interesting info

I looked on this website. Sorry, I disagreed what John MacArthur said concerning the KJV controversy because I realize that he is a naturalistic preacher/teacher.

 

I looked on this website.

Godly men? Were W/H godly men? Is Bruce a godly man? No! why should Christians scholars defend these unbelievers who defend modern versions? Look at 2 Cor. 6:14 saying, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers..."

The best MSS? Just 1% evidence!

Dr. Thomas Strouse refuted him reflecting Carson's book.

Right.

Any doctrines are affected by them.

You must remember they are naturalistic scholars.

More....

 

Godly men? Were W/H godly men? Is Bruce a godly man? No! why should Christians scholars defend these unbelievers who defend modern versions?

Your 'godly men' practiced infant christening and called it "baptism" and they believed in salavation by works and that the head of the church is a hereditary political ruler. They sure was godly, wasn't they?

Any doctrines are affected by them.

Exceedingly stupid.

 

A bit of fundamental dishonesty that I hope is unintentional ... the result of quick reading and posting rather than intentional. Let's look, shall we??

Godly men? Were W/H godly men? Is Bruce a godly man? No! why should Christians scholars defend these unbelievers who defend modern versions? Look at 2 Cor. 6:14 saying, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers..." </font>[/QUOTE]Look at how you changed the comments of MacArthur. He was talking about translation of the NASB and NIV. Neither WH or Metzger were involved in teh translation of either. It is fundamentally dishonest to imply that they were.

However, this complaint has been brought up many times and you repeatedly refuse to show why you think someone's spiritual state is a qualification to do textual criticism. It clearly is not. One can do proper textual criticism while being an unbeliever. This is irrelevant and we have shown that many times.

Another bit of fundamental dishonesty. The eclectic text is not based on 1% of the evidence. It is the only Greek text that takes into account 100% of the Greek evidence ... Yes that is right. You read it correctly. Only the eclectic text uses 100% of what God has preserved for us. The Majority Text automatically rules out some 5% of the text that God has preserved because they don't like it. The TR is even worse. The TR rules out over 99% of the evidence (it was compiled using less than a dozen of more than 5000 manuscripts). So the 1% charge should be leveled at the TR ... but even at that it is misleading because the TR, with its paltry base of evidence, still conforms overall to the Word of God.

Anytime you hear someone say that the MVs are based on 5% of the manuscript evidence, chalk it up to ignorance or intentional dishonesty. It is not true.

Strouse is a very poor academician. Anything he write should be immediately discarded.

Nope, not a one. We have answered every attempt multiple times. For all of your bellyaching and complaining, you have yet to show one doctrine that is affected.

This is a false charge. The truth is that the text was preserved providentially through naturalistic means. To deny that is simply ludicrous.

More what?? Save us the time and yourself the embarrassment of these ridiculous attempts.

I realize that I am being very direct and to the point. I am willing to maintain a soft and gentle spirit with those who are willing to learn. But I am sick to death of these false statements being repeated. We have answered time and time again and you and your ilk keep repeating them like it will suddenly become true. Clue in here ... The comments you are making are not true. You have only read one side of the issue and the side you have read is written by men who are dishonest, either knowingly or not. It is time that this foolishness is stopped.

 

You do not know what I believe.

Are any doctrines of the Bible exceedingly stupid?

 

Ok, let's see, how many current greek texts did modern versions derive?

 

You look for high qualifications what many scholars have on textual criticism. This problem is who they are: Unbelievers or Christians. Unbelievers with high qualification or Christians with high qualification.

 

Ok, let's see, how many current greek texts did modern versions derive? </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, this sentence doesn't even make sense. I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Second of all, you still didn't answer why you misrepresented what MacArthur said. That is a fundamental problem -- you misrepresent someone to make your point, then get caught in it, and refuse to address it by offering an appropriate apology for your wrong comments. Why??

 

You look for high qualifications what many scholars have on textual criticism. This problem is who they are: Unbelievers or Christians. Unbelievers with high qualification or Christians with high qualification. </font>[/QUOTE]High qualifications are important. There is no doubt about that. But you must show that certain qualifications are relevant.

