TR is of Roman Catholic origin.

[bgwilkinson]

Erasmus' Greek-Latin New Testaments were of Roman Catholic origin.

1. All of Erasmus' Greek manuscripts came from Roman Catholic Church sources.
The first two manuscripts Erasmus borrowed from Johannes Reuchlin, whose father was an official of the Dominican monastery at Pforzheim . The rest of the manuscripts he borrowed from Dominicans as well. The Dominican Order or Dominicans, is a Roman Catholic religious order founded by the Spanish priest Saint Dominic de Guzman in France, and approved by Pope Honorius III (1216–27) on 22 December 1216.

2. Erasmus dedicated his Greek-Latin New Testaments to Pope Leo X and regarded this work as his chief service to the cause of the Roman Catholic Church.

3. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote in favor of Transubstantiation, one of the Central doctrines of the Roman Catholic Mass. A test of the Reformation was the doctrine of the sacraments, and the crux of this question was the observance of the Eucharist. In 1530, Erasmus published a new edition of the orthodox treatise of Algerus against the heretic Berengar of Tours in the eleventh century. He added a dedication, affirming his belief in the reality of the Body of Christ after consecration in the Eucharist, commonly referred to as transubstantiation.

4. Erasmus called anyone who questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary "blasphemers".

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

How can a person be so stupid and still know how to type.

5 or the 7 manuscripts Erasmus used were Byzantine, the product of the Eastern Orthodox Church's scriptoriums, NOT the Roman (Western) Catholic Church which used the Latin texts from the late 2nd century AD.

 

[bgwilkinson]

How can a person be so stupid and still know how to type.

5 or the 7 manuscripts Erasmus used were Byzantine, the product of the Eastern Orthodox Church's scriptoriums, NOT the Roman (Western) Catholic Church which used the Latin texts from the late 2nd century AD.

All of Erasmus' Greek manuscripts came from Roman Catholic Church sources.
Dominicans owned these manuscripts. Dominicans  are an order of Roman Catholics.



Now of course, these Greek Bibles were produced by The Greek Catholic Church,
but if it were not for the Dominican Roman Catholics at Basel, Erasmus would
have had no manuscripts from which to work.


SOURCES FOR THE NOVUM INSTRUMENTUM
Seven manuscripts were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the
Greek text which was printed alongside his Latin translation.
1. Codex 1eap, a minuscule containing the entire NT except for Revelation,
dated to about the 12th century.
2. Codex 1r, a minuscule containing the book of Revelation except for the
last 6 verses (Rev 22:16–21), dated to the 12th century.
3. Codex 2e, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 12th century.
4. Codex 2ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
12th century or later.
5. Codex 4ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
15th century.
6. Codex 7p, a minuscule containing the Pauline Epistles, dated to the
11th century.
7. Codex 817, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 15th century.

All of these were the property of the Dominican Library in Basel except
for 2ap, which was obtained from the family of Johann Amerbach of
Basel.

Manuscripts 1eap and 1r had been borrowed from the
Dominicans by Johannes Reuchlin. Erasmus borrowed them from
Reuchlin.

And from the Latin:

In other parts of the NT Erasmus occasionally introduced into the
Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate where he thought his
Greek manuscripts were defective. For example, in Acts 9:6 the words
(“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me
to do? And the Lord said unto him”) were inserted by Erasmus at this
point because they were in the Vulgate. He frankly admitted in his
Annotationes that he took the words from the parallel passage in
Acts 26:14. Though still found in the TR, the words have absolutely
no Greek manuscript support.

A fourth edition was published in 1527. Erasmus made use of the
Complutensian Polyglot, especially in the book of Revelation. The text
of the Vulgate was added in a third column. A fifth and final edition was
published in 1535, one year before Erasmus’ death. The Vulgate was no
longer included.

A note about the Complutensian Polyglot.

The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is the name given to the first printed polyglot of the entire Bible, initiated and financed by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1436–1517) and published by Complutense University. It includes the first printed editions of the Greek New Testament, the complete Septuagint, and the Targum Onkelos. Of the 600 printed six-volume sets, only 123 are known to have survived to date.


Cardinal Francisco was a Roman Catholic Cardinal located at Madrid, Spain.

In Summary:

To try to deny that these manuscripts came from the Catholics at Basel is just plain silly.

No Dominican Catholics at Basel, no manuscripts for Erasmus.

