Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute  Quote:
Originally Posted by Grymir Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). I take the bible as it stands. All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements.
One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say. |
But isn't that the real question here? The Bible as it stood in 1611, or as it stood in one of the 4th century codices, or the reading of Paul's Philippian epistle as found in a second century papyrus? |
But that's just it, the KJV matchs the early stuff, that's why I said I take it as it stands. The newer versions don't match the early stuff as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute When I see that there is a significant difference between a number of 2nd/3rd century papyri, and a reading as contained in the Received Text, what should I do? Should I ignore significant early evidence for a better reading, or should just hang with tradition on some superficial notion that there has always been one preserved Word for God's people at all times (and hope that the TR is it)? How does that doctrine of preservation fit when you look at the Christians of the 5th century and one particular codex that they may have had as their only Scripture? Did God fail to preserve his Word for them where it varies from the TR? What about a Christian village during the Medieval era, whose priest had only a 13th century miniscule from which to preach (yes, preaching went on even back then, even with priests and preaching orders) - did God fail to preserve His Word to them where that miniscule varies from the TR? |
According to this paragraph, there was a time in the 5th century that there was only one copy of the Bible? There were many copies. The KJV also reads the closest to 2nd/3rd century texts, especially as quoted by the church fathers than the modern copies do. This whole paragraph seems out of phase with what I was/am saying, because I didn't say anything about the doctrine of preservation, nor anything about the TR. Plus I know that preaching went back much further than the 13th century. Also, were not the miniscules usually hand written copies from codexes, and not worth as much as a major codex?
