Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No it doesn't.That's a point worth bringing up; when the term 'humanism' is employed to refer to the scholars of the 1400's and 1500's it refers to their shift away from God's involvement with man and the earth ...
A comparison of the textual and stylistic choices of twenty translations against 15,000 variant readings shows the following rank of agreement with the Nestle-Aland 27th edition:This idea that all of the contemporary Bible versions "slavishly adopted the Greek text" is certainly one of those old wives tales. Undoubtedly the people who promote this piece of fantasy probably have little knowledge with the process of Bible translation.
James White summarizes my opinion on the TR:
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1 - YouTube
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 2 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNWe4oTyql8
Everyone from these opposing viewpoints seems to have in their mind convincing arguments and all of these positions have pros and cons. I've switched between all 3 positions and now I can say I just don't know. Which Greek Text should the Church be using and which translation of that text is the best? Those Greek texts can't all be right in the places they differ and there has to be a best translation doesn't there? Unless we accept relativism and it's all true which is devoid of logic.
The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].Which Greek Text should the Church be using and which translation of that text is the best?
Thanks for these vids! Good stuff...
Circular arguments and empty rhetoric.The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].
If you want to know why you should reject the Nestle-Aland Text (which is basically that of Westcott & Hort) get a copy of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and you will know the truth about the texts. Scrivener (another outstanding textual scholar) fully supported Burgon's position, as did a handful of discerning conservative Christian scholars.
Burgon (a scholar and textual critic himself) personally examined and collated the ancient manuscripts and wrote several books to expose the fallacies of Westcott and Hort and their corrupt text.
However the whole Christian world has swallowed the lie, so all you will get is ridicule and oppostion for standing for the truth. Don't waste your time trying to convince people about the truth either. It just gets in their way.
There is a lot of propaganda against the TR and the KJV. Ask yourself why and who is behind it? Does Satan attack the true Bible through "Christian" scholars? All modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt Westcott/Hort/Nestle/Aland texts. There are over 6,000 corruptions, with about 1,500 which are doctrinally significant.
The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].
If you want to know why you should reject the Nestle-Aland Text (which is basically that of Westcott & Hort) get a copy of The Revision Revised by John William Burgon and you will know the truth about the texts. Scrivener (another outstanding textual scholar) fully supported Burgon's position, as did a handful of discerning conservative Christian scholars.
Burgon (a scholar and textual critic himself) personally examined and collated the ancient manuscripts and wrote several books to expose the fallacies of Westcott and Hort and their corrupt text.
However the whole Christian world has swallowed the lie, so all you will get is ridicule and oppostion for standing for the truth. Don't waste your time trying to convince people about the truth either. It just gets in their way.
There is a lot of propaganda against the TR and the KJV. Ask yourself why and who is behind it? Does Satan attack the true Bible through "Christian" scholars? All modern versions since 1881 are based on the corrupt Westcott/Hort/Nestle/Aland texts. There are over 6,000 corruptions, with about 1,500 which are doctrinally significant.
Wait a minute, so your saying that new 'Majority' text is the true text but how can this be the case when it differs so much from the old TR? Then you say that the KJV (1611) is based on the TR that is merely primarily the Stephens version of 1550.The Byzanitine Text is the Traditional Text, and for all intents and purposes the Majority Text, and therefore the true Text. All Reformation Bibles are based on this text (known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text). The Authorized Version (KJV 1611) is based upon the TR [primarily the printed text of Stephens (1550 ed)].
This seems the most sensible approach to this issue.Use all of them and realize that together they represent the wrestling of the Church with Scripture and its transmission through 2,000 years of time. Respect the ancient works and don't overly sweat the secondary problems.
Peace
The fact that one of the quotes isn't even a full sentence should ring alarm bells.Westcott and Hort both men were members of spiritist societies the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild was partly founded by Fenton Hort. He did not accept fallen spirits as real (which Jesus said were) but himself sought to talk to the spirits of the dead. Here are some quotes from his works
Hort .
The fact that one of the quotes isn't even a full sentence should ring alarm bells.
Ad-hominem attacks are pretty dubious, but when your position is supported by such attacks based on falsehood, innuendo, and manipulated quote mining designed to make someone's views appear very different from their actual views it's doesn't speak well of your position.
You really should consider whether spreading malicious gossip and falsehood about some, even someone who has been dead a long time, is really something you want to be involved in.
The thing with the scriptures is they were always meant to point people to Christ. They testify of Him and witness to Him. Would it make a huge difference if we had an iron clad, no doubt copy of the original manuscripts over what we do now? It may a little, but at the end of the day they would still only be stepping stones to Christ. So whichever you decide to use, TR or N/A or MT, either and all can lead you to Christ and a relationship with God the Father through the Spirit.
Given that the quotes are, essentially, bogus why would you trust the assertions in that argument?Fine...take away the quotes and just consider the reasoning...even later Nestle and Alland merely took the Tischendorf, the Westcott/Hort, and the Weymouth and derived about 40 or more percent from where these three agreed, they assumed the deletions therein were justified and legitimate and so included those...but as I pointed out the W/H was a matter of personal pick and choose and many of these alleged "not in the earliest" deletions were actually quoted by earlier writers...I gave you at least a dozen examples as well of where the Sin and Vat differ from one another...which one is correct? This we should rely on? Why wasn't one of them chosen as universally accepted?
If your faith depends on one translation then it's a pretty rocky faith.I will give an Amen to that...this subject has been hacked to death for over 100 years...only now it can truly be said (like the claim of Islam) "the Bible? Which one?"
If your faith depends on one translation then it's a pretty rocky faith.
It's interesting that you mention islam, because KJonlyism and similar are, essentially, an attempt to turn the bible into something more like the Quran.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?