In Defense of Erasmus

Use your sword website | John Cereghin

[fortheDeclaration]

Regarding this "wealth of new evidence". It appears that most of the papyrus has surfaced since the 1890s but it is really just bits and pieces, and one would be stepping out on a limb to use it for a translation without uncial/miniscule validation. Which or how many of the uncials and miniscules have surfaced since 1611? And of those that have surfaced, how do we know that Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and KJV translators had not read, and were not aware of them? They may be new to us, but what makes us think they were not known by them. Of these newly surfaced miniscules/uncilas, how many are just simply verification of the ErasmusBezaStephanus Text, and thus not really new, merely vindication of the manuscripts that they relied upon?

Amen! The 'new' discoveries have forced the 'modern' versions to go back to TR (King James Bible) readings.

Compare an 1976 edition of the NASB with a current one, you will find for example the readings in Lk24:51-52 (carried into heaven,they worshipped him) now in when they had been omitted in the 1976 edition.

So a little old Christian lady in the hills of North Carolina in 1976 would have had the correct reading with her 'old' King James, while the 'scholars', with their 'better' text had it wrong!

But God had chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty (1Cor.1:27)

Even if Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the KJV scholars had all these newly surfacing miniscules, uncials, papyrus in their hands, would their work look much different than it does now? 90% of the new evidence vindicates these men and their choice of manuscripts. Is that right?

Amen!

If Westcott and Hort had all this new evidence at their disposal, then why did they use basicly only two warmed over corpses that were not new.? Why didn't they use all that evidence? Is it because 90% of it verified the KJV?

Amen!

If White, Metzger, and the new version propagators are so enamored with new evidence, why do they reject 90% of it? Why don't they value it? Why do they keep going back to the warmed over corpses of Westcott and Hort in 1881, and those same debunked manuscripts Aleph and B? Why do they have such an affinity for "aberrant" manuscripts and reject all that new evidence? Perhaps it is because there is nothing new under the sun ----

Amen!

[RochesterFan]

No, you are not supplying facts, you are making assertions.I discount them because they are not facts. Here are some facts from Samuel's Gipps, the Answer Book http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp

I have made far more than assertions. I listed the manuscripts that are available currently, many of which were discovered after 1830. I pointed out the work of Adolph Deissmann, published starting 1895. The post from Gipps' site adds nothing new. Of course Luther used the prevailing manuscripts of the day. Everybody did because that is all that was available. Of course the designation of the Elzevir's text as "Textus Receptus" came after publication of the KJV. Several others have posted the preface by the KJV translators, showing that they held a very humble view of their translation. I'm wasting my time providing evidence to you guys; you ignore it.

[fortheDeclaration]

I have made far more than assertions. I listed the manuscripts that are available currently, many of which were discovered after 1830.

None of which contradict anything in the King James.

It has been pointed out to you that the Nestles text had to put back into its text some 300 TR readings because of the findings.

I pointed out the work of Adolph Deissmann, published starting 1895.

Deissman said nothing new, except that the Greek of the New Testament was 'Kione'

The post from Gipps' site adds nothing new. Of course Luther used the prevailing manuscripts of the day. Everybody did because that is all that was available.

And they were the correct ones. Nothing found has contradicted that.

Of course the designation of the Elzevir's text as "Textus Receptus" came after publication of the KJV. Several others have posted the preface by the KJV translators, showing that they held a very humble view of their translation. I'm wasting my time providing evidence to you guys; you ignore it.

As I said, I haven't seen anything that would contradict anything in the King James Bible or its texts.

But continue to lay out your 'facts' and I will do mine and let the 'lurkers' decide for themselves!