Did Christ cite errant manuscripts?

Discussion in 'Translations and Manuscripts' started by ThomasCartwright, Aug 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ThomasCartwright

    ThomasCartwright Puritan Board Freshman

    Tim and others has posited that "orthodox scholarship" believes that our Lord set the example of citing errant manuscripts as Scripture. This presupposition he believes allows him to call every conservative English Translation whether based on the TR or CT as the Word of God.

    This approach is not Biblical as I will demonstrate in this short paper. It is not a neutral issue with no consequences for Christology. It is also NOT the historical Reformed position. Francis Turretin makes the historic Reformed position clear,

    I hope he will not dismiss Turretin as a "cultish KJVO" extremist!
  2. TimV

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    Just to be clear, "Tim and others" means 99%, at the minimum, of every orthodox scholar from properly accredited institutes of higher learning who have studied the subject.

    And that includes the overwhelming number of Pastors from every Reformed denomination represented here on this board with the exception of a couple micro denominations I'd never heard of until joining.

    Now that doesn't mean those scholars and pastors are right. It's just that to say they are wrong requires that one believe he has been gifted with some sort of secret knowledge or special intellectual insight that almost everyone else is blind to.

    And to those who are unfamiliar with KJV Onlies way of thinking, "errant manuscripts" is their inside code for the Septuagint and the Majority Byzantine text, among others.

    To them, if one were to do a revision of the collation of a half dozen Byzantine texts done by the Catholic Erasmus and change Book to Tree in Rev. 22:19 to reflect literally 98 percent of Byzantine manuscripts, those doing the revision would be in their eyes corrupting the Word of God.
  3. KMK

    KMK Moderator Staff Member

    It is clear that both Dr. Ferguson and Mr. Vaughan have an axe to grind on this subject and are therefore encouraged to continue their discussion privately. The well has been poisoned (in just two posts!) to the point that no edifying discussion can continue.

    Contributions to T&M threads on PB must be done without implications that the other side is 'unreformed' or 'unorthodox'.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page