Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

Anyone who is not a doer of the word is deluded. They are in effect practical atheists. Then ask yourself who that includes. It extends to many of those who claim to have right doctrine.

 

So Much Misunderstanding, So Little Time

Can you give an actual citation of this?

I'm not aware of any reputable text critic who said 'oldest is best.' The general rule of thumb is that the older a mss. is the MORE LIKELY it is to have less corruptions - but even that is hardly an ironclad rule.

If they did, would that make you more or less likely to read that version?

For starters, your comparison is flawed. The reason virtually all NON-KJVO textual critics (with the obviouis exception of MT advocates like Robinson and Hodges-Farstad) reject these 12 verses as Marcan is because of a whole slew of evidence, not just the fact 'the two oldest omit it.' There are at least five different renderings of the ending of Mark - all explainable if the shorter ending is authentic and ONLY THE SHORT ONE explainable by the longer ending.

As far as why they didn't remove it, there is a difference between canonicity and original author. There is also the simple fact that folks who hold to the KJV tradition will get upset (as they do anyway).

Why doesn't the KJV put it in Luke like some mss. do?

Because just because something is in an old mss. does not necessarily mean it is the most likely original. You do not even understand the position you are opposing, sir.

Because that is NOT a principle.

Textual criticism is one primary canon: the original reading is most likely the one that can explain the rise of all variant readings.

That's it.

Then there are two basic sub-canons. First, the shorter reading is to be preferred. Secondly, the more difficult reading is to be preferred.

If you think 'oldest is best' then you really need to acquaint yourself with the issue BEFORE spouting nonsense like this thread exhibits.

Omitted compared to what? The KJV?

Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps an ounce of humility indicates to some of them they MIGHT be wrong and those passages MIGHT be authentic - and thus they simply avert to the path of least resistance?

For Pete's sake, they put marginal notes in these places - and you're mad about those, too.

They do, they're called marginal notes.

Why did the KJV folks ADD to God's Word all those italics? I mean, we could go on forever, bud.

Why is it virtually every KJVOist on the planet is a Baptist who uses a Bible translated by BABY SPRINKLERS?

But you can hardly say that anything compares. They do take out I John 5:7, for example, but the textual evidence is night vs. day.

At least there's the admission of 'Maybe our TC is wrong.'

 

What I think will happen here is you will scratch your head and keep on scratching until you wear a hole in your head and your brains will thus fall out. I see no other end game for you. I recommend that for your own safety you should wear protective headgear. Better to be safe and protect that brain.

 

I believe it applies as Christ spoke it.

So in Bible class, you wouldn't study the Bible in preparation but just expect that God will give you the answers when you pray?

What's the difference?

If the Holy Spirit is speaking to you, you don't have to be discerning.

What about it?

By reading his word.

Yes, because if you don't, you won't know what his Word is.

This is a silly question. You don't follow one or the other. The Holy Spirit works through TC. The question may be which form of textual criticism is most appropriate. But let's face it, the Bible gives no indication that the Spirit speaks directly to things like textual criticism.

Huh?

There are certainly some strong implications there aren't there ...

I am not afraid of the third commandment. But we should not ... must not use the name of God for something he has not used it for.

 

I have already answered this several times in this thread. Jesus spoke it to the disciples as a preconfirmation of the NT writings. It doesn’t apply to anyone except those who write the NT.

In which verse did the Spirit tell you that?

You are a good illustration of the necessity of Bible college. The stuff you are saying here is so far out of bounds it is hard to imagine how someone without Bible college came up with it. You need to submit yourself to the teaching of a good church who can help you with the Bible.

Not sure what that means. God instituted pastors and teachers in the church. He doesn’t oppose pastors and teachers.

You don’t even have a Bible without TC.

Actually, when you study the Bible you are reading from a theological persuasion. You are making a dichotomy here that doesn’t exist.

You don’t have to study TC (as it is evident you haven’t). But realize you don’t have a Bible without TC.

Yes.

Because you don’t have the Bible without TC.

I think you can discern the will of God by reading his Word. But you don’t have a Word to read without TC.

Your opinion is wrong. Certain requirements of TC might be problematic, particularly as it comes to the TR method, but TC is necessary to have a Bible.

Not sure what you mean here. But the reality is that what you are saying here might be right, but it is not for the reasons you claim.

It is a method of deciding between textual variants. You practice TC every day.

Which means you can’t claim the Spirit’s knowledge about it.

Nope. Follow what the Spirit says. But learn to discern the actually work of the Spirit.

 

No, the Holy Spirit did not work through TC. Westcott and Hort, who were unbelievers, invented this TC where modern versions followed.

 

God provided the people His Book, TC provides you ANOTHER books, namely modern versions because W/H invented TC.

WHO NEEDS TC? YOU??? Not me! Not Eliyahu!

 

How do you know this? Remember, you don't even have a Bible without textual criticism.

No actually, you do need it, even in the KJV. You have to use TC to determine which KJV to follow.

Sorry, you can't do without it.

 

Could you give an example of one Bible we have today that was not the result of textual criticism?

 

There was and has been textual criticism since there were texts to criticize. Don't blame Westcott and Hort for your inability to comprehend that.

 

Really? So the fig tree wilted before you came back? You denied Christ three times before the rooster crowed? You saw him rise again after three days? You were making merchandise in God's temple and received his whipping and excoriation? Shall I continue or do you want to retract this statement? Hopefully the latter since you are obviously wrong.

The truth is that the verse in question is testifying to the inspiration of the NT. It wasn'r referring to your ramblings on the internet. I have seen this verse claimed for all manner of nonsense, including JW doctrine. It simply doesn't work the way you are claiming.

This is probably true. We believe the Bible means what it says. You apparently think it is a prop for your own uses.

But you are denying the word of God by your attacks on it. NO matter how good your deeds are, wrong doctrine, even if well intentioned, is bad.

What? to preach Jesus by living the life Jesus taught in the Bible? TC isn't about teaching that. But modern versions certainly teach it.

Yes i Do.

For the most part yes although this is very simplistic, and totally off topic.

I said "you" don't have one. Any Bible that exists after the first generation of manuscript copies is the result of textual criticism, according to some standard. Any time you have to decide between two or more variants, you have to practice TC.

No you don't. The KJV is the product of textual criticism. It simply uses different criteria. You see, TC is simply deciding which reading is authentic. When you included the ending of Mark, you were practicing TC.

No, I worship God. I preach the gospel.

No you don't. This just shows you don't know what you are talking about.

This things are not mutually exclusive. God teaches us through the ministry of others.

No, everyday when you say "that passage is in the Word" or "that passage is not a part of the Bible" (as you have consistently done here), you are practicing TC.

Yes I think that.

We already did.

Yes

Yes

No

This was pretty thoroughly discussed.

Probably because the "Spirit" is personal. He does the same thing in John 14:26 and 15:26.

They didn't.

 

\What proof do you have that they were unbelievers? I cannot think of any modern translation which even alludes to WH.

 

The only "proof" (I prefer to call it "poof") there is are out of context quotations from their writings.

 

I call it "poop" or "dung" for the sinfully stupid charge that W&H were unbelievers.