Then why would Ellen use the RV at all if the KJV is so much superior?

In which way is it superior?

Have you been able to verify that the antique vocabulary of the KJV gets better through with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people today than the NIV?

Then why would Ellen use the RV at all if the KJV is so much superior?

In which way is it superior?

Have you been able to verify that the antique vocabulary of the KJV gets better through with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people today than the NIV?

When you go to pick a car, if you really care about what you are going to get you look at the record of that car in consumer reports or something similar. You spend time and study its history of dependability, reliability and consumer results and satisfaction, and make a informed decision on what you pick.

So here we have the facts and history of the two textual streams, one which even its supporters admit has issues with deletions, omissions and changes which do not add but detract and the other one which has been vetted by the Reformers and many others over the years and faithfully stood the test of time, which one should you choose. As they say, choose carefully..........

I fully agree with you that we must choose carefully, and on that basis I do not accept your presentation as the true facts of history, because you have only presented the biased views initiated by Dr. Wilkinson which have been shown by many prominent scholars to be faulty.

Just be honest enough to read the paper referred to above in post #155780 by APL

But for reasons which I only partially understand, some are much more cautious about sharing God's Word. In the case of Russell and Colin Standish, their feelings about the Received Text are so strong, they almost seem to prefer no Bible at all rather than risk one they consider corrupt. The tragedy of that view comes clear from these two paragraphs:

In 1990 Colin was preaching at a Korean campmeeting in Georgia. He mentioned the widespread use of Bibles in many languages translated from the corrupted Greek manuscripts. After the service a number of Korean pastors wanted to know if their Bible was translated from corrupted manuscripts. It took little time to confirm the worst fears of the pastors. They explained that only one translation is now available in Korean -- and this translation is from corrupted manuscripts.

Even in the minuscule Pacific Island nation of Kiribati (formerly the Gilbert Islands), the present translation is based upon the corrupted Western manuscripts (p. 61).

I find the Korean scene especially poignant. Think of it B more than 100,000 Adventists in Korea, plus myriads of other Christians, all won and nurtured by a "corrupted" Bible? Please no! No doubt the Korean Bible could be improved just as Tyndale and Erasmus improved on Wycliffe. But let's not dismiss it as "corrupted."
If only we could hear and believe the godly good sense of the King James translators: "We affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God."

http://text.egwwritings.org/publication....mp;pagenumber=1


The above is one of the more sober and reasonsed critiques of Dr W's book.

It clearly shouuld be considered by anyone who suggests that his book is quality.

Here is a quote from pages 3 & 4 of the above critique:



That is exactly what I have seen done here: Statements taken out of context and half truths.

I am further charged with being guilty of violating the primal laws of evidence because I sought available facts from reliable sources with a bias I plead guilty to this charge. I did seek for available and reliable evidence with a Christian, a Protestant, and with even a Seventh-day Adventist bias.

I started out with a bias created in me by the statements of the Spirit of Prophecy. What may be the bias of my Reviewers we shall attempt to discover in the following pages.

I am further charged with violating the primal laws of evidence by taking statements out of their setting. This charge I will immediately attempt to answer in Section I.

My Reviewers have accused me of "frequent misuse and misquotation of authorities"; and of me they say, he "includes only a part of a sentence or paragraph that suits his one-sided argument". (Section II, p. 16). They further accuse me of "ignoring the context" and also of unfair deduction from the quotations". (I, p. 17). And particularly they hold me up the public gaze as "even splitting paragraphs and often sentences so as to omit what would nullify 'my' purpose if left in". (Conclusion-2)

I now wish to submit to this body, who heard these charges against me read in your ears, how my Reviewers have handled their material. I will submit some facts drawn from their document, which will speak for themselves. We will then see whether I am guilty of these charges, and we shall see how they stand. He who brings another into court of equity must himself have clean hands.

Before giving example #1, notice the Reviewers partiality against Erasmus. They begin their discussion of MSS in general with four counts against Erasmus, which, of course, hits the Authorized and seven counts in favor of the Revisers, which, of course, exalts the Revised. Let me quote one sentence from Section II, p. 3. "That is, was not the textual work of Catholic Erasmus, working single-handed in the sixteenth century, with a small number of MSS available, as accurate and reliable as that of 37 of the best Protestant scholars in England and America, working for ten years with 4000 MSS available to check and compare?"

Against Erasmus: (1) Catholic (2) single-handed (3) 16th century (4) small number of MSS.
For Revisers: (1) accurate and reliable (2) 37 (3) best (4) Protestant (5) scholars (6) ten years (7) 4000 MSS available.

EXAMPLE NO. I:

On page 3, Section II of their document, my Reviewers read to you these words:
"Again, the author has much to say in defense of the meager MSS used by Erasmus. He seriously overstates himself when, admitting that Erasmus 'used only a few,' he exclaims, 'What matters?... If the few Erasmus used were typical... did he not, with all the problems before him arrive at practically the same results which only could be arrived at today by fair and comprehensive investigation?' (p. 54)."

Now, brethren, notice that there are two sets of dots here to show that twice something was omitted in their quoting from my book. Why were those two portions omitted? The parts omitted would nullify their argument, if left in. Their opening quotation from my book in this connection consists of only four words, "used only a few." In the sentence from which these four words are taken, there are 18 words in the whole sentence, and they quote only four, "used only a few." If they had quoted the other fourteen words of the sentence, the complete sentence would utterly have demolished the proposition they endeavor to make you believe, and would have shown that I said a very different thing front the impression given by the four words they quoted.

Now listen to the complete sentence they should have quoted, the full 18 words. They read as follows:

"There were hundreds of manuscripts for Erasmus to examine, and he did; but he used only a few."

Also, I want you to notice what they left out in the place indicated by the first three dots, and what was left out in the place of the second three dots. Here is the complete quotation.

"What matters? The vast bulk of manuscripts in Greek are practically all the Received Text." (This is the first sentence they left out). "that is , after he had thoroughly balanced the evi- dence of man and used a few which displayed that balance, did he not, with all the problems before him, arrive at practically the same result which only could be arrived at today by a fair and comprehensive investigation?"

They omit the first 14 words of a sentence, quote the last four; then they quote 2 words; leave out 13; quote 7, omit l9 and quote 28. In view of the full quotations they should have drawn from my book, now notice what they go on to make me say. They make me represent,

"Catholic Erasmus working single-handed in the 16th century, with a small number of MSS available."

So whereas, I said that there were hundreds of MSS available, and I stated that Erasmus examined them and had balanced the evidence of many, they make me say that only a small number of manuscripts were available I said the very opposite.

I respectfully submit that my Reviewers here have split sentences, so as to entirely contradict the thought of the writer; that is, they have done exactly what they accused me of doing.

B. G. Wilkinson's defense on these very points has been published. The unbiased student has an obligation to hear both sides. As part of this defense, we find the following points made.



And here is a portion of that "Section I" noted above.



Looks as though those who "reviewed" Dr. Wilkinson's work were very manipulative in their handling of facts--stretching them into untruths.

So much for the "credibility" of said "review."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Looks as though those who "reviewed" Dr. Wilkinson's work were very manipulative in their handling of facts--stretching them into untruths.