What you don't know is that without these origianls, one cannot make any real conclusions about "inspiration" and these manuscripts.
Logical "Non sequitur"
If this was so then ALL the "scholars might as well go golfing, for this is what they attempt to do, reconstruct the Original Text! If your statement was true, it makes this impossible. Therefore, left to stand, you just decimated the "scholars" and your own arguments for Textual Criticism - text reconstruction at one fell swoop!.
With Thousands of copies of copies of copies that agree in toto, we surely can make real conclusions about the text.
Once again, Kevin, you have not bothered to read my post. In you last sentence, above, you speak of "real conclusions about the text." Go back to my post and try to find that as a subject. My comments were about "inspiration" and nothing else. Conclusions about INSPIRATION, Kevin. When we pretend to know that inspiration is verbal and plenary from text other than the originals, we use circular logic. And since you reject all textual criticism other than that used by the 54 "greatest scholars of all time" in their revision of the Bishop Bible, much of you commenting to Bill is useless chatter. My comments makes scholarship all the more important. Yours, when you are not trying to win the argument, accomplish exactly the opposite.
Jd
