italics.
Plus Luke 3:23 also is in italics "the son of"Heli.In the context [son in law}.Cainan could very well have married one of Arphaxad's daughters.

2]Plus after that,if the italics are to be retained,you would have to prove that the son has to be a direct son,and not a grandson.Pretty steep odds,don't you think?Seeing the fact that Joram BEGAT Uzziah [Matt 1:8],and Uzziah is Joram's great,great grandson.

So,lets not be too hasty in setting up authority over God's words,but alow the words of God to have authority over us.
Info gleened by me from "The ERRORS in the KJ Bible"by Dr.P.S.Ruckman

Your post looks very interesting and I will continue to read.
Thanks again for your help.
Relentless for him,
Peter Fuhrman

 

[Huldrych]

ERRor??TRUTH??in Luke 3:36??Absolutely not.To start with,Ms D is the most corrupted peice of garbage out there.Even more so than Aleph and B.Never go to the most corrupt to finalize a verse.But many a modern scholar has.

Before you start going off into orbit here, I hope you took the time to read my introduction. There, I mention that I compared the errors he supposedly found with what was found in Bibles based on largely the same source material (traditional text):

A quick review: A fellow I've been in touch with was kind enough to share with me his work on KJV errors. I, in turn, offered to compare his findings with the Bibles from the Reformation, since, as he mentioned in his preface, the "Bible that Paul used" is represented through Reformation Bibles.

If you read the end of the article, you'd find that since Reformation Bibles made, for the most part (but not always) the same sorts of "errors," then something needs to be adjusted in his methodology for defining "error:"

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, CHAPTER 1
How do these Bibles line up with the KJV?

I took a tally of all the above items, and noted where they agreed with the KJV, and where they did not. The stats are rather rough, but do give a ball-park picture of how Reformation Bibles compare to the KJV (or rather, vice-versa, since each one of these Bibles predated the KJV, which I consider a Post-Reformation Bible).

Out of all the error items reported by the paper's author, the agreement rate of the following Bibles are as follows:

Tyndale 1530: 81%
Zürcher 1531: 79%
Luther 1534: 80%
Luther 1545: 80%
de Reina 1569: 83%

Reformation Bibles agree with KJV errors an average of about 81% of the time, which leads me to think that something must be wrong with the author's methodology in identifying errors in the KJV.

These Bibles here are from four different Reformation movements—German, Swiss, English, and Spanish. Note that these four separate movements drew more or less the same conclusions on translation from largely the same source documents (it is worthy of note how the Tepl agreed with the King James only 40% of the time).

On the plus side, all of this does confirm (at least according to how I see things), that the KJV does accurately represent the readings of Bibles from the Reformation period, and is a good—albeit not perfect—representative of "the Bible that Paul used," if that can truly be
said of the Textus Receptus.

It also proves that the Tepl is probably not a good representative of the TR or the Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts. If it was truly based on Old Latin readings, then it might give those who hope Old Latin to be the proto-TR grounds to re-evaluate their views.

I included his quotes in full for the purposes of scholarly honesty. They are not my work, they were not my concern. My focus was specific: comparing Reformation Bibles with certain passages of the KJV.

jth

 

[robycop3]

Dr. Ruckman is NOT a reliable source!

Dr. Ruckman is NOT a reliable source!

Peter, your quoting of Dr. Ruckman will NOT raise your stock very far! This man is yet another charlatan who promotes the KJVO myth among his goofiness.

First, he's a FALSE PROPHET. Here are some examples:

Ruckman said:

"Now, the dykes and sex perverts in Washington have drawn up a hit list. The WEB and the Internet and the fax and the surveillance going on now is to define those targets and then remove them. If you want to know who those targets are, I can name them for you . . . you will see the sudden 'SUICIDE' of these targets or their 'HEART FAILURES' or their ACCIDENTAL death in a PLANE CRASH . . . all kinds of ACCIDENTS happen to people like this . . . I KNOW WHO the targets are in the next TWO or THREE years. On this 'prophesy' I CAN'T MISS."

