In all the discussion of the TR-Only position, I think there have been a lot of straw men erected (on both sides of the discussion) and a lot of complimentary schismogenesis. I am going to ask all of you to forget all the anxilliary arguments for a moment. I think the core discussion is being lost in the fog of all the stuff being thrown around.
At the core of the Textus Receptus argument is this simple statement:
God entrusted the Bible to the Church; and the part of the Church that spoke Greek preserved the Greek New Testament.
As a corollary to this primary thesis:
Textual readings that are newly discovered and vary from the living, received text are not to be preferred over the readings that remained in daily, regular use.
This is why the Elzevir brothers termed this manuscript tradition textus receptus and why it was later dubbed majority text.
Now, without getting into any anxillary points, can we look at this thesis and its corollary and find any reason it should not stand.
I am legitimately asking the commenters and contributors to suspend any discussion of the ‘weight’ of variants and those things. I am asking you to focus only on the thesis and its corollary.
This discussion is open to anyone (including even you, Steve), but I warn you that any discussion off-topic will be removed. I want to see if it is even possible for everyone to deal with this premise and this premise alone. If you can’t stay on topic, however, it is probably best not to comment.
OFF THE SUBJECT:
There might also be a secondary corollary to this:
The archaic, koine, form of Greek is older than the Attic and Byzantine forms of Greek where the two might diverge in living, received manuscripts.
But that is a topic for another time.