Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV  Morning Thomas Quote: |
The whole basis of the critical text argument is that the apographa is not reliable and trustworthy, hence, they invert the Protestant approach and champion the view of Richard Simon.
| Could you comment on book of life as opposed to tree of life, and explain why book of life is of Protestant rather then Roman Catholic origin? And whether the KJV or the ESV is a better translation of God's Word in Rev 22:19? |
[/quote]
Hi Tim,
Other's have responded to this, I don't want to hijack this thread and take it into a direction not intended. Elder Rafalsky provided links to other forums in Puritan Board where much of this has already been discussed at length.
I will say this, though. In my studies, I found that a great portion of the disparagement toward Erasmus and his work on the text seems to be intentionally jaded to obscure the facts. I walked away with a deja vue feeling very similar to when I became Reformed and went and read Calvin et al. for myself and discovered that everything I was told in the Arminian camp wasn't a correct representation of the facts.
A good example is this reference to Revelation. Erasmus was very specific in his description of this copy, he believed it to be a very close copy of the Autograph itself and said so explicitly. What is also obscured is the copies Erasmus had access to in Italy, the copies he had in England that he couldn't bring with him to Basel. We are also given the impression that his work in Basel was something he did all by himself and was shoddy work. That isn't true, some great Reformers worked along side of him, namely Oecalampadius (sp?). We are told by the critical camp is that Erasmus did the whole of this work in a period of about a year in Basel, the impression left is that he started and finished his collation of manuscripts there, and that simply isn't true. He prepared the work for printing in Basel - not the whole of his research which extends back through his entire career once he decided to devote his life to the study of Scripture. Hence, the charge that he only had access to a small and late portion of manuscripts, with the intention of making his work appear deficient and unreliable is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
They also, in telling half truths, mislead us about the actual data available. An agenda was established to discredit the Received Text and many disparagements were drafted which after being repeated for a hundred and fifty or so years have become ipso facto historical facts, when they aren't.
Quote:
|
I've thought deeply about it and studied it intensively for years.
|
And are you still certain that the Septuagint is a giant hoax and that Christ never quoted from it?[/QUOTE]
Did you ever take the time to read Wasserstein's "
Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today?"
My position on that is pretty clear in the thread we discussed it in. One of those is
here and another
here. People can read for themselves the actual discourse and determine for themselves whether your fanciful representation of it reflects the position I hold or not.