The list:
1. Texas Marrs
2. Jack Chick
3. Don McAlvaney
4. Tom Anderson
5. Peter Ruckman

"So, the next man on the hit list would probably be that famous junk yard dog from Pensacola, Florida, PETER S. RUCKMAN. I don't kid myself about these things. I don't overestimate my importance, but I know where I stand with the New World and
the New Age and the News Media. I know exactly where I stand. They hate my guts."

"We gentlemen are condemned men . . . It is just a matter of time before the AXE FALLS . . . I have been a target ever since I was saved . . . I know my destination. I am PREDESTINATED TO STOP A BULLET or maybe a more subtle method, such as an accidental car wreck or accidental plane crash or logical looking 'suicide' or an ordinary 'heart attack.' The CIA has all kinds of ways of keeping a secret. And I know at least twenty of them."

(Dr. Peter S. Ruckman,Bible believers Bulletin, May, 1997 issue)

Please check this out for yourself. I HAVE SEEN THAT ISSUE OF BIBLE BELIEVERS BULLETIN MYSELF!

Next, Dr. Ruckman falsely believes the KJV is superior to its sources, and that it CORRECTS them! He ADDS TO SCRIPTURE!To wit:

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text”

(Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118).

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!”

(Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“A short handbook, such as this, will not permit an exhaustive account of the marvelous undesigned ‘coincidences’ which have slipped through the A.V. 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light, and advanced revelation beyond the investigation of the greatest Bible students 300 year later”

(Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 127).

“A little English will clear up the obscurities in any Greek text”

(Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 147).

“If all you have is the ‘original Greek,’ you lose light” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 336).

“If you are able to obtain a copy of my proposed new book you will have, in your hands, a minimum of 200 advanced revelations that came from the inerrant English text, that were completely overlooked (or ignored) by every major Christian scholar since 90 A.D.”

(Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Jan. 1994, pp. 2,4).

“We shall deal with the English Text of the Protestant Reformation, and our references to Greek or Hebrew will only be made to enforce the authority of that text or to demonstrate the superiority of that text to Greek and Hebrew.”

(Peter Ruckman, Problem Texts, Preface, Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980, p. vii).

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)”

(Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

“If you had the original manuscripts, you couldn’t find what a soul was, no matter how educated you were, because the key for ‘finding out’ had nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek”

(Ruckman, Problem Texts, p. 145).

“Observe how accurately and beautifully the infallible English text straightens out Erasmus, Griesbach, Beza, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Trench, Vincent, Davis, Wuest, Zodhiates, Elzevir, and Stephanus with the poise and grace of a swan as it smoothly and effectively breaks your arm with one flap of its wings. Beautiful, isn’t it? If the mood or tense isn’t right in any Greek text, the King James Bible will straighten it out in a hurry”

(Ruckman, Problem Texts, pp. 348, 349).

“The original Hebrew had nothing to do with Genesis 1:1-3 at all [referring to Ruckman’s unique idea that the flood of 2 Peter 3:5-6 speaks of a flood that took place in Genesis 1:2]. It only muddied the issue. Hebrew is of no help at all in understanding the passage”

(Peter Ruckman, The Unknown Bible, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, p. 67).

“The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611”

(Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9).

Next, he says there was NO GREEK OLD TESTAMENT TEXT BEFORE ORIGEN! The preface to the AV 1611 itself shows the AV translators believed differently. I've posted that part of the preface before, and will be glad to do so again, if requested.

Last, he shows some signs of being mentally-challenged. Rather than go through all the quotes again, lemme point ya to a link which sums up nicely this bit of insanity from the good doctor:

http://kjvonly.org/bob/ross_black_lip.htm

Whether you agree with Ross or detest him completely isn't the question here. Ruckman's book is readily available, and I ask you to check it out for yourself.

Sorry, Peter; I don't believe a thing Ruckman says.

 

[brandplucked]

Luke 3:36 Who was Cainan, and is it an error?

Luke 3:36 Who was Cainan, and is it an error?