Clearly Erasmus got his manuscripts from these Roman Catholics at Basel.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Only a brain dead moron would believe the person having the manuscript was the person who copied (originated) the manuscript, especially when the manuscripts were over 200 years old at the time.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Only a brain dead moron would believe the person having the manuscript was the person who copied (originated) the manuscript, especially when the manuscripts were over 200 years old at the time.

It has been specified that most Greek manuscripts of this era were written by the Greek Catholics.

You are attempting to parse words, for what reason I can not tell.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You know you are over the target when you start receiving flak.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

It has been specified that most Greek manuscripts of this era were written by the Greek Catholics. You are attempting to parse words, for what reason I can not tell.

So you believe all Greek and Latin Bibles in the 1500s were corrupted and worthless by being either used by either the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox (whom you call Catholics).  An interesting theory.

Is it your position that they worked as a team to suppress the true manuscripts, like Vaticanus?
Following the lead of Hort.

Once you eliminate the historic Greek and Latin mss, where do you claim the pure Bible was to be found?

(Note: no answer expected, since BG invariably goes mum.  His purpose is not to defend any Bible at all, but to try to "target" the AV.)

==========================================

It has been specified that most Greek manuscripts of this era were written by the Greek Catholics. You are attempting to parse words, for what reason I can not tell.

One reason would be your humorous blunder about "Roman Catholic origin", the claim of the subject line and OP.

Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

It has been specified that most Greek manuscripts of this era were written by the Greek Catholics. You are attempting to parse words, for what reason I can not tell.

So you believe all Greek and Latin Bibles in the 1500s were corrupted and worthless by being either used by either the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox (whom you call Catholics).  An interesting theory.

Is it your position that they worked as a team to suppress the true manuscripts, like Vaticanus?
Following the lead of Hort.

Once you eliminate the historic Greek and Latin mss, where do you claim the pure Bible was to be found?

(Note: no answer expected, since BG invariably goes mum.  His purpose is not to defend any Bible at all, but to try to "target" the AV.)

==========================================

It has been specified that most Greek manuscripts of this era were written by the Greek Catholics. You are attempting to parse words, for what reason I can not tell.

One reason would be your humorous blunder about "Roman Catholic origin", the claim of the subject line and OP.

Steven Avery

Steve said,
"So you believe all Greek and Latin Bibles in the 1500s were corrupted and worthless by being either used by either the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox (whom you call Catholics).  An interesting theory."

BG says,
1. All manuscript Bibles have some errors, which are commonly called corruptions when discussing textual issues within lower criticism. This does not presuppose a nefarious purpose such as denying the Trinity or the Deity of Christ.

Some would conflate the terms used in lower criticism and derive a supposed wicked intent from some overworked copyist  because of a mistake caused by poor lighting or hearing during the tedious process of duplicating manuscript Bibles.

Then unsuspecting Christians who have not studied the transmission of the Bible throughout the ages can be incited into believing that some manuscript bibles are Satan's bibles and contain doctrinal errors.

I reject that whole approach to discussing the transmission of the Bible.

This, in my opinion, is the end game of the KJVO extreme who calls valid Bibles, Satan's Bibles.
It is simply a way to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and cast doubt upon the veracity of God's Word.



2. Miles Smith gives us a discussion of how they translated in the early 1600s.

I believe he presents an “eclectic” methodology, understanding that no single manuscript Bible should be elevated to the status of the “standard,” or the only valid Bible, as was claimed for the Vulgate.

They realized that each manuscript Bible contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of Bible sources, original language and versions.

That is why he makes such a fuss over the LXX, claiming that it prepared the world for the coming of the  LORD, even as he admits it contained many blemishes.


3. We could say all manuscripts of the 16th century were corrupt, meaning that they all had errors or mistakes.

Mistakes in manuscripts do not make them worthless on the contrary they can be used for comparison to other manuscript Bibles for text critical purposes.

All had some level of corruption but none were worthless.


4. The Eastern Catholic Church (Orthodox Church) mainly is to be thanked for supplying us with thousands of Greek manuscript Bibles. Many of these can be used to determine the original Scripture readings.

The Western Catholic Church (Roman Church) has supplied us with more thousands of Latin manuscript Bibles which can be also be used for determining the original Scripture readings.


Steve said,
"Is it your position that they worked as a team to suppress the true manuscripts, like Vaticanus?
Following the lead of Hort."

