[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by kjvisit

I don't understand what the Niagara document has to do with this discussion.... I don't know why those verses do not apply to this discussion? ... Using extra-biblical evidences (i.e., Strong's numbers or Greek lexicons) leaves you vulnerable.

The Niagara document and the refutation of its weaknesses was all "extra-biblical evidences". And by your standards such issues should not be discussed, and false assertions should not be refuted, and your eyes should not have been opened. What applies for discussions about Niagara documents is equivalent to what you believe is true for false Greek and Hebrew assertions. (They should not be refuted, the modern version deceivers should simply have the field to themselves to deceive the unwary.)

Originally Posted by kjvisit

The above post would be summarily dismissed by skeptics.

This was an orphan comment, if it was addressed to me. Above, Tim was very properly and correctly showing the abject failure of one particular "go to the Greek" argument that is often falsely used to try to assert King James Bible imperfection. He was even helping the other poster to do his own homework to discover the truth. Perhaps you were not quite following.

kjvisit, I posted on the main skeptics forum and refuted their Bible modern-version-based nonsense for years until they finally booted me. (This experience was a major influence in solidifying my convictions that the King James Bible is the pure word of God.) The posts are still available on the net, such as the early church writer evidences for the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera and the Johannine Comma. And refuting various claims of 'Bible error' against Mark and Matthew and Luke and more that were actually only modern version alexandrian corruptions. So I have some real-world understanding of how they debate and handle their forums.

kjvisit, in line with your comment above .. how much actual discussion in depth have you had sharing with the skeptic crowd, and sharing with the readers of their forums ? Can you point us to your discussions ? Since you assert that you have a superior methodology, that presumably works well in practice, and as you also strain to claim that my approach to defending the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God is unscriptural -- I would like to peruse your real-world activities for comparison. Perhaps they will show me a better way.

Shalom,
Steven