Who is Cainan in Luke 3:36?

"Answers in Genesis" is usually a very good ministry which defends creationism versus evolution. However the textual consultant, Mr. Sarfati, does the usual tap dance when discussing the inspiration of Scripture. Here are some of his comments. *

Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12? by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati -

"The difference is that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. Some skeptics have used this difference to attack biblical inerrancy. However, it is important to note that Biblical inerrancy, derived from the teaching that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21 and ‘cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and many other places, has to refer to the original autographs that God directly inspired, not to copies or translations. The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today.

1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

So if a copyist of Luke’s gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The evidence shows conclusively that the extra name Cainan is not part of God’s original Word, but due to a later copyist’s error. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan."

Mr. Sarfati starts off his "defense" of inerrancy with three huge whoppers. He says: "The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." He then assures us that the Bible's assertions are factually true in ALL THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and that they are the supreme authority in all matters of faith.

How can something that does not exit "be the supreme authority in all matters of faith"? Mr. Sarfati has never seen one of these "original autographs" a day in his life, simply because they do not exist, and he knows they don't exist when he says this. He has absolutely no way on earth of knowing for sure what or what was not "in the original autographs".

His second big lie is implying "A COPYIST of Luke's gospel is responsible for the error". The simple fact is, the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is not found in just one or two copies of Luke, but is the reading found in practically every known Greek manuscript in existence today. It is in the vast Majority of all Greed copies, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, as well as the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic and Latin versions.

It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV,ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, and Luther's German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three.

His third big lie is telling us: "this is one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." Mr. Sarfati should be well aware of the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, different names, numbers, phrases and entire verses found in some copies that that are not in others. The New Testaments of such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV (none of which totally agree with each other) differ from the New Testament of versions like the King James Bible, NKJV, Young's, and the Geneva Bible, by about 5000 words! This can hardly be called "extremely few".

Mr. Sarfati also assures us that the oldest LXX manuscripts do not contain the name Cainan, though he has never seen one of these because, again, they don't exist.

Mr. Sarfati continues to make his case for "Christian Logic 101" even worse by saying: "Either way, this extra name ‘Cainan’ cannot be used as an argument against biblical inerrancy." Why not, Mr. Sarfati? IF it is an ERROR found in every Bible on the earth today, then why is it not proof that the Christian Bible is not inerrant?

Then Mr. Sarfati attempts to bolster the soundness of his arguments by quoting a certain Mr Pierce who summarizes: "I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that EVERY SINGLE COPY WE HAVE OF THE LXX TEXT WAS CORRUPTED SOME TIME AFTER AD 220."

Notice here that Mr. Scarlati quotes from another man who tells us that every copy of the LXX we now have is corrupted, yet Mr. Scarlati earlier referred to the oldest LXX which did not contain the name of Cainan. BUT he himself has never seen, nor can he produce for this hypothetical court of law any such evidence. Do you see how the scholar's game is played?

So there you have the thoughts of "scholars" who assume there is no way the Holy Bible can be correct as it stands today, yet they assure us there is really nothing to worry about, and that God's words were once inspired in the "originals", though they have never seen them.

In a somewhat similar fashion, we have the names of two individuals listed in the New Testament, which are not found in the Old Testament. In 2 Timothy 3:8 we read: "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."

This is an interesting verse in light of those who criticize the Holy Bible and tell us it contains errors, isn't it? "Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concering the faith."

It seems, though we are nowhere told this directly, that Jannes and Jambres were probably two of the magicians in Pharoah's court who performed miracles imitating those God did through Moses. Where did Paul get this additional information about the specific names of these individuals? God revealed it to him. The Bible is a supernatural book.

Likewise I do not believe that the additional name of Cainan, who is listed as a "son" of Arphaxad is an error in the Holy Bible.

Those who tell us the name Cainan is not in the original have only two manuscripts of very dubious character that either do not contain the name Cainan (Manuscript D) or, to quote many scholarly articles, "appears not to contain this name" - (P75).

