#4) This is were I struggle.  Your answer to me regarding the TR can basically be summarized as a total down play of its importance/relevance and yet so much of your initial defense of the KJV is based on the defense and exultation of the TR.  At best, this seems like a classic case of circular reasoning......

To believe anything less would be to admit the TR is flawed and NOT, in fact, the perfectly preserved, inspired, et al, Word of God and therefore no better suited as the basis for our use than the flawed WH text.

My second and final reply:
(This is a follow-up question to question #3)

The text which has been considered the Received Text by theologians of different places and different years has not always been one and the same.  Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament.  There was a Receptus of 1516, followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. Theodore Beza published several editions himself in 1565, 1582, 1588, and 1598.  Robert Stephanus published four editions 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551.  Others include Colinaeus' Receptus of 1534, Elzevir's Receptus of 1624.

The King James Bible was not exclusively translated from the TR.  The King James is an eclectic text.  There was all known sources available to the translators at the time, including the readings of the Vatican manuscript discovered in 1481, and the Jesuit English translation of 1582.

Before the AV 1611, the Word of God was simply in formation, or better, collation.

The AV is better than the TR because it is complete and being used by God, nobody in the world speaks the language in the TR.  It is genuinely archaic!  And your argument is sound you might as well use the WH if you're not going to rest where God rested.

I hold your sincerity in question for the following reasons: 

• 1. I gave you progressive reasoning (Luke 2:52) and you called it circular.
• 2. Your arguments are "Alexandrian" not biblically based. You are caught in 2 Tim 2:23 and will not give heed to sound doctrine.
• 3. I gave you a biblical example of how Paul used the various languages that he knew. The one that speaks to the people is BEST. That's not rocket science.
• 4. I gave you a prophecy that shows you something you never knew. You are searching for an alibi not truth, deceiving your own self.
• 5. I related the Living word (Jesus Christ) to the written word and your response is that you "struggle."  God has blinded your eyes from the scripture for holding it in contempt. The TR brought the Church out of the dark ages from the Catholic church just like Jesus at 12 years old rebuked his mother "Mary" Luke 2:49. Don't you know that Mary scolded Jesus because she had been correcting, and guiding him her whole life. Does that mean Jesus was flawed; or growing? Yours or mine opinion really doesn't matter, the Bible settles the issue. Heb 5:8, 9.

The TR is a con-game for con-men.  In the King James Bible we have every "jot and tittle".  It is the completed revelation until Jesus comes back.  If you deny that you are not minding the Lord, or the facts.  You would simply be ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the TRUTH!  2 Tim 3:7.  I wonder where the "learning" comes from in that verse, do you?  By-the-way, in case you didn't know, I got saved reading the "Living Bible" and at one time preached and teached from the NIV and the TR, (with repentance of course) and was engaged in false doctrine at the same time.  I have no sympathy for someone who resists the truth for what it will cost them.  I believe your real problem is not a love for God but having to bear this reproach "without the camp" you couldn't handle the ridicule that comes with standing for the Word of God, so you pretend you don't know where it is for sure.  What you really need is prayer and courage.  You've learned all your arguments from man not the Bible.

The most liberal God hating reprobates in the last hundred years couldn't have cared less what the TR said, if you as a Christian cannot locate the right word just watch the devil he will lead you right to it.  The attack on the word of God is blatantly against the English King James Bible.  The TR would not cause the devil to bat an Eye.  (if he could, that is)

You have been dealing with slick, professional liars for so long you don't know what to believe.  Why not address your Pastor about his habitual lying problem and his double sided opinion about the Bible?  He repeatedly lies about me, Dr. Ruckman, and others with a straight face and cannot state his own position about the Bible honestly.  You keep some bad company!  Prov 29:24

Dr. Ruckman is not Pro-abortion, call him and ask him.   

If you are really interested, I will explain to you the things that have been misrepresented, like correcting the TR with the AV, but not while you show no evidence of learning, but arguing.  I've been at this a long time, and know what it is like to waste time.  Why don't you quote me some scriptures about the originals or something to help me get straightened out instead of playing the devils advocate with more questions while you ignore the plain answers that I have given? 

Pastor Steve Sumner

additional note:

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

This person was setting a trap so that no matter how I answered he would prove me a fool, kind of like a "Check" in the game of Chess.  However the word of God put him in "CHECK MATE" in his first question so he pretended that he was not stuck in the mud while he slipped all his gears before damaging his fly wheel, as is always the case!    

Next Question