Textual Criticism

The "consistently Christian method" is a name that means nothing. What is the consistently Christian method?? The one that comes up with the TR right?? That is fallacious argumentation. Attaching "naturalistic method" to an approach is an attempt to say that we deny supernaturalism in bibliology. The bottom line is that all preservation is, to a point, naturalistic. The texts have degenerated over the years, fallen apart, blurred, etc. God did not see fit to perfectly preserve any text. Hills was wrong.

To your other questions, I am not "denying" your information and assertion about WH. I am saying I don't care. I have used some of the commentaries and found nothing unorthodox in them. If there were some points that they were unorthodox on, then so be it. I really don't care. Westcott and Hort are non-issues in this discussion. Textual criticism is not affected by spirituality of the person involved. These men (as well as Erasmus, Scrivener, etc) were working with texts long in existence and unchanged by them. You misunderstand the process of textual criticism and are therefore led to make erroneous assertions about it.

As for Riplinger and WH, White's book "The King James Only Controversy" shows many of her lies about others, including WH. In addition, this article gives a general review of her book, and has a section specifically on WH. Review of New Age Bible Versions

YOu are barking up the wrong tree with this line of reasonsing. The debate about textual criticism should focus on methods, and there are strengths and weaknesses of both major approaches. However, to focus on the men is a sleight of hand illusion that may work on some but most of us will see right through it. I would encourage you to put aside your infatuation with WH and move on to things that actually matter.

 

Neither you nor Roberts disproved White. My suspicion is that it is a matter of how one interprets less than conclusive history. However, that is irrelevant. White may well be wrong on that fact, but that does not mean that the modern text is corrupted. That is a non sequitur. It just doesn't matter.

 

Brother I could just not undertand what you are saying here so I am asking. Are you talking about the Word of God?

Richard

 

Askjo, I'd still like to see your definition of "consistently Christian" textual criticism. I have no idea what that means.

 

Askjo said:

Am early promoter of Gnosticism was Basilides who taught in Alexandria about AD 125-150. He fabricated his own corrupt version of the Gospel (and composed apocryphal psalms), and founded his own School of Gnosticism in Alexandria." The history disagrees with James White.

Not at all. You will notice that Robert makes note of a particular, identifiable Gnostic who fabricated a particular, identifiable corrupt Gospel text. In other words, what he did was apparently not done in secret, and the Church was not (and is not) deceived by his corruption of the text.

What Dr. Petey was claiming, specifically (and what White was answering, specifically) is that manuscripts used today that are based on the Alexandrian text type (e.g. Vaticanus or Sinaiticus) were corrupted by Gnostics. For this specific argument, he provides no evidence, and indeed, there is none.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the Gnostic Gospel of Basilides. You and Robert did not refute the historical claim White made; rather, you erected a straw man and sidestepped White's argument entirely.

 

The plant is a gigantic herb that grows from an underground stem (rhizome) and forms a false trunk with leaves.

hey, i can change the subject too!

 

Askjo said:

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts disagreed each other in the gospel alone 3,000 times.

What does this have to do with the price of rice in China? I thought we were discussing whether they had been corrupted by "Gnostics."

 

None of us saw this coming.

 

Hey, now, David Cloud never claimed to be a textual critic, and he does have a lot of good things to say even if you disagree with him on the versions issue.

Jason

 

Askjo said:

I read White's book and marked on what he incorrectly answered against the KJV superiority.

So did I, and as I have already said, he is right when he says there is no evidence the Alexandrian text family has been corrupted by "Gnostics."

 

I think that's part of the problem. When you aren't able or capable or knowledgable of a subject and it comes across in the statements you choose to make regarding that subject, it calls into question your credibility. I'm afraid that Cloud's comments on this and on Calvinism have unnecessarily brought his credibility into question.

By the way, all of us preachers face the same dilemma. Lloyd-Jones warned against it; Spurgeon did too, as many of the preachers gone before. Yet we still comment on politics, economics, etc., and compromise a hearing for the gospel.

Sorry for the soapbox.

 

He has some good things to say. Unfortunately, many of his opinions are tainted by his KJVOnlyism. He counts anyone who uses MV's as suspect or liberal from the start then lets that bias color the facts in evidence. He recently resurrected a 25 year old false accusation against John MacArthur concerning the blood of Christ. You may not agree with MacArthur (I do for the most part) but it is lunacy to label him a liberal much less a heretic.