It should be noted that neither does manuscript D contain many other whole verses or sections of Luke's gospel, though found in the others. Manuscript D is notorious for adding large sections to the gospel of Luke which are not found in any other manuscript, and D is also well known for omitting other large portions of Luke's gospel.

One example of many that could be provided is the additional reading found in manuscript D, also known as Codex Bezae, in Luke 6:5. There our Lord says: "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath". Then D alone adds: "On the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him: man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law."

Manuscript D also omits all of Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do." It also alone omits Luke 24:6 "He is not here, but is risen"; Luke 24:12 "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."; Luke 24:36 "and saith unto them, Peace be unto you"; Luke 24:40 "And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."; and Luke 24:51 "and carried up into heaven." These are just a very few of the many omissions found in manuscript D. Not very reliable, is it?

As for P75, not only does it "appear" to omit the name Cainan from Luke 3:36, but P75 also is missing all of Luke 3:23 to 3:33! It also is missing Luke 4:3 to 4:33; 5:11 to 5:36; 6:5 to 6:9; 7:33-34; 7:44-45; 17:16-18, and from Luke 18:19 all the way to Luke 22:3!

Such is the scant evidence for the omission of the name Cainan from the gospel of Luke 3:36.

So how do we explain who this man Cainan is? In Luke 3 we read of the lineage of the Lord Jesus from the side of Mary. There we see "Heber, which was the son of Sala (Salah), which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noah..."

In the Bible, the words "begat" and "son" do not necessarily imply a direct father to son relationship. For example: Matthew 1:8* "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias." Did you know that Uzziah (Ozias) is the great-great-grandson of Joram? Yet the text says, "Joram begat Ozias".

In the book of Ruth we read in 4:17 "And the women her neighbours gave it a name (the child Ruth just gave birth to), saying, There is a SON BORN TO NAOMI; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David."

Naomi was actually the grandmother of the child, yet Scripture calls the grandchild her son, and says he was BORN TO Naomi.

Likewise the gospel of Matthew 1:1 starts off saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Obviously the word "son" does not always mean a direct line from father to son.

The word "son" is also used to denote a son-in-law. King David was Saul's son-in-law, yet Saul calls David his "son" several times in Scripture. In the book of Ruth, Naomi calls Ruth her "daughter", yet in fact she was her daughter-in-law.

Among the various possibilities of who this man Cainan was are the following two.

#1. Cainan may have been the firstborn son of Arphaxad who married at an early age. Cainan conceives Salah with his wife, but he dies before his son Selah is born. So Arphaxad, his father, adopts Salah and becomes his "father". Remember, the word "beget" does not necessarily mean direct father-son relationship.

Or #2. Cainan may have married one of Arphaxad's daughters and Salah was his son. However, in the genealogy listed in Genesis chapter 11, Arphaxad is listed as having "begotten" Salah, even though he was the grandfather. Genealogies often skip over generations, and sons are not always listed in the order in which they were born. See Genesis 6:10 where Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21) yet he is listed last. In Luke, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad's "son", even though he was in fact his son-in-law.

These are the two possibilities that make the most sense to me, and do not in any way call into question the reliability or accuracy of the Scriptures.

Will Kinney

 

[Peter A V]

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks,for the heads up.You are right,I have not finnished the article,but still wanted to take a moment to show the one point is all.No orbit intended.
Thanks again Huldrych!

 

[Peter A V]

Deviant reporting brings false conclusions as ussual

Deviant reporting brings false conclusions as ussual

Sorry, Peter; I don't believe a thing Ruckman says.

Isn't it interesting,that you refused to quote ONE REASON why he said what he said.
Thats like posting anything you want to make it look like anything you want.
I believe in my infalible Bible.So that makes me agree with Ruckman in many,but not all places.You on the other hand,have no pure Bible,so you gladly reject the Sole authority and those that believe it.
I'm not here to have your approval in the first place.I knew before I came to this site that there would be the likes of you.Good godly apostates,who never saw a Bible in their life.
Infalible,of course.

