Good thoughts Scott! So much of what is called “gospel” these days is bad news.. that said I think 1Cor 15:1-8 works for me.

Yep. Right on target.

-Alan

Actually I agree pretty much with all this. “a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.” -sorry had to look it up. My only caveat is that we are also to be prepared always to defend the reasons for what we believe 1Pe 3:15. The Gospel is not a bible version but defending the truth and reliability of the Textus Receptus is within our calling. It SHOULD NOT be preached as the gospel but it is part of defending the gospel.
The Wescott and Hort versions distort the gospel: example: john 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV translated from W&H manuscripts)

The greek in the TR does not say “only Son” which would contradict many other places in scripture that talk about the sons of God and children of God.

The TR has the greek word “monogenes” meaning “only begotten”
Correctly translated then: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV from the TR)

So we should not confuse apologetics with evangelism but we should not abandon one completely for the other either.
Jude 3-4, 20-23

That works for me too Bob.

Thanks Alan!

Hey Brad. I'm not a Bible Geek, but from what I understand of the Bible I read, be it KJV or NIV or NASB, defending a version of the Bible put together in the 16/17th century isn't in there.

John 3:16 isn't the Gospel either so saying that the NIV distorts the Gospel seems to me to be a rather harsh and far reaching statement. It's not my favorite translation, but if what you say is true then shouldn't the NIV translators be anathema?

And if defending the truth and reliability of the TR (or any particular translation) is part of defending the gospel, you'd think that the Bible would say so, right?

Defending the truth of scripture is in the bible itself. It is in the very passage you used to make your original argument.

Galatians 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

What eles is he talking about but the perversion of those things taught (and written) to them? In your very call to preserve the meaning of the Gospel you are calling on original meaning in scripture for that. In effect defending the scripture and not the modern ideal. Not today's version of the gospel but the original gospel laid down in scripture.

Let me be clear: I am not saying anything about some “version of the Bible put together in the 16/17th century” I am talking about the collection of manuscripts that date back to 300 AD and in most cases can be verified through quotes by early church fathers back to as early as 175 AD. I am not talking about KJV or NIV I am talking about the TR which is a collection of manuscripts not a version of the bible. And defending the authority, truthfulness of scriptures is well established within the bible itself: Act 17:2, 1Co 15:4, Act 18:28 just to list some and excluding the galations passage.

To defend the bible's claim to authority over truth vs the Qur'an's you must “be prepared to give a defense”. The same is true when comparing the Byzantine Text to the Alexandrian ones.

Now where or not John 3:16 is part of the Gospel message is a whole other argument. heheheheh

I'm going to chime in here with what I think is some corrective, but it's going to have to be bullet points for the time being:

- No one uses Wescott and Hort. I've never even seen one except remnants here and there in my Scrivener's Annotated TR.
- The “Alexandrian Text” does not equal Wescott and Hort.
- The Textus Receptus was revised a fair number of times before it got to the edition used for the King James translation, so if you're going to argue for the TR, I'm curious to know which revision you prefer. (I'm going to assume the one that underlies the KJ, but it never hurts to ask)
- The Textus Receptus is not the Byzantine text. While underlying the TR, it differs SIGNIFICANTLY with the TR, such that the TR finds itself to be a complete different base altogether.
- John 3:16 is one of the worst places to try and prove the validity of the TR. My “alexandrian text” has monogenous just like the TR does. This is not an issue of textual criticism but rather methods of translation.

ok I am guilty of a bit of oversimplification, Jon. I admit. I dont want to get into codexes and stuff like that. So let me just stick with the Majority Text consisting of over 5000 mss with over 99% agreement in textual variants.

To your first point though I must disagree most translators of bible versions after 1881 used the Westcott and Hort manuscripts and or their research in one way or another. The NIV specifically relied heavily upon it. Even tho the publishers biblica have wisely removed direct references from their websites front pages if you dig you can still find it: http://www.biblica.com/niv/accuracy/NIV_Accurac…

In the preface should see (depending on which edition your looking at) “The text used in translating the New Testament was the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.” well if you look that up you will see: “The first edition published by Eberhard Nestle in 1898 combined the readings of the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth”

Also if you have an older printing it will be in the preface.

