An enlightening article concerning the apostasy of modern bible versions compared to the King James bible, which is based on the Received Text. Well worth the read, and there are more helpful articles to follow from Philip Dean’s site. I will re-blog these as I read through them, as they are far better researched and expressed than my own efforts in this area. Thank the Lord for moving Philip to write this series.
This topic got a lot of attention a few weeks ago, when I made some offhand comments about certain of the Bible translators (someone took issue when I described some Unitarians as “rationalists”) and about Textual Criticism (the same someone took exception to my decrying Textual Criticism).
I don’t know if I’ve really dealt with Textual criticism in-depth. Let’s first state what textual criticism claims, analyze their methods, and then look at what they’re REALLY doing.
“Hath God Said…”
The claims of Textual Criticism sound inspiring. “We seek to rediscover the inspired word of God through scholarship, and through investigations of the oldest and best Greek Manuscripts.” That’s a paraphrase of quotes from various textual critics.
The rules of Textual Criticism are bewildering, to say the least. Each rule is deliberate, and there are reasons why.
- The Bible is to be treated as any other book
- when presented with two…
View original post 1,873 more words