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

[Jordan Kurecki]

You do realise that while there is very good textual scholarship on either Ct/Mt sides to support them as being the " right text", there is essentially none for the TR itself?

What do you consider good textual scholarship?

This book I'm reading right now is what I would consider good solid textual scholarship for the T.R./KJV.

I suggest you read it.

Early MSS, Church Fathers, and the A.V. by J.A. Moorman.

I find your statement rather prideful. What do you consider a good textual scholar? only those who hold to the MT or CT? Seriously your statement is false.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I understand you may disagree with the KJO or TR position, but you cannot honestly say there are no scholars who hold to the TR.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand you may disagree with the KJO or TR position, but you cannot honestly say there are no scholars who hold to the TR.

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!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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!

Why is it that a majority of the scribes and Pharisees desired to kill Jesus?

Your whole majority and scholarship appeal does not prove truth.

"Most scientists believe in evolution"

 

[Yeshua1]

Why is it that a majority of the scribes and Pharisees desired to kill Jesus?

Your whole majority and scholarship appeal does not prove truth.

"Most scientists believe in evolution"

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?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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?

Would you agree with me that creation is not seen as being the best explanation for existence by a solid majority of "experts" by those recognized by their peers in the scientific community?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Just like evolution is based on misconceptions and flawed theories, so are the CT and MT.

It's the same thing, just a majority of people parroting a fews flawed theories.

What Darwin is to evolution, So are Tischendorf and Wescott/Hort to Textual Criticism.

 

[Logos1560]

Just like evolution is based on misconceptions and flawed theories, so are the CT and MT.

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

 

[Rippon]

Would you agree with me that creation is not seen as being the best explanation for existence by a solid majority of "experts" by those recognized by their peers in the scientific community?

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

 

[Rippon]

What Darwin is to evolution, So are Tischendorf and Wescott/Hort to Textual Criticism.

Are you by any chance a Chris Pinto fan?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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

What are these so called fallacies, misconceptions, divers measures, and flawed reasoning?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Are you by any chance a Chris Pinto fan?

I don't really know much about him.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Since these six prerequisites or measures were not actually used and applied in the making of the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus to start with, it seems that Burgon was being inconsistent or was guilty of the use of divers measures in his demand. Does that fact counter Burgon's inconsistent reasoning?

According to a consistent application of Burgon's own tests or measures, were the Textus Receptus editions properly made?

The actual collating of the few [less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts] Greek manuscripts using in the making of the Textus Receptus editions was imperfectly and incompletely done in the 1500's. The TR editions were thus based on imperfect and incomplete information.

Burgon's principles were for any REVISION of the Greek text. the TR was the first printed Greek text in existence NOT a revision so this statement isn't even valid, and the texts behind it were brought together supernaturally by God's divine provision.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have read it, and it does not support a modern KJV-only theory.




Have you marked the places in the KJV where it has readings found in no original language manuscripts or where it has readings with little manuscript evidence or minority manuscript evidence?

Perhaps you are using unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards], using a different measure as a standard for some translations than the original language standard that you would use for the KJV.

It should be noted that for every One minority reading found in the KJB, there are at least 20 such minority readings found in the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard and the CT. These modern versions often do not even agree with each other. One will follow a particular minority reading while the other will disagree and follow another.

 

[Rippon]

the TR was the first printed Greek text in existence

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.

the texts behind it were brought together supernaturally by God's divine provision.

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

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Is a KJV-only theory based on fallacies, misconceptions, divers measures [double standards], and flawed reasoning just like evolution?

What are these so called fallacies, misconceptions, divers measures, and flawed reasoning?

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Since these six prerequisites or measures were not actually used and applied in the making of the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus to start with, it seems that Burgon was being inconsistent or was guilty of the use of divers measures in his demand. Does that fact counter Burgon's inconsistent reasoning?

According to a consistent application of Burgon's own tests or measures, were the Textus Receptus editions properly made?

The actual collating of the few [less than 100 Greek NT manuscripts] Greek manuscripts using in the making of the Textus Receptus editions was imperfectly and incompletely done in the 1500's. The TR editions were thus based on imperfect and incomplete information.

Burgon's principles were for any REVISION of the Greek text. the TR was the first printed Greek text in existence NOT a revision so this statement isn't even valid,

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.

the texts behind it were brought together supernaturally by God's divine provision.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Burgon's principles were for any REVISION of the Greek text. the TR was the first printed Greek text in existence NOT a revision so this statement isn't even valid, and the texts behind it were brought together supernaturally by God's divine provision.

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!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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!

How do we know that all of what we have today have mistakes/alterations/deviations from the originals if we do not have the originals to compare? Since you know what are in the originals maybe you should put out a Hebrew old Testament and Greek New testament.

 

[Yeshua1]

How do we know that all of what we have today have mistakes/alterations/deviations from the originals if we do not have the originals to compare? Since you know what are in the originals maybe you should put out a Hebrew old Testament and Greek New testament.

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!