 

[robycop3]

Rucky Yucky

Rucky Yucky

Isn't it interesting,that you refused to quote ONE REASON why he said what he said.
Thats like posting anything you want to make it look like anything you want.
I believe in my infalible Bible.So that makes me agree with Ruckman in many,but not all places.You on the other hand,have no pure Bible,so you gladly reject the Sole authority and those that believe it.
I'm not here to have your approval in the first place.I knew before I came to this site that there would be the likes of you.Good godly apostates,who never saw a Bible in their life.
Infalible,of course.

Peter, his tall tales, wild stories, and FALSE PROPHECIES, a few of which I copied for you, are a matter of public record, and should be MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to run from him. I cannot even begin to truthfully tell anyone why he said those things, AND NEITHER CAN YOU! We can only go on the evidence before us, and that evidence is his outlandish statements and false prophecies. Why should ANYONE believe anything he says? Does he tell some truth? Yes, but so did Hitler.

YOU wanna believe him because of his KJVO material. If THAT'S all ya have to support the KJVO myth, FUGGIDABOUDIT ! If I see a ten-foot-tall alien with huge black lips emerge from a mile-wide spaceship, then I'll publicly admit I was wrong & Rucky was right. If Janet Reno comes back in power, & ole Possel dies mysteriously, along with the others on his "hit list", then I'll publicly admit I was wrong, and Possel only missed the DATE for fulfillment of his prophecy. Remember, he said, "On this prophecy, I CANNOT MISS."

And if you knew what you would be in for when ya came to this site, why didn't you beforehand gather some evidence to support the KJVO myth?

What have you proven so far? That you can imitate Brandplucked in answering every refutation of your myth with, "You have no final authority nor any real Bible." Typical KJVO erudition.

GUESSWORK

 

[Peter A V]

Guesswork/Scholarship

Guesswork/Scholarship

GUESSWORK

My foolish GUESSWORK has a Bible that is inspired of God,infalible,pure.
Your scholarship has no Bible,Infalible,of course.

Kind of reminds me of that verse in I Corinthians
And again,The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise,that they are vain.
I'd rather be considered a fool for Christ than to be non-Bible believer with his logic.
You may consider me crazy,but I am happy.You,however are claiming to be sane,but you are sad.
Are you mad,sad or glad?
This is the foundational responses the Holy Bible has on people.It will make them either mad] sad] or glad]depending on the outlook of your life.

Many have the wrong attitude towards the Holy Bible.They think that they are smarter than God,and bring the Bible down to below their level and change anything thats not in their own limited unbeliving understanding.Origen did it,When he wrote the Hexapla and the 200 A.D. LXX[72].Think of the heretic,that changes the Old Testament to line up with his New Testament;and then the unbelivers that don't study God's word believingly,get sucked in to this lie;that the apostles were somehow quoting the LXX{72} Greek,and not the Hebrew.

So now anything goes,PREFERENCE all the way,change the Book,when it don't make sense.Don't dare study believingly,or you may believe what God said in his word about his word.

I'm not here to verify this person or that person nor myself,only the LORD Jesus Christ and him crucified and the very words of God.
No person is infalible so YOU better not quote any other person too,even yourself.Thats your logic to its conclusion.Pretty silly don't you think?

Lets get off this MYTH issue.You lie every time you say it.I could say the very same of you.But that is not my present style.But you may force me to do it if you persist in your rantings.
You,yourself have been shown to be out to lunch,by your own words,here.But I still like your posts;I believe you are genuine.Who has hurt you?Why are you so angry at a simple Bible believer?Did you think that if you could discredit Dr.Ruckman and Gail Riplinger and the like, that you would shake my faith in the Bible?Is this your stratedgy.Well it didn't work.Never will,because I have come to the place of permanent confident faith in God and his words for me.
Don't forget,I don't condemn you for using other versions;I domyself.But I only believe one.
You can believe your other versions all you want,it's a free world.But just because I actually believe the Holy Bible,you think that I am out to lunch?Good grief.

