Quote:
Originally Posted by George
This man ("solabiblia") has chosen to follow the road to apostasy - he would rather believe that a Bible believing scribe would " insert" words (ADD) into the Holy Text, than believe, the more likely scenario, that a Bible " corrector" (much like himself) would take words (SUBTRACT) out of the Holy Text, with which he didn't agree! 
Think about that! WHO is more likely to CHANGE (or ADD or SUBTRACT) from the Holy words of God - People like most of us on this Forum (i.e. genuine Bible believers - WHO believe in the FINAL AUTHORITY of God's word) or people like "solabiblia" and "greektim" (Bible correctors - WHO have NO FINAL AUTHORITY other than their OWN OPINIONS)?  |
Why is a theory based on deletion any more valid than a theory based on insertion through textual tenacity?
We all agree that the witness of the Biblical texts shows remarkable tenacity. If you were to approach the subject without presuppositions, would you not conclude that the copyists would be more likely to expand the text than to delete passages?
What if you were not a KJO? Would you still be able to assert that no insertions took place, only deletions? How would you defend such a position?