Yuku free message boards

>seems to me to be that the text recognized by the
>church...not merely by the majority vote of men.

What is "the church" if not a majority vote by men? Today "the church" uses the UBS text mostly. So it is "recognized".

>And if men liberals i.e. Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson,
>etc., freely use the fact of variants to undermine Biblical
>authority, should we not be a littl bit concerned about
>this smoke-screen attitude that variants never
>produce--or lead to in any way--modernism?

I don't get it. Liberals point to textual variants as "bad", therefore textual variants are "bad"? If liberals point to the KJV as "bad" therefore the KJV is "bad"? Huh? Since when do you listen to the opinions of liberals? This is back-to-front thinking. Liberals are liberals because they want to be liberals, and then they use whatever they want to justify it. If liberals drink coca-cola, does that mean it is bad?

>The recognition of the canon of Scripture at the Council
>of Nicea (please correct me if I got the name wrong),
>goes Letis' hypothesis, provides canonical sanction to
>the text type of the Scriptures canonized.

Here, Letis is rightly accused of skirting with Roman theology. A bit like the Arminian, Norman Geisler claiming to be a Calvinist, Letis denies the charge of Romanism. But protestant theology does not assert that the canon is determined by church councils. Otherwise we would include the apocrypha.

>God's providential hand resulting in a stabilization of the
>transmission of the text of Scripture for the bulk of
>Church history.

Stabilization of the Greek, but not the Latin? So why does the eastern church get good bibles but the western church gets the "corrupt vulgate"?

>The "majority vote" of those editing the UBS text,
>however, is tentative at best, resulting in an
>ever-changing text

Since the Nestle text has only changed once, does it really deserve the title "ever-changing"?? Especially since the TR has had about 30 revisions?

>As for variants, the example of the NASB using "young
>woman" in the Old Testament prophecy of Jesus' virgin
>birth

Hurrumph. You are talking about the RSV, the NASB does no such thing.

>"just because" the Hebrew word "can" be translated
>"young woman" betrays some of the pretentiousness
>present in modern translation praxis

The fact is that the KJV does not always match up the NT quotes with the OT passages. King of the hill here is the NIV in always matching. But is it always right to match? Often the NT alegorizes and OT passage. Do you translate the OT according to the original meaning or according to the NT alegorisation? Rightly so, no bible lets the NT totally dictate OT translation.


>But the allowance of it in the
>Old Test. is certainly a concession to liberal theology

Uh huh, so liberal translations like the RSV use liberal theology. So if you are not liberal you don't use liberal translations. So why throw out all translations on that basis??

>This alone does not render the variants in valid, but
>should all the same raise concern as to their validity
>and should cause us to re-evaluate the acceptance of
>such variants by the editors of the modern Greek texts.

So let me see. If I can find a variant that only occurs in the TR/KJV, and if I can find a crack-pot who uses that verse against the Christian faith, then that "should cause us to re-evaluate the acceptance of" the TR/KJV?

>The modern attitude is-- "As long as they leave one
>verse supporting the resurrection, I don't care if they
>take all the others out.

There's a bunch of KJV verses that omit reference to the deity of Christ compared to the NIV. Does it matter? As long as they have left a few in the KJV?

>Treating the Bible merely as any other book in the
>practice of textual criticism can only lead to the
>eventual hijacking of our Scripture and our Faith by
>modernism.

Ok, let's repudiate the TR work of Erasmus since he was a humanist who used text criticism, and didn't believe that the Apocalypse was inspired scripture. Throw out that KJV!

>my concern is the regularity with which proponents of
>the critical text approe if not prefer readings that
>undermine orthodox theology, on the presupposition
>that Orthodox readings "must be" later additions or
>changes.

I can't think of a single example where Metzger or Aland argues for a particular reading on the basis that "it is more orthodox, it can't be original". You want to back up that statement?

>If a liberal drinks Coke, at least he has that right.

Oops! Better give up that Pepsi!