When in seminary many years ago, the Nestle-Arland was used. We also compared the Nestle-Arland with the TR (Textus Receptus) and found little difference at that time. Even using the TR to examine the KJV translation, I/we found quite a number of errors. Yet, none had a 'hissy fit' for no doctrine was compromised using either the Nestle-Arland or the TR or the KJV or ASV.

However, with the individuals/group involved in this critical approach to the Nestle-Arland text, the changes and corruption is so extreme then any current translation that has used that as a base will de facto also be corrupt. Keep the two issues separate...... Original textual evidence and Translation methodology. NO TRANSLATION is inspired and contains errors, albeit the more faithful translations using Formal Equivalence having minor discrepancies and those of the Dynamic Equivalence variety having major errors.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]