I have a Bible that I believe.I promote it,and I am villified?Good grief.
All these guys thinking that I must check every sentence of every person that is in the same camp as I,are asking too much.
Please,before you do that,stop being the hypocrite and take your own medicine.Make sure to read everything by Westcott and Hort,And all the university professors out there that are Bible critics.

The truth is,we all can only do what we can do.Some have a greater ability to do these things others not;some have financial restrictions,and Computer skill deficiencies,yet others,time plays a big part.Some is just interest.Some are interested in some things and some are not.We can't be pushing everyone into our own little molds.And this is what we all do to a degree when we become a bit vocal at times.Sometimes it is warranted by scriptures,and other times,maybe not.

I am in no way shape or form trying to mold you against your own will.Just showing you things about the Holy Bible.If you don't like it,you don't have to stay.I would rather talk to someone that is hungry for the truth than to give in to endless arguments with the arguer himself.

Didn't you think it strange that I don't talk to you many times.That's because I feel you are forcing yourself in.People are pro or anti,but we still can be siblings,don't you think?

 

[robycop3]

Anti-KJVOismist FACT vs KJVO Guesswork!

Anti-KJVOismist FACT vs KJVO Guesswork!

Peter A V: My foolish GUESSWORK has a Bible that is inspired of God,infalible,pure.
Your scholarship has no Bible,Infalible,of course.

You're even DOUBLE-guessing! You're not only guessing God is limited to just one version; you're guessing that He's inspired one version to the exclusion of all others. I have no scholarship; I'm just s steelworker with a HS diploma But I know the KJVO myth is false due to lack of supporting evidence, and consists entirely of misinformation, hearsay, tall tales, outright LIES AND DISHONESTY, and most of all, GUESSWORK. You simply CANNOT PROVE God is limited to just your fave version, but you expect ME to believe it without one scad of PROOF. Sorry, but God's word is too important for me to apply

Kind of reminds me of that verse in I Corinthians
And again,The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise,that they are vain.

Yep...Fits the KJVO perfectly...They think they know more about God's word than GOD does.

I'd rather be considered a fool for Christ than to be non-Bible believer with his logic.

Well, DO you believe the Bible or not? Seems as if ya believe only those parts which fit your man-made myth.

You may consider me crazy,but I am happy.

Yes, happy in yer own little world. I don't think you're either crazy nor stupid, but you ARE badly misguided by a man-made myth, made by people who ARE either stupid, crazy, or both...and in any case WRONG.


You,however are claiming to be sane,but you are sad.

Not at all.


Are you mad,sad or glad?

GLAD that God has chosen to make His word available to me in abundance...also THANKFUL.


This is the foundational responses the Holy Bible has on people.It will make them either mad] sad] or glad]depending on the outlook of your life.

yes...I've been a Christian and Bible-reader long enuff to be able to reject and debunk all the stupid man-made doctrines, old and new, that stupid, crazy, or DISHONEST people have made about God and His word.

Many have the wrong attitude towards the Holy Bible.They think that they are smarter than God,and bring the Bible down to below their level and change anything thats not in their own limited unbeliving understanding.

Couldn't have described KJVOs any more succintly if I tried.



Origen did it,When he wrote the Hexapla and the 200 A.D. LXX[72].Think of the heretic,that changes the Old Testament to line up with his New Testament;and then the unbelivers that don't study God's word believingly,get sucked in to this lie;that the apostles were somehow quoting the LXX{72} Greek,and not the Hebrew.

Let's spend a little time with this stupid KJVO assertion.(NOT calling YOU stupid!)

First, please compare, in the KJV or any other valid version, Isaiah 42:7 and 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 16-20 & called SCRIPTURE in V.21. What JESUS read aloud DOES NOT MATCH the Masoretic Text from which the KJV's OT is translated, but it DOES closely match the rendering of Isaiah in the LXX. There cannot be more empirical proof that JESUS APPROVED OF USING OTHER VERSIONS. In fact, FEW OT quotes found in the NT match the Masoretic text, but most DO match the LXX.

