New guy here. Just reading through some of the threads concerning Bible versions, translation methodologies ... and opinions on which are the "better" versions.

I find it interesting through my travels electronically that there seems to be a consistency in these opinions coming out of the brotherhood. Specifically the accuracy of the ASV 1901, NASB(/rev), NKJV, etc. which typically make the "approved" or "short" list of those approved. Most of this seems to stem from our brotherhood "schools" and/or "seminaries."

With this in mind, I have a few questions for those opinionated in this manner which hopefully will strike up a good discussion on the topic of textual criticism (both traditional and modern).

1) For those of the short list mentioned above, does anyone supporting this position care to explain the influence of Bishop Ellicott and the 1881 revision committee on these modern day translations?

2) Has anyone holding this position dared to study the origins of the works of Nestle-Aland, Black, Geisler, Karavidopoulos, Greisbach & Metzger? If so, what is their relation to the work of the 1881 revision dictated by the quartet ... Wescott and Hort, Codex B, and Codex Aleph?

3) What is the Traditional Text? Is it the same as the Textus Receptus, the Received Text or the Majority Text? If so how, if not why?

4) Why is your opinion formulated in this way towards these versions/translations? ... i.e. what evidence have you found, beyond what professor umty-scrunch taught you in school, that supports your position? If you believe the prof, then let's discuss the details from his lecture notes one by one.

Such questions were posed to me long ago by the Dean of Chichester ... leading to new enlightenment.

v/r

B.G.