this is the final part of the refutation on Sam gipps attempts to uphold a dead tradition, which seeks to deny modern translations and to rise the king James bible all most to the point of it being a perfect word of GOD
STATEMENT 6
there is your coffee (no thanks) its your coffee right (its ruined) exactly you go into a book store and see a selection of bible translations -- your not seeing a selection, your only seeing 2
you see the king James -- from Antioch .. through the textus receptus to the king James
you see every other translation --- from Alexandria to the critical text to every other translation
ANSWER
again we see much more confusion in Sam's beliefs
this coffee analogy does not work for the simple reason that it is false .. when people use analogies like this it show they have no case .. there is no proof that new translation are corrupt .. Muslims can not prove it, neither can Sam
so when you get a claim that a translation is inspired .. and that translation actually has little evidence to make the claim stand ... it is based on 7 manuscripts from some 15 centuries after the time of Jesus -- this proves a faith which is not biblical or realistic
the reason for the critical editions is a necessity as to give us a more intimate knowledge of the bible in terms of the textual manuscript tradition , and not the other intimate connect whereby we grow in faith through the study of the word of God .. both are very crucial, but work to different areas -- as i have mention in the previous article .. the textus receptus is based off of the king James readings and not the other way around
the faith that Sam carries in this tradition is what is classed as "blind faith and empty wishful thinking" which means his belief system is based on shaky evidence and has no solid historical foundation
while no translation is the perfect word of God since none are the original .. there are many fine translations .. like king James, e.s.v, Holman's christian bible, n.i.v, the new century bible and also the Geneva bible to name just a few
and to demonise all lines of manuscript over that of the kingjames based manuscripts is foolish and dangerous to the faith since you are rapidly coming to a point where manuscripts don't matter .. so what will be the ultimate foundation .. think of what the Muslims do .. they say the manuscripts don't take a high priority, since the oral side is what makes their case ..
STATEMENT 7
you can lead someone to Christ by showing them 20 verses, when i lead someone to Christ .. i show 12 verses -- what do you think is in the rest of this (kingjames bible) growth .. you can grow because it is not corrupted, where as that one (n i v) is corrupted
(can you show me where it is corrupted) oh yeah, i can there are 16 verse taken out from the niv and modern translations -- but i don't want you to except the king James because i say so, i just want want you to accept it has mistake because someone else says so
alright -- you are making some one else your authority
ANSWER
here we have a double stand at play ... he says "but i don't want you to except the king James because i say so, i just want want you to accept it has mistake because someone else says so" -- by this he is in reality making himself an authority over every other translation ... since he is trying to get this person to believe what he says
knowing this brand of k j o,s are the worse .. and don't listen to reason .. and deny the translater own claims that i have stated above .. about the need of further translation when the evidence comes out for us to know -- he like the rest are pedalling a tradition, nothing, nothing less
he one assertion that the modern day bible removed some passages and verses .. due to evidence does not hold water .. since they are not in the earliest manuscripts and like originate from the mid 15th -16th century -- and mostly commentary note on existing passage from the long ending of make and 1 john 5 :7 .. the only passage that is hard to know where it came from is john 8 :1-11 -- since there are many theories but not any real substantial links to a period
so the claim of corruption is an empty one since he like the rest of these type can prove king james is the inspired word of God .. nor can they prove that above mentioned verses are authentic to the original .. and they certainly cant prove modern day bible are perversions
