[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Similarly, the Original Manuscripts were copied, and most have been identified as belonging in two textual families. First is the Byzantine Text, loosely synonymous with the Majority Text. Second is the Alexandrian Text, itself loosely synonymous with the Minority, or Critical Text.

Greetings Jonathan,

This plays into a paradigmic fantasy of the alexandrian cult. How can 99% of the MSS, largely homogeneous, be equated with 1% of the MS, that are wildly disagreeing within the 1%, as two equivalent 'families' ? That is all part of the charade. The Vulgate and the Old Latin line and the Peshitta line are much more legitimate 'families' than the alexandrian text. Similarly the smallish differences within the Majority Byzantine Text could be family divided, e.g those that have any of these verses.. Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36 Acts 9:5-6 Col. 1:14, 1 John 5:7 could be combined with early church testimony witnesses and made into a 'family' with more legitimacy than the abject alexandrian corruptions.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Wescott and Hort, the "fathers" of the Minority/Critical Text, insisted on treating Scripture like any other ancient (human) text

Except that they custom-tailored their analysis to meet a pre-defined goal, substitution for the 'vile' Textus Receptus. There would be no logical reason for the double Lucian Recension theory in a study of a secular writing, an example where the idea that they followed some secular principles properly is exposed as simply one of the alexandrian cult deceptions. (The Lucian idea was ably disassembled by Dean Burgon, who showed that even, in the highly unlikely and ahistorical idea that it were true, it would defeat their text .) W&H moved the bulls-eye of their target to match the arrows they threw willy-nilly in the air; trying vainly to wound the historic Bible, the TR and the King James Bible.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

During the Reformation (Philadelphia), generally the Byzantine/Majority Texts, and the Textus Receptus (as a representative) were used in most translations during that time,

Actually the Reformation scholars were well aware of the value of the Latin lines. Most especially in omission/addition verses. There is a tendency to downplay their excellence in scholarship and understanding because of a modernist oversimplification that anything associated with the RCC is ipso facto totally false and that God had no hand in any way on the Latin texts. In fact the Latin Vulgate line (not just the Old Latin, although that was superior to the Vulgate) was one vehicle through which many readings in the true Bible were preserved, while the Byzantine faltered on the preservation of some verses for a variety of reasons. This goes hand-in-hand with what Matthew has described as the "scattering and gathering" principle that gave us the Reformation Bible and the totally pure King James Bible.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

we have direct and faithful copies of the Original scriptures in the form of the Majority/Byzantine Text,

Not quite. Two of the most important verses in the Bible (1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37) were largely missing, and a few others were generally out as well. The Greek Byzantine text was a vehicle of preservation, not the vehicle.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

and unfaithful ones in the Minority Text.

Sometimes called the NU-text, but is really the NO-text.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Should I prefer the Textus Receptus over the Byzantine/Majority Text? .

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Continuing the metaphor, should we not consider the collective agreement reading between the Majority/Byzantine text types (including the Textus Receptus)?

Does his collective agreement reading include Acts 8:37 ?
How about the Johannine Comma ?

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves?

An irrelevant & diversionary question, unless you have the "Original" to compare.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations

They are far superior to the alexandrian gang of corrupt modern versions, the thugs of the Version Industry Complex, however the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text attempts simply lead to deficient Bibles, and are of no real import except theoretical, and reflect closely no actual historic MSS or tradition. They simply represent Greek nose-counting, allowing for all sorts of corruptions to enter the text (sometimes I make note of these, however I rarely meet anyone who really 'believes' that the Majority Text is superior).

And many verses of the vibrant and powerful words of God are omitted.

Shalom,
Steven