Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Truelove  The biggest problem I have with engaging in the textual criticism debate on the PB is that, as far as I can tell from past experience, all those who defend the Traditional Text here begin with the KJV and work backwards to prove from there why the KJVs particular reading is the correct one. If any of our Traditional Text defenders would like to disprove that, please show us one place where you believe the KJV used an incorrect reading from the original manuscripts? |
People of faith don't engage in the methodology of scepticism. Your challenge requires one to posit that there must be a mistake somewhere before we can proceed. On that basis I aver that there must be a mistake somewhere in your methodology and therefore reject it.
You are incorrect concerning the movement from the AV back to the TR. Your observation would be equally applicable to anyone who begins with a modern version and ends up with the Nestle-Aland text. It's usually the case that English speaking people come to faith through an English translation and then become aware of textual issues afterwards. You are manipulating this fact to your advantage. The TR stands on its own merits quite apart from the question of the AV translation. As has been pointed out to you on other threads, reformed theologians defended the TR against Romanist attacks on the preserved Word of God, and for the purpose of rebutting your challenge I add that they did so before the AV was conceived. If you consult a work like Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemist translation you will discover that the Puritan divines rejected the Vulgate (Alexandrian) readings prior to the translation of the AV.