"Corrupt Texts"

Pastor_Bob: //To believe in a corrupted text does not necessitate the belief that any doctrines have been eliminated from the text. It does, however, represent a belief that some doctrines have been weakened or diluted. ... //

Please give us a four point sermon on "how to recognize a corrupt text".

Please give us a four point sermon on "recognizing a 'weak' text.

Never mind, i read post #33.

 

The TR are inferior.

The CT are corrupt.

IMHO both are guesses unless we can compare to the originals, which we cannot do.

My view says that the texts which endured consistently through the years and which exist in the greatest numbers are the most trustworthy. Other would say that the texts which are the oldest and therefore closest to the originals are most trustworthy.

Both are opinions so we spin our wheels when we keep fighting over them

On top of that, what kind of differences are we talking about at the end of the day? Aren't we talking about something like 95% in the New Testament? And aren't those 5% mostly tiny differences?

How can we continue to fight over that which we cannot prove?

 

Sort of my thinking, too, Roger. I asked a dead serious question regarding the differences, "Were these left out of the Alexandrian, or added to the Byzantine? And how, exactly can we be sure either way?"

The problem is we can't. Sure, a couple will say that so-and-so leaned this way, and such-and-such went that way, but there is no proof either way. Even the most liberal college maintains a library that includes many of the exact same books as the most conservative Baptist college... this does not mean that the liberal college will edit the books to include their spin, nor does it mean that the Baptist college will edit theem to include theirs. So why is it so incomprehensible to think that the same could have happened between the two.

Yes, there are some minor differences, but not to the extent that the gospel is in any way compromised. The "ommissions" could just have easily been insertions to clarify meaning.

 

I've been labeled much worse, Ed. I just never expected it from you. I guess if we start drawing lines over the text/version issue we are going to be pretty isolated indeed.

I wonder, how many of you that despise the KJVO philosophy will actually read and benefit from a non-related book written by a KJVO "looser" author?

 

While I question, I know better than to exclude. I may not agree 100% with you, P_B, but I agree more than I disagree.

No problem there. The only exception would be someone who has no other claim to knowledge other than KJVO stuff... one well-known Home ec scholar comes to mind. As long as the book was on something bedides KJVO, or wasn't wriitten to push a KJVO agenda, I wouldn't have a problem with it. i am pretty sure I have read some by some KJVO authors.

My problem with KJVO is the promoting the work of man as equal to (or exceeding) the work of God. While there are only a few who hold to that philosophy, there are still too many. Any one who holds that the KJV is their own choice is fine with me.

 

Texts

You folk may find the book, Misquoting Jesus by B. Ehrman interesting and enlightening on this topic.

 

Here's my grind: If the CT was so influenced by the Gnostics of Alexandria, Why doesn't it read like one of the Gnostic gospels or something like that?

BTW, those of you who make your claims of Clement of Alexandria as a Gnostic, Are you aware that there were mainly two strands of Gnosticism, and that they were opposed to each other fundamentally?

I beg of you, Which strand was Clement of Alexandria?

 

I'll try that

Do any USofA missionaries (or other English Speaking groups) have radical-KJVO problems in the Czech Republic?