Why textual criticism is important

Here’s one reason.

Part of the article says, “Snake handling is based on a passage in the Bible that says a sign of a true believer is the power to ‘take up serpents’ without being harmed.”

Only if you believe that Mark 16:9-20 is part of the Bible. Those verses are in the KJV and the NKJV, but not the NASB, NIV, ESV, or most other modern translations.


About revjatb

I am a father of six who is trying to do his best! My interests are varied. I have one blog, KnowTea, that is primarily focused on liturgy and worship and another one, Bengtsson's Baking, that is about, well, baking! I hope you enjoy both of them, and if you have any questions, please contact me!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Why textual criticism is important

  1. cancerman says:

    But if it’s in the KJV, it is the Bible right? That way we don’t have to think or anything, just believe.

  2. ChuckM says:

    KJV: If it was good enough for Moses, it’s good enough for me!

  3. TulipGirl says:

    We had someone ask us once about Russian translations of the Bible, and was very concerned about finding the Russian KJV. . .

  4. RevJATB says:

    Hi TulipGirl! When I was teaching (I taught Bible at a Christian school for 3 years), I had a KJV-only parent one year (who subsequently removed her children from our very conservative, PCA-church-sponsored, Christian school because we were so worldly) whom I asked about this very thing. “What do Spanish-speaking people, French-speaking people, etc., do? Do they have to learn English so they can read the KJV?” She said that there was one “anointed” translation for every language, and for English it was the KJV.

    I guess those poor slobs who lived before the KJV, who only had Wycliffe’s or Coverdale’s translation, or the original Geneva Bible, went straight to H-E-double-hockey-sticks, not to mention the ones before that who only had the (gasp!) Latin version.

    And I assume that all the translation work done by Wycliffe Bible Translators among all those people groups who have never had the Bible in their own language before is non-anointed, since they are using the UBS 4 or Nestlé-Aland 27 critical Greek text instead of the Textus Receptus.

  5. John says:

    But there are good reasons for including Mark 16:9-20 and regarding it as God’s inspired word. That inclusion has been defended, not only by KJV-only fanatics, but also by some solidly Reformed exegetes.

    The fact that modern Bible translations leave it out may say more about their biases than about the editors’ skills as exegetes. At any rate, their opinions aren’t what ought to sway us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s