How textual critics do it.

KJVO is illogical as well as unscriptural. But most radical KJVO's will never face the facts with an open mind.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.

 

Where do the Scriptures teach that God had to keep his word intact in one book only after 1611 and only in one English translation?

Are the claimed verses about preservation only for after 1611 and only for those who speak English? How does such an inconsistent man-made view honor God and his Word?

 

How did the 4th century church serve God... they were still arguing over what books should be canonical... let alone have a complete "book"

I just love the way us 21st century people refuse to divorce ourselves from our culture and time when trying to understand the way God works...

Even if we didn't have all the scriptures, people would still be saved... The Holy Spirit is here...

I wonder what people did before Rom. 10:9-10 was written...
Or before verse and chapter divisions were invented?

I know... they told people about what Jesus did for them...

 

Dr. Hills Has An Earned Ph.D.

Hills attended Westminster Seminary and earned a 'key' at Yale University. He later matriculated to the University of Chicago where he was removed for failure to demonstrate doctoral level aptitude. He then went to Harvard and earned his Ph.D.

 

Huh?

Yes. Illogical. Read how he pieced his arguments together. He BEGAN with conclusion he desired. It's called a circular argument and is a logical fallacy.

Hence illogical.

 

Unbelievable! Not only did you make the 'error' when doing the 'chop' job, you repeated it, here.

FTR, I prefer to read what the individual wrote, rather than read what some other said about him. I will refer to him, by his name, when you do the same, BTW. But why should I do your work for you, just to save you the effort of doing it for yourself??

Also FTR, I have said nothing against the individual in question, with whom you are apparently entirely unfamiliar, as you have yet to correctly identify him. Nor do I, neither did I question his academic credentials, in any way. (I can speak for no other in this regard.) But please, don't blame me for something another has done. Nor blame him or her, for what I may have done. Is that a fair request?

I have, in no way, ever given any "German rationalist" any mention, as far as I can recall, on the BB. So exactly what are you referring to, with this ad hominem 'crack'? I find this to be confusing, to say the least.

I did note that I posess two of his books, both of which I have read through. I wonder if you can say the same thing? And if so, why would you need to 'hack' this information, since most of it, at least, is to be found in the author's blurb, in the volumes, themselves. One can usually find a small blurb about the author of most volumes on the cover or on the flyleaf, from my limited experience. This gentleman is no exception.

And you really should do something about that headache.

Ed

 

Not Necessarily. And You Need To Cite Your Sources

Are you making an unsupported assertion, an accusation, or an observation here?

Nobody is saying this is true. And if you think textual criticism has anything to do with 'criticizing' God's Word, you are already in over your head.

You really need to acknowledge where you get this stuff. You've made two egregious errors:

1) You still have 'E.F. Hill.' There is no such textual critic as E.F. Hill. His name was Edward Freer Hills - plural.

2) You trusted David Cloud. It's right under the bold type of Dr. Edward F. Hills if anyone wants to verify my research.

I don't know why you have this in quotations since you cite no source or link. However, this is what I said:

Hills was - literally - thrown out of the University of Chicago for his failure to do doctoral level work.

Quite a difference between the FACTS and what you state, sir. So he earned a Ph.D. at Harvard in textual criticism.

It should be noted that he LIED to get that accreditation in the first place. In 1946, his doctoral dissertation was written IN FAVOR of the Westcott-Hort theory. Yet we know from his writings that he held a position in favor of the Traditional Text all the way back in 1935.

What is all the more interesting is this:

1) On what basis do you ASSUME for God to preserve His Word it must somehow be able to be held in your hand?

2) On what basis does anyone who argues this for the KJV ASSUME that the KJV is 'the preserved Word of God?'

Hills was rejected as a scholar by 'the Guild' because his theories did not support the extant data. What excuse is always given as to the reason there are NO fully Byzantine text-type manuscripts prior to the fourth century?

"They all wore out."

Really?

