Re: prayer and healing TC #3

In a message dated 4/1/2006 5:36:55 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
dfsiemensjr@juno.com writes:

Erasmus, who is responsible for editing the textus receptus on which KJV
is based, knew that it was a poor text.
Their were no classification systems in place. Textual critics seem to
assume that these guys had the resource of modern day critics and have Microsoft
Word available for editing.
 

He knew he had only inferior minuscule Greek texts available, but was in a
hurry to get an edition
out.
I think a better word is incomplete texts.
 

It was what we call quick and dirty. Of course, it is possible to specify
that the KJV is correct, as the Catholics once specified that the
Vulgate is authoritative. But a better option is to have a vision of the end
of Mark with flaming text. However, those who can handle it go to
critically edited Greek texts, which reveal that there is a great deal of
trash in the entire corpus.
Spoken like a true Textual Critic. But, ALL manuscripts agree about 94(?)%
of the time. So a lot of 'trash' is a misnomer that is not accurate. Wouldn't
you agree?

As to snake handling,
 
Yuch.
 
Dave

Regards,

Jack Jackson
Received on Tue Apr 4 00:58:17 2006