BG says,
1. Short answer, NO. Your proposition is totally ridiculous as to not even merit an answer. Yes the Roman Catholics own that manuscript and have it in their possession.

2. I find it humorous that you would include one of your favorite whipping boys. I thought Hort lived in the 19th century not in the 16th century. Maybe you are hinting that Hort made contact with the 16th century by means of a seance.

Steve said,
"Once you eliminate the historic Greek and Latin mss, where do you claim the pure Bible was to be found?"

BG says,
1. The Bible is to be found in the totality of all the manuscripts extant today. It is our responsibility as believers to search out the Scripture for ourselves.
We are not to depend on ecclesiastical authorities or religious professionals.
We should study the Scriptures for ourselves.
We can not put off our responsibility on others.

2. Owning NA27 and using it to identify the place where the various readings are to be found does not indicate an abdication of that responsibility in the least. It is rather an example of using the textual professionals work to do the study ourselves.

 

[Ransom]

So you believe all Greek and Latin Bibles in the 1500s were corrupted and worthless by being either used by either the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox (whom you call Catholics).  An interesting theory.

Says a True Believer in the Simonides conspiracy theory. You gotta laugh.

 

[Steven Avery]

1. All manuscript Bibles have some errors, which are commonly called corruptions when discussing textual issues within lower criticism. This does not presuppose a nefarious purpose such as denying the Trinity or the Deity of Christ.  Some would conflate the terms used in lower criticism and derive a supposed wicked intent from some overworked copyist  because of a mistake caused by poor lighting or hearing during the tedious process of duplicating manuscript Bibles.  Then unsuspecting Christians who have not studied the transmission of the Bible throughout the ages can be incited into believing that some manuscript bibles are Satan's bibles and contain doctrinal errors. I reject that whole approach to discussing the transmission of the Bible. This, in my opinion, is the end game of the KJVO extreme who calls valid Bibles, Satan's Bibles. It is simply a way to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and cast doubt upon the veracity of God's Word.

So far, nothing even remotely related to the textual question.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] 2. Miles Smith gives us a discussion of how they translated in the early 1600s.  I believe he presents an “eclectic” methodology, understanding that no single manuscript Bible should be elevated to the status of the “standard,” or the only valid Bible, as was claimed for the Vulgate.  They realized that each manuscript Bible contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of Bible sources, original language and versions.  That is why he makes such a fuss over the LXX, claiming that it prepared the world for the coming of the  LORD, even as he admits it contained many blemishes.[/quote] 
All this theorizing is falsified by the simple fact that the learned men used the Received Text editions for all 8,000 verses of the NT.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] 3. We could say all manuscripts of the 16th century were corrupt, meaning that they all had errors or mistakes.
Mistakes in manuscripts do not make them worthless on the contrary they can be used for comparison to other manuscript Bibles for text critical purposes.  All had some level of corruption but none were worthless. [/quote] 
Still totally irrelevant to the question.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]4. The Eastern Catholic Church (Orthodox Church) mainly is to be thanked for supplying us with thousands of Greek manuscript Bibles. Many of these can be used to determine the original Scripture readings. The Western Catholic Church (Roman Church) has supplied us with more thousands of Latin manuscript Bibles which can be also be used for determining the original Scripture readings.  [/quote] 
Exactly!  This is how the Received Text was developed.  Adding the ECW and sound textual thinking.
The modern versions use a totally different methodology in taking the Westcott-Hort recension and concepts false.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]2. I find it humorous that you would include one of your favorite whipping boys. I thought Hort lived in the 19th century not in the 16th century. Maybe you are hinting that Hort made contact with the 16th century by means of a seance. [/quote] 
I was simply trying to parse your ever-changing position.  First you were attacking the Greek and Latin texts of 1500 as Catholic, now you are saying the pure word of God is in those texts.

As for Hort, the Westcott-Hort recension, the Critical Text, is the main alternative today to the pure Bible. Since you were attacking the Greek and Latin mass of mss, you sounded like a hortian.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]1. The Bible is to be found in the totality of all the manuscripts extant today. It is our responsibility as believers to search out the Scripture for ourselves. We are not to depend on ecclesiastical authorities or religious professionals. We should study the Scriptures for ourselves. We can not put off our responsibility on others. 2. Owning NA27 and using it to identify the place where the various readings are to be found does not indicate an abdication of that responsibility in the least. It is rather an example of using the textual professionals work to do the study ourselves.[/quote]

Confusion everywhere in your position.