When they don't match, there can be only a few possibilities. Whaddya think?

Now, what did the AV translators think of the LXX?

"While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; [See S.August.lib.12. contra Faust.c.32.] then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient.

But when the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then, lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language), even of Ptolomy Philadelph, King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.

This is the translation of the Seventy interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.

For the Grecians, being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common.

Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the colonies, which thither they had sent.

For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.

Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by."

(To The Reader, AV 1611)

There are the words of the very men who made your fave version. Do you believe them only as far as they agree with your myth? Did those who made the KJVO myth know more about the KJV than those who MADE it?

So now anything goes,PREFERENCE all the way,change the Book,when it don't make sense.Don't dare study believingly,or you may believe what God said in his word about his word.

That's right, KJVOs...Don't study believingly or ya may find out that the KJV DOESN'T SUPPORT THE MAN-MADE MYTH ABOUT ITSELF WHATSOEVER!

I'm not here to verify this person or that person nor myself,only the LORD Jesus Christ and him crucified and the very words of God.

So why do you revile His word when it's not in your fave version?

No person is infalible so YOU better not quote any other person too,even yourself.Thats your logic to its conclusion.Pretty silly don't you think?

SOME people are less-fallible than others...and some are more susceptible to man-made myths & lies than others. True or false?

Lets get off this MYTH issue.You lie every time you say it.

DO I?

MYTH: an unfounded or false notion(Definition 2-B, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Fits KJVO to a "T". It's an unfounded (absolutely NO Scriptural support), false(proven many times) notion. Therefore, it's a MYTH.



I could say the very same of you.But that is not my present style.But you may force me to do it if you persist in your rantings.

Go right ahead...You'll lose.

You,yourself have been shown to be out to lunch,by your own words,here.[/i]

HAVE I?

I've presented FACTS, while YOU'VE presented a lotta GUESSES.


But I still like your posts;I believe you are genuine.Who has hurt you?Why are you so angry at a simple Bible believer?

I'm not angry at you at all...But I AM at war, as God commanded, against the KJVO myth & all other false, man-made doctrines invented by latter-day Pharisees who then try to inject them into our worship.


Did you think that if you could discredit Dr.Ruckman and Gail Riplinger and the like, that you would shake my faith in the Bible?

Rucky & The Ripper discredit themselves by their own words. Remember, I've only QUOTED THEIR OWN WORDS, especially those of Rucky. And I've provided the SOURCES, so you may check for yourself, if you wish, to see if I've quoted correctly, and not ripped anything out of context, or only made HALF-quotes, as Riplinger does.And I'm not trying to shake anyone's faith in the Bible; I'm merely discrediting a foolish false doctrine built up around one certain version of the Bible, and such CHARLATANS as those listed above who are interested only in SELLING BOOKS, even if they must LIE about the Bible in order to do it..


Is this your stratedgy.Well it didn't work.Never will,because I have come to the place of permanent confident faith in God and his words for me.

So have I...and I seek to OBEY God and war against stupid, man-made false doctrines and myths about His word.


Don't forget,I don't condemn you for using other versions;I do myself.But I only believe one.
You can believe your other versions all you want,it's a free world.But just because I actually believe the Holy Bible,you think that I am out to lunch?Good grief.

I believe the Holy Bible also, as found in several versions. I have a solid Scriptural foundation for doing so, while the Onlyist(any version) has nothing but the pronouncements of men, some of them not even Christian. For example, the KJVO myth was started by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST preacher/teacher/official who was hardly a Christian by any stretch. He placed the same value on the writings of Ellen Gould White as he did Scripture. And YOU dare subscribe to a doctrine from such an UNgodly source?

I have a Bible that I believe.I promote it,and I am villified?Good grief.

We vilify the man-made myth built up around it.

All these guys thinking that I must check every sentence of every person that is in the same camp as I,are asking too much.
Please,before you do that,stop being the hypocrite and take your own medicine.Make sure to read everything by Westcott and Hort,And all the university professors out there that are Bible critics.

