The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

[Dr. Jack]

The Bible is the collection of Scripture into a Canon. So for most practical purposes in the modern day there's no difference to speak of. But historically it's an important distinction to make.

-CryptoLutheran

You stated above:

Further, the Bible isn't "the words of God". The Bible is that collection of holy and, by the historic confession of the holy Christian Church, divinely inspired set of writings which have been received and accepted down through the ages; as those works which are to be read aloud in the Church's sacred liturgy in order for the Faithful to hear, receive, and confess the word of God.

When Jesus said,
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Matthew
Was He not speaking of the written words of the OT?

Should we not then conclude that the written words of the NT (given by inspiration of God), should also be referred to as Scripture? And is this not the content of the Bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You stated above:

When Jesus said,
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Matthew
Was He not speaking of the written words of the OT?

Should we not then conclude that the written words of the NT (given by inspiration of God), should also be referred to as Scripture? And is this not the content of the Bible?

I don't believe I've suggested that the New Testament isn't Scripture. And yes, Christ was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dr. Jack]

I don't believe I've suggested that the New Testament isn't Scripture. And yes, Christ was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you consider the Scriptures to be the "words of God"?

 

[Dr. Jack]

Maybe you need to study the origin of Textual Criticism, and people like Johann Semler.

I find it interesting that even Dr. James White who has made an abundance of videos, and written against the KJV only position, and also knows Greek rather well, believes the NIV is practically a joke. He does say that it in no way qualifies to be a Bible.

The NIV abuses Bible doctrine horribly!

Here is an important issue you must face. It is Textual Critics that make the claim that Semler was absolutely a key figure in the development of Textual Criticism. Hence, it is then necessary to examine what Semler's position was in regards to the Scriptures. It doesn't take long to realize that because of his philosophy concerning the Scriptures (not all being Divinely inspired, nor Divinely authoritative), that led him to develop a critical methodology to detect―and remove―the time-bound content of the New Testament. (Those texts which he felt were neither inspired, nor authoritative.)

While at Halle, Griesbach became one of Semler's greatest students; and as we know, Griesbach developed many of the major rules that govern Textual Criticism. These rules, along with the rules of Bengel, and Hort; were the governing rules that led the translators of the Revised Version of 1881 (under the direction of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1870) to produce not only a 'supposed' edition of the AV, but the production of an entirely new Greek Text based upon only a few Greek MSS, namely Aleph, and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus respectively).

 

[Dr. Jack]

Maybe you need to find out what Textual Criticism actually is.



And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting what James what says. He says nothing like that at all. In fact, in The King James Only Controversy, he writes very positively about the NIV.



And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting the NIV. Once again, what you say is completely false.

Here is an important issue you must face. It is Textual Critics that make the claim that Semler was absolutely a key figure in the development of Textual Criticism. Hence, it is then necessary to examine what Semler's position was in regards to the Scriptures. It doesn't take long to realize that because of his philosophy concerning the Scriptures (not all being Divinely inspired, nor Divinely authoritative), that led him to develop a critical methodology to detect―and remove―the time-bound content of the New Testament. (Those texts which he felt were neither inspired, nor authoritative.)

While at Halle, Griesbach became one of Semler's greatest students; and as we know, Griesbach developed many of the major rules that govern Textual Criticism. These rules, along with the rules of Bengel, and Hort; were the governing rules that led the translators of the Revised Version of 1881 (under the direction of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1870) to produce not only a 'supposed' edition of the AV, but the production of an entirely new Greek Text based upon only a few Greek MSS, namely Aleph, and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus respectively).

 

[Dr. Jack]

Maybe you need to find out what Textual Criticism actually is.



And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting what James what says. He says nothing like that at all. In fact, in The King James Only Controversy, he writes very positively about the NIV.



And here you are absolutely and totally misrepresenting the NIV. Once again, what you say is completely false.

Here is an important issue you must face. It is Textual Critics that make the claim that Semler was absolutely a key figure in the development of Textual Criticism. Hence, it is then necessary to examine what Semler's position was in regards to the Scriptures. It doesn't take long to realize that because of his philosophy concerning the Scriptures (not all being Divinely inspired, nor Divinely authoritative), that led him to develop a critical methodology to detect―and remove―the time-bound content of the New Testament. (Those texts which he felt were neither inspired, nor authoritative.)

While at Halle, Griesbach became one of Semler's greatest students; and as we know, Griesbach developed many of the major rules that govern Textual Criticism. These rules, along with the rules of Bengel, and Hort; were the governing rules that led the translators of the Revised Version of 1881 (under the direction of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1870) to produce not only a 'supposed' edition of the AV, but the production of an entirely new Greek Text based upon only a few Greek MSS, namely Aleph, and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus respectively).

 

[Radagast]

that led him to develop a critical methodology to detect―and remove―the time-bound content of the New Testament

This is not what Textual Criticism is about.

 

[Dr. Jack]

This is not what Textual Criticism is about.

Textual Criticism stemmed out of German Rationalism. You have bought into the story that Textual Criticism was (and is) as you say, about determining the "original text of the autographa; but what you apparently haven't studied is just how Textual Criticism developed, and I get the feeling, you have no desire to do so.

Years ago, (whe I was researching the history of the KJ, I got to a place where I had to confess to the Lord that I may not like what I found. It was at that point that I surrendered to God to allow me to find, and accept the truth, no matter what.