THIS is how you explain there being none? I like what inerrantist Gordon Fee said in regards to this: "It is hard to imagine a more ahistorical answer to a historical inquiry than this."

 

Ya' had to go and tell! Otherwise, I'da never known!

Ed

 

God did! (Now He's a real textual critic!) Is that good enough?

Ed

 

Re: How SOME supposed textual critics do it!

First, the "church' made no such decision regarding what we normally refer to as the Old Testament, or the Hebrew Scriptures. That had already been settled, in a canon of 24 books, and in fact, Jesus put His own personal stamp of approval on the order by referring to "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah" in Matt. 23:35, as Abel is the first martyr spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures (Gen. 4:8-ff.) and Zechariah is the last one referred to (II Chron. 24, esp. v. 21).

Jesus also recognized this three-fold division of the Law of Moses (Torah), Prophets (Nevi'im) and 'Psalms' (Ketuvim) in Lk. 24:44, where He declares that they all speak of Him.

The 'NT' (as well as the Apocrypha) is another story. First, "The church" did not "decide" where God's word is, at all. They merely recognized (or supposedly did) the Scripture as the Scripture, that it was. And that had already started during the days of the Apostles. Peter declares that part of Paul's writings are Scripture. (II Pet. 3:15-18), but not all of Paul's Epistles are Scripture, however, namely, the Laodecean Epistle. (Col. 4:16)

[Of course, Marcion, the Heretic, called the Epistle to the Laodiceans as Scripture (but somehow was not able to recognize that 3 of the 4 Gospels, as well as part of Luke were so to be recognized as such), and in a bout of personal humility (holding my side to keep it from hurting, as I type this with only my other hand), decided that one of his own epistles deserved to be rated as Scripture! ] Personally, I don't put much stock in Marcion's view, on this, but maybe that's just me.

But, back to the question(s). What church? And what exactly are you referring to as "the canon of Scripture" or "God's word"??

The Old Latin? The Peshitta? Jerome's Vulgate? One or another edition of any of these or some other early version?

Are you referring to the 'listing' as given in the mutilated 'Muratorian fragment', ~ which is known to list 21 of the 27 books we recognize as NT Scripture (and may well have included more, for we have but a fragment of this list, the rest being apparently lost.) We simply do not have enough information to know further, about this.

Or are you refering to Origen, in the early 200's? He was known to be using most of the books we have today. 'Course, he was also known to doubt some of them, and add a few more. Hmmmm!

I got it! The Synod of Hippo, in 393! Two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419) agreed with this pronouncement, pending Rome's agreement, as well. (Rome did finally fully agree, in the Council of Trent in 1546, BTW.) So I guess we now are in agreement with all of them, in your view, no?? They did say several other books are Scripture, as well, you know, including the Apocrypha.

Hmmmm! Again! On second thought, that must not have been the one you are referring to, either.

Or are you referring to the "Alexandrian church", (you know, the one where codices 01-04, aka א,A, B, and C allegedly originate, which several, including some on the BB, have deigned to recognize as being anything less than heretical), this same church, where the now 74 year old Pope of Alexandria (who had been the Pope for 39 years, already), Athanasius, in his "Easter letter" of 367, gave the first "official" and exact listing of the 27 NT books that we recognize, today?


(Sorry for the sudden 'emboldenment', and weird formatting, where although I've tried, the format won't let me remove this, somehow, after I inserted the 'Aleph'.)

''I know, Now I got it!" Not the Wycliffe? Not Luther's version in German? Not "Tyndale''? Not "Geneva"?

It's The KJV of 1611. That's gotta be it! Just as it was translated, and issued!

All the 39 books of the OT, 27 books of the NT, and 7 books (and two additional parts of others) of the Apocrypha? BTW, as the "Royal Perogative" or "Crown Copyright" under which the KJV is printed, as the official Bible of the Church of England, is perpetual and has never been 'revoked', does this not mean that the Bible should always include the Apocrypha, which every official KJV did up until at least 150 years ago?