The collection of manuscripts that have circulated within the church from its very beginning are referred to as Byzantine, Antioch, Textus Receptus, Received Text, majority text, or common text. The Alexandrian Text or Critical text which Westcott and Hort assumed were more accurate and are not supported by the early church fathers' letters. (example John 7:53-8:11 is excluded because it is not in the Alexandrian text. But the Pericope Adulterae was quoted by the early church father Irenaeus in a letter predating the Alexandrian Codex.)

I never said the byzantine text was the TR? I was merely making one example of critique.

I give on the John 3:16 (even tho the translations as you pointed out do matter) and instead I substitute the Pericope Adulterae for TR verses the Critical Text.

I just looked in my NASB and it has the Pericope Adulterae but adds a footnote “The earliest and best mss do not contain 7:53–8:11″ which is at best not completely accurate and worst a lie of omission failing to add that it was quoted by early church fathers. Plus the subjective word “best” is dishonest without qualifiers and without the additional information that MOST manuscripts do have this scripture.

Galatians 1:6-8 doesn't talk about the scripture does it? He's talking about teaching that something else other than “the Kingdom of God is at hand” is the Gospel. At the point this was written there was no Bible put together. I'm not even sure if all of the letters had been written at this point.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a defense for what we believe and part of that is going to come from the Bible. But seriously, when you start throwing around things like “the TR” and the “W&H manuscripts” most people are (rightly so) gonna scratch their heads.

I'm curious as to what you mean by “today's version of the gospel”.

I'm also curious to know if you think that God can't ensure that people are going to get the gospel from the W&H manuscripts or from the NIV or any number of the paraphrases that are out there. I think he can.

You're muddying the waters a bit by bringing in the Qur'an. Not sure what the point of that was. Is the Qur'an wrong? Sure. Do I have to prove that to someone? I'm not sure I could if the answer's yes. I'm not going to even try.

Your insistence that they are “wescott and hort's” is as factually inaccurate as if I were to say the TR was Erasmus' text. I know all the controversy surrounding W&H. Trust me, I'm not a fan of them.

I have the Nestle-Aland, although I tend to lean on the UBS 4th ed. Regardless of the prefaces, these compilations differ in textual criticism methodology with the actual Majority Text more than they differ in content. The premise assumed by the critical text (and even somewhat by the Majority Text if we're going to be honest) is that older manuscripts are more likely to be more accurate. It is a perfectly logical position because changes were introduced to the manuscripts.If we can find something that can be dated prior to what we have and it is different, which one had more time and therefore opportunity to change? (I think these are largely unintentional errors in transmission, although I am not convinced that were wasn't any intentional manipulation during transmission).

“I never said the byzantine text was the TR? I was merely making one example of critique. “

You put the assumption forward previously and you just stated explicitly: “The collection of manuscripts that have circulated within the church from its very beginning are referred to as Byzantine, Antioch, Textus Receptus, Received Text, majority text, or common text.” I'll put it out there again – The TR is not the same as the Byzantine/Majority Text. The Byzantine text differs substantially with the TR.

However, if you're conceding that the TR and the Majority Text are indeed different collections, we might be moving along in this conversation. You seem to prefer the Byzantine over the TR if they truly aren't the same thing. It would mean then that you also have to conclude that the New Testament of the King James was not based on the Majority Text. I would as well. I would simply take that a step further and typically give priority to the older manuscripts when examining variants. Giving more weight to a particular factor doesn't preclude other factors from coming into play, it's simply the axiom by which the venture is guided.

Your point made with the pericope adulterae is only viable to an extent. There are plenty of places were we can isolate particular problems with the TR, the Majority and the Critical Text (Nestle-Aland or UBS) and end up just running in circles. However, that's the point of doing textual criticism. It is a labor, and a somewhat fluid one at that. I don't think the long ending of Mark is original, and boy that sure helps me out on the rare occasion that I get to talk to snake handlers, but since we don't have the originals, it takes some effort on my part to make the best decisions I can (or defer to those I trust). Such is life.

Wholly Crap, Brad! You can't stick to the original argument here either.

Be nice Dave. It's a complex topic.

You are right, Jon. Sorry Brad.

[...] as believers. We are to live our lives as Christ lived his. We are to love people, teach them about the good news, to speak the truth and healing into lives. In the process we will grow. We will begin to [...]