Texual Criticism Methodology

Edward F. Hills, the author of his book, The King James Version Defended wrote:

"Thus there are two methods of New Testament textual criticism, the consistently Christian method and the naturalistic method. These two methods deal with the same materials, the same Greek manuscripts, and the same translations and biblical quotations, but they interpret these materials differently. The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book."

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm

 

In other words only those who use the KJV enjoy the benefit of a "consistently Christian method." All others are "naturalisitc" (ie. unchrisitian)

So, if you don't buy into the "providential preservation" doctrine, a man made doctrine, then you aren't Chrisitian but naturalistic? Yep, that will surely win over a lot of non-kjvo believers. In fact, it's that kind of stuff that changed me from being KJVO.

 

Hills is wrong on this. Textual criticism is neither Christian nor unChristian in the sense that he uses it here.

 

Sorry, you are mistaken. Please explain why many Christian scholars support some unbelieving scholars in regard of textual criticism by favoring modern versions over the KJV.

 

Those who translate MVs use a Consistently Christian method. To claim otherwise is bearing false witness, something God's Word calls sin

 

No, I am not. Textual criticism is not a discipline that can take "believing" or "unbelieving" status. Either believers or unbelievers can do textual criticism and do it properly.

Because they are right and are committed to the Word of God. When someone is committed to the Word of God, they leave behind this nonsense that Hills and others spout and pay attention to what God said. What you have done is elevate the words of man over the word of God. For evidence, notice that when you attempted to make a case for "believing textual criticism" you did not cite God; you cited man and declared him to be infallible. I reject that, choosing instead to believe God himself.

You may do as you wish.

 

Basically, the "Consistantly Christian" method brings its own presuppositions into the equation, whereas the "Naturalistic" method let's the text(s) speak for itself.

I am a Christian, and am all for using textual criticism to get as close ot the originals as we possibly can... but it must be done honestly and without fudging the results to make it say what you want it to say. For someone, anyone, to attempt textual criticism by using anything other than a completely unbiased methodology is not textual criticism at all. It is twisting the source material(s) to say what you want it to say.

I am definitely with Pastor Larry on this one. Either textual criticism is done properly, that is completely neutral and unbiased, or it is not textual criticism at all.

Interprets? textual criticism is not interpretation. It is using the materials to reconstruct how it was originally. "Interpreting" involves altering this and giving what the person thinks instead of what the materials actually say.

Applying any doctrines, no matter which ones, violates the integrity of the textual criticism. Just as the introduction of any foreign substance makes a pure substance impure, overlaying any form of doctrine over textual criticism makes it impure. Would any here want the results of New Testamnet textual criticism (or even Old Testament) is it interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrines of the Catholic church? That's not the same as the the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures? Nope, but it is still doctrine superimposed upon the source(s).

 

Ok, what about the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek text? Did 3 editors of UBS use the consistently Christian method because they produced a new Greek text - the UBS?

 

The textual criticism did NOTHING with the believers or unbelievers, but they did their METHOD on textual criticism.

The textual criticism did NOTHING with the interpretation, but consistently Christian scholars and the naturalistic scholars used their interpretation on their METHOD of textual criticism.

Those naturalistic scholars would love.

 

I think the record player is stuck, give it a whack, would ya?

Even the men who translated the blessed KJV practiced textual criticism. It came natural to them.