Absolutely correct except for one thing ------- Kevin does not believe this and so he is stuck with the KJV.
DAH I was the one who first posted it
No matter what I do you must misrepresent me.
I argue for the KJV
The others are based on the Wescott Hort Corrupt text if the foundation is corrupt I do not care how exact the translation of that corrupt text is
You end up with guess what a corrupt new bible that says Ellahan killed Goliath!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/3/2005 5:50:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Absolutely correct except for one thing ------- Kevin does not believe this and so he is stuck with the KJV. If he truly believe in the value of textual criticism, he would not argue for the inspiration of the KJV and disregard all the others. But my point remains. Without the originals, conclusions written in stone concerning them are circular in nature and only acceptable to those who want to believe in their "inerrancy."
As Kevin has pointed out, the agreement between all the copies verifies the authenticity of the originals. This is only hard to understand if you are wishing to deny the authenticity of the Word. Izzy
JD
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