The Bible is out there .. somewhere .. in the mss. 
And every believer should make up their own text.  Thus, there is no plumbline.

The only position you attack is actually believing the Bible we read is God's pure and perfect word.

====

Since you lauded the NA-27 apparatus, do you support the NA-27 text over the historic Reformation Bible?

Or do you simply not know.
Why not answer directly and honestly?

Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

So you believe all Greek and Latin Bibles in the 1500s were corrupted and worthless by being either used by either the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox (whom you call Catholics).  An interesting theory.

Says a True Believer in the Simonides conspiracy theory. You gotta laugh.

It's a lot of fun interacting with Steven, he always keeps us on our toes

We find out more with every post.

 

[bgwilkinson]

1. All manuscript Bibles have some errors, which are commonly called corruptions when discussing textual issues within lower criticism. This does not presuppose a nefarious purpose such as denying the Trinity or the Deity of Christ.  Some would conflate the terms used in lower criticism and derive a supposed wicked intent from some overworked copyist  because of a mistake caused by poor lighting or hearing during the tedious process of duplicating manuscript Bibles.  Then unsuspecting Christians who have not studied the transmission of the Bible throughout the ages can be incited into believing that some manuscript bibles are Satan's bibles and contain doctrinal errors. I reject that whole approach to discussing the transmission of the Bible. This, in my opinion, is the end game of the KJVO extreme who calls valid Bibles, Satan's Bibles. It is simply a way to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and cast doubt upon the veracity of God's Word.

So far, nothing even remotely related to the textual question.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] 2. Miles Smith gives us a discussion of how they translated in the early 1600s.  I believe he presents an “eclectic” methodology, understanding that no single manuscript Bible should be elevated to the status of the “standard,” or the only valid Bible, as was claimed for the Vulgate.  They realized that each manuscript Bible contained scribal errors of various kinds, and that the true and original text was best sought in the plurality of Bible sources, original language and versions.  That is why he makes such a fuss over the LXX, claiming that it prepared the world for the coming of the  LORD, even as he admits it contained many blemishes.

 
All this theorizing is falsified by the simple fact that the learned men used the Received Text editions for all 8,000 verses of the NT.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] 3. We could say all manuscripts of the 16th century were corrupt, meaning that they all had errors or mistakes.
Mistakes in manuscripts do not make them worthless on the contrary they can be used for comparison to other manuscript Bibles for text critical purposes.  All had some level of corruption but none were worthless. [/quote] 
Still totally irrelevant to the question.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]4. The Eastern Catholic Church (Orthodox Church) mainly is to be thanked for supplying us with thousands of Greek manuscript Bibles. Many of these can be used to determine the original Scripture readings. The Western Catholic Church (Roman Church) has supplied us with more thousands of Latin manuscript Bibles which can be also be used for determining the original Scripture readings.  [/quote] 
Exactly!  This is how the Received Text was developed.  Adding the ECW and sound textual thinking.
The modern versions use a totally different methodology in taking the Westcott-Hort recension and concepts false.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]2. I find it humorous that you would include one of your favorite whipping boys. I thought Hort lived in the 19th century not in the 16th century. Maybe you are hinting that Hort made contact with the 16th century by means of a seance. [/quote] 
I was simply trying to parse your ever-changing position.  First you were attacking the Greek and Latin texts of 1500 as Catholic, now you are saying the pure word of God is in those texts.

As for Hort, the Westcott-Hort recension, the Critical Text, is the main alternative today to the pure Bible. Since you were attacking the Greek and Latin mass of mss, you sounded like a hortian.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]1. The Bible is to be found in the totality of all the manuscripts extant today. It is our responsibility as believers to search out the Scripture for ourselves. We are not to depend on ecclesiastical authorities or religious professionals. We should study the Scriptures for ourselves. We can not put off our responsibility on others. 2. Owning NA27 and using it to identify the place where the various readings are to be found does not indicate an abdication of that responsibility in the least. It is rather an example of using the textual professionals work to do the study ourselves.[/quote]

Confusion everywhere in your position.

The Bible is out there .. somewhere .. in the mss. 
And every believer should make up their own text.  Thus, there is no plumbline.

The only position you attack is actually believing the Bible we read is God's pure and perfect word.

