Bible Highlighter: "Most make themselves the authority or the scholar the authority. All Modern Bibles come from Rome, and Westcott and Hort.
Pontification from ignorance! Some of the best text critics are solidly evangelical. e.g. Bruce Metzger (my seminary professor) and Gordon Fee (a Pentecostal professor).
Bible Highlighter: "So if you believe the KJB is corrupted, you have no clue of how bad Modern bibles are corrupted. By comparison, there are so many bad things in Modern bibles (Based on the Nestle and Aland / Westcott and Hort Critical Text), it should honestly make a person puke."
Bible Highlighter: "I have already demonstrated in this thread the doctrines that are changed in Modern Bibles (by comparison to the KJB). See
post #254 (and my following posts) within this thread to see 9 doctrines that are changed."
Doctrines based on corrupt manuscripts and poor translations need to be adjusted! Do you have the intellectual integrity to actually read a mainstream book on Text Criticism like Bruce Metzger's to understand the objective criteria for reconstructing the original text? Text Critics begin by grouping manuscripts into families based on date of origin, locale, and patterns of text type. They then use this knowledge to trace when, where, and why errors have crept into texts and then been repeatedly recopied. Then they compare these original readings with biblical quotations from the earliest church fathers, who wrote prior to the manuscripts in question. For example, Origen (C. 220 AD) writes before any complete NT Greek manuscripts and he confirms that certain additions (e.g. "Bethabara"--John 1:28 [KJV]) is absent from earlier Greek manuscripts, which read "bethany" like the modern critical text. Text Critics then extrapolate known patterns by which scribes misread and miscopy texts to provide independent confirmation of their corrected readings. DOCTRINAL BIAS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROCESS!
Bible Highlighter: "Also, even many KJB Only Christians do not see the use of Modern bibles as a salvation issue. So you are saying that just because I believe in a perfect Word of God being the King James Bible that I am not saved? That’s silly."
I forgot that the KJV crowd is full of witless fundamentalists who don't understand a tongue-in-cheek use of a smiley face!
P.S. You do know that one NT ancient Greek manuscripts of Mark actually identifies the forger of Mark 16:9-20 [KJV only] as Arjsto of Pella, right?
It’s uncomfortable and unusual to read a post like this when you can simply learn to multi-quote on the forums. There was a help tutorial provided on another Christian forums (that uses the same tools as this forums) that should help you to multi-quote.
I hope it helps, and may God bless you.
As for your approach to understanding the Bible:
You mention Bruce Metzger.
Metzger was a radical ecumenist. He was at the forefront of producing “the Ecumenical Edition” of the RSV in 1973 and personally presented a copy to Pope Paul VI. “In a private audience granted to a small group, comprising the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Athenagoras, Lady Priscilla and Sir William Collins, Herbert G. May, and the present writer, Pope Paul accepted the RSV ‘Common’ Bible as a significant step in furthering ecumenical relations among the churches” (Metzger, “The RSV-Ecumenical Edition,”
Theology Today, October 1977). Metzger also presented a Bible to Pope John Paul II.
He did not believe in the divine preservation of the Scripture in any practical sense. In fact, he claimed that it is possible that we do not have sufficient manuscript evidence to recover the original text, because the manuscripts that exist might not even represent the text of the early churches. “...the disquieting possibility remains that the evidence available to us today may, in certain cases, be totally unrepresentative of the distribution of readings in the early church” (Metzger, Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, 1979, p. 188).
Metzger’s radical modernism in relation to the Scripture was also evident in the notes to the
New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, which he co-edited with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as
The Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by the Roman Catholic Church. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston. Metzger and May claim the O.T. contains “a matrix of myth, legend, and history,” deny the worldwide flood, call Job an “ancient folktale,” claim there are two authors of Isaiah, call Jonah a “popular legend,” and otherwise attack the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture.
Note on the Flood: “Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin” (Metzger and May,
New Oxford Annotated Bible).
Note on Job: “The ancient folktale of a patient Job circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)” (Metzger and May,
New Oxford Annotated Bible).
Note on Jonah: “The book of Jonah is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use” (Metzger and May,
New Oxford Annotated Bible).
Source:
Bruce Metzger, Beloved by Modernists, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists, Way of Life Literature
So in conclusion:
Unless you are a liberal who turns the Scriptures into fables or myths (like Metzger), and or you are a ecumenist who does not see a problem with siding in fellowshipping with Catholics (like Metzger), then you don’t know know what you are talking about.