In the immortal words of Lt. Columbo,

"Do you see the problem, here?"

Ed

 

I am sure I must have misunderstood you (my fault, not yours ), but if you really did mean that the Westminster Confession of Faith was referring to the AV/KJV, could you tell me where exactly it says so? (I have read the whole of Chapter 1: "Of the holy Scripture" again, and can find in it no mention of any particular translation.

Incidentally, in your later post (33), the link to the Westminster Confession would not work for me, though the link in the message above did.

 

The Error of Halo

Right Reverend Doctors, legal or self-dubbed, willfully or not, have guided many into the ditch--the blind leading the blind. When we apply piety and sacrosanctness(just coined that one) to men/women, we become partakers of their delusions, especially when we sit at their feet. We will all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. See I Cor. 3, the whole chapter.

It is by the Grace of God that we have the Truth which He gave to His Bride, continuously witnessed by The Spirit, The Holy, via the Assembly. This teaching has not been stressed in most Hallowed Halls of Higher learning--save the holy see--they be in the usurper's ditch too.

Maybe we need to take a saw to the legs of the "high" chairs which adorn many places of worship. Yes, seat everyone at the same level--then everyone can get prostrate, a lost form of worship, save those who worship Allah.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of The Living God.(not Allah)

God wrote only one Bible.
I am not KJVO. Jesus Christ, and Him crucified is in Swahili--I think. Now what?

God has preserved His Word, in spite of the translators injecting their own theologies. A little child can understand.

We are without excuse.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

David Lamb!!

Are you really surprised about what you found, here, when trying this?

Another alleged "CUT AND PASTE" really turned out to be just another hatchet job, ya' think?

Ed

 

(My emphasis embolded.)

No, Ehud, this is another attempted "Slash job", attempting to 'prove' your point.

The actual quote from the web site above actually says this of "The Philadelphia Confession"

I realize that this little annoying matter of this "exception", for historical accuracy, pales for you, in the face of your attempt to do whatever it takes to 'prove' that the KJV is the only acceptable Bible version for one speaking English, but "facts is facts", and this is what the site (not Ehud) says.

And in accordance with what David Lamb says about the Westminster Confession, as well, the Philadelphia Confession (and the Second London Confession, BTW) does not name the KJV, or any other version.

In fact, I believe, unless I am mistaken, that the Westminster Confession of faith is the first "English" 'Confession' to specifically refuse to include the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. (The First London Confession of 1644-1646, which is a 'Baptist' Confession of Faith, as opposed to the Second London Conferssion, which is a 'Church of England' Confession, does not address the question of Scripture, at all.) That was not the case with the KJV, as printed, regardless of whether it was the actual belief of some or all of the members of the 'translating teams', for it included the Apocrypha, and would continue to do so, in all cases (well, except for the 'counterfeit' KJVs printed in America), for at least another century.

Ed

 

DUDE!!!!

Sic 'em!!!

 

It is not my intention to "sic" anyone, but it is also not my intention to let falshoods and misrepresentations go unchallenged, either.

Sorry, if I may come across as a little strong, at times. It is my personal opinion that the OP has been cut a fair amount of slack, by both the Mods. and other posters, and still persists in doing things the same way, time after time. I see no reason for this, personally. I care not what one's preferences are, and do not even question such. I do challenge what I said above, though, when the pattern continues.

God bless,

Ed

 

Ed S. : The Second London Confession of Faith was not a Church of England confession . It was baptistic and made in 1689 . It's closer to the Savoy Confession , but both were modeled after the Westminster Confession of Faith . And it certainly does address the subject of Scripture . The first proposition deals with this subject most clearly .

Also , the specific word 'apocrypha' wasn't mentioned , but the Waldesian Confession of 1120 did not deem it canonical . I'm going by their third proposition .

3. We acknowledge for sacred canonical scriptures the books of the Holy Bible [ Here follows the title of each , exactly conformable to our received canon , but which is on that account quite unnecessary to particularize .]