Search results

No... the NKJV is a TR translation that departs from both the Byzantine & MT many MANY times.

What NT translations uses the MT?

Putting markers of chronology is not necessary. What most Calvinists do when they speak of one preceding the other is a logical sequence. In other words, which causes what? Or to put it to the two words: Does faith cause regeneration or regeneration cause faith? As a Calvinist, I believe...

The text is the same. But I was referring to the apparatus. It is much more complete in that it lists 10x's the variants. But the data is not as full as the UBS. But even then, I have found many places where they don't even list the Byz reading. Thus, SBL's new apparatus will be helpful.

Some people refer to the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Textform as the Majority Text too. Robinson's reasoned transmissionalism is often confused w/ Hodges & Farstad's method. Anywho... I think there is a translation in progress for the Byzantine text.

Right... Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel [of the kingdom] of God, Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Which majority text?

Forget the UBS... the Nestle-ALAND says it all. And the apparatus is much better than the UBS. In total, both Aland's (but primarily Kurt I would think) are the parents of modern reasoned eclecticism. You might say that they are to the late 20th to 21st century realm of textual criticism...

Cause those 2 may be the most prominent in theology (especially systematic). Plus, I don't find that historical or philosophical theologies are as determinative for doctrine as systematic or biblical. Some may equate dogmatic w/ systematic & narrative w/ biblical. Practical theology is of...

That is not a definition for biblical theology that I have ever heard of. That sounds more like the area of biblical studies or OT/NT introduction.

Here is a definition from mongergism.com (cf. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/systembiblical.html)

Which one is more important? Which one takes precedent over the other? Which one do you rely on most when teaching doctrine?

Fundi's don't... but Evangelicals are moving that way. You can't deny the fact that the OT was handed down over a long period of time, collected, compiled, theologically ordered, and then presented in the Hebrew Scriptures as we now have them. And I find nothing wrong with ascribing the...

Inspiration for the OT is not quite the same for the NT. A clear factor is that the OT took about 1,000 years to be compiled whereas the NT only around 50 (or less depending on your dating methods). The fact is, there are clear editorial redactions in the OT that are still considered inspired...

Is it wrong to say that they were added later yet still inspired? I am leaning to a compositional/canonical approach to inspiration for the OT. It seems best that the Psalms didn't take on its full divine meaning until they were all compiled together in a theological order (much like the rest...

Wow... no opinions on this. Shoulda started a thread on Calvinism ;)

FYI (for anyone who cares) Since I am moving to Honduras, I went ahead and bought 2 bilingual bibles (1 for me and the other for my wife) I got the NKJV RVR1960 for my wife and the NIV NVI for me. Pretty good deals too. I hope this will help me learn Spanish quickly.

Yes... .

Are they inspired, canonical, and/or reliable? What is your view and why?

What is the reputation of this school? What are your thoughts on this school? I know it is TRACS. What else do you know about it?