You are likely blind to your own behavior towards others and I have seen this before. First you say there was no personal attack and the very next sentence is a personal attack.
It is
not a personal attack to point out that a person's argument is fallacious or illogical.
You do not prove any of the charges but simply say my position is illogical and irrational.
I did prove it and I cannot figure out how you cannot understand the simple logic of it.
You have not shown any fallacy but merely state it is there.
I have shown it, twice, and even pointed out once already that I have shown it twice.
You are also unaware that the NIV removed many verses that would have made the passage understandable or giving important information to the believer.
Again, as I have stated numerous times, this is the fallacy of begging the question. You being with the assumption (a premise) that the verses are supposed to be there to begin with and then conclude that the verses are supposed to be there and are missing from the NIV. You have not at all shown or proven that those verses are supposed to be there in the first place, that they were most likely in the original autographs.
My feelings (trusting or not) are not to be discussed.
Why not? If you do trust the NIV, then why do you keep insisting that 1) it is has removed verses speaking of the deity of Christ, and 2) added words or missing words that change the meaning of the text? That language you use points only to mistrust of the NIV. If you would just answer the simple questions put to you, as is a part of normal discourse and debate, this would be much easier for everyone.
The oldest manuscripts are not necessarily the best. The corrupting of the Word of God was already begun in the early church.
And, so, newer manuscripts are somehow better? This is not a good argument at all.
If you want to argue that because "corrupting of the Word of God was already begun in the early church," that "The oldest manuscripts are not necessarily the best,"
then that means the newer manuscripts
must still be worse than the earlier manuscripts.
If they started out being corrupted, they
cannot get better over time.
There is no evidence that "mistakes" were accumulated over thousand of years of copying other what punctuation.
That is your opinion, provided without proof, over against the opinion of experts which I quoted.
There is actually only the received text, not 1000s of years of copying.
Yes, 1000's of years of copying. The RT is based on relatively scant manuscript evidence (as compared to the amount of manuscript evidence we now have), which is from 1000's of years of copying. The RT
is not some sort of single copy of the original autographs.
Again, if one looks at these "mistakes" eliminated in the NIV they are clear evidence of the goal of those editing them out.
And, yet, again, this is your opinion for which you have provided no evidence.
So you do not believe that christians quoted the scriptures and do not care if they did.
No, that is not at all what I said. I don't even know how you could come to that conclusion when all I asked was, "Which verses and where do the church fathers mention them?".
Their quotes show that they were in the original writings. What you offer is no evidence of the original writings since we do not have them. The verses missing were in the originals and were quoted by others.
I asked for evidence of this and you avoided answering, again, preferring to personally attack instead. Why is that? Why have you continually ignored questions being asked of you to support your position?
Rev 22
KJV Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
NIV Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
In the NIV they used the right soap, I guess. It makes no sense that those who wash their robes have the right to the tree of life. There are more examples.
It makes no sense? Perhaps you should do a little more study in Revelation:
Rev 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me,
What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, T
hese are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. (KJV)
Rev 22:14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.(NIV)
And here is from M. R. Vincent's
Word Studies in the New Testament:
That do His commandments (οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ)
Read οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν
they that wash their robes. Compare Rev 7:14.
So, not only is an expert in Greek is saying that the translation should be exactly as the NIV has it, it is quite easy to see that Rev 22:14 is perfectly consistent with Rev 7:14 in the NIV.
You personally attack others and I have noticed this before but you are unaware of this. Again, in the above last sentence you attack me personally by saying I do not trust. This is me personally, not my argument.
Perhaps you should treat others how you want to be treated and not say that someone doesn't care if Christians quoted Scripture.