What is necessary to be a textual critic?? Knowledge of the Greek language, and knowledge of the principles of textual transmission. (Notice how "spiritual state" is not one of them.) These people are dealing with texts and words and determining what words are most likely the original reading. There is nothing spiritual about that task.

There are many fine believers who are worthless textual critics. That is fine. It is not what they are qualified to do. For a textual critic to be saved is obviously better. But that does not affect his textual criticism.

You have made no arguments against this. You have shown no place where an unbeliever has made biased choices in his textual choices. Once again, you have failed in your attempt to show relevance of this issue.

 

I have more answers here:

John is wrong! DBS rejects the New KJV because New KJV has almost 40% of non-TR. 2,000+ words in New KJV are twisted.

W/H worshipped B manuscript. That's why they supported the Alexandrian family of MSS.

Paul called the people at Antioch, "Christians." Which family of MSS came from Antioch? The Antiochian texts (Byzantine or TR)!!

Was he a Christian? Why did he mutilate the Scriptures? See Rev. 22:18-19.

More....

 

....more answers here:

John should check with Dr. D.A. Waite, Ph.D concerning the word "TR."

John is wrong about the date of Peshitta. He should ask Dr. Jack Moorman about that.

Any doctrines are affected by them. John denied.

35 manuscripts had this passage. 19 MSS removed it.

Matthew 18:11 is found in 47 manuscripts. 14 manuscripts removed it.

More....

 

More again:

father? -- That's not what Luke wrote. Luke wrote a right word, "Joseph" instead of "father" because of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Which is most accurate translation available today? It is the KJV because of the fact.

That's enough for me to answer for you because I have more answers, but I decide to stop now.

 

One problem on high qualification is the naturalistic method or Consistently christian method? Which one?

There are 5 current Greek Texts:

1. W/H text
2. Nestle text
3. Nestle/Aland text
4. United Bible Societies
5. Eclectic Texts

Please answer my questions:

Which one of 5 Greek texts did NIV derive?
Which one of 5 Greek texts did NASB derive?
Which one of 5 Greek texts did TEV derive?
Which one of 5 Greek texts did LB derive?
Which one of 5 Greek texts did NWT derive?

I would like to know if you can answer these questions.

 

You are confused. Your sentences do not even make sense. There is no "consistently Christian" method of textual criticism. There are several different approaches, none of which are "Christian" or "naturalistic." They all derive from naturalistic principles. You have been listening to men who are lying to you.

Once again you err because you do not know what you are talking about.

The first four texts you mention are examples of number 5. There is no "Nestle" text apart from the Nestle/Aland text. So you have listed one that does not exist.

In addition, you omitted Scrivener's TR of 1894, STephanus's TR of 1554, and several other various editions of the TR. You also omitted Tischendorf. Even further, you also omitted Robison and Pierpont's Majority Text. On top of that you omitted Hodges and Farstad's Majority Text (which is different than Robinson and Pierpont's because they use a different method).

In other words, see how unfamiliar you are with the simplest facts of this matter?? You have listened to men who have inflated your ego by getting you to think you know what you are talking about. But anyone here who knows the facts can see that you don't. We have tried patiently to teach you by showing you the facts that anyone can check out. You have consistently refused and you come in here again and embarrass yourself by not knowing simple facts such as I posted again. Please stop, for your own sake and for the sake of the truth. God's word deserves more than this farce you are putting forth.

[qutoe]Please answer my questions:[/quote]Your questions do not make sense. Derive is a verb that requires an object. Are you asking "From which of the Greek texts did these versions derive?" Or are you asking "Which Greek texts derived from these versions?"

I can answer all of them but that is irrelevant. Who cares?? What are you trying to show?? This is another lame attempt to defame the word of God by bad argumentation and unwarranted attacks. I reject these attacks as desparate attempts to hang on to your position in light of the overwhelming facts that have been presented to you.

I urge you again to abandon following these false teachers that you have aligned yourself with. Knowing the truth will not require you to give up your KJV. Not a one of us here is trying to get you to do that. What we are trying to get you to do is love the truth more than your own notions.

 

From which of the Greek texts did these modern versions derive? Will you answer for me, please.

 

I think I'm going to be sick What a load of slop!!

W&H