Absolute uncertainty in Hebrew Masoretic Text and varying Textus Receptus editions?

[Logos1560]

Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173).

Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).

 

[Yeshua1]

Alfred Martin as edited by David Otis Fuller wrote: “The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form” (Which Bible, fifth edition, p. 148). Alfred Martin asserted: “One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree” (p. 149). Alfred Martin wrote: “Admitted, it [the Textus Receptus] will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence” (p. 173).

Alfred Martin quoted H. C. Hoskier as observing that Burgon “did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated” (p. 153).

So he would have been acceptable more of the majority text have today then the TR>

 

[37818]

In the New Testament Greek there is the work of Dr Wilbur N. Pickering on the F35GNT. And his explanations given in his book, The Identity of the New Testament Text. Then there is a Majority Text translation MLV (Modern Language Version) which in a few places chose CT or TR readings in italics.

 

[agedman]

Everyone forgets the standard of the late KJV Authority - Peter Rukman.

Peter Ruckman, who is among the most extreme and vocal in his position, claims that the 1611 Authorized Version “is the STANDARD that God set up whereby to judge all translations” (About the “New” King James Bible). In fact he believes this so strongly that he actually says that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts should be revised so that they match the 1611 text, and then justifies this by claiming that mistakes that exist in the KJV are actually “advanced revelation”! (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence). (Taken from: Am I Using the Wrong Bible? : The King James Only Controversy)
​

 

[Yeshua1]

Everyone forgets the standard of the late KJV Authority - Peter Rukman.

Peter Ruckman, who is among the most extreme and vocal in his position, claims that the 1611 Authorized Version “is the STANDARD that God set up whereby to judge all translations” (About the “New” King James Bible). In fact he believes this so strongly that he actually says that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts should be revised so that they match the 1611 text, and then justifies this by claiming that mistakes that exist in the KJV are actually “advanced revelation”! (The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence). (Taken from: Am I Using the Wrong Bible? : The King James Only Controversy)
​

So the Prophets and Apostles received limited inspiration, but the team full inspiration??

 

[agedman]

So the Prophets and Apostles received limited inspiration, but the team full inspiration??

Ruckman was wrong about more than one item.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ruckman was wrong about more than one item.

agreed, as his so called study bible notes had a truckload of them!