Featured A Helpful Article about the Text Forms

I have downloaded to read later. Thanks.

 

We need a "Thank you" button!

Rob

 

Good article! It articulates the 'Byzantine Priority position very well.

 

I've downloaded it to read most of it later. However, reading the first eight pages, I think it is a great article. Especially, since I agree with his view on the Byzantine Priority position. Thank you for providing it!

 

Here is another one to look at, as a good compare and contrast.
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

 

I some reservations and questions about the article By Glenn Kerr.

He quotes William R. Farmer (p.27) several times. Once Farmer says, regarding Sinaiticus ;"...the pages that omit the ending of Mark are not original part of the MS."

Where can this claim be verified? What New Testament textual critics believe that?

Kerr again quotes Farmer (p.29):"But Alexandrian scholars were also guided by other principles in making their omissions...This principle called for the omission of any passage which was regarded as offensive to or unworthy of the gods."

I find the above preposterous. It sounds like the bunk some KJVO folks spew.

On page 30 Kerr says:"Many of the early papyri are from the second century, the period regarded by most as the time of greatest attack on the text of the N.T."

By that I guess he wants the reader to assume that the compilers were copying theological aberrations.

On page 31 Kerr states :"...the vast number of newly discovered Byzantine MSS lie languishing for lack of interest..."

Which ones? Be specific. I'm sure your Byzantine Priority compatriots are eagerly examining them.

Kerr's objectivity is nullified by his words on page 34:"Why defend a text with such lousy credentials and such a lack of historical basis..."

Whew, he doesn't sound like a sound textual critic at all. (Pun intended.)

Kerr's preoccupation with a cloying Egyptianitis is evident throughout, starting with his title. It continues with "Why would he have gone to the puddle of Alexandria for anything? (p.28) "The lure of Egypt"; "But we have to be willing to leave Egypt, as it were." and other annoyances are certainly off-putting.

 

There are no originals available, so there would be no perfect copies of them available.

 

It does seem that those advocating for the Bzt text are seeing those holding with the critical text as holding to the times when "satan" got into corrupting the texts, which is what the KJVO advocate also!

 

As stated this is not a logical conclusion. It is not that there could be "no perfect copies" available just because the originals aren't available -- it is that there is no way to compare them to demonstrate the fact.

 

But it can't be stated as fact.

 

There can only be perfect copies if God intended that to be, and do not think that He kept intact 100% the Originals to us for today, but that does not mean that we do not have essentially the eord of God to us today!

 

Yeshua1, my only point is that your second statement is not a logical conclusion that flows from the first statement.

 

Another helpful link on this issue
How We Got the Bible

 

Are you denying that those holding to KJVO would see the early copies as somehow all getting corrupted, andjust those iaway from Alexandria avoided that fate?

 

You might not like my views, but they are not illogical!