Scrivener and the TR

Wilhelm, Bro Kutilek has the same inspired Bible and Final Authority as the Anglican translators of the KJV. You have moved beyond preservation to pickling God's Word in English.

 

I have an inspired Bible. It's sitting right here on my bookshelf. Doug does as well. Just because it's not YOUR Bible doesn't mean that it's not inspired.

 

In all fairness Bro Will, you also are your own final authority having chosen the King James Bible (1611-1769?) and attributed it(1611-1769?) with that quality of "inspiration" (though certainly you do not include as your final authority the 1611 Edition which included the gnostic Apocrypha of the RCC).

What have you done that is any different than someone who chooses another version such as the NASB and attributes it with "inspiration" (there are those who do you know) or those of us who atrribute the words of the original language with "inspiration".

What is so special about 1611-1769 Elizabethan English and The Anglo-Catholic Church of England (high Church) who teach a form of baptismal regeneration and the "Real Presence" in the Eucharist and included the gnostic Apocrypha in the 1611 First Edition of the AV?

Many Baptists, as well as other non-Catholic Christians choose not to consider them as their "final authority"

HankD

 

Well, Orvie, not exactly. The KJV translators worked primarily from the Textus Receptus type Greek text and Mr. Kutilek works from the critical Greek text type. They are different.

 

Not really, for the most part, the critical text has all the words of the TR.
Just that some of them are consigned to the footer page margin.

HankD

 

Not really, for the most part, the critical text has all the words of the TR.
Just that some of them are consigned to the footer page margin.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]But it is you who has posted, and reposted, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, the KJVO mantra "Things that are different are not the same."

 

Hey, no one is "perfect".

HamkD

 

I'm a "fan" of Doug Kutilek, having corresponded w/ him by email here and there. However, I still think the Traditional Text (NT) is superior to the Critical Text and I've told him so. (and you know what? he disagrees, but he's a gentleman about it!) I don't consider the Critical Text to be a "conspiracy", as some seem to do, I don't see the evidence for that, personally. I just consider the Traditional Text (TR) superior. 'nuff said.

 

sorry, double post

 

I agree!