Just because you haven't accepted or understood my position hardly means I have not expressed it. I most certainly have expressed this here. Again, my position is simply this: The Waldensian Bible came from the Majority Text. So did the KJV. No, the Waldensians did not read from the KJV. But the truth which they had was the uncorrupted truth--their Bibles were of the line of manuscripts that had not been altered by the Catholic scribes and/or others.



I take issue with your constant misrepresentation of my position. No, they did NOT have the KJV!!!! They had the Majority-Text-based Bible.

For your information, the KJV is also a Majority-Text-based Bible. And, for your additional information, the modern Bibles are NOT--but are based on a few outlying manuscripts that have been "corrupted." Even the Catholics themselves will tell you those manuscripts were "corrupted." Don't believe me? Research their documentation for yourself. (I have already posted it more than once here, but you seem to never notice such things.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Johann,

The "Textus Receptus" is a subset of manuscripts belonging to the Majority Text. The Waldensians very probably did not have the "Textus Receptus." Their Bibles come from the Majority Text, however, which is of the same lineage. The term "Textus Receptus" did not evolve until decades after the KJV was published. It essentially is used to speak of the texts used in translation of the KJV. However, the KJV translators did not have ALL of the Majority Text manuscripts at their disposal. They used what they had.

However, the modern translations eschew those manuscripts entirely, preferring a minority of outlying manuscripts that were corrupted, altered, edited, and finally compiled by the likes of Westcott and Hort who glorified them as being "more ancient" and therefore "more original." In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In order to get scholars to agree, however, I believe that they made some concessions, and that in some places their text has seen updates from some of the true manuscripts that the KJV translators did not have. This lends credence and "scholarship" to Westcott and Hort and/or the Nestle/Aland compilations.

One needs only to look at the degradations of the truth brought in by these modern translations to see where this line of manuscripts takes us, however.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Based on?

Actually I did, hence my comment. They all said the same. And then APL listed many. All the same. Only it's your opinion they say differently.

Green, you've never addressed why "truth" as Ellen White uses it in relation to the Waldenses means "the KJV" "the Majority Text".

I believe that's another one.

Might want to check that on him.
...

All one needs to do is find just one modern translation which doesn't entirely "eschew" those manuscripts.

Looking carefully at the above one gets a broader picture on the MSS used to translate the Bible than has been represented by some.

The above cited book is a 308 page book that contains articles by a number of people such as F. F. Bruce, Carl F. H. Henry and other well-known conservative theologians. I recommend it.

All you need to do, kland, is understand the true meaning of "eschew." It is "to deliberately avoid using." This does not mean they manage to avoid using those manuscripts in every case, especially where their manuscripts may not have a text that they choose to include. But they avoid the Majority Text wherever possible. That is the essence of "eschew."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh wow, wow, wow.

So we have: Eschew means to deliberately avoid using except when they use them.

No wonder we also get things such as: God is not a destroyer because He is a destroyer.

wow.

Thanks for the compliment. In England it is an honor being appointed as Reader ad hominem! by a university.