The reason was that regardless of what textual experts that I could list here, you have already decided from the KJVO perspective that they are in bed with the evil Critical Greek text, so would be dubious and suspect...
There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion, but do see one can prefer them for use, but one cannot say the other Greet texts are not legit, nor the modern English versions from them.
David, it is not at all the case that I have forced or compelled you to keep the "textual experts" that you refer to in the background. In fact, nothing I've said or brought forward should predispose you to do that. Indeed, if I were in your shoes and I really believed that there were experts in modern textual criticism who could bolster my position, I would not hesitate
to bring them, their witness, their testimony, their analyses, forward.
Friend, you've had every opportunity to bring in your experts. You still have
that opportunity. But if you continue not to bring them forward, that is your decision and your decision alone. You should not blame me for what you do or do not do.
Men like Dean John William Burgon, Edward F. Hills, Theodore P. Letis and others from whom I've quoted and to whom I've linked are all textual experts. Their support and defense of the Byzantine Text-type, the Textus Receptus, and the authorized KJV is extensive. It covers the field. No relevant stone is left unturned. They've rallied proof of their position from the Scriptures themselves, from the testimonies and decisions of the early church leaders, from the scholars and theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation era; and have also in most cases fleshed out the position of all their distinguished forebears. In the process of their analyses they have dealt with Gnostic and Papal error; and with advocates of modern textual criticism, with their theories and claims, at great length... from Westcott & Hort right on down the line, to men like Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, and so on.
You keep saying
, without demonstrating (not even attempting to demonstrate)... "There is NO textual/Scripture support for the TR/KJVO poistion".
In point of fact, the fundamental basis of support
for the Byzantine Text-type and, by logical extension, the support for the Textus Receptus and the KJV, comes directly from Scripture.
God, having inspired the autographa, surely also preserved it in a genuine apographa (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 23-25; Ps. 12:6-7; Isa. 59:21; 40:8; Matt. 5:18; 24:35). He did so quite thoroughly, as becomes His absolutely perfect nature and work, and He has done it from the very beginning.
The Westminster and Baptist divines of the mid 17th century knew this very well, and state that the Scriptures "being immediately inspired by God" were also "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all
ages"; thus the apographa, the providentially preserved record of the autographa, are "therefore authentical". (WCF, I:8; 2nd London Baptist CF of 1689, I:8).
Both confessions also tell us that, "As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so after a most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof." (both Confessions at V:7) 1 Tim. 4:10; Amos 9:8, 9; Rom. 8:28; Isa. 43:3, 4, 5, 14.
David, do you really believe that our absolutely sovereign, loving, gracious, and altogether perfect God waited until the late 18th century to place His complete, pure, entire, infallible, and inerrant Word into the hands of His people?
Oh, wait... modern textual criticism does not quite fully affirm these things about Scripture. It tells us that the Alexandrian Text-type, the multiple critical Greek texts based upon that Text-type and, consequently, the modern versions based thereon, only bring God's people today "closer" to the original autographa.
David, do you really believe that God used Gnostic heretics to produce a handful of mutilated texts, doctored to reflect their heretical views; and that He then decided to just leave those mutilated texts tucked away in Alexandria somewhere for discovery centuries later by unbelievers who would then foist them upon the church as genuine Scripture?
Or do you believe that God, in His perfect providence and care, raised up genuine Bible-believing scribes and leaders in the earliest days of the church to set forth genuine apographic copies of the original autographa; and that ultimately manuscripts by the thousands, in consistent agreement, would establish for all time the genuine apographa, now identified as the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Byzantine Text-type; the received Ecclesiastical, Canonical Text and what is now known as the Textus Receptus?
David, do you believe that God in His perfect providence and care for the church led Papal authorities to keep the Scripture out of the hands of the people, and that He led those authorities to be the sole interpreters of it, in order that they might control what the people did and did not believe?
Or do you believe that God raised up men like Tyndale and Wycliffe who would hazard their safety and lives to make sure the people had the clear Word of God translated from genuine texts into their own tongues, and placed for their faith, edification, and life into their hands?
David, do you believe that the scholars of the Reformation were not led by God in His singular care and providence to produce the translations of their time, based solidly and squarely upon the genuine apographa?
Or do you believe that God haphazardly waited and then raised up men like Westcott & Hort, Metzger and Aland... who are on the record in their own words rejecting fundamental doctrines of the Bible... to now tell us otherwise benighted modern Christians (who are more enlightened than the early church and the Reformers if we are to believe what the modern critics tell us) what is and what is not the true Word of God?
Consider this statement from Dr. J. Cremmenga:
"In discussing the Biblical text, it is, regrettably, necessary nowadays to be aware that some acknowledged textual experts are unbelievers or liberals. Equally regrettably, these experts are no longer taking a lonely stand in this regard against the bulk of the church: church officers in quite a few denominations must also be regarded as liberal and sometimes non-Christian. These textual experts do not believe that Scripture is the Word of God, or that its text and doctrine are divine Truth. To them, the Bible is just another, human, book: useful perhaps for building a career on or to study out of mere academic interest but of no eternal merit. Such textual analysts have no qualms about handling Scripture in a destructively critical manner, contrary and detrimental to its Truth.
"Furthermore, it is distressing that many of them carry out this work while in the pay of some church or church-sponsored university or seminary, whose own harm is thereby also assured. This does not usually weigh heavily on such experts’ consciences, however; they are quite happy to pursue their careers of studying the presumed vicissitudes and defects of the Scripture text. But what they will not brook is the thought that God really has inspired His Word and preserved it intact throughout history."
~ From The Lord Has Preserved His Word: The Doctrine of Holy Scripture, its Providential Preservation and its Faithful Translation
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tbsbibles. ... s-Word.pdf
Behold, then, the implications of modern textual criticism! Behold the conclusions to which a consistent modern critic is led!
The great pastoral theologians of Westminster wrote:
The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Acts 28:25).
Their Baptist brethren agreed, and wrote:
2nd LBC of 1689, I:10
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. ( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23).
I submit that modern textual criticism of the Westcott & Hort variety is now a part of what these divines meant when they spoke of "doctrines of men, and private spirits". And when these doctrines are compared to Biblical teaching and sound principles of scholarship and theology of a most practical nature (be it said, for this matter is not merely academic), they are weighed in the balances and found wanting. They do not submit themselves to the Supreme Judge, i.e., the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Finally, read carefully and weigh well a statement from that great Reformed Baptist, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, whose comments on the higher criticism that was coming into vogue just before he died are certainly applicable to the modern-day predicament that textual criticism of the Westcott & Hort variety has placed us in.
“Believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and believe it in the most intense sense…. If you adopt theories which pare off a portion here, and deny authority to a passage there, you will at last have no inspiration left, worthy of the name.
“If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college
. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? The old silver is to be depreciated; but the German silver, which is put in its place, is to be taken at the value of gold. Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character. Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth are scouted as sheer folly.
“But where shall infallibility be found?
"The depth saith, it is not in me"; yet those who have no depth at all would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it. Are we now to believe that infallibility is with learned men?
Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, to-morrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority. It will be well for you to know whether it was written by the Isaiah, or whether it was by the second of the "two Obadiahs." All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed.
“This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism: "These be thy gods, O Israel!"
(emphases mine, ML)
Source: Charles H. Spurgeon, “The Greatest Fight in the World,” quoted by Christian documentarian, Chris Pinto
http://www.noiseofthunderradio.com/arti ... bible.html