Featured Question for those who use modern translations.

And how do you determine their "corruptness"? By comparing them to the KJV?

 

Be very careful tossing the word worship around so lightly.

Your "observation" and "research" leave much to be desired. It came from KJVO sources.

 

Is this newly acquired information for you --or have you just learned it since joining the BB?

So do believe there are some corrupions in the TR since even Burgon said it was in need of revision?

 

He was a pretty good scholar and quite zealous too. But the theories of W&H have held up over time rather well. For a long period now we have had access to documents even older than that which W&H had available during the 19th century.

You are basing your evidence off of Burgon alone? Is it possible that he might have gone "astray" at times?

I believe that the CT to be superior to that of the TR. I don't think I need to say "far inferior" since there is actually more substantial agreement than disagreement between the textual basis of the two.

 

Or, maybe that the translators' notes were lost, in a fire, and that a copy of the 'TR' that was translated into the AV doesn't exist. One can peruse a reverse-engineered TR, Scrivener's, but not the original body of documents. No one knows which readings were only found in Syrian or Ethiopian texts(these 2 are cited in the translators' intro to the AV, so we have this record), for example.

 

you can hold to your opinion, but the VAST bulk of textual experts would regard either the CT/MT far superior as a textual base then the TR!

And which TR do you prefer? Any f the 5 Eramus ised, or Schriverners, or whose?

 

Page 10 well surpassed. This tired old topic is about worn out. Thread closed.