tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post2802578292927169728..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Article: R. L. Vaughn, Why "Which Textus Receptus"?Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-47486327401408239102022-07-20T12:14:45.376-04:002022-07-20T12:14:45.376-04:00PT 2. Could you show me where you dive into the T...PT 2. Could you show me where you dive into the TR question deeper and provide those principles? I guess I'm asking b/c I think, posturing or not, Ward is making a valid point. That is, if there are multiple TRs with discrepancies between them, how can we assume they are the "Received Text" kept pure? My eyes have been opened to the glaring differences between translations disseminating from the TR and the Modern Critical Text (am I assume most of those disseminate from Wescott and Hort?), but do you push back on Ward's argument b/c the discrepancies between the various TRs aren't so different and that their corpus maintains the purity of original Scripture. <br /><br />Or maybe, to put it another way, I read that you "make practical use of the Scrivener TR", which may imply something to the effect of what I read from RC Sproul. He writes:<br /><br /><i>"In sum, the Bible is entirely truthful and has no errors at all in the original manuscripts that the prophets and Apostles actually wrote. We do not today possess these manuscripts, but through the process of textual criticism, we can recover the original wording of the manuscripts with a high degree of certainty." </i>. <br /><br />All of that is to say is that if you apply RC Sproul's statement to your own argument then you'd be arguing that the TR to be the most reliable rendering of the infallible original, and that the Scrivener TR is a reliable rendering of the infallible original that you personally put into practice? Or no? <br /><br />You can reply to me privately if you prefer. My only goal is to strive to find the most reliable English translation b/c I'm a firm believer in the infallibility of God's Word. I'm not certain we have a perfect translation today, but I do believe the original was perfect, and I strongly believe that there are English translations, as well as other language translations, that do not confuse God's Word. I guess the question comes to what is considered "pure"? Are these translations "infallible"? Given the fact that you say that you can study and work out the distinctions between the different TRs means that you recognize there could be small discrepancies that need to weighed before one another to discern the best rendering between them, or am I wrong to assume that? If so, is that enough to render the various TRs impure? I sincerely don't have an answer...I've been a Christian for the last 18 years, I have an MDIV, but I'm now just scratching the surface on these important questions about reliable Scripture translations. Our church pastor endorses both TR and modern critical translations, and while he reads from several different translations, he relies mostly on the NIV. I have been using NIV most of my Christian life, but have just started relying more on the NKJV and the KJV (but will also start reviewing the MEV). <br /><br />If you've already answered my questions in other posts and videos, please just send me the links and blog posts that I may find helpful. Thank you! Regardless of what you think about Mr. Ward's position, I appreciate the back and forth b/c it allows me to really delve into the arguments deeper and best discern what's right. <br /><br />Rich Blessings,<br />Seanseandavis777@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12613674865443224610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-62043317416456229642022-07-20T12:13:36.017-04:002022-07-20T12:13:36.017-04:00PT. 1- Hello Dr. Riddle! I started digging into ...PT. 1- Hello Dr. Riddle! I started digging into the question of most reliable\authentic Scripture texts and it ultimately lead me to your Stylos blog Dr. Riddle:) I recently reached out to you anonymously about Mark 16:9-20's authenticity, you sent me a YouTube link, and I ultimately ended up watching the entire 3-part lecture series. Then I watched several more that popped on my feed (probably through the YouTube algorithm), along with a few interviews you did with Dwayne Green, which lead me to this ongoing debate that you've been having with Mark Ward. <br /><br />I found a really interesting Stylos blog where you and Mark discuss in the comments, among many related things, "Which Textus Receptus?". I've read your back-and-forth dialogue and confess that it feels more like a court of law than two theologians engaging in fruitful discussion:) However, given that this is a public forum, I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. Given the framing of both your arguments, it feels less like a shared passion for truth, and more of a debate where you're both trying to elevate your position (Perhaps for the audience outside of yourselves).<br /><br />But, I will say that for someone like me who has taken great interest in your position, perhaps even favoring it, I'm really looking for your answer to the Mark Ward's "argument" (I agree it's not really a question about "Which TR?", but more a rhetorical device prompting his argument that "if there are several TRs, how can you maintain the TR provides a "pure" transcription of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek texts?". Nevertheless, I find it to be a reasonable argument.<br /><br />You alluded that you've answered this in the past and wrote the following: <br /><br /><i>"I have clearly stated that my views are in line with the TBS’s statement on the doctrine of Holy Scripture, that, in the NT, I make practical use of Scrivener’s TR, that any individual passages where there are questions about Scrivener’s TR should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and I have even provided some principles for how such cases might be addressed....I am sorry if you do not think this response is adequate, or that it is inconsistent with my belief that the Bible has been 'kept pure in all ages.'</i><br />seandavis777@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12613674865443224610noreply@blogger.com