u/jaamivstheworld

https://preview.redd.it/tnn7ku7zeejh1.png?width=1048&format=png&auto=webp&s=01a8d1cf06015ae590e3ffb27ce7e945b3c69238

Hey folks! I'll be heading to Fanshawe for my first year of college (CTY2 program), and was thinking that it would probably be nice to get a head-start on making friends. If you're in the same/a similar program, that would be even more awesome. I'm just REALLY REALLY nervous about this big change and it would REALLY REALLY help to not go through it alone

A little bit about me: I do have a late birthday, so I'm still 17, but on track to turn 18 in November. I'm a rather religious bloke (Christian, Confessional Lutheran (LCC)), and genuinely can't shut my mouth when it comes to theology, philosophy, and as of recently, politics/economics. Also a big techie, avid Linux enthusiast and FOSS advocate (more in theory than practice tbh). I use Arch + BSPWM btw

Not looking for roomies or anything, I'm just living with my family here in London itself. Just wanna make friends :3

Add on on Discord!!! thomas_luay
^(*Yes, as you can tell from that username, you may call me Thomas or Tom. Not my birth name but I prefer to go by it for religious reasons)

The Missouri Synod primarily uses the English Standard Version (ESV), and previously the New International Version (NIV) which they continue to use in some resources. Both of these are based on critical texts of the New Testament.

Additionally, though I'm not certain about this one and am thus open to correction, the NA28 critical text is used in seminaries for teaching, and the lower criticism method is also taught.

Notes in the Lutheran Study Bible also include things such as a hypothesis as to how the longer ending of Mark was added to the Gospel.

My question is, well, why? I understand not using the (or a) Textus Receptus, which I too am not a big fan of, but why not the Byzantine Priority view or even Majority Text? It makes more sense (or, rather, the most sense) to at most refuse obvious interpolations in localized sub-branches rather than what the critical text does.

It seems rather strange, especially when our confessions quote verses not included in critical editions of the New Testament. It's also noteworthy (just to avoid the "they also quote the apocrypha" replies) that they are quoted in such a manner that the authors assume them as part of the inspired text of the Bible. For reference, note the surrounding language in areas they are quoted and how they are quoted.

I would assume a rather "providential" view of the underlying text of the New Testament from the LCMS, rather than the "return to the lost autographs with CBGM and scholarly patch-work" kind of deal. I mean, are we more blessed by God in the past three centuries for having all the data we have now and has the majority of Church history has just been in error when thinking of certain texts as inspired?

I understand the variations are not doctrinally significant at all. I understand that ~94% of the New Testament is still (basically) consistent amongst the types. But this is still a big deal when an inerrant and infallible text is the subject.

English translations that primarily use the N-A or UBS text for the New Testament and emphasize usage of the oldest available manuscripts seem to have a habit of either using only the MT for the Old Testament or giving it a kind of primacy. I've noticed they'll often prefer variants of the MT unless there's something particularly important about the passage where they need to substantiate their usage of a variant. Why the inconsistency? Am I missing something?