Replies

Kinda thin-skinned aren't you?

Obviously

So what's the problem with using manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus? A priori assumption there?

Not at all. I was simply springboarding from your earlier statement
You might reconsider that position. It gives 'early' copies of manuscripts more weight when they may not be accurate, just early. The NIV particularly suffers from this position.
The W&S uses the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, which are older than the manuscripts used in the TR. The W&S is a primary basis of the Nestle-Aland, which draws from the W&S, and is the basis for the NIV. Just odd that your comments on numerology found by Panin, which was based on "older"manuscripts, in support of your original statement about the age of manuscripts and there accuracy.

I'm even correcting your typos for you.

Words fail to express my gratitude.

"The W&S uses the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, which are older than the manuscripts used in the TR. The W&S is a primary basis of the Nestle-Aland, which draws from the W&S, and is the basis for the NIV. Just odd that your comments on numerology found by Panin, which was based on "older"manuscripts, in support of your original statement about the age of manuscripts and there [sic] accuracy."

Again, it's not the age of the manuscript and there is no reliance on non-existent 'originals'. It's also not numerology, although many people make that error. It is the presence of the pattern in the complete set that controls.

Extending this idea, should a different version of a manuscript turn up that extends the pattern, then that version should be considered the inspired version of that book. No need to appeal to non-existent 'originals' or to use age as the determining factor.