Why is textual criticism only wrong when it disagrees w/ the readings in the KJV?

Just another prime example of the double standards used by some of those who adhere to the KJVO myth. And, yes, it is alarming, isn't it?

 

Just because some KJVO says it, doesn't make it correct; in fact, it's uaually WRONG.

 

I read some of it. There is a short
discussion of it somewhere here or in the
archives. I saw where she was discussing the
sacredness of the English letters that she
seems to have no idea that in the original
KJV1611 edition there is no distinction between
the sacred 'J' and the selfish 'I'

When/if you have time, go study my catalogue
of KJVO Double Standards at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1411.html?

 

If you liked that link, you will love this one:

#2 In AWE of Thy Word

 

Part of the problem is that TC is subjective to the critics integrity as well as skill and the Holy Spirit ...

 

"Textual Criticism" is basically an unsound practice. It is seldom "rightly dividing the Word of Truth"--it is more like adding confusion to those already confused--in the guise of "critical thinking".

Would not the time and money spent "criticizing the text" be better spent "preaching the gospel"?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

oops, logic shift. I'm sure it has a logical name,
but we usually meet it in the market place: a bait
and switch technique. I know i went to the KIA dealership
to see the 8995$ car. There was one there: no air.
Sorry, when it is usually above 90 each day when i come
home from work for 4 months straight - air condidtioning
is NOT an opition. So i bought a 14,000$ KIA/ I'd been
baited and switched.

Bro.James: //"Textual Criticism" is basically an unsound practice. ...
Would not the time and money spent "criticizing the text" be better
spent "preaching the gospel"?//

Sorry, 'textual criticism' has NOTHING to do with 'criticizing
the text'.

Not to mention that a false dichotomy has be broached.
Textual Criticism and preaching the gospel are NOT
mutually exclusive - it is possible to do both at the same time.

 

Whilst we "rehash" authorship, veracity and other matters which have already been determined, more of the world population is going to the pit.

"Be doers of the Word, not hearers only."

Let the Holy Spirit bear witness to The Word and let us be witnesses instead of cyberspace hyper-analyticals. God said what He meant; and He meant what He said.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

"Textual Criticism" is basically an unsound practice.

Someone obviously forgot to tell Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators this. Fortunately, they came up with the KJV in spite of themselves.

Of course, we all know that what you really mean is that "textual criticism that casts doubt on the notion that the KJV is neither more nor less than exactly the Bible God wants the English speaking people to have, and a pox on thee if thou disagreest."

 

Bro. james: "Textual Criticism" is basically an unsound practice. It is seldom "rightly dividing the Word of Truth"--it is more like adding confusion to those already confused--in the guise of "critical thinking".

Hmmmm...then I reckon Dean John Burgon was wrong, as were the many revisors of the textus receptus...or those who say, "THIS mss is better than THAT mss".

Should we just blindly accept someone's opinion because that person has a fancy title before or after his/her name?

 

What if the copyright page is missing from my Bible?

The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Word of God in whatever language, translation, revision, or edition. What edition did the Ethiopian have when The Lord saved his soul? Jesus found him through The Word.

God saves the souls of depraved mankind inspite of man's theologies and bibliologies (bibliographies too).

Preach the Word.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I agree but those who often are criticing the text are not soing evangelism. Those who evangelize take the take and use it. Others think that evangelism gets done criticizing other texts. Teh problem I see is that they are like concrete--all mixed up and permanently set.

I have a great admiration for those who try to give us an excellent translation. It is a tremendous job for which they often only get criticism.

 

What would you suggest one do with the corrupted text? You do realize that much of the commentary that was made in the margins of earlier copies in an effort to explain the text made their way into later copies.

 

All of God's Word harmonizes. Whenever one verse contradicts 3 or 4 that agree, the "odd" one is considered spurious. This paradigm includes marginal comments, words in italics, paraphrases, and the "Schofield Bible".

If we are so interested in translating correctly, why do we continue to transliterate "baptizo"? Because "immersion" does not fit a lot of "Christian" doctrine.

Modern translations seem to take away from the Divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth. The Bride of Christ is not a plain teaching. With whatever biases they may have had, Wycliffe, Tyndale and others did a better job of translating than we do today.

Selah,

Bro. James