Quotation

Who or what groups specifically is Mr. Cloud refering to and who determined that they were unbelievers?

 

I am not sure who he is referring to, and I don't know where Cloud got the information that they are not believers.

More importantly, Cloud has demonstrated no relevance. In the science of textual criticism, belief or unbelief is irrelevant. This is a matter of looking at the evidence and making decisions. We do not make those decisions on the basis of doctrine, salvation, belief, etc. We make it on the basis of objective evidence and the conclusions drawn from the evaluation of that evidence.

 

Who is Cloud referring to? If Westcott and Hort, he is simply relying on the false reports of D.A.Waite, and he and Waite are wrong.

Speaking of quotes, I noticed you completely abandoned the other discussion we were having, once I provided context. You answered none of my questions, you commented on none of my evidence, you just swept it aside and pretended it didn't happen.

I don't expect this thread to be any different.

 

I don't agree with his assessment. He tries to make a case that the founders of textual criticism are unbelievers in this article:
TEXTUAL CRITICISM

He writes: "The vast majority of the textual critics are Modernists or New Evangelicals at best (Fuller Seminary, etc.). Some Bible believing fundamentalists have adopted textual criticism, but they did not create it."(TRUE)
Seems that if something doesn't originate among the fundamentalist community it isn't worth studying at all.

Rob

 

If Mr. Cloud is basing an argument that only a believer is qualified to make textual/critical decisions on the text of the Bible, then he is in serious trouble. KJV translators, as well as the scholars who collated the TR (whichever version), could be classified also as 'unbelievers' since many of them were Anglicans or Catholics. Likewise, the "majority" of Greek manuscripts were written by Eastern Orthodox scribes-- unbelievers as well. Mr. Cloud seems to have made a serious error in his 'logical' analogy.

Secondly, it has been proven that Mr. Cloud's views of 'providential preservation' could stand the branding it deserves in that it is HERESY!

 

Amen, Brother Natters - Preach it!

Askjo: "Please do not attack or criticize at KJVO! Just discuss without being grudge. Thanks"

Sorry, no can do. David Clouds articles tend to talk about unprovably high order arguments which he cannot or willnot prove. So actually what he says is nonsense. So no, we cannot fail to discuss it but to attack KJVoism and criticize KJVoism. BTW, i've got three different KJVs in my paper library (two of them are also available on-line, the electronic copy is easiest to use). So don't tell me i'm condemning the KJV. In fact, you will find that David Cloud condemns my Bible - but i won't condemn his, if i can ever find out which of my three KJVs his is like?

Anybody want to slander Brother Hort today?

 

David Cloud: "I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today."

I know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today. And i can tell the difference between the written word (rhema) of God, the Bible, and the Living Word (logos) of God, Messiah Jesus. The written word of God for my age is in the HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003). This is a Bible written in 21st Century (2001-2100) English - the same common English spoken today in major parts of the world. (there are some Amish communinities that speak 17th century (1601-1700) thees and thous, but these communities are rapidly declining).

 

I've read the entire article in question several times, Askjo. Unlike his criticism of Riplinger, this one doesn't have any backups for his statements, and is quite vague as Cloud does NOT name who he considers unbelievers among the TCers.

Unlike some of his other articles, this one contains a fair amount of opinion and guesswork.

 

Either ...or neither?

Call W+H rationalists if you like, but there were textual critics ages before their work.

Before the modern era of rationalism there was the Masoretic text. Those that worked on the MT developed an apparatus to categorize the variant readings with the same idea of restoring an original text.

While still not perfect, they did quite well with the limited textual material that was present.

NT material is vast. The amount of variation between texts is large although like the Hebrew text, the differences are rarely (if ever) doctrinally important.

Modern translators depend on textual critics who scientifically collect and compare variants then select the "best" readings or provide commentary in their side notes where texts appear contradictory or doesn't make sense, order to reconstruct a final text that approximates to our best abilities the original.

Rob

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

Pastor Larry is absolutely right here. When science ceases to be objective, it ceases to be science. The religious convictions of the scientists are irrelevant as long as they do not interfere with their objectivity in the collection and analysis of data.

 

Why did Zane say that Westcott and Hort were rationalists? Can you argue with Zane concerning his response against them because he is not KJVO? </font>[/QUOTE]Daniel Wallace made mention of Hodges' statements about the 'rationalism' of the W/H theory, but also points out that Hodges' own Majority Text theory is likewise as rationalistic as the W/H textual theory. Here are Wallace's statements:

( http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=673 )

If you think that Hodges was not being 'rationalist' in creating the Majority Text, then you should have your head checked. Even the TR 'scholars' throughout history have used similar 'rationalistic' models of textual criticism in evaluating textual variations in the Greek NT. So much for your 'point' about rationalism!

Askjo, if you want to contribute effectively to the conversation at hand, please refrain from your nonsensical question-begging!

 

"Christians are the Christian faith’s worst enemy."
anonymous

 

Askjo:Robycop3, which is better? Cloud or Riplinger? I prefer Cloud over Riplinger because of her attitude.

Seems to be as a Presidential election...choosing the lesser of two evils.

You see, I've read all of Riplinger's books but the latest one, as well as most of Cloud's articles. To me, the differences are that Cloud is often right, while GAR is almost always wrong.

Cloud is wishy-washy. He blasts someone such as Ruckman in one sentence, while defending him with the next. Please read this link where Cloud, after blasting Ruckman, says he doesn't doubt God called Ruckman to preach:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm

The little ongoing battle between he and Riplinger is fun to watch. Each is wrong, and is trying to show the other wrong. Pot calling kettle.

 

Westcott and Hort did take a rational approach to their work. How does that make them "unbelievers"?

Are believers only allowed to be irrational?

 

I showed in another thread that the error quote of Westcott appeared in about 120 locations and in three flavors of misquotes. I could not find the correct quotation, if any was available on the internet. The quotation of many places on the internet DOES NOT MAKE FACT.