I studied the history of Semler, Griesbach, Hort, and others, that brought me right up to the present day of Dr. Bruce Metzger.

You present what Textual Criticism says it does in "Lower Criticism", but the real driving force of Textual Criticism is higher Criticism which deals with the authorship of the text, and whether or not with text is actually Scripture. That was the real purpose behind producing the rules of Textual Criticism.

Can you present evidence to the contrary? Because I have much that I can present to show exactly what Semler believed, by his own pen.

 

[Radagast]

Textual Criticism stemmed out of German Rationalism.

You keep feeding us versions of the genetic fallacy.

The rules of modern Textual Criticism are what they are. They need to be evaluated on their own terms.

but the real driving force of Textual Criticism is higher Criticism which deals with the authorship of the text

Textual Criticism and so-called "Higher Criticism" are two totally different things. The rules of Textual Criticism do not involve "Higher Criticism," the generally accepted Greek New Testament with apparatus was not developed using "Higher Criticism," and Evangelical scholars doing Textual Criticism do not believe in "Higher Criticism."

What you are giving us is a slanderous form of "guilt by association."

Because I have much that I can present to show exactly what Semler believed, by his own pen.

I really don't care what Semler believed.

 

[Dr. Jack]

You keep feeding us versions of the genetic fallacy.

The rules of modern Textual Criticism are what they are. They need to be evaluated on their own terms.



Textual Criticism and so-called "Higher Criticism" are two totally different things. The rules of Textual Criticism do not involve "Higher Criticism," the generally accepted Greek New Testament with apparatus was not developed using "Higher Criticism," and Evangelical scholars doing Textual Criticism do not believe in "Higher Criticism."

What you are giving us is a slanderous form of "guilt by association."



I really don't care what Semler believed.

Dr. Bruce Metzger, writing to Dr. Kirt D. DiVietro testified that the text they founded their work on was that of Westcott and Hort. He wrote, “We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence.”

This shows that right into the 20th century Metzger held in high regard the work of Hort. Hence, your assertion of a genetic fallacy are worthless. The rules of Textual Criticism were produced for the purpose of getting rid of what some believed to be uninspired writ.

Those rules, like it or not, are still used today.

 

[Radagast]

Dr. Bruce Metzger, writing to Dr. Kirt D. DiVietro testified that the text they founded their work on was that of Westcott and Hort. He wrote, “We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence.”

Note the words "as our base" and "MSS evidence."

The rules of Textual Criticism were produced for the purpose of getting rid of what some believed to be uninspired writ.

Absolutely and totally false.

Those rules, like it or not, are still used today.

Those rules have absolutely nothing to do with "getting rid of what some believed to be uninspired writ."

 

[Dr. Jack]

Note the words "as our base" and "MSS evidence."



Absolutely and totally false.



Those rules have absolutely nothing to do with "getting rid of what some believed to be uninspired writ."

Have you ever studied what Semler said, and wrote with his own pen?

 

[Radagast]

Have you ever studied what Semler said, and wrote with his own pen?

It's irrelevant.

 

[Dr. Jack]

It's irrelevant.

So you assert that I am wrong when IN FACT you have NEVER studied the origin of Textual Criticism, or those who produced the rules.

That is like telling the head mechanic atva shop that he is wrong about the combustion engine, although you have never studied anything about engines.

You claim I am wrong about why the rules were formulated; yet you have no knowledge of the history of those who did so.

Your best argument is "It's irrelevant."

American history should then be irrelevant to modern America. World history should then be irrelevant to current global events ....

Do you see a problematic pattern here?

 

[Radagast]

So you assert that I am wrong when IN FACT you have NEVER studied the origin of Textual Criticism, or those who produced the rules.

It's irrelevant. The rules are what they are.

It's like the rules of mathematics. Some of them were produced by great sinners. Doesn't matter. The rules are what they are.

You've shown no flaws in the rules, just a whole lot of genetic fallacy, guilt by association, and outright false statements.

 

[Dr. Jack]

It's irrelevant. The rules are what they are.

It's like the rules of mathematics. Some of them were produced by great sinners. Doesn't matter. The rules are what they are.

You've shown no flaws in the rules, just a whole lot of genetic fallacy, guilt by association, and outright false statements.

Please present evidence that my statements are false ... Oh, that would require you to study that which you believe to be irrelevant!

I presented evidence that what I said is true. So prove that evidence false!

 

[Radagast]

So prove that evidence false!

See earlier in the thread.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Se earlier in the thread.

There is nothing earlier in the thread that proves the evidence I presented is false. The only thing you can say is that I am presenting a genetic fallacy.

History isn't irrelevant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you consider the Scriptures to be the "words of God"?

I consider Scripture to be God's word, singular. Seeing as Scripture is divinely inspired, useful (etc), and it bears faithful witness to Jesus Christ, and through it we hear, receive, and encounter the Living Word of God Himself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dr. Jack]

I consider Scripture to be God's word, singular. Seeing as Scripture is divinely inspired, useful (etc), and it bears faithful witness to Jesus Christ, and through it we hear, receive, and encounter the Living Word of God Himself.

-CryptoLutheran

Is not "Scripture" (singular) made up of "words" (plural)?