Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Of course. Obviously I took my point to the absurd, but the point is this issue HAS been considered by conservative and evangelical denominations and they consider the Nestle/Alund text to be authoritative. Biblical scholars from all different persuasions have examined the evidence and the consensus view is that the modern versions are reliable. I don't this controversy has escaped attention, but has been pretty much resolved years ago.I don't think you have presented a strong enough case to change the consensus view. So if your hope is that this committee will do away with all modern versions you would either need to stack the deck or you will be sorely disappointed.As far as the proliferation of Bible translations in recent times, I do see your point. But people need a Bible that they can understand, that they can relate to. This was a major stance of the reformation, that the Bible should be in a language that is accessible to the common people, not just the clergy. This means putting it in a language they can relate to.You certainly don't think we should not be translating the Bible into the many languages throughout the world and the many dialects within each language group. For example, we couldn't have just one Spanish Bible, there mare many, many variations of Spanish, just like there are many variations of English. To expect everyone in the world to use KJV is silly.We would certainly disagree on many details even if we both used the KJV. Look back at when the KJV was the primary source of Scripture and all the major divisions that occurred (not to mention all the sub-divisions). The Baptists, Adventists, Methodists, Free Methodists, Puritans, Congregationalists, the Holiness Movement, Dutch Reformed, etc. all split during this time. Returning to the KJV as the universal Bible would not bring unity - it will take Christ returning and reigning over the Church to complete that.Again, this KJV controversy is nothing but a witch hunt.A quote from Roger E. Olson (although he is specifically addressing innerrancy throughout, I think it applies to this issue as well)

quote:

---

But my main concern with plenary, detailed inerrancy is that it changes the ethos of Christianityfrom Christ-centered to Bible-centered. And it changes the ethos of evangelicalism from experience-centered to reason-centered.

---

HBD

You may be right that in reality it can't happen, which only means to me that the churches have been deceived and aren't likely to get undeceived. What I think should happen may very well not happen. C'est la vie.

It's implicit in his work. Here's a quote for you: This implies of course that Burgon has counted the deviations, which further implies that he knows what is in the Traditional Text as well as the text substituted by W and H, which further implies that he himself is very probably quite familiar with the readings of the Byzantine manuscripts from which the Traditional Text was derived.His next remark is a bit off topic but not very: I agree.And here is Burgon on the text types, which at the time didn't include the Caesarian which was proposed in 1924: He is showing that they use the concept of a Western text type to explain away excellent evidence in favor of the Traditional Text, which they also do with their ridiculous textual theory which is now rightly in disrepute although the concept of "conflation" is still applied, which does nothing but discredit the excellent evidence for the Traditional Text simply on the basis of their preference for the corrupt Alexandrians.And a further assessment of the concept of text types: Muy estupido. How can anyone not love Burgon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : TyposEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

1. I'm not talking about "returning" to the KJV as is, but about doing a minimal revision of the KJV under the authority of enough churches to establish it as an authorized version, to cut down on the competing lone-wolf versions.2. I'm not talking about unity in your sense but by having a Bible in common among many conservative churches we certainly would have a unity of Bible text and that's all I'm talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I asked where he did it. If the answer is "In the privacy of his own study", that's not much use to us, is it? And yet even this does not dispute that the Alexandrians are sometimes superior (which they are) in which case we should not rule them out a priori.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Who cares where he did it, the evidence is that he did do it.And sure, take the half dozen places where the Alexandrians may be superior and throw out the rest.

And yet if we don't have the fruits of his labors, it's all gone for nothing. Clearly I wasn't arguing for using the Alexandrians where they are worse than the alternatives.

That's a fun fact. Where did you get this from? I believe the Mormons are KJV only too. In the sense of which traditional texts to use. Obviously no matter how hard he tried, Smith couldn't produce a KJBoM.

The different texts have been thoroughly studied and compared by generations of scholars. I'm not sure why you feel the need for Burgon's particular study of them. The Wikipedia article on the Byzantine text type includes what looks like an exhaustive list, and for many of them a link is included so you can learn about a particular manuscript or fragment. It's rather tedious work that has been done by many, nothing requiring interpretation. BYZANTINE TEXT TYPEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wouldn't doubt that the majority of churches accept the modern versions as authoritative, that's what I've been lamenting.As for the Mormons, I've seen a King James Bible with the Book of Mormon sewn into the center of it, as if it were equal to scripture.

Yeah, sure. But you seemed to be suggesting that we should follow Burgon. Most of those generations of scholars, after all, have come to a conclusion inimical to you.Well, we can't follow Burgon, he didn't do a recension.

Oh we should definitely follow Burgon, he's the only one who understands. Of course you can do whatever you please.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And yet he didn't use this vast understanding to do what needed to be done. There is no Burgon edition of the New Testament.

Why should there be for pete's sake? He was a supporter of the Textus Receptus except for believing it needed some corrections.

Which he didn't make.This is not intended as a criticism of the man. But it does mean that we can't just say that Burgon's done whatever needed doing, that "Burgon did this [looked at all the variant readings in all the MSS] [...] I don't need any further scholarship". Further scholarship would in fact be required, especially if you are not satisfied with the current crop of critical texts.