[imardmd1]

But NONE of the others can??

That's not the issue. Using a poor text gives a poor translation(s).

It that what you have implied here?

What I have said outright, not implied is:

>> It's the finer points of whether a version can be trusted throughout that causes comparisons to come to one's attention. <<

The implication is that one should not be using an untrustworthy text or translation to impart doctrine.

What the adherents of the critical text maintain is that God was not able to preserve His Written Word and make it available to His churches throughout this Age, and that they through scholarship have provided something better, and that translations from it are better.

I disbelieve that, and disagree with that position.

[Elsie]

Using a poor text gives a poor translation(s).

I agree with you.

However; my point is, "How does one define a POOR text?"

Would this not entail have a PURE text to refer to?

What we have in this little disagreement is an ABUNDANCE of one text and a dearth of another.

ALL of them are copies of something else.

NEITHER side has a proof text with which to test the 'correctness' of their favorite.

[Elsie]

What the adherents of the critical text maintain is that God was not able to preserve His Written Word and make it available to His churches throughout this Age, and that they through scholarship have provided something better, and that translations from it are better.

I disbelieve that, and disagree with that position.

 

 

What the adherents of the recieved text maintain is that God WAS able to preserve His Written Word and make it available to His churches throughout all time, and that they; through scholarship; have PROVEN something worse, and that translations from them are suspect.

I disbelieve that, and disagree with that position.