Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

Hi JOJ, I do not disagree usually with your posts, rather you find fault with my many of mine.

Back once more into the topic valley of study:

All these efforts to discuss the merits of this copy, i.e. Byzantine, over and against the NA27/UBS4 really seem to be an effort to use the JKV over and against the NET, HCSB, NASB95 or other modern translation based on the CT. I love the NKJV, but it needs an update to excise the egregious flaws of the TR and archaic words like "begotten" especially when the translation is based on a mistake.

But the process of replacing mistaken views of the past, no matter how "traditional," must go forward, and the starting place is our fundamental view of what we actually believe about the Bible.

First we must be clear as to what we believe, and to understand the logical consequences of those beliefs, and then we can defend them with truth rather than relying upon the scholarship of the pre-digital age.

 

9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding. (From the OP)

Because of my trust in the completeness of God's Word, I find the tools of scriptural nullification to be repugnant. My times a poster will say or imply that God did not mean what He said, and go with such inventions as "the secret will of God." Thus when God says He remembers no more forever, what He really means is He remembers the act or thought, and its consequence of divine retribution, but simply decides not to apply the divine consequences of those sins. Thus they equate forgiveness with remembering no more, and the phrase "remember no more" becomes redundant and does not convey anything in addition to forgiveness.

But to support this view, rather than rely upon some specific passage that says this is what God meant, they rely instead upon a man-made addition to the text.

Every time we see "God did not mean what He said" it demonstrates lip service to the doctrine of scripture alone and reveals the actual doctrine of scripture as understood by the tradition of men.

 

More slander, no evidence. A know-it-all pretending he is on the side of truth.

I specifically referenced the TR. Surely you know the difference. Why change the subject?

Once more a change of subject, the TR is from 1550, not 1980's.

And finally yet another attack on my character and qualifications (pseudo-intellectualism) when I make no claim of expertize at all. Folks, this is the pot calling the stainless steel coffeemaker black.

Plagerism is where a person takes credit for the writings of others. See the OP. I clearly indicated what was taken off the internet and my commentary on it. JOJ charge arises from an effort to derail and debunk the thread, a in a turf war.
Like Don before him, he sets himself up as the judge and jury and lord of the manor, finding fault in others to build himself up. Pitiful.

 

Folks, anyone who advocates for the TR over and against the CT has demonstrated no amount of evidence can be provided to change their adherence to the traditions of men. This has nothing to do with the topic, thus yet another obstructionist post by know-it-alls.

Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article:

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual criticism now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups opposed to the discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture.

Rather than answering the questions, they pose diversionary questions like prove the CT is better than the Byzantine Text. Not even germane.

 

Reply to Yeshua1,

My position exactly! Our doctrinal statement should identify which witness, CT, or Majority Text is preferred. No one should claim to be advocating scripture alone, and then advocate for the 1550 TR which underlies the KJV.

 

LOL, there JOJ goes again. Now I must prove to his satisfaction my views on this forum. Has he said he prefers the Byzantine Text to the TR? Yes. Did he prove that statement? Nope. So he sets rules for others like a lord of the manor, and does not meet those standards himself.

All he is actually doing is trying to stop the discussion of the topic with diversionary questions, and charges. Now if he wants to open a new thread, Why I believe the Byzantine Text is superior to the 1550 TR, he is welcome. I would undoubtedly learn a great deal.

 

Bump

Returning once again to topic

 

All he is actually doing is trying to stop the discussion of the topic with diversionary questions, and charges. Now if he wants to open a new thread, Why JOJ believes the Byzantine Text is superior to the 1550 TR, he is welcome. I would undoubtedly learn a great deal.