Question for those who use modern translations.

[Jordan Kurecki]

Because of King James Onlyists who not only insist (incorrectly) that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there, but also insist (also incorrectly) that the KJV is perfect.

As for those Greek texts...

Were YOU there when any of them were written? Do YOU know who wrote any of them, when and where? Do you know what SOURCES they used?

If you cannot answer any one of those questions, you have no more ability to decide among them than anyone else has.

I have done much research into the critical texts of wescott and hort and their heavy leaning on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I also have observed where the modern Nestle Aland text follows the Wescott and Hort superstitious worship of these 2 manuscripts, and have researched the character and corruptness of these 2 manuscripts.

 

[Amy.G]

...I also have observed where the modern Nestle Aland text follows the Wescott and Hort superstitious worship of these 2 manuscripts, and have researched the character and corruptness of these 2 manuscripts.

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

 

[Rippon]

I also have observed where the modern Nestle Aland text follows the Wescott and Hort superstitious worship of these 2 manuscripts,

Be very careful tossing the word worship around so lightly.

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

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Be very careful tossing the word worship around so lightly.

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

Dean Burgon's Revision Revised points out time and again where the Wescott and Hort text adopts readings based on 1 or 2 manuscripts, in fact he basically destroys the Wescott and Hort text by showing the overwhelming evidence supporting the Textus Receptus Readings.

I also took it one step further by examining each instance where the Revised Version went astray due to these changes in the Greek and I marked off in the NIV where they follow these corrupt readings, This shows to me that the Nestle Aland Text follows the errors of Wescott and Hort.

If you would like I can give you some examples later?

btW Burgon would not be considered KJO, and he was even willing to have the TR revised and he put forth some conditions for what he believed would be an authoritative revision of the TR, Not sure whether I agree with him or not but I do believe modern translations and critical greek texts to be far inferior to the TR and the KJV.

 

[Rippon]

btW Burgon would not be considered KJO, and he was even willing to have the TR revised and he put forth some conditions for what he believed would be an authoritative revision of the TR,

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?

 

[annsni]

Dean Burgon's Revision Revised points out time and again where the Wescott and Hort text adopts readings based on 1 or 2 manuscripts

Yet the Textus Receptus has passages that were based on none. What does that prove?

 

[Rippon]

Dean Burgon's Revision Revised points out time and again where the Wescott and Hort text adopts readings based on 1 or 2 manuscripts, in fact he basically destroys the Wescott and Hort text by showing the overwhelming evidence supporting the Textus Receptus Readings.

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.

I also took it one step further by examining each instance where the Revised Version went astray due to these changes in the Greek and I marked off in the NIV where they follow these corrupt readings

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

I do believe modern translations and critical greek texts to be far inferior to the TR and the KJV.

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.

 

[prophet]

Yet the Textus Receptus has passages that were based on none. What does that prove?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Dean Burgon's Revision Revised points out time and again where the Wescott and Hort text adopts readings based on 1 or 2 manuscripts, in fact he basically destroys the Wescott and Hort text by showing the overwhelming evidence supporting the Textus Receptus Readings.

I also took it one step further by examining each instance where the Revised Version went astray due to these changes in the Greek and I marked off in the NIV where they follow these corrupt readings, This shows to me that the Nestle Aland Text follows the errors of Wescott and Hort.

If you would like I can give you some examples later?

btW Burgon would not be considered KJO, and he was even willing to have the TR revised and he put forth some conditions for what he believed would be an authoritative revision of the TR, Not sure whether I agree with him or not but I do believe modern translations and critical greek texts to be far inferior to the TR and the KJV.

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?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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