James White's blog includes an article by Colin Smith which reads:"Textual scholars are unanimous in their agreement that textual criticism applied to the extant manuscripts is necessary if the original readings of the New Testament are ever to be fully recovered. Those who hold to the view that only the King James Version of the Bible is the normative text of the church cannot be considered among rational, textual scholars. This position posits a 17th century English version as the only infallible Word of God, and is, therefore, based more on tradition, misinformation, and conspiracy than on real scholarly textual research.
Precisely how textual criticism should be applied, particularly with regard to the types of evidence discussed previously, and which manuscripts should form the basis of the reconstructed New Testament are hotly disputed issues.."
So we have a better science (if we can call it that), and even though the so called experts are divided and "hotly dispute" what is to be done with all the different texts extant, we have to believe them when they say that no matter what translation and no matter what text, and how they all differ, we are still to hold them all forth as "The Holy Bible"! Ha! and then we wonder that the World derides the Christian faith! :u
9/30/2020 12:17 PM
