John UK wrote: If you take a Bible, let's say, the KJV, and you compare it with, let's say, the NIV, there is no doubt there are a multitude of differences. Some verses found in one are not found in the other. There is a simple conclusion to make concerning this: They cannot both be correct. And I believe it is important to know which one is incorrect.
Likewise by your logic:
"If you take any one of 5000 majority text NT manuscripts, and you compare it with another, there is no doubt there are a multitude of differences. There is a simple conclusion to make concerning this: They cannot both be correct. And you must likewise believe it is important to know which one is incorrect."
John UK wrote: No-one can say that a translation is wrong unless they have the greek text to compare. This is why I say that "faith" is very involved. And observation of what God blesses.
This is inconsistent with your constant berating of unauthorised versions for being different. You seem to have held that a great number of translations are wrong.
I hold to the majority text, but it is evident that God has blessed even the usage of alexandrian texts. But (on the basis of the plain teaching of scripture) I certainly would NOT make evident blessing the basis for an assumption of inerrancy.
John UK wrote: Another fact is that no-one can prove anything about "the Bible" because there are no autographs extant.
Disagree profoundly. What happened to your inerrancy?
And there is much to be gleaned and learned from good scholarship!
John UK wrote: I am not a greek scholar, and need not be one, because I have an English version of the Bible which God has set his seal on.
I am not a greek scholar either John, nor is that relevant to the question.
Your own rejection of other versions is that they are based upon different texts. Again, different to what? What is your inerrant source greek NT text that underpins your inerrant version? TTTTR was written in English perhaps that will help you locate it.
John UK wrote: Ah, good evening Kirk. Tell me first, is there a difference between "inerrant" and "absolutely inerrant"? Thank you.
Still procrastinating I see John.
You tell me your own semantic interpretation and let's move forward in examining your double standard from there. And if you don't know your own mind then please ask William Riley and we can use his definition.
John UK wrote: Alas for you, pauvre dab. You say, "answer the question" but you never asked a question. Now that is weird and just plain fatuous. Also, you appear out of nowhere, expecting to debate a point, without any introduction, or "hello everybody". For all I know you might be a papish lunatic or a liberal anglican. But if you have no ear to hear, then I can do nothing for you but leave you in the hands of Almighty God, hoping that tonight he will speak to you and bring you to faith in his Son, because if you "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, thou shalt be saved." Acts 16:31. Notwithstanding, if you wish to reply, I shall be tuning in again tomorrow night to see if you have made an apology. It is midnight nearly here, and I have to be up early for work.
Quit your procrastination and answer the question. Your argument hinges upon you having a single greek text.
John UK wrote: My dear old thing. Obviously you do not understand yet how The Received Text got its name. But I am prepared to tell you if you have ears to hear. But first I would like to know if you are a Christian, and how you came to be one if you are. Then I would like to know if you regard any greek text as the inspired and inerrant word of God. If so, please name it. Then we may proceed.