Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Again, I don't accept your simplified view of the TR position (you persist in presuming we don't engage in textual criticism of any kind), but if I may answer this question -- it glorifies God because it acknowledges that we do not have all the facts and evidence to be able to make confident judgements which overturn the testimony of the church through the ages. We accept that we are entering into the labours of others, and do not suppose that because they came before us that their conclusions must have somehow been less scientific than the modern textual critic who manages to hide his assumptions and present his theory as a neutral sifting of the facts. |
Can you give me an example of at least one reading derived from manuscript criticism that TR primacy advocates admit should override the TR? Or do you believe that neutral textual criticism of all available manuscripts is able to prove the TR's primacy? Or... ?
As far as I can tell, the science of textual criticism within TR primacy circles is fairly limited to recognizing the differences between TR editions, going on playful tangents like Scrivener's to make a TR that approximates the KJV, and cherry-picking manuscript references that support the TR (which are adjudged correct, as opposed to those that contradict the TR, which are adjudged incorrect).
Can you enlighten my impression, which you seemed to imply is mistaken?