Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism

Gordon Clark's books are all very excellent. Since he was a professor of logic, his books always deal with the logical fallacies seen in the arguments of others. In this book, he exposes the fallacies seen in the reasoning of Critical Text (CT) advocates.The CT is the Greek text most modern versions are based on. Meanwhile, the KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" (TR). But it should be noted that Clark is not a KJV onlyist. He speaks approvingly of the NKJV and the Majority Text (MT). The MT is similar to the TR, while both differ from the CT.Clark deals with the textual question by looking at select verses from the NT, along with a couple from the OT. Along with showing the logical fallacies in the reasoning of CT advocates, he cites the manuscript evidence and shows how the CT reading is based on a minority of the evidence.He also occasionally looks at the proper translation of passages. For these he explains that many modern versions mistranslate passages. The problem is, most modern versions follow a dynamic equivalence method of translation while Clark agrees with the formal equivalence method seen in the KVJ and NKJV.So Clark's position is pro-TR/ MT, pro-formal equivalence. And with both of these I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I present the same positions in my book "Differences Between Bible Versions." Clark's booklet is a good place to start in studying these issues, and my book will provide much more detail.