tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post6899892680838067925..comments2012-01-24T15:45:40.323-05:00Pastor Jeffnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-8786305827050842922012-01-24T14:15:04.464-05:002012-01-24T14:15:04.464-05:00<i>Another commendable defense of the venerable TR. Bravo!</i><br /><br />The fact that these Traditional readings existed at all prior to the earliest provable (even by Tischendorf!) date of א &amp; B puts to flight the critical text enthusiasts&#39; argument that they were inserted later than these two codices. Therefore, if the W-H text is <i>NOT</i> the “earliest and most reliable” (in the unscrupulous words of the NIV committee, Vine’s Dictionary, theological seminaries everywhere, et al), then the cornerstone has just fallen off and through the roof of the Critical Text Edifice, burying itself completely in the sandy basement floor.<br /><br />I wonder why so many intelligent scholars and churchmen ignore (<i>I do not accept that they cannot see it</i>) this obvious fact.μαρτυςhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14841409239921477965noreply@blogger.com