"You claim to have found "errors" in the KJV, then deny talking about translations, just the Greek text."

With regard the GK text that was of course specific to Rev 17:4.

Bringing both errors in TR AND KJV is relevant to Rev 20!!

Surely this is easy enough to understand.

"What on earth are you doing, giving lectures on the Textus Receptus, when you don't believe it is accurate?"

again this is just silly, have you ever heard a Christian lecture or preach about Mormonism? Islam, JW, Arminianism?

By the way I think TR is a good critical text considering the very small amounts of mss they had to work with. It does however has faults, I would just like you to be honest enough to admit it!!

with regards conjectural emendation, this happens in very very few cases, but as I showed earlier, sometimes Erasmus did this consulting the Vulgate when he wasn't satisfied with the GK, which is why there are errors in the TR and the KJV.

I did a lecture on the TR because I was asked to!

I asked again John, please be honest with us and yourself, are there errors in the TR?
What do you think about Rev 20:12?
this is also missing from your 'no demonstrable errors' propaganda page!

You do understand I am talking about GK texts? not English translations, both translations are adequete, although the word impure should be there instead of 'Filth'. The question is whether there is a mistake in the TR, now please answer the question, should the word ακαθαρτητος be in the TR? It is clear that Erasmus the great Roman Catholic scholar invented this word, which is found in no GK text, so I ask again is the TR in error here?

Please do not skirt around the question!!

With regards Rev 17:4, doesn't it bother you that the word in the TR ακαθαρτητος was invented by Erasmus, and is found nowhere else in GK? The word should be ἀκάθαρτα, every GK mss of all text types has ἀκάθαρτα.
Now is the word Erasmus invented, weightier than all the extant GK mss?

If you say yes you prove yourself to be superstitions to a high degree, if you say no, then you admit that the TR is not without error, I ask you which one will it be?

"ἀκαθάρτης, ητος, ἡ uncleanness τ. πορνείας Rv 17:4 t.r., a reading composed by Erasmus. The word does not otherwise exist"

Definitely not c!!! as it has been proved not to have happened!!

Where are( ACTS 9:6 Is the worst argument I have ever read, if someone argued like this from a modern translation they would be slaughtered)Rev 17:4, 20:12 on
this list? conveniently not there.

Of course not, but what does this have to do with anything?

I do preach "uninspired" sermons pray "uninspired" prayers, and sing "uninspired songs" I also sing psalms, like the biblical witnesses I am inclusive psalmody but not exclusive psalmody!

Must go now and prepare for Sunday, good night, please think upon these things!

The fact that we have the book of psalms no more ties us to that book in our singing than it does in our praying, remember the psalms are primarily prayers, before they are songs.

With regards the WCF and RP, I think you are mistakenly treating the RP and EP as synonyms, they are not!!

I hold to the regulative Principle, but this principle rightly states that only what is commanded in scripture should be brought into our worship, the problem for you is that scripture nowhere commands EP! In fact scripture by inference shows EP to be unbiblical.

The verse stated below have absolutely nothing to do with singing only psalms in our worship to God!

15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

I am sure you are making sense in your own mind, but I am afraid that is the only place.

Are you saying that the verses quoted, are injunctions to pray as we like, but we are elsewhere commanded to sing only inspired words?

Please show me the commanded, or allusion to "thou shalt sing only the 150 psalms"

With regards Spiritual fingers, I am not sure how that works ontologically, but even if this is metaphorical (and I am not saying it is) are the beings and elders metaphorically sinning?

And what about the new song?

This is clearly not a psalm!

I believe we need balance in this argument,
as with the other elements of worship; prayer, preaching, and singing, should be biblical, but like Edwards I do not see any injunction to sing only bible.

?????????????

You make no sense!!

"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”

Above we have true spiritual, perfect, sinless worship in Heaven, they are not singing from the pslater, they are playing music!

Yes the bible in inerrant in all it teaches!

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

I believe the best translation in the Vulgar tongue is the ESV I believe the KJV is very good but but inferior to the ESV NASB NKJ etc

So it accurately reflects the context, but surely the more important question is whether it accurately translates the inspired text!!!

'do thy diligence to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.'

Does this not also fit the context???

The stress here is on the rightly dividing and not on the 'study' or 'diligence'

what utter nonsense, the same word is not translated as study in the other passages, what on earth are you talking about? "Proper readers???? first we have a proper bible , now proper readers???
This is getting more and more gnostic!

The root word for study is μανθάνω which both TR and NA have in Jn 7:15.

I laughed when I saw this, considering the fact that the word 'study' isn't in the text. In both the TR and the older GK text the same word σπουδασον is used, it appears 4 times in the GK text of the TR and is translated by the kj translators in the other three places as 'Do thy diligence' 2Tim 4:9 2Tim 4:21 Titus 3:12. Only in 2Tim2:15 is it translated as 'study' now I ask in which instance did they get it wrong?

Thankfully the ESV translated it consistently as 'Do your best'