jgibson000

Can you please tell us what you mean by "Roman Catholic production"?

More importantly, can you please tell us how you know, as you claim above to do, that "rejecting the UBS text outright" is what the majority of Protestants would do if they came to know that the UBS text is, as you assert, an RC "production"?

Is this claim grounded in fact, or is it just another of your "personal opinions"?

JG

Diogenes the Cynic

Bruce Metzger was a Presbyterian, incidentally. How does that fit into your Catholic conspiracy theory, Nazaroo?

Nazaroo

This question partly hinges upon what one defines as 'Protestant'. But lets assume we mean committed hardcore Protestants who are at least educated in the sense of the history of Protestantism and are firmly committed to mainline Protestant doctrine (which is admittedly strongly anti-Catholic by definition and historical fact).

What do hardcore Protestants do, when they discover that the UBS project and modern NT translations are really RC 'stealth' bibles?

They post their views on the internet:

For example, here:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ubstrans.htm

This is a good example of how committed Protestants react when they discover that the UBS text was overseen by a Roman Catholic cardinal, and a group of 'stealth' liberal academics.

Most fundamentalists and KJVOnly people would certainly concur with the basic sentiments expressed on this site.

Nazaroo

And Nixon said, "I am not a crook!"

And Bush said, "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

But there are plenty of Roman Catholic conspiracy theories to go around, and millions who believe in them. After all, the RC church is one of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in the world.

Remarkably, I am not the author of any RC conspiracy theories whatever. These were begun long before my time.

I personally don't consider what RC power magnates do a 'conspiracy'. A conspiracy implies covert ops. The RCs are pretty open about their subversion of Protestantism.

Nazaroo

Speaking scientifically, this would not a priori make the text wrong. What makes it wrong is its content. It is full of amateurish blunders.

And it has a confused mandate and goal.

kais

I am very interested in your ideas and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Diogenes the Cynic

This entire post is so self-discrediting that it almost isn't even worth responding to. You start with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy as to what defines a "majority of Protestants" (essentially attempting to define Protestantism as being synonymous with inerrantist, fundamentalist, KJV only dogmatism), you then paste a series of ludicrously polemic and substance-free quotes from an overtly anti-Catholic website and then say hat "most committed Protestants" would agree with it.

In fact, most would not agree with it, despite your fallacious attempt to shrink the definition of "Protestant."

Diogenes the Cynic

Each post you make is more ridiculous than the last. You are suggesting that Bruce Metzger was secretly a Catholic only pretending to be a Presbyterian minister?

Are you a Jack Chick fan, by any chance?

Nazaroo

Again you insist upon attributing nonsensical 'conspiracy' theories to me. I don't know why. I am not a fundamentalist or KJVonlyist or even a Protestant.

Metzger was openly a liberal academic. His interests of course align strongly with those of RCs, who also oppose Protestant fundamentalism. Why deny it?


Is this productive? or even on-topic?

A 'Jack Chick fan'? Yes. I think his comics are hilarious. I wish I could draw. I am also a 'Simpsons' fan.

But I don't consider Bart the Son of God.

One reason I like the Simpsons is that its funny. In fact, most imported Canadian talent is funny, unlike Americans who aren't funny at all, except when they're trying to be serious.

jgibson000

Mainline protestant doctrine such as formulated by Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli and other major reformers or by Armenians and dispensationalists and creationists?

It's interesting to note just who this posting "hardcore protestant" (David Cloud) is and how his views are regarded by those who have the very commitment you speak of.

For Cloud and his ilk, see:

http://www.propadeutic.com/faith/authors/fundamental

For a "hardcore Protestant" review of Cloud, see:

http://www.atruechurch.info/cloud.html


If this is a good example of how "committed Protestants react to this news, then it's more accurate to label them "Protestants who should be committed". But be that as it may, you've begged the question and cooked the books and poisoned the well in defining only people like Cloud and his ilk as "Protestant", let alone as "committed Protestants", and in labeling Metzger and others as "stealth liberal academics". And that you have to resort to these sort of tactics to make your case, shows how weak it is.

Certainly the KJV only people would. They have to (and note the lies about Metzger they resort to when they do).

But you still haven't demonstrated that most "fundamentalists" would so concur. And even if they did, it does not prove, as you seem to think it does, that what they would concur with is true. (argumentum ad populum).

But curiously, that wasn't your original claim, now, was it?

You claimed that "the majority of Protestants" would reject the USB text if they knew that it was a 100% RC production.

I see now that you are not only changing your tune on the 100% RC point (and NB, you still haven't demonstrated that the USB is an "RC production" of any kind. Did it have the sponsorship of the Curia? Financial support from the Vatican?), but that you've had to limit your definition of "Protestant" to (primarily) Arminianism, extreme fundamentalisim (a recent development within Protestantism) , and creationism in order to "prove" your point about what "Protestants" would do to. Nice equivocation.

Then there's the little irony that the text you do seem to acknowledge (correct me if I am wrong) as the true Greek NT -- the Textus Receptus -- was ultimately the product of a Roman Catholic.

JG