WHy Would Anyone Think That...

Not really.

Not reputable ones, no.

 

What are you talking about? God allowed the original manuscripts to be lost. We just have better ones than the writers of the KJV did.

 

Didn't God inform Daniel that in the last days knowledge would be increasing, so wouldn't the Lord be allowing us to discover more about the Bible nearer end of days?

 

But the reason you gave for liking the CT was that it did not harmonize. But it does so quite a bit. So your reason for liking the CT is invalid.

The Gospel writer simply corrected the LXX.

Both the Byz and UBS have this as a direct quote of the LXX, without "Lord" in there. So the problem is?

This is an almost exact quote of the LXX of Is. 42:4.

Once again a quote from the LXX, simply leaving out a phrase for Matthew's discourse purpose. No paraphrase here.

So tell me, where are the paraphrases? What you are describing with these examples are not translation problems but part of the Synoptic Problem. And futhermore, you mistook the reference in the 1st one, which should have been Mal. 3:1, and you didn't even give the address for your last Matthew quote. Sloppy. If this is the best you have, cease and desist. I don't have time to keep looking up the LXX.

 

According to Maurice Robinson, who did his Ph. D. dissertation on scribal habits, scribes were much more likely to drop a line than assimilate. Comfort is following a myth that goes way back among textual critics who state it without evidence, without actually examining scribal habits. Does Comfort give evidence that assimilation was common? I seriously doubt it. Again, Comfort's point assumes Marcan priority to be fact, which is quite doubtful in the minds of many scholars. So his view is pure speculation here.

 

And your proof of that is...........where?

 

Yes, really. The eclectic method, which produced the current critical text of the Greek NT, is very subjective. Are you familiar with Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, which explains the choices the UBS editorial committee made? It is full of statements such as "it is possible to argue" (Matt. 1:11), "appears to be" (2:18), "it is possible" (3:16), etc.

This is a slap in the face of some very reputable scholars who through the years and even now are Byzantine/Majority advocates, such as Maurice Robinson (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary), Zane Hodges (Dallas), Arthur Farstad (Dallas), Wilbur Pickering, William Pierpont and many others. Then there is Harry Sturz (who taught both David Alan Black and Dan Wallace), who agreed with neither the CT nor the Byzantine side.

 

Think that it is best to say on this issue that good Christians can in grace agree to disagree on this topic, as though I hold to the CT as being the closest to the original language texts, think that your position is well articulated, some good scholarship, and think regradless of our help positions, Christians have accurate english translation, your choice wether to use NKJV/NASV/NIV etc!

 

The correct term is "autographs." Manuscripts are hand-copied versions based on the originals, or based on copy of other manuscripts.

I have a theory about the autographs and why God may have caused them to disapear. Perhaps He knows us better than we know ourselves and understood that we would bow down and worship the books instead of the God they point to? I suspect it is so, much like the Ark of the Covenant, which He also made go away until the time when He deems it necessary once again.

Can't prove my theory until I meet God face-to-face, but it has merit.

 

Interesting how only those with whom you side doctrinally have the correct view... That is starting to sound more like tradition on your part rather than scholarship, not to take anything away from those great scholars.

 

But isn't that true of either side?

 

Was I supposed to sit there and ignore Jaigner while good men, top scholars were maligned as not being reputable?

I have no idea why you are saying my position comes from tradition. What in the world that I have said gave you this idea? My grandfather and father were actually on the CT side. Dad was actually taught Greek at Wheaton in the 1940's using Westcott and Hort.

I was originally a CT man, trained with the UBS text at BJU and Tennessee Temple. In 1986 I decided to research the issue and came out on the Majority text side after reading many scholarly books on both sides. More recently I have read and come to agree strongly with the Robinson/Pierpont methodology (as compared to the Zane Hodges approach).

 

Yes, as Baptists we believe in the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church. And for the record, the church I pastor does not use the KJV, but the 新改訳聖書. :saint:

 

I've come to the Dr. Fred Afman viewpoint- he would often say, "There are good men on both sides of this issue", give us the facts as he knew them and let us choose.

 

Would that good men on both sides would return to the spiritual attitudes of good men in our days at TTU, amen?

 

Let's take a closer look at this. Compare the two passages (note that there are no textual problems in either verse):

Matt 17:21-- touto de to genoV ouk ekporeuetai ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia (touto de to genoV ouk ekporeuetai ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia)
Mark 9:29--kai eipen autoiV touto to genoV en oudeni dunatai exelqein ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia (kai eipen autoiV touto to genoV en oudeni dunatai exelqein ei mh en proseuch kai nhsteia)

Note: the final phrase is identical in both Matt. and Mark, but the first half of the verse is quite different. Matt. ekporeuetai, but Mark has exelqein, and so forth. If Matthew is harmonizing to Mark's wording, why did he deliberately "disharmonize" the first part of the verse? Logically there is no reason to do so. Granted, Comfort is a far greater scholar than I am, but his view here just does not fit the bill.

Now, Rippon, for you to prove harmonization in the Byzantine, pleas provide a passage, parallel in two Gospels, that doesn't just deal with leaving out or including words, but that you feel is a definite attempt by the Byzantine to harmoize so that the two passages are identical.

 

I will offer you the benefit of the doubt due to your scholarly approach to the situation. Can't say that about a lot of the others who take the same position that you do. They think that the devil is involved in all the other manuscripts.

 

Would be rather difficult to be both a missionary to foreign lands and also a KJVO person, no? But I expect that some have tried...

 

Perhaps you are mistaking my Byzantine priority position with some kind of KJVO position.

Even TR folk don't usually take the position that the devil inspired the other mss. Read the writings of David Otis Fuller or Edward F. Hills (who was actually a genuine textual scholar on the Caesarean text type).

 

Good, then join me in the battle against the heretical position that so many here on the board take with their KJVO stance.