User Submission Time!

Posted on by The Young, Textless, and Reformed

To my reader,

I appreciate all of your support and time spent reading my articles over the years. I wanted to give you the opportunity to submit articles, videos, or books for me to address. Fire away!

Taylor

Unknown's avatar

Published by The Young, Textless, and Reformed

16 thoughts on “User Submission Time!”

  1. Could you address John MacArthurs book Systematic Theology book titled “Biblical Doctrine”? Particularly, his view of text and canon.

    Like

  2. Could you address John MacArthurs Systematic theology book titled “Biblical Doctrine”? Particularly, his view of text and canon.

    Like

  3. Hey, brother Taylor. Glad to see you have been making some posts lately. Hope to see you back on YouTube soon! I believe I made this recommendation awhile back either on here or YouTube or Patreon. I think it would be good to review Arthur Pink’s comments on the PA in his commentary on John. He wasn’t a “TR Guy”, but accepted the PA for various reasons, and I believe his comments show a stark contrast in how “believing” textual scholars have devolved over the generations.

    Like

  4. There is a claim on Timothy Berg’s website kjbhistory.com that Erasmus accidentally omitted the word God in Revelation 1:8 and it wasn’t corrected until the 19th century.

    I see several problems right off the bat with this for one the word Lord is synonymous for God in the context anyway. Second if wasn’t corrected until the 19th century that would mean Erasmus himself never acknowledged such a thing nor did Stephanus or Beza. I’m not sure where he got this from? I haven’t seen anyone make this claim before. Not one commentator before the 19th Century at least. This theory seems to coincide with the publication of the RV which added the word God after Lord while omitting the clause “the beginning and the ending” I don’t know if Berg made it up for himself borrowed this theory for himself contemporary scholar or discovered it the works of someone like Scrivener or Hort? In any event I don’t believe it. Sounds like another conjectured textual theory they can’t prove. His website is full of misinformation about the KJB and the received text, but this one Revelation is the particular one that caught my eye.

    Like

    1. “God” in Revelation 1:8 is a majority Byzantine text reading and is actually in the Latin but not the Greek parallel of Erasmus’ 1st Edition. This is why it’s believed to be omitted from the Greek by a copyist error.

      Like

  8. Hi Taylor, Could you please expand on the sentence below: “This concept of materially and substantially means that every word that comprises every thought is preserved.”
    Can you comment on it from a practical view within the history of the texts from Tyndale to Scrivener? I include Tyndale as I have often heard his work makes up about 80% of the KJV. So, how can some words differ in texts, but still retain the same meaning? Are there examples of this happening in the texts from Tyndale through Scrivener? Is this still compatible with “not a jot or tittle passing away”? Thx.

    “In order for the Scriptures to be preserved, these original texts must be preserved materially and in substance, and available to the people of God today. This concept of materially and substantially means that every word that comprises every thought is preserved. If any word has fallen away which results in the change or loss of meaning, then the Scriptures have not been preserved.”
    https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/04/01/a-disputation-on-the-modern-doctrine-of-the-text-of-holy-scripture/#:~:text=In%20order%20for,not%20been%20preserved.

    Like

    1. Hi JB – as it pertains to translations (Tyndale), synonyms which do not change the meaning of a phrase would fall into this category.

      Like

Leave a reply to JB Cancel reply