Quote:
Originally Posted by larryjf  Should a reformed church take issue if one of its officers holds to verbal plenary preservation, and that the Textus Receptus is the providentially preserved Scripture for the Church?
With the understanding that the individual is irenic and not divisive regarding this issue. |
I think the question may be a red herring. Is the issue 'whether the AV can be improved upon', i.e. 'whether the Bible ought to be translated into the vernacular'? The 'Received Text' (the constructed document as such does not exist and the AV itself sometimes departs from it) most definitely differs from the original autographs (there can be no argument about this), but existing discrepancies (subject to conspiracy theories of the worst kind) should not be exaggerated: they are extremely minimal and it is possible to reconstruct the NT text with almost perfect accuracy. Bruce Metzger's ”Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament” sheds some light on this issue. Behind it all, of course, lies the overruling providence of God.
It would be foolish to fall out with brethren who have not examined the more complex issues pertaining to textual criticism. Greater mortals (incl. J Murray and M Lloyd-Jones) have faithfully preached from the AV, but have not shied away from offering corrections (i.e. deviations from the 'Textus Receptus') when deemed appropriate. I would most certainly not judge a man's spirituality by his lack of understanding of textual criticism. Differences over this issue should not result in the development of a spiritual superiority complex with either party.