"Sacred Writings: Preserved or Reconstructed? The Nature of the Greek New Testament" by Adam Boyd.

[Alan Dale Gross]

"Sacred Writings: Preserved or Reconstructed?
The Nature of the Greek New Testament" by Adam Boyd.

I found this 1.5 hour presentation to be perfectly understandable at the 1.5 speed,
which wound cut you viewing time down considerably.

Check this out. You want the Original Autographs? Go back and look in the kind of New Testament local church assemblies that Jesus Built and Promised to Continue to be with, until He Comes Again. They were there. Preserved.

 

[Logos1560]

I have a copy of 2021 The Text-Critical English New Testament [Byzantine Text Version] translated and compiled by Robert Adam Boyd.

Alan Dale Gross, are you advocating or recommending Robert Adam Boyd's English New Testament as being the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is the word of God translated into English?

In his introduction, Robert Adam Boyd wrote: "There is no practical way of indicating which Greek words have been left untranslated, leaving the impression that, although some words have been added in English, no words have been left untranslated, which is not the case for any English translation" (p. vii).

 

[Logos1560]

The 2026 The Ancient Standard Bible edited by Tyler Holliday indicates that it has the English New Testament by Robert Adam Boyd.

Alan Dale Gross, would you advocate or recommend this Bible with Robert Adam Boyd's English New Testament as being the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the KJV is the word of God translated into English?

 

[Logos1560]

Does modern KJV-only teaching in effect imply or suggest that the inspired original-language words of Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were largely lost and must be restored or reconstructed by textual criticism decisions and conjectural emendation decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza and by the textual criticism decisions, emendation decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611?

Jan Krans noted: “A key element in the understanding of Erasmus’ conjectural emendation are the many instances in which he inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin Vulgate” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 11). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism, and, as we will see, even in the conjectural emendation of the Greek text” (p. 28). Erika Rummel maintained that “he [Erasmus] dispelled the idea that emendation and textual criticism undermined the authority of the Bible” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 124).

KJV defender Edward F. Hills surprisingly acknowledged: "Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations into his New Testament text" (KJV Defended, p. 208; Text, p. 345). Jan Krans claimed: “There is a remarkable paradox in Beza’s editions: though he professes time and again not to change the text lightly out of mere conjecture, he offers at the same time an astonishingly high number of conjectures” (Beyond What is Written, p. 247). Jan Krans maintained that Beza’s emendations “had not been based on a sound and consistent text-critical method” (p. 198). Jan Krans suggested that Beza “used Erasmus’ technique of inferring [Greek] readings” based on the Latin Vulgate and even also “on the basis of Erasmus’ Latin translation” (p. 240). Jan Krans maintained that “the existence of versional ‘evidence’ for a reading does not exclude its being a conjecture when adopted into the Greek text” (p. 90). Jan Krans also noted that “Beza’s harmonistic approach [preferring readings that bring the gospel accounts closer together] sometimes led to conjectural emendation” (p. 241).