-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
thinking from moving for the kjv to the esv
- Thread starter zaptear
- Start date
You seem to have created a false dichotomy. The over emphasis on the Alexandrian Texrform, and the redacting of the manuscripts representing that textform, from divergent sources, is what created the Critical text.
I think you may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion regarding the foundations of, and the descent of, the Critical text. The Critical text is a construct.
To quote Wilber Pickering, writing in "The Identity of the New Testament Text," page 21, where he quotes Dr. Merrill M. Parvis (University of Chicago Divinity School, Federated Theological faculty), "We have reconstructed text-types and families and sub families and in so doing have created things that never before existed on earth or in heaven. We have assumed that manuscripts reproduced themselves according to the Mendelian law. But when we have found that a particular manuscript would not fit into any of our nicely constructed schemes, we have thrown up our hands and said that it contained a mixed text." (M.M. Parvis, "The Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism," The Journal of Religion, XXXII (1952), 173.)
In other words, the Critical text is a constructed text that has no historical reality but rather is a combination of the variant readings from a variety of manuscripts that have no other relation to one another which came into existence only in the mind of the redactor and was then put on paper. (In all fairness the TR, in its present form, is based on a similar, but lesser by several orders of magnitude, redacting done first by Erasmus (although even Hort said Erasmus didn't do any modern, scientific textual criticism but merely passed along the universally accepted text), then by a number of editors, culminating with F. H. A. Scrivener's TR presently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.)
Unlike the Critical text, the Byzantine textform can be shown to have existed and been in virtually constant usage by the Greek speaking church for over 1,000 years. And the necessary editing was limited to the selection, by application of rational rules of textual criticism, between two equally attested variant readings.
And none of this has anything at all to do with KJVOism. In fact, I made an earlier reference to Dr. Maurice Robinson, Retired Research Professor of New Testament Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Byzantine Textform, who stated quote forcefully, regarding KJVOism, "I consider [KJVOism] illogical sophistry, conspiracy theories, and agenda-driven propagandistic blather."
And, of course, he is correct.
The truth is tha t the Critical text though hs just as nuch support for being the "real/righ" Greek text as those othter 2, and that the choice as to which one isto be shown as being superior pretty much falls under a preference, as good and valid points can be made for both texts that you prefer, and the one that I do...
Andthose holding to KJVO/TR superority do indeed see theAlexandrian text as somehow being corrupted by some kind of evil monks ad literally found in trsh bins!
Did you get the calfskin/real leather or?
I have an ESV study Bible in calfskin. It is really nice
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Website?
Never mind. You don't seem to understand the difference between a manuscript, a text, and a textform (or texttype as some call it).
I do, but yo do not seem to admit that the Critical txt is also a valued greek text to use!
I have never claimed it wasn't. I didn't even mention it. It is you who brought it up. Not me. You see, I know what it is. You apparently don't. You do know where and when it originated, right?
Local Church Bible Publishers is not Church Bible Publishers.
Having said that.... the Turquoise bible is available only in calf skin.
My only complaint is that it is skimpy on the gutters. Other than that, it is a reprint of the Cambridge Turquoise reference Bible. It is worth having.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Yes, and was just suggesting that itwas not compiled by a society of heretical monks somewhere!
Do you have one from the Lansing Mi Publishers ten?
I tried that and it was rejected just like the NIV and frowned upon. The solution was to find a new church.
God sees nothing wrong with using a different version than Kjv, but those in that Church really will! If want to use a different version, need to go to another church!
That's what I thus said.
Reminds me ofthe time was asked to show up to celebrate a Church conversion of school to their church, was told to take KJV only in, and before pastor spoke, local Police Chief read the OT passage where Solomon dedicated the temple, but read it in th Niv! The Pastor and staff lookd like they were getting real sick and needed a bucket!
GenevanBaptist
Member
I don't think choosing a version as the main or only standard to go by is anything like worshiping that version.
That is just silly.
Having a standard just makes sense.
"A ship without an anchor wanders everywhere - so one does, who lacks a 'foundation' for building faith in the accuracy of the English word of God." (me.
)If we lack understanding, we lack it all.