====

Since you lauded the NA-27 apparatus, do you support the NA-27 text over the historic Reformation Bible?

Or do you simply not know.
Why not answer directly and honestly?

Steven
[/quote]

Steven said,
"All this theorizing is falsified by the simple fact that the learned men used the Received Text editions for all 8,000 verses of the NT."

BG says,
Steven, I was giving you what Miles said about how they wrote their version, I was not speculating.
I admit I was not very good at explaining what Miles said, I will work at getting my explanation of it in a more understandable formate, that will have to wait.

Have you actually read and studied what Miles said about how they wrote their new version?

Seems to me that when I mention something Miles said you react in a way that indicates you have not read the part of TTTR that I was referencing. Well, I could be wrong and you do not believe what Miles said about the way they wrote their version.

I accept what Miles said as well as believe that is how they did their version.

The learned men used the Received Text editions for all 8,000 verses of the NT, well not exactly.

In parts of the NT Erasmus occasionally introduced into the Greek text material taken from the  Latin Vulgate where he thought his Greek manuscripts were defective. For example, in Acts 9:6  the words trevmwn te kai; qambw’n ei\pe, kuvrie, tiv me qevlei" poih’saiÉ kai; oJ kuvrio" pro;" aujtovn (“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him”) were inserted by Erasmus at this point because they were in the Vulgate. He frankly admitted in his Annotationes that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14.

Though still found in the TR, the words have absolutely no Greek manuscript support.

With so few manuscripts from which to establish his Greek text, Erasmus was bound to adopt a reading which would ultimately, in light of future manuscript discoveries, prove to be in error.

This is especially true in the book of Revelation where Erasmus had only one manuscript. Since no two manuscripts agree exactly, it is essential that manuscripts be compared to determine where the errors lie. But since that was not possible in Erasmus’ case, his text in Revelation is limited by the accuracy of his one manuscript.

An example of this problem can be seen in Revelation 20:12. Following Codex 1r, the text of Erasmus and the TR read “standing before God”. However, all other Greek manuscripts read “standing before the throne”.

Erasmus Annotationes indicate that he had examined and collated a few other manuscripts in his various travels besides the seven we normally mention. One of these, which can be identified with certainty, is Codex 69, a 15th century manuscript of the entire NT with minor gaps. In a few places Erasmus selected distinctive readings from this manuscript.


Steven said,
"First you were attacking the Greek and Latin texts of 1500 as Catholic, now you are saying the pure word of God is in those texts.

BG says,
I am not attacking any Bible manuscripts regardless of the errors and blemishes that may be apparent.

Calling a manuscript owned by Catholics, Catholic is in no way an attack upon it or Catholics.

The Catholics who translated the Rheims were valid translators. They used words that were literal but obscure, even Miles realized their NT was a valid copy of the Bible.

You will not find me casting aspersions against the Bible.

All versions produced by learned men are valid Bibles and I accept them as God's Holy Word.

That is what Miles said and I agree with him concerning Bible translation issues.

As to the pure word of God that is to be found in the Golden Pipes of the original languages.

Translations can never be as exact as the original languages. Check out what Miles said about them.

We may disagree on this point, however, I agree with Miles and not with the KJVOs.


Steven said,
"As for Hort, the Westcott-Hort recension, the Critical Text, is the main alternative today to the pure Bible. Since you were attacking the Greek and Latin mass of mss, you sounded like a hortian."


BG says,
I do not subscribe to Hort's methods, rather I subscribe to the text critical methods described by Miles.
Steven, again I was not attacking any valid Bible, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or some other translation.

The Greek Bibles produced by the Greek Church are valid as well as the Latin Bibles produced by the Roman Catholic Church.

All of them contain some number of errors, mistakes and blemishes, which does not in any way mean they are false Bibles or worthless. They are all useful for determining the original readings, the Golden Pipes.

Please spend some time reading TTTR, what you will read in Miles preface represents my views on Bible translation issues.

I have chided you about this in the past

You will not find Miles speak of a pure text anywhere, except the Golden Pipes, the idea of only one pure  text fits well with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500s in reference to the Vulgate.

It is up to each individual believer to read and study the Scriptures for themselves.

Now they can make the decision to depend on the opinion of some self appointed religious authority, but that does not excuse them of personal responsibility to search the Scriptures for themselves.



