Featured Revision Revised and it's implications on modern critical texts.

Would say that the solid majority of th textual scholars and experts in that field would hold to the CT being the best greek text, with also some good scholarship supporting the priority of the bzt/MT , but very few reputable ones support TR as the best text extant today!

 

Would you agree with me that the TR is NOT seen as being the best textual basis for a translation by a solid majority of "experts", by those recognized by their peers in textual criticism circles?

 

Is a KJV-only theory based on fallacies, misconceptions, divers measures [double standards], and flawed reasoning just like evolution?

 

What a flawed analogy! Most textual scholars are Christians --Bart E. is an exception to the rule.

 

Are you by any chance a Chris Pinto fan?

 

You are mistaken. The Complutensian Polyglot New Testament which was the work of Francisco Cisnerus was completed and printed in 1514. It wasn't distributed until the Old Testament was finished several years later.

Just as much brought togther "supernaturally by God's Divine provision"as the Greek text of Westcott and Hort.

 

I referred to actual fallacies, not so-called fallacies.

A KJV-only theory depends upon the use of fallacies such as the fallacy of begging the question, special pleading, the fallacy of composition, the ad hominem fallacy or poisoning the well, use of non sequitur [conclusions that do not follow from the premises], slippery slope fallacy, post hoc fallacy, straw man fallacy, and fallacy of false dilemma where KJV-only advocates offer only two alternative [acceptance of a man-made KJV-only theory or else being a liberal, skeptic, or unbeliever]. Use of these fallacies could be documented with examples from books and writings by KJV-only advocates. KJV-only advocates will dodge or avoid the KJV-only burden of proof and will assume their own KJV-only theory has to be true based on the fallacy of begging the question.

The use of divers measures [double standards] is evident in a KJV-only theory in several ways. A different measure or standard is used for evaluating the doctrinal views and bias of the makers of the TR and the KJV than are used for evaluting the doctrinal views and bias of other text editors or translators. A different measure or standard is used for trying the textual criticism principles for the making of the varying TR editions than for the making of other text editions.

 

The Textus Receptus was not one edition of the Greek text that remained exactly in the same in all the twenty or thirty later editions. Erasmus revised the text in his own first edition in later editions, even making use of the Greek NT text in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible for some of them. Simon Colinaeus produced a TR edition that was a mixture of the Erasmus and Complutensian texts along with input from examination of some Greek manuscripts. Robert Stephanus made some revisions to Erasmus' editions and to his own editions. Theodore Beza made some revisions to the earlier editions and even to his own editions.

Thus, there clearly was some revision of the Greek text in the varying editions of the Textus Receptus since they are not all identical to each other.

In addition, you are ignoring the fact that the printed TR editions in effect revised the text in the Greek manuscripts on which they were based. For one well-known example, Erasmus added some readings to the Greek text by translating some readings in the Latin Vulgate into Greek and inserting them even though they were not in his Greek NT manuscripts.

Is this an example of use of the fallacy of begging the question or special pleading?

 

that same logic would also apply to the CT/MTalso, as all greek texts extant to use by the textual experts today, and by translators, are infallible copies of the originals...

God preserved enough ofthe original in the CT/MT/TR etc that all are to be considered as being 'word of God"...

Those holding to Kjvo are requiring the TR/Kjv to be inerrant, to be exactly same as originals, and NONE we have today are that, as ALL have some degree of minor mistakes/alterations/deviations off from the originals!

 

The originals ONLY were inspired revelation from God to us, as they were inerrant, NO mistakes in them...

ALl Greek/Hebrew texts have been corrupted to some extent, but God preserved to us the "Gist " of the originals!