Daniel, you said, “Since it is the case that scholars have known about these things, and debated them for centuries, then are we likely to sort out the dispute with posts on the PB?”
That’s a good point. My own purpose in posting re this “debate” is to show those seeking understanding of this matter that the KJV and TR position can be held to – and defended – by thinking, intelligent, godly believers, contra the disinformation that is widely spread about them, and not only that, but that our position is the most reasonable and in accord with the Biblical statements concerning the preservation of the Scripture. I submit a brief excerpt from the “Answering Alan Kurschner” thread to show
how this disparity of views comes to be:
----------
Just as we stand on God’s word as regards the creation account in Genesis, despite all the supposed evidences of the evolutionists and evolutionary theorists – believing His word to be true notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary – even so do we believe His promises that His word is not only directly inspired by Him but that it will also be preserved by Him through time and eternity. We do not stand on science or scientific method – although we are glad to see true science as it aligns with the realities of God’s universal sovereignty – but on the realities of God’s word, and in this case, His promises. We may be ridiculed and scorned by scoffers of all stripes, but we will trust in Him and hold our heads high in His truth.
A pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:
Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text?
He closes the essay with these words,
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204). [From, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]
[end of excerpt]
----------
This discussion on the PB may not settle the dispute, but it may clarify the issues for some who do not see them clearly, and also give them a chance to see intelligent proponents of each side amicably (if pointedly!) exchange remarks on the matter.
Steve