Question between 2 sides.

You are correct Scott.

Athanasius was an Alexandrian and one of the earliest formulators of the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, he was banished to Gaul as an insurrectionist for the expounding of "troublesome" teachings along with other false charges.

HankD

[ September 09, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Because in this paticular Church age(Revelation 3:14),we are told to choose sides(Revelation 3:15).</font>[/QUOTE] You think that King James and his translators were in the Philadelphian church and the great fundamentalists since the 1850's represent the Laodecian church? The last religious martyr in England died at the order of King James around Easter in 1611. His primary crime was being an Anabaptist. The Baptists of that day resisted the King, the Church that he headed, and its new translation of the Bible.

It is said and I believe that there were more Christian martyrs in the 20th century than all others combined. Your supposed Laodecian church has given place to religious liberty and the ministries of men like Spurgeon, Torrey, Rice, Scofield, and many other great saints.

There are Laodecian churches today. There are also Philadelphian churces as well as those conforming to the examples of Ephesus, Smyna, Pergamos, Thyatira, and Sardis.

The arbitrary association of these churches with certain time periods by you and others is a stretch to say the least. If one agreed with your basic premise, they could easily disprove your application by studying the nature of the age that you call "Philadelphian" as well as the one you call "Laodecian". The spirit of the Reformation period sounds more like Sardis than Philadelphia to me with all the persecution going on even by the Protestants against dissenters.

It has been many times;and the Alexandrian "side" has been found wanting. </font>[/QUOTE]By who, you?

You have not presented evidence since coming here that has not been completely refuted nor have you shown any willingness to look at the evidence presented by others- much less attempt a valid refutation.

 

Baptist in Richmond said:

......of which "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" would seem applicable in this particular case.

Or in the case of the "church age" people and other hyper-Dispensationalists, tossing it into a cross-cut shredder.

 

I suppose that is true;most likley due to lack of following/believing 2 Tim 2:15(KJB). </font>[/QUOTE]Amen brother! BTW, Antiochan side here.

 

It's not necessary to choose a side if you prefer an eclectic text. And in the spirit of citing Bible verses randomly and out of context to prove a point, I offer Job 36:4 as proof that I am right.

 

Amen, brother!

 

In mid-afternoon the score was:

Antioch - 4
Alexandria - 0
Missouri - 8

Here are some Christian Martyr numbers:

1901-1990 - 27 Million (60%)
33-1900AD - 14 Million (40%)
--------- - ----------------
33-1990AD - 41 Million (100%) - Total

 

You offer this as justification?

 

Askjo said:

Which city did Paul call the people, "Christians"?

None of the three uses of the word "Christian" in the New Testament were uttered by Paul.

King Agrippa said "Christian" to Paul, but that was in Caesarea (Acts 26:27).

Not that answering your question would prove any point to begin with. The leaps of logic you KJV0-onlyists make are so huge, it's a mystery why you don't burn up on re-entry.

 

Because as many have indicated in previous posts, they are on *neither* side -- they are on the side of the best reading as determined by *all* the evidence. You have introduced a false dichotomy, an "either/or" where there is none.

 

Dear brother Archangel,

substitite "better" for "either/or" and you have the W&H formula:

They "introduced" these criteria into the world of textual criticism not the traditionalists.

The older reading "is better" (this means Aleph/B).
The shorter reading "is better".
The more difficult reading "is better".

FWIW, I for one disagree with their theory and side with the traditionalists as to number of mss and the imprimatur of the Church at large of the "Traditional Text" for the 18 centuries before W&H.

The bottom line is that you or I or any mortal cannot prove the accuracy of the W&H or the traditional point of view (pre-1881) for one reason and one reason alone :

We don't have the originals.

As was earlier stated, this matter (Traditional-Byzantine vs. Alexandrian) is subjective as well as prejudicial.

Personally, I'm willing to listen and learn as new data and mss come to light.

HankD

 

HankD said:

They [Westcott and Hort] "introduced" these criteria into the world of textual criticism not the traditionalists.

The older reading "is better" (this means Aleph/B).
The shorter reading "is better".
The more difficult reading "is better".

Can you document this? I was under the impression that some of these criteria actually dated back to the early centuries of the Church.

 

In all my reading of early church fathers I have never seen the issue of “textual criticism”.

There may have been similar rules but as far as I can tell it was not so generally, perhaps Archangel can help.

Go to:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-aleph.html

click on: Wescott and Hort 1881(underlined)

Look in the page for Critical Rules of Westcott & Hort

If you read the whole piece under Wescott and Hort you should have your questions answered.

HankD

[ September 10, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Dear brother Archangel,

substitite "better" for "either/or" and you have the W&H formula:

They "introduced" these criteria into the world of textual criticism not the traditionalists.

The older reading "is better" (this means Aleph/B).
The shorter reading "is better".
The more difficult reading "is better".</font>[/QUOTE]This is a little oversimplified. "Better" depends on a number of factors not solely related to age, length, or difficulty, the key factor being "all other things being equal." There is internal and external evidence.

A key, but often overlooked principle, is that the reading that best explains the others is most likely to be original. That takes into account these factors. An older reading may be rejected if it cannot explain others.

"Most likely" is also key. No one is making dogmatic statements. It is an issue of probability and reasonability.

But this too is slightly misleading. For the vast majority of church history, these older manuscripts were not available. Therefore, we cannot really say that they were rejected. The "imprimatur" of the Church at large was due to the same reason that the "church at large" placed its imprimatur on the KJV for a number of years. We must also remember that now, the imprimatur of the church at large has changed. This shows that even you reject the "imprimatur of the church at large" when necessary. It is not authoritative.

 

Where did those come from? Do you know the methods used for the estimates?

 

Pastor Larry,

I can agree for the most part with what you have said but as has been noted before, I am exercising my point of view of subjectivity and I admit that I am prejudicial toward the so-called Traditional Text (as opposed to the W&H point of view of Aleph/B as "better" (and as shown by their work - "best" in almost every case which challenges the TR)).

A qualifier:
When I say "Church at large" I mean the Asia Minor-European apostolic Church at large.

Apart from Athanasius and some relative unknowns, the Alexandrian Church leadership was troublesome from the start for the "Church at large" to the point of eventual bloodshed, and in fact banished Athansasius for his outspokenness.

The overwhelming vast majority of non-Alexandrian Text type mss for diseminating the Word of God worked for 1800 years of Church history and personally I prefer to err (if err I do) on the side of the caution of the majority of known mss and history over and against the W&H favorites (Aleph/B primarily - and a handful of other Uncials).

We can both agree that somewhere God and His Providence must have a part in this equation of textual preservation. For instance, why did He wait so long (1800 and 70 plus years) to give us the Reconstructed Text of Wescott and Hort (if indeed it was).

You know that I have no real quarrel with the supporters of MV's and use the MV's myself where they are in agreement and faithful (over 95% IMO) to the TR (Scrivener's as the typical). I don't see different choices of similar words as things which are "not equal".

My local Church uses the NKJV and the NIV from the pulpit.

I can call them the Word of God as did the KJV translators called the contemporary translations of their day.

I believe that the radical KJVO position is error.

I disagree with the W&H theory but would not call it an error but an unproven hypothesis.

Also (again) since in my mind it is an unproven hypothesis, I am open to the consideration of new data, such as the papyri discoveries.

HankD