-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
About Modern Versions compared to the KJV
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
So you are admitting you cannot give an example of where the NKJV, the WEB, or the EMTV subjects itself to "science falsely so called?"
And you try to dodge the question by insinuating I don't really care? If I didn't care I would not have asked.
So, again, can you give an example from the NKJV, WEB, or EMTV where the translation "subjects itself to science falsely so called?"
You either can or you can't.
You do not demonstrate that your allegation is consistent, sound, and true.
You do not prove that the processes involved in the textual criticism decisions used in the making of the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions was completely different from what you attempt to condemn.
Or really any valid modern version, such as Esv/Nas/Niv etc?
Guess ONLY the textual critics at time of the Kjv were inspired by God, as all the rest were satanic than?
InTheLight,
Thanks; the purpose of posting the link was to make way for a fuller discussion, so you will know exactly where I am coming from- (those are my own words in the link). It would save anyone interested in the discussion time if they read the argument.
But succinctly modern texts collated using modern methods of textual criticism are putting the science of textual criticism in judge of scripture thereby presupposing a philosophy of science not based upon scripture. Rather it is the savior of scripture; and it is from the same progressive era liberalism that has infected so much of the church.
Thanks; the purpose of posting the link was to make way for a fuller discussion, so you will know exactly where I am coming from- (those are my own words in the link). It would save anyone interested in the discussion time if they read the argument.
But succinctly modern texts collated using modern methods of textual criticism are putting the science of textual criticism in judge of scripture thereby presupposing a philosophy of science not based upon scripture. Rather it is the savior of scripture; and it is from the same progressive era liberalism that has infected so much of the church.
You do not demonstrate that your allegations are sound and true.
Are you unaware that textual criticism was used in the editing decisions that resulted in the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus Greek New Testament editions? Erasmus did not simply take one Greek New Testament manuscript and follow its text 100%. Erasmus edited, corrected, changed, and revised a few Greek NT manuscripts, using textual criticism. Sometimes he emended the Greek New Testament text with readings from the Latin Vulgate and with his own conjectures.
M. A, Screech wrote: “Historically speaking Erasmus’ work as a textual critic is fascinating; our own textual and linguistic approaches today descend from the example and writings of Erasmus” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. xiii). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, p. 142). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism” (Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 28). Halkin claimed that Erasmus “made himself the champion of textual criticism” (Erasmus, p. 276).
Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31). Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69). Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).
Interesting to me that their"champion" Dean Burgeron himself stated in regards to the TR, as he was not a fan of the KJVO view on it being without errors!
The silence is deafening!
Speak for yourself Mr. Hypocrite. I have asked countless times for specifics (such as where the ESV and HCSB have gone over the line with inclusive language) and all I get from you is silence. So don't ask someone else to speak up when you don't utter a peep yourself.
- Status