Of course not.

Whatever the source, I try to look at its quality.

While I may be free to disagree with an Adventist source, as is everyone else, as a SDA clergyperson, I want to know what other SDA sources have said on the subject. I think that the same may be true for SDA Members--it may be of interest (value) for them to know what denominational authors have said on the subject.

NOTE: Frankly, in citing the SDA Commentary, I did not expect anyone to be convinced.

In providing references here, I want to provide references that people reading here can easily access. E.G. On the assumption that some people reading here have the SDA Bible Commentary, I may reference it.

Green: I do not choose to respond to everything that is posted here. I read your post when you first posted it. I have reread it again and it is my choice not to respond to it.

Frankly, I do not agree with your post. I do not think you have proven your point. However, I believe that you are clear. People reading your post, will, in my opinion, understand it. They can decide for themselves whether or not you area correct. I do not believe that I need to contribute any comments about it.

Yes, as you might expect, I consider the Bible to be a valid prophetic source. I simply do not believe that you have proven your point. But, I will leave it for those who read her to decide for themselves whether or not you have proven it.

I have printed off the article by Chuck Missler as you cited at the following URL:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/

I am considering making a response to it.

Ok well lets look at the Adventist sources, so we can look at closer from our standpoint..

Lets go to a study on the issue, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated the book written by Seventh-day Adventist scholar Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson who laid out the arguments against Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, that corruptions were introduced from the Alexandrian codices into the Septuagint by Origen, that there are two textual streams the "pure" Antiochian (Byzantine) text, and the "bad" Alexandrian text, a belief in the superiority of the Textus Receptus for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament, over the corrupted Alexandrian text. Look at his book below and see what you find.



Our Authorized Bible Vindicated

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-Resource%20Library/Our%20Authorized%20Bible%20Vindicated.pdf

Yes, and that work is over 80 years old. The author was a SDA scholar, but not in the area in which he wrote that work.

Modern scholarship in this area has moved beyond what it was in the past. Let me give you an example:

Chuch Missler, writing in the previously cited work says:

Let us address one issue that Missler brings up here: He suggests that many scholars regard the oldest MSS as being the most authorative. To some degree, although perhaps not as much as said, Westcott & Hort thought that to be true.

Modern scholarship does not accept that "ipso facto" to be true. It considers the age of the MSS but may decide that a younger MSS is the better reading. Modern scholarship has moved beyond what Westcott & Hort believed.

One cannot throw out everything that was said in that 80+ year old book that you cite. But, neither can one hold it up to be an authorative statement of fact.

You will note that I stated that I want to know what SDA authors have said on an issue. But, in knowing that, it does not mean that I either accept it or that I reject it.

Let me comment on one of the points that Chuck Missler makes in the previously cited URL:

Missler brings up Lucian of Antioch who he says compiled A Greek text which he says later formed the basis of the Byzantine text which became the basis of the “Textus Receptus” and the KJV. O.K. Let us look at this Lucian of Antioch.

NOTE: We must carefully distinguish between Lucian of Antioch and Lucian of Samosata. The first was a Christian and a martyr. The second was a pagan philosopher. However, both were probably born in Samosata! Our ability to distinguish between the two is due to the fact that the one was Christian and the other was purely a pagan. Unless I state otherwise, when I mention Lucian, I will refer to Lucian of Antioch, the Christian.

Lucian has a checkered past as to doctrine. He is clearly thought to be Arian in theology with heretical views about the nature of Christ. It is pointed out that the Arians held Lucian in high regard as one of their martyrs.
Lucian is believed to been a proponent of the allegorizing Alexandrian school as was Origen.

Lucian is commonly believed to have played a major part in developing the LXX (Septuagint), and the Greek text that lies at the basis of the Textus Receptus. But, this is not clear and cannot be said to be proven.

My problem with Missler is that he states as factual issues that are not that clear. He does not recognize the issues involved in this subject.

It should also be noted that many of the adverse comments made in posts in this thread can also be said about Lucian and the origin of the TR and the KJV. To tell the full story about the modern versions, one must also acknowledge the issues with the TR and the KJV. In short, I believe that much of what has been posted here is partial truth. I realize that the issues may be so complex that one, to include me, cannot present the total picture. But, I am concerned about those who seem to present in a manner that one would not realize that there is much more that is not being said.

NOTE: I do not intend to criticize the KJV, or any other version. I believe that God has preserved what God has wanted preserved in the KJV and in the modern versions. I have read the KJV from cover to cover more times than I have read any other translation.

NOTE: I will probably post more in regard to Missler.

In this post, I am commenting on comments made by Chuck Missler in the previously cited URL:

Missler describes Westcott and Hort as having ”contempt” for the TR, as being influenced by the Gnostic heresies of Origen and of having “conspired” to influence the production of the Greek NT. These are allegations which really cannot be proven. To say that one has contempt, or conspired is not scholarly language. It goes beyond a mere difference of opinion. It attacks one’s character and motive.

One can challenge the decisions that Westcott & Hort made. They were not always correct. They did not always have the full truth. One can challenge their usage of manuscripts and selection of textual material. But, to use terms like contempt and conspired there is a different level of proof required. That proof is missing. In my opinion, to make such statements is inappropriate for a follower of Christ.

Missler comments on “3,000 contradictions,” and “deviations from the traditional Greek in 8,413 places.” This statement simply throws out large numbers with no ability for the person reading it to evaluate it. The ancient MSS were hand written as printing had not been invented. There are thousands of differences among the manuscripts. The vast majority are simple mistakes that do not affect major doctrinal understanding.

Missler comments on the missing last 12 verses of Mark. People can debate whether or not these verses should be included in the book of Mark. People can come up with evidence on both sides of this issue. It is not my place to tell you what I believe to be correct. I simply say that honest people can disagree. But the root of these differences lies in the manuscripts. It is on that basis that people should make their decisions. It is not appropriate for Missler to suggest that Westcott & Hort decided on the basis of Gnostic theology. Even if W & H did believe in some aspects of Gnostic theology, that does not mean that such was the root of their decisions.

Missler goes off on a tangent in his comments on the Heptadic Structure of Scripture. This is simply nonsense. Every year, several hundred religious books (probably in excess of 500) cross over my desk. Some I do not spend 5 minutes looking at. Others I may read part of all. There are other books written on this same subject as Missler comments on. There are other books that use exactly the same line of reasoning that Missler uses to arrive at theology about God that is simply pagan garbage. That is where his line of reasoning leads.

Well here we have a solid work from a SDA author, and you dont even bother to go over the points he brings up, which are the main points of contention. Interesting...that says a lot...

Is it solid based on who published it and who refused to publish it, or what is your criteria?