Steven said,
"Since you lauded the NA-27 apparatus, do you support the NA-27 text over the historic Reformation Bible?"


BG says,
I do not view the NA27 text as the one and only text, it is useful for comparison purposes on a case by case basis. I believe they are many times too aggressive in their choice of readings.

NA27 or NA28 is most useful because you have access to many Bible manuscripts in one small book.
One does not need to use their suggested text to find great help in the margin notes.

I gave you my opinion and my belief. Please see Miles TTTR and do not dismiss it.
This is what I believe, I am not being deceptive in the least.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

btw, you really should not take so much material without giving the source in the post.

BG says,
Steven, I was giving you what Miles said about how they wrote their version, I was not speculating. I admit I was not very good at explaining what Miles said, I will work at getting my explanation of it in a more understandable format, that will have to wait.  Have you actually read and studied what Miles said about how they wrote their new version? Seems to me that when I mention something Miles said you react in a way that indicates you have not read the part of TTTR that I was referencing. Well, I could be wrong and you do not believe what Miles said about the way they wrote their version.
I accept what Miles said as well as believe that is how they did their version.

I may have to await for a real point given with the formatting.  I grant I don't know what is the TTTR.

> The learned men used the Received Text editions for all 8,000 verses of the NT, well not exactly.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]In parts of the NT Erasmus occasionally introduced into the Greek text material taken from the  Latin Vulgate where he thought his Greek manuscripts were defective. For example, in Acts 9:6 ..... With so few manuscripts from which to establish his Greek text, Erasmus was bound to adopt a reading which would ultimately, in light of future manuscript discoveries, prove to be in error.  This is especially true in the book of Revelation where Erasmus had only one manuscript.... An example of this problem can be seen in Revelation 20:12. Following Codex 1r, the text of Erasmus and the TR read “standing before God”. However, all other Greek manuscripts read “standing before the throne”. Erasmus Annotationes indicate that he had examined and collated a few other manuscripts... [/quote]

You are discussing a different question. The AV in all 8,000 verses used TR texts, which were Stephanus and Bezae, with occasional preference to Erasmus and the Complutensian.  The Received Text has some readings with minimal or zero Greek manuscript support.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]BG says,
I am not attacking any Bible manuscripts regardless of the errors and blemishes that may be apparent.[/quote]
How many corruptions does it take for you to criticize a ms or edition as corrupt?

[quote author=bgwilkinson]Calling a manuscript owned by Catholics, Catholic is in no way an attack upon it or Catholics.
The Catholics who translated the Rheims were valid translators. They used words that were literal but obscure, even Miles realized their NT was a valid copy of the Bible. You will not find me casting aspersions against the Bible. All versions produced by learned men are valid Bibles and I accept them as God's Holy Word.[/quote]
So even if a manuscript has thousands of errors and dozens of verses missing, it is == in your eyes to a pure Bible.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]That is what Miles said and I agree with him concerning Bible translation issues..[/quote]
You are misreading and extrapolating. The learned men never dealt with a New Testament with corruption like Vaticanus.  Beza warned about Codex Bezae.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]As to the pure word of God that is to be found in the Golden Pipes of the original languages.
Translations can never be as exact as the original languages. Check out what Miles said about them.  We may disagree on this point, however, I agree with Miles and not with the KJVOs.[/quote]
This is all diversion and politics away from the basic issue of thousands of corruptions.

[quote author=bgwilkinson]BG says,
I do not subscribe to Hort's methods, rather I subscribe to the text critical methods described by Miles..[/quote]
You are obviously totally ignorant of the acceptance of the Received Texts by the learned men of the Geneva and AV 1611. Thus you talk in circles.

[quote author=bgwilkinson] again I was not attacking any valid Bible[/quote]
Again, does any number of thousands of corruptions make a version not a valid Bible, in your eyes?

[quote author=bgwilkinson] Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or some other translation.The Greek Bibles produced by the Greek Church are valid as well as the Latin Bibles produced by the Roman Catholic Church.[/quote]
Will you ever answer the question about the Westcott-Hort recension?

[quote author=bgwilkinson] BG says,
I do not view the NA27 text as the one and only text, it is useful for comparison purposes on a case by case basis. I believe they are many times too aggressive in their choice of readings. .[/quote]
There are literally thousands of differences between the TR and the WH recension. Do you take any stance at all or do you simply talk in circles?

Steven Avery