What's wrong with this statement?

[bgwilkinson]

This statement is found on the Hyles-Anderson College Web site under What we believe:


"SCRIPTURES — We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."


Do you see what is wrong with this?

 

[Exell]

The King James did not come from the TR.

 

[IFB X-Files]

"SCRIPTURES — We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

It's doublespeak.

 

[prophet]

The King James did not come from the TR.

At least not the TR you can buy in Peddler's Way.

Anishinaabe

 

[Exell]

In all actuality, the New King James is more faithful to the TR and the manuscripts from which it comes than the KJV.

 

[prophet]

In all actuality, the New King James is more faithful to the TR and the manuscripts from which it comes than the KJV.

That's cuz "in actuality", the KJB came from a "TR" that wasnt in one language.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

Well I found another one on a college web site.

"We believe in the infallible, inspired Word of God. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts as the foundational material from which we derive the King James 1611. The Old and New Testament Scriptures were written by human authors divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, preserved, unbroken and passed down to us today. The Scripture is the final Authority in all matters of faith and practice."



1. Maybe they meant Textus Receptus type manuscripts. Indicating the text critical work of Erasmus and

others the source of which was in various manuscripts in various languages and included the Latin Vulgate.

So does that mean they accept all the manuscripts and readings that were the sources of the TR type Texts?


2. Manuscript means that which is written by hand. Erasmus and those that followed published only by

machine printing. They did not publish in hand written form, Manuscript.


3. The name Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to a 1633 edition Greek text

produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at

Leiden. Previous to this time the term Textus Receptus was unknown.


4. KJV1611 was produced and completed before the term TR was known.


5. The greater part of a common English Bible is not derived from any Greek text. Apocrypha, NT and

Orthodox English Study Bible excepted.


6. Why would they not list the source of their OT?



What do these people really believe about the Bible? What they have written raises more questions than it

answers. No wonder we have confusion and misinformation concerning the Bible so prevalent among IFB

churches. The colleges don't have a clue.

 

[prophet]

Well I found another one on a college web site.

"We believe in the infallible, inspired Word of God. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts as the foundational material from which we derive the King James 1611. The Old and New Testament Scriptures were written by human authors divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, preserved, unbroken and passed down to us today. The Scripture is the final Authority in all matters of faith and practice."



1. Maybe they meant Textus Receptus type manuscripts. Indicating the text critical work of Erasmus and

others the source of which was in various manuscripts in various languages and included the Latin Vulgate.

So does that mean they accept all the manuscripts and readings that were the sources of the TR type Texts?


2. Manuscript means that which is written by hand. Erasmus and those that followed published only by

machine printing. They did not publish in hand written form, Manuscript.


3. The name Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to a 1633 edition Greek text

produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at

Leiden. Previous to this time the term Textus Receptus was unknown.


4. KJV1611 was produced and completed before the term TR was known.


5. The greater part of a common English Bible is not derived from any Greek text. Apocrypha, NT and

Orthodox English Study Bible excepted.


6. Why would they not list the source of their OT?



What do these people really believe about the Bible? What they have written raises more questions than it

answers. No wonder we have confusion and misinformation concerning the Bible so prevalent among IFB

churches. The colleges don't have a clue.

They really are just parroting some Gippesque nonsense, understanding nary a word.

Anishinaabe

 

[Fresh Air]

This statement is found on the Hyles-Anderson College Web site under What we believe:


"SCRIPTURES — We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."


Do you see what is wrong with this?

It is inept, careless, and muddled, and for an institution that purports to teach theology to pastors in training that is inexcusable.

 

[prophet]

This statement is found on the Hyles-Anderson College Web site under What we believe:


"SCRIPTURES — We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."


Do you see what is wrong with this?

It is inept, careless, and muddled, and an institution that purports to teach theology to pastors in training that is inexcusable.

Thank You.

Anishinaabe