Much of it, I HAVE. And also, I've read the works of Ruckman, Riplinger, Moorman, Watkins, Grady, Reagan, Marrs, Gipp, Cloud, Waite, Hills, Hyles, and a bunch more KJVOs....and checked out every assertion any of'em have made, using neutral sources, and some NOT so neutral, such as the AV 1611. That ORIGINAL KJV destroys many of the false doctrines built around its later editions, which conveniently leave out the PREFACE, and most of the translators' notes.

Took a lotta time. But YOU have the advantage of using the Net, which I didn't have while doing my work over 20 years ago.

The truth is,we all can only do what we can do.Some have a greater ability to do these things others not;some have financial restrictions,and Computer skill deficiencies,yet others,time plays a big part.Some is just interest.Some are interested in some things and some are not.We can't be pushing everyone into our own little molds.And this is what we all do to a degree when we become a bit vocal at times.Sometimes it is warranted by scriptures,and other times,maybe not.

We all do what we can do.

I am in no way shape or form trying to mold you against your own will.Just showing you things about the Holy Bible.If you don't like it,you don't have to stay.I would rather talk to someone that is hungry for the truth than to give in to endless arguments with the arguer himself.

But when you promote the KJV as the ONLY valid English Bible version, YOU'RE WRONG, plain and simple! You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF for your assertion! NONE!

Didn't you think it strange that I don't talk to you many times.That's because I feel you are forcing yourself in.

Actually, it's because you often have NO ANSWER against the FACTS I've presented against your guesswork.

Example: The KJVO asserts, "Psalms 12:6-7 say God preserves His words". This is found in almost every KJVO publication, following the old Wilkinson/Ray/Fuller KJVO "party line" of misinformation, poor research, and outright LIES.

FACT: The AV 1611 has this marginal note for v.7..."Heb.himI. euery one of them". The Geneva Bible reads"him" in V.7.So much for their "words" argument.What makes that little KJVO thingie so hilarious and OUTRIGHT STUPID is that no one argues that God didn't preserve His words, and that there are several verses that state that fact outright. It wasn't at all nacessary to TWIST a Scripture to help promote their stupid myth. Even if those verses WERE about God's words, there's not the SLIGHTEST HINT of their being preserved only in one version in a language that didn't exist until over 2000 years after david wrote Psalms.

People are pro or anti,but we still can be siblings,don't you think?

In most manners, YES, & you can use any version(s) you wish. But if/when you promote the false KJVO myth again, or any other known false doctrine, I will oppose ti, God Willing. You can COUNT on it.

And I insist I've presented FACTS against KJVO GUESSWORK. Can you disprove my little example above, concerning Psalms 12:6-7?

 

[Peter A V]

[Quote robycop3; Took a lotta time. But YOU have the advantage of using the Net, which I didn't have while doing my work over 20 years ago.
QUOTE]
Actually,I just started on the computer myself.Oct 04.
So,just as adamant you are that you think you just might be right and you simply guess that I am wrong,I also have studied myself,hands on,pouring over book after book,Alexandrian,and KJV'ers.KJV wins hands down every time for they have the Book.
The book is not a myth.Your assertions are the myth.

You can't prove one error in the Book if you tried your whole life.Have a good day now.

 

[Peter A V]

To prove something to someone that already has his mind made up,is rediculous.Especially when they are believing a MYTH,a man made myth,of no preserved Text.But nevertheless,I thought you might like to see this one by Jack Moorman.PS 12:6,7
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm
Hope this helps you.

 

[Peter A V]

Here is another one by Pastor Mark Oaks.
So there is a case for both arguments. Can we find a tie-breaker? Yes, at least two.

http://www.bibleword.org/preservation.htm

 

[Peter A V]

Then there is John Hinton Ph.D. From Harvard.
He heads Bible Restoration Ministries.
Here is his take on Ps 12:6,7;there are actually 2 articles on it.
This is the second one.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/Psalm-12-Part-2-verse-7.html