Kirk wrote:
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.

Here is my scripture as to what scripture is for:

2 Timothy 3:15-16 KJV
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

1. To make people wise unto salvation through faith in Christ.
2. True doctrine.
3. Reproof of sin.
4. Correction of manners and conversation.
5. Instruction in righteousness.

Now if a Bible, ANY Bible, does these things, then it is the word of God, as explained by the translators of the KJV in their TTTR document.

John UK wrote:
Ah, good evening Kirk.
Tell me first, is there a difference between "inerrant" and "absolutely inerrant"? Thank you.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
You mean... blah blah blah woffle woffle woffle...

Now then Jim, what does Doug Kutilek say to that, eh?

Or is he like you, a KJV Basher?

If he and you are consistent, you would bash not only the KJV but all the other modern versions which have "it", in referring to "the dove". But then, that wouldn't fit in with your devilish scheme to attack only the KJV. I wonder why that is. Oh I know, it is because the KJV is the inerrant and inspired word of God, according to the translation team, unlike the modern versionists who ALL claim that the Bible you hold in your hand CANNOT be trusted in its entirety.

It's time for both you and your church to return to the one Bible you can trust, the most excellent, inspired and inerrant KJV.

Ah, good evening Kirk.

John UK wrote:
Sure the KJV is inerrant and wholly trustworthy.

And John testified, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him."

Which modern Bible was that from, Jim?

It compares nicely with the greatest Bible ever in English:

Jim Lincoln wrote:
the New Testament of the NIV, i.e., 1984 earlier is an accurate reprsentation of what God said

We do agree on one thing John UK, the New Testament of the NIV, i.e., 1984 earlier is an accurate reprsentation of what God said, while the KJV was made up by man, just as it's kissing cousin the New World Translation. Both are heretical Bibles.

Doug Kutilek wrote:
And I could write at length of the KJV's fourfold reference to the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, as "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11), which in my opinion comes little short, if indeed it comes short at all, of blasphemy. Baptist theologian Emery Bancroft ascribed this horrid translation to Socinian influence among the KJV translators (see Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8). The Socinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit was roughly the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation--alone of modern Bible versions--also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it.". . . .

Kirk wrote:
Pathetic. Good night.

Oh and if you want to know why I mentioned a "different" greek text, the answer really is very simple. You don't even need to know any greek. This is how it goes:

The NT KJV is different from the NT NIV. Vastly different! Therefore we must say that either the translators did not do their job very well, OR they were translated from a different greek text or texts. I go for the latter, how 'bout you?

Think about it, and you'll be just fine.

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.

Kirk wrote:
Quit your procrastination and answer the question. Your argument hinges upon you having a single greek text.

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.

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.

Kirk wrote:
Different implies a standard greek text to compare to. You do not have one and defeat your own argument.

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.

John UK wrote:
Good questions, eh Jim?

John UK wrote:
They have succumbed to the papish plot of supplying a different greek text which was developed from mss called the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

William Riley wrote:
Is the King James Version absolutely inerrant?

Old Macdonald wrote:
Is the NASB absolutely inerrant?

Uncle Tom Cobbley wrote:
Is the NIV absolutely inerrant?

After all, if our Bible is full of errors like the atheists say, we might as well pack up and become Quakers, who get their revelations directly from God, inerrant and inspired.

Say, if someone reckons they are aware of errors in a Bible, why don't they just rectify them and produce a perfect Bible without errors?

Well Jim, the reason is, because they don't know if there are any more errors which they don't know about. Now I'm talking about "they", but you know who "they" are, don't you?

Sure, "they" are the Bible corrupters, the modern critical "scholars" who have accepted Westcott and Hort into their bosom and fallen into the pit of unbelief. They have succumbed to the papish plot of supplying a different greek text which was developed from mss called the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Now then, think "Vaticanus"! Remind you of anything, eh Jim?

Sure the KJV is inerrant and wholly trustworthy.

Psalms 22
9 Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts.
10 Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb.---NASB

Russ, I see where you are coming from, but any excuse to get a Bible in someone's, is that bad? It's what's in the Bible that's secret, not some some book. Here is what a pastor at the turn of the 20th century said,

William Bell Riley wrote:
Is the King James version absolutely inerrant? On this point we are inclined to think that, even unto comparatively recent years, such a theory has been entertained. The result, of course, is to make a sort of fetish of the book. That is why, in many a family, it is kept on the center-table and seldom used. They do not want to soil its sacredness….