Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos
I didn't say the original autographs only were inspired. I am a KJVO, but not a lunatic one like you. You are the one who says only the original KJV autographs were inspired and only the non-existent pure Cambridge text.
|
Why do people, when presented with Matthew's position, tend to make up entirely false positions and attribute them to him?
You have clearly not researched Matthew's position well -- as I understand his position, he believes that even if we had access to the original penned KJV transcripts that they would not be useful in determining the purest presentation of the KJV.
I can fully understand disagreeing with Matthew that there exists a completely perfect presentation of the KJV, but to call him a lunatic for believing literally that no jot or tittle will pass speaks volumes of his accusers. That kind of faith is not lunacy.