KJO and Gail Riplinger (New Age Versions)

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

James White has posted on u-tube his interview in 1993 with Riplinger on her book New Age Versions.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVXjw4jd61M

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdld8KGEm7E

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuEm62KSRxg

Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYPVUp7zAMo

Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qioE1HIUV0


In Him,

Bill

 

[JM]

Bill, I'm not KJVO ala Riplinger, but have you read the posts on PuritanBoard from Rev. Winzer and JerusalemBlade? They make a very, very strong case for the use of the TR and the AV.

Are you a member there?

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Bill, I'm not KJVO ala Riplinger, but have you read the posts on PuritanBoard from Rev. Winzer and JerusalemBlade? They make a very, very strong case for the use of the TR and the AV.

Are you a member there?

Perhaps they should have been around to attempt to persuade the anteNicean fathers, none of whom quote New Testament verses from an unambiguous Byzantine (the basis for TR) Test type.

While there are Byzantine readings that go back to antiquity (relative to the creation of the New Testament), those particular readings are not exclusively Byzantine, and can be found in Western and Alexandrian manuscript families.

 

[JM]

Did the framers of the WCF/LBC have in view the CT when they wrote the following:

The Holy scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.

If the scriptures are "...by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them" how can we use the CT?

Another question that comes to my mind is, "when will the canon be closed?"

If we have no problem with deleting and inserting text based on new evidence, why would we have problems with deleting and inserting books based on new evidence? Larry Bray

The modern CT presents too many problems...

That's it in a nutshell. If you can delete 1 John 5:7 and associated texts why can't you delete 2 John or any of the other Antilegomena? And why can't you include the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, or the First Epistle of Clement, since these are to be found in the so-called "oldest and most authentic codices," Aleph and B? Modern textual criticism is arbitrary, resting on unsound theological principles, which is why I suppose these days they call it an "art" instead of a "science." Rev. Winzer

If anyone is lurking you can find a wealth of info on PB, here's a few threads that might be of interest:

Defending the Lord's Prayer 1
Defending the Lord's Prayer 2

Question for the Confessional CTer

Textual Manuscripts?

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin

The Critical Text and WSC Q #107

Preservation and the Biblical Text

John 7:53-8:11

Revelation 5:9-10 1st Person ("us") or 3rd Person ("them")?

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill, I'm not KJVO ala Riplinger, but have you read the posts on PuritanBoard from Rev. Winzer and JerusalemBlade? They make a very, very strong case for the use of the TR and the AV.

Are you a member there?

Good Day, Jm

No I am not....

But I know James White is working on redoing the KJVO controversy may be one of those guys can give a call into the DL and discuss the issue.

Bill

 

[JM]

Did you get a chance to read the links? I remember a little while back Dr. White logged in and had some back and forth with Mr. Rafalsky, I'll try to find